It’s Noon in Israel: Bibi’s Back to the Western Wall
Also, is Election Day September 1? An update on Iran, and more.
Conservative rabbis pray at the egalitarian section at the Western Wall, in December 2024.
It’s Monday, February 23, and the Supreme Court has ordered the expansion of the egalitarian prayer section of the Western Wall. The coalition has responded with a bill cementing complete Orthodox control of the entire site. Netanyahu is walking a tightrope between two bases of support—American Jewry and his coalition—and either way, he’s going to fall.
First, some context.
The Western Wall, also known as the Kotel, is the western retaining wall of the Temple Mount and one of the holiest sites in Judaism. The main plaza is divided according to Orthodox Jewish custom, with separate sections for men and women. That is acceptable to most Israeli Jews, whose formal affiliations are almost entirely Orthodox, even if their personal practice is not. But it is less acceptable to the Reform and Conservative movements—largely American—that pray with men and women together.
In 2013, the progressive movements were allocated a mixed prayer area near the southern wall, followed by a 2016 government decision to expand and renovate their section. That decision was frozen under Orthodox pressure in 2017. Now the High Court has chosen to push it forward.
But ten years have changed a great deal—most importantly Netanyahu’s coalition. The ultra-Orthodox, Religious Zionists, and a sizable portion of Likud do not support egalitarian prayer and are not particularly pleased with Supreme Court involvement. So a new bill is making its way through the Knesset, one that would place the entire site under the authority of the Chief Rabbinate, blocking the government from reaching any religious arrangements with egalitarian groups. Not only that, it defines the chief rabbis as the exclusive “representatives of the Jewish religion,” granting them regulatory power over holy sites, and it redefines “desecration” at the Kotel. In practice, that would mean any conduct contrary to the Chief Rabbinate’s directives could be treated as desecration—a serious offense in Israel.
Excesses on the right are, of course, matched by those on the left. An almost 100-year-old photo depicting Orthodox men and women praying together at the Wall has been circulating on X, promoted by figures such as chairman of the Democrats Yair Golan as an ideal.
The problem? The photo is from the Ottoman period, when erecting a divider at the Western Wall was a crime, often punished by severe beatings and riots.
I don’t think I need to say that Israelis, especially prime minister candidates, shouldn’t be yearning for a simpler time of Islamic theocracy.
But Netanyahu is stuck between the Wall and a hard place: support the bill and anger American Jewry, or oppose it and anger his coalition. He chose neither—canceling a meeting of the Ministerial Committee and allowing the bill to advance to the Knesset without his endorsement.
Realistically, abstaining from a single vote is not going to win Netanyahu back the affection of American Jewry. The relationship is what it is, and short of retirement or a dramatic policy shift, nothing is likely to move that dial. Abstention is Netanyahu’s attempt to spread some of the anger around—and when there are magnets like Ben Gvir and the Haredim in the coalition, that is not especially difficult.
(New Israel Fund)
When are the elections? Accounting for summer vacation, there are three possible months for the election before the deadline in November: June, September or October. Cut those options down to Election Day, Tuesday, and that leaves 14 possible days, in theory.
Until recently, it seemed Netanyahu intended to hang on until the final buzzer on October 27. But September 1 is starting to look increasingly plausible.
The problem with October is psychological. Say “October” to an Israeli and they’re not thinking about Election Day, they’re think of the 7th. There are four options:
October 27 is a gamble.
October 20, defeat is likely.
October 13, it’s guaranteed.
October 6 is Netanyahu committing electoral suicide.
Even the best of those options, October 27, only gives three weeks to change the national conversation away from remembrance. To some, that feels like an eternity, but it might be too close for Netanyahu.
Why not June? Well, it is possible but contingent. The biggest factor restricting elections is the budget. Currently, it looks likely to pass in late March, which will block off the 90 days that follow for elections, cutting out all the options in early June. Whether Netanyahu chooses late June will depend on larger factors, namely if there is another successful round with Iran, an effective operation in Gaza or Lebanon, as well as a friendly Trump visit when he comes to receive his Israel Prize.
That leaves September. Besides September 1, there is only one available Tuesday that doesn’t get eaten up by the Jewish festival season—September 8. The problem is that it’s just days before the Jewish New Year, when a few mandates worth of coalition voters will already be in Ukraine on pilgrimage to a rabbi’s grave.
Assuming the Haredim don’t take down the coalition before then, we are left with September 1.
So September 1. Here are the pros and cons.
On the plus side, schools are still on summer break. Extending the vacation by one more day is administratively simple—if anything, slightly more convenient than disrupting an active school week.
On the other hand, think about the teachers and principals who are supposed to open the school year with balloons and excitement, only to have it overshadowed by election drama. Parents may not be eager to send their kids off bright and early after staying up half the night waiting for the final results.
It certainly is not an ideal date.
But there are even less ideal options.
In July and August, half of Israel is somewhere in Europe, Southeast Asia or South America. July has a single precedent—1984—but that was in the middle of what can only be described as an economic meltdown, when overseas travel simply wasn’t financially viable for most.
But for all the detailed planning and maneuvering, remember that in Israel the government is just one Knesset vote away from collapse.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in early February. (Leader.ir)
Iran is set to submit its proposal tomorrow for a deal with the U.S. “regarding the nuclear issue.” Meanwhile, protesters have taken back to the streets. Will Trump come to their rescue?
The new demonstrations erupted according to the Shiite mourning calendar, marking forty days since the massacres that suppressed the first wave. Videos show government forces attempting to disperse the crowds, but the current turnout does not appear life-threatening to the regime, and large-scale massacres have not yet been documented.
The clock is ticking for both sides.
For Washington, maintaining a task force of destroyers, more than a hundred aircraft, and two carriers in the Middle East is costly. Not to mention that every day those carriers remain in the Arabian Sea is a day they are not flexing American muscle elsewhere.
Tehran’s clock runs more slowly. The regime appears, for now, to have stabilized itself. But it cannot remain on a total war footing indefinitely.
Which brings us to the central question: will Trump strike?
The ongoing negotiations muddy the waters, but the odds remain higher than not. I still cannot tell you exactly when, but unless Iran is prepared to offer concessions beyond anything it has put on the table in the past fifteen years, a strike is likely as the deadline approaches—sometime within the next eight or nine days.
Two Haredi Jews walk past Likud electoral posters in 2015. (Kobi Gideon/GPO)
“Democracy does not die in a single blow, but in a hundred small blows,” said Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit in one of his hearings. By the same logic, annexation does not have to come in a single declaration but in a hundred small steps. This week the government took a not-so-small step: it opened the possibility for Israeli companies to purchase land in Judea and Samaria and to register it, for the first time since 1967.
Aside from Yair Golan, who tossed out a comment about it in a radio interview, none of the opposition leaders said a word. Not Yair Lapid, not Gadi Eisenkot, not Benny Gantz, certainly not Avigdor Lieberman or Naftali Bennett. When people speak about Israeli society shifting to the right, they do not mean that everyone will vote for Itamar Ben Gvir or Netanyahu. They mean exactly this: steps that were once at the heart of Israel’s fiercest disputes are now consensus. Another example? If, after the elections, a miracle were to occur and Netanyahu formed a government together with Lieberman and Bennett, Bezalel Smotrich and the ultra-Orthodox, it would be defined as a broad national unity government. A decade ago, when Lieberman joined that same kind of government, Haaretz was shaken by what it called an extreme right-wing government, and the late journalist Roni Daniel spoke about the possibility that his children would not remain in the country.
That is the background to Lapid’s unusual warning this week: “I’m no longer sure we’ll win.” The “change bloc” faces a demographic challenge: since the last election, six hundred thousand new voters have been added—a record since the founding of the state. The overwhelming majority are ultra-Orthodox, religious-nationalist, residents of the periphery, and Arabs. In the same period, two hundred thousand people have died or left the country—also a record. That is a net difference of two to three seats.
The change bloc benefits from early and efficient organization that prevents wasted votes. Meanwhile, nine seats are currently being burned below the electoral threshold by parties that do not rule out Netanyahu (Smotrich, Yoaz Hendel, Gantz). The assumption, however, is that those votes will not ultimately be wasted. The public agenda has been almost entirely focused on ultra-Orthodox draft evasion, but slowly the Arab parties led by Ayman Odeh, Mansour Abbas, and Ahmad Tibi—who nearly disappeared for years—are returning to public consciousness and voting considerations.
What Lapid said is that victory is not in the bag—he is right. In his view, Yesh Atid should lead the bloc, and that can of course be debated. But it is clear that there is no way to decide the contest without votes from right-wing Netanyahu-disappointed voters—those who want settlement in Judea and Samaria, a toned-down judicial reform, and a strengthened draft law.
This is an excerpt from my weekly column in Israel Hayom
To read on my website click here
If you enjoy the newsletter, you can show your support by becoming a paid subscriber—it really helps keep this going. I’m also offering a special monthly briefing for a small group of premium members. I’d love to have you join us—just click below to find out more.
A lot of speculation. There may be some new faces yet throwing their hats in the ring; some will be baseball caps, some will be tichels, and some may simply be bareheaded, another kind of covering.
I visit the Kotel quite often and will peek in at the mixed prayer area. There is NEVER anybody there so it is amusing to me that they act as if this is of great importance.