כ״ט סִיוָן וַיִּֽקָּהֲל֞וּ עַל־מֹשֶׁ֣ה וְעַֽל־אַהֲרֹ֗ן וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ אֲלֵהֶם֮ רַב־לָכֶם֒ כִּ֤י כׇל־הָֽעֵדָה֙ כֻּלָּ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים וּבְתוֹכָ֖ם יְהֹוָ֑ה וּמַדּ֥וּעַ תִּֽתְנַשְּׂא֖וּ עַל־קְהַ֥ל יְהֹוָֽה׃ (במדבר ט”ז:ג) They combined against Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all the community are holy, all of them, and יהוה is in their midst. Why then do you raise yourselves above יהוה’s congregation?” (Numbers 16:3) If there is one theme that has been prominent in the headlines and constantly at the forefront of public discourse, both before October 7th and since, it has been the question of leadership. Which leaders are at fault for getting Israel into this situation? Who is taking responsibility? Who is leading with vision? How are leaders prioritizing the strategic direction of the war and the necessity of releasing the hostages? How are leaders managing Israel’s foreign relationships, cultivating its allies, and gaining support? What vision are leaders conveying for the next steps of a post-war reality? What are the specific plans both for Gaza and for the “Tekuma” – the rebuilding of the kibbutzim and surrounding areas? Who is working to get hundreds of thousands of Israelis back to their homes and back to some semblance of normalcy? The resounding and pervasive feeling among many Israelis is that the desk at which the proverbial buck stops offers no answers to these critical questions. There is a considerable and noticeable absence of genuine leadership at the highest level; namely, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The main criticisms of Netanyahu are the following:
  1. He has not, nor is he ever likely to utter the words “I am at fault,” or “I, as the Prime Minister, take full responsibility.” He is always looking for other heads to roll and to divert the blame and responsibility to everyone and anyone else.
  2. He will do anything to keep his coalition together and to remain in power. This includes capitulation to his ultra-Orthodox flank. Even more egregiously, it includes not pushing harder for a deal to bring back the hostages. Netanyahu is living in fear of his two fanatical ministers, Ben Gvir and Smotrich, who threaten the coalition’s stability and are pushing for something akin to a Gog and Magog scenario destroying (and resettling) Gaza along with all-out war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
  3. He has weakened Israel’s position by taking a hardline against the United States – Israel’s most important ally – and risks turning Israel into a pariah state.
The story of Korach which we read this week, a thug and self-serving leader, applies unfortunately to Israel’s Prime Minister. However, Korach’s challenge of Moses, the seemingly selfless leader of the people, forces us to consider those qualities of leadership we hold in the highest regard. Tradition favors Moses, not Korach, as Korach is perceived to be in it solely for his self-aggrandizement (Pirkei Avot 5:17). Every leader is responsible and accountable…. Maybe Korach was on to something in this week’s Torah portion? He often gets a bad and thuggish rap for challenging Moses’ leadership and being only ‘in it’ for himself. But maybe he’s not all wrong? There is no such thing as an infallible leader. No leader should go completely unchallenged or without accountability. In democratic societies, accountability is often tested at the ballot box through free and fair elections. To be sure, Netanyahu and his ruling coalition were elected freely and fairly. Yet now much of the public feels that, just as Korach accused Moses, they “have gone too far.” The Talmud (Brakhot 32a) recalls: “See this leader that God placed over Israel. He requested greatness for himself but did not pray for God to have mercy upon them in their troubled time.” As a result, the sage Rava reflected upon the leadership of Moses who “…stood in prayer until he persuaded God to nullify His vow to destroy Israel for their sins…” implying that Moses took time for self-reflection and through his integrity did what was best for the people Israel. Netanyahu’s base is beginning to unravel. Until recently, the top brass of Israel’s military publicly stayed in their lane and maintained the separation between the political and elected leadership of the country and the army, which is the main implementor of the government’s political policy. Until recently, the military leadership also largely maintained that it was possible to achieve the government’s two main goals of the war: defeating Hamas and rescuing the hostages held by Hamas since October 7. Now, the military high command has publicly stated that the two goals are mutually incompatible, and they are pushing back against the political echelon that claims both goals can be achieved. The General Staff Forum, comprised of Israel’s military leadership includes roughly 30 senior generals, among them the IDF Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, the commanders of the army, air force and navy, and the head of military intelligence. As reported in the New York Times, “The military’s attitude to a cease-fire reflects a major shift in its thinking over the past months as it became clearer that Mr. Netanyahu was refusing to articulate or commit to a postwar plan. That decision has essentially created a power vacuum in the enclave that has forced the military to go back and fight in parts of Gaza it had already cleared of Hamas fighters. “The military is in full support of a hostage deal and a cease-fire,” said Eyal Hulata, Israel’s immediate past National Security Adviser. The military is, of course, meant to remain apolitical. But they are also tasked with the security of the State of Israel and must make serious decisions if those two ever come in conflict with each other. PM Netanyahu will be able to take a break from his domestic political turmoil and take center stage later this month (July 24th) in accepting a bi-partisan invitation to address the U.S. Congress. Some are thrilled, while others are a bit skittish. “I would have hoped he would have learned his lesson, but I don’t think he is guided by what’s best for the U.S.-Israel relationship,” said Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who is debating whether or not to attend as are other Democrats. As the largest Jewish Movement in North America, we Reform Jews must weigh the implications of whether or not we support those who choose not to attend the Prime Minister’s speech in Congress, or reach out to our representatives to express our feelings. As non-citizens of Israel, it is not appropriate for us to weigh in on Israeli electoral politics, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t express our opinions loudly on the current state of affairs and the dismal leadership Netanyahu has displayed. Many of us share the concern that the Prime Minister’s decisions and actions are detrimental to the Jewish State and its millions of supporters around the world. Should we show up and protest Netanyahu in D.C. on July 24? Is this a moment to show our support for Israel even if we don’t align with Netanyahu? Should we express our feelings to our elected representatives about their participation? What’s needed now is a healthy balance between Moses and Korach – a leader who has the vision and prioritizes the good of the country over his political survival. What’s needed now are more people who out of love and concern join in the chorus of Korach and his ilk by saying “You have gone far enough,” it’s time to move on.