Transcripts are lightly edited—please excuse any imperfections.
Lahav Harkov: I think you ask any Israeli out there on the street, they all want the hostages to come home as soon as possible. The question is more a question of what should be done to get them out.
Hi, I’m Lahav Harkov. I’m a journalist covering Israeli politics and international relations, and this is 18 Questions, 40 Israeli Thinkers from 18Forty.
Sruli Fruchter: From 18Forty, this is 18 Questions, 40 Israeli Thinkers, and I’m your host, Surli Fruchter. 18 Questions, 40 Israeli Thinkers is a podcast that interviews Israel’s leading voices to explore those critical questions people are having today on Zionism, the Israel-Hamas war, democracy, morality, Judaism, peace, Israel’s future, and so much more. Every week, we introduce you to fresh perspectives and challenging ideas about Israel from across the political spectrum that you won’t find anywhere else. So if you’re the kind of person who wants to learn, understand, and dive deeper into Israel, then join us on our journey as we pose 18 pressing questions to the 40 Israeli journalists, scholars, and religious thinkers you need to hear from today.
Today’s guest is Lahav Harkov, currently the senior political correspondent for Jewish Insider, where she is covering Israel’s domestic and international politics. Jewish Insider is a fascinating publication for those who are not familiar. It primarily has been covering politics and policy in the US, the Middle East, and beyond, but to my knowledge at least, until recently, it was primarily covering, or most known for, its coverage on Washington’s big happenings. That means Congress, the White House, the State Department, briefing rooms in D.C., the campaign trail, and following different Congress people and senators in their bids for election, and in the more intimate day-to-day news happening in D.C.
Lahav obviously lives in Israel, is an Israeli, and primarily covers Israel’s domestic and international politics. That means that a lot of her work will be covering things happening in the Knesset, a lot of those nitty-gritty details that are often inaccessible to people who either A, don’t speak Hebrew, or B, don’t have that same kind of access and knowledge about what’s happening in Israel’s government and among its members of Knesset. Previously, Lahav was the senior contributing editor, a diplomatic reporter, and Knesset reporter for The Jerusalem Post, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, JTA, recognized her for her social media reporting and named her the fifth most influential person on quote-unquote Jewish Twitter, which is a feat not to be discounted. She has almost 200,000 followers on Twitter, which didn’t really come up during our interview, but probably should have, and she is an important, credible, and lucid voice for all things happening in Israel and beyond, especially since October 7th.
Our interview was really wonderful to hear her nuance, her depth and breadth of information and knowledge, and her perspective on where Israel is, where it’s going, and how we’re going to get there. So before we jump into today’s episodes, if you have questions that you want us to be asking, or guests who you want us to be featuring, shoot us an email at info@18Forty.org, and be sure to subscribe and share with friends so that we can reach new listeners. And aside from recommendations, we are always looking for your feedback, for your comments, for your questions, for your impressions about our guests, about their ideas, what’s bothering you, what’s on your mind. This episode was recorded on October 8th, which was before the Jewish holidays began, and before, most obviously, Yahya Sinwar, the head of Hamas, was killed in Gaza.
I share that just because nothing comes to mind if it is in fact relevant to keep in mind when this was recorded, because obviously some of what Lahav said may or may not have been affected, such as potentially Israel’s greatest success, or something along those lines. But anyway, thank you for listening, and without further ado, here is 18 Questions with Lahav Harkav.
So we’ll begin where we always do. As an Israeli and as a Jew, how are you feeling at this moment in Israeli history?
Lahav Harkov: Sad.
I don’t know when people are going to listen to this, but we’re doing this interview on October 8th, 2024, and, you know, we just had a day, but it really ends up being several days always of remembering what happened a year ago. Not that we ever forgot it, but sort of reliving it, I think, even at an even greater level than we have been for the last year. But at the same time as being sad, I am very hopeful. I think in a lot of ways we sort of rose up from those ashes.
I think that this war, we’re winning. I mean, it’s something that people don’t like to talk about these days. People in the West, victory somehow is not possible, but I do think that we’re winning, and I’m hopeful. And then I’m also hopeful about Israeli society, because I think we’ve seen so many people really, really step up, whether it’s the hundreds of thousands of people who did reserve duty in the IDF and served really with distinction and clearly knowing what the mission is, and also just Israeli civil society where people have really reached out and helped one another.
Our politics are still a basket case, but I think that people on the street, you know, are really feeling for each other at this time. And like, you really feel the kol Yisrael arevim zeh lazeh.
Sruli Fruchter: When you say that we’re winning, what does winning mean to you? I know that’s definitely something that has been debated, I think, in Israeli government, more broadly in the media, in the public overall. What are you measuring by that?
Lahav Harkov: I think the war’s aims were very clearly stated.
It doesn’t mean that we’ve succeeded in all of them. Unfortunately, there are still 101 hostages in Gaza, and we want them all back as soon as possible. And I don’t know how we’re going to do that, because there’s no one to negotiate with. There hasn’t been for months, and people are a little deluded about it.
And having rescue missions for 101 people is also maybe not realistic. So like, that goes in the sad category and not the hopeful category. But we really weakened Hamas. I wish I could give credit to the person I saw say this, but you know, on October 7, Hama s launched 4,000 rockets at Israel.
And then yesterday, October 7, 2024, they launched four, right? They barely exist as a military force that can threaten Israel. They’re a small guerrilla force. So I think we did succeed on that front. And now there’s those questions of what’s the day after, which we do need to answer, we meaning Israel, the government, etc. And I think that when it comes to Lebanon, right, which is a front that has been open for a year, but Israel has started taking it sort of, has shifted focus in that direction in the recent weeks.
I think Israel‘s had a lot of serious successes, not just tactical successes, but strategic ones that the entire leadership of Hezbollah has been wiped out. And that makes me hopeful that we can leverage that into a situation where the residents of Northern Israel can return home. There are a lot of different ways that could go.
Sruli Fruchter: Before we go on to the next question, just one other follow up.
If Hamas is near defeated, or is very well crippled, why do you think the military campaign against Hamas in Gaza is still continuing?
Lahav Harkov: It’s a good question. I think part of it is looking for the hostages. Part of it is that the tunnels, right, we didn’t know the extent of the tunnels. And so they’re continuing to destroy them continuing to find all kinds of rockets and weapons and things hidden in those tunnels.
And I also think that because there’s no day after plan, you can’t just leave. I think that I don’t know exactly what the day after plan will look like. But it’s not going to be Israel controlling the everyday lives of Gazans. But it’s also not going to be Israel just leaving and hoping things go well.
Sruli Fruchter: What do you think has been Israel‘s greatest success and greatest mistake in the current war against Hamas?
Lahav Harkov: Does the lead up to the war count? I mean before October 7. I’m
Sruli Fruchter: happy you asked the question, because a lot of times people will initially answer pre October 7. And say the lack of intelligence beforehand. I’d like to focus post October 7.
Lahav Harkov: Okay, I don’t only think it’s lack of intelligence, by the way, I think it’s letting Qatar give money to Hamas. But post October 7, Israel‘s biggest mistake and biggest success. So I think maybe it was a mistake, not to know. I think one of Israel‘s biggest mistakes was not going into Rafah when it was ready to and waiting.
I think it was about two months till they could convince the Biden administration that it’s not going to be a huge bloodbath. I think that the government was right. And they proved that they were right. We found hostages there.
We found enormous tunnels, the Philadelphi corridor, which is the border between Gaza and has really been key to Israel‘s victory in Gaza. And we kind of just twiddled our thumbs, while the Biden administration sort of thought about maybe you should do it, maybe you shouldn’t do it. I understand we need we need the support of the U.S. I don’t know if we’ll always need it.
I think Israel should maybe structure itself differently to need it less. But we do need it right now. And so I understand why they waited, but I still think it could have been handled differently. In terms of successes, I think there’s been a lot of successes.
But since I’ll talk about what’s recent, which is, I mean, just the way Israel has taken out the entire leadership of Hezbollah, starting with the beepers, which like is an incredible pinpoint operation. Someone has to make a movie out of it. You know what the guy who makes those movies like Moneyball and all of those movies that are like sort of about like numbers and business, but makes them into exciting movies. He needs to make that about the Mossad agents who opened a beeper factory, right? I don’t think he likes Israel, though.
That that would be a great movie. But I just think like that. And then finally, finally taking out Nasrallah, which also I can add that to mistakes Israel‘s made, they should have done that a long time ago.
Sruli Fruchter: They were always able to and they waited?
Lahav Harkov: I don’t know if they were always able to. But I don’t believe that this is the first time they were able to. I’m sure he moved around a lot.
Sruli Fruchter: One of the concerns that I’ve heard about Nasrallah‘s assassination was that he’ll just kind of be replaced.
And although his replacement was potentially also assassinated, I’m curious how you understand that in terms of the successes that Israel‘s had.
Lahav Harkov: Nobody is irreplaceable. Somebody will lead what’s left of Hezbollah because they are a very large fighting force. But he was unique in the sense he’d been the leader for 30 years.
He became very paranoid, especially after the Second Lebanon War, in 2006, and didn’t delegate a lot of things. So a lot of the knowledge and the leadership was really concentrated with him. And he was also, I don’t know if charismatic is the word, but Shiite Muslims in Lebanon and beyond saw him as this great hero and great leader. And the other people are a lot more anonymous, and will probably have greater difficulty getting mass support than he did.
So I do think that it’s a real strategic win for Israel.
Sruli Fruchter: Do you think the Western media covers the Israel–Hamas war fairly?
Lahav Harkov: Absolutely not. You know, there’s just an example that happened this week. And again, I hope this isn’t dated by the time it comes out.
The CBS morning show has a reporter on it named Tony Dokoupil.
Sruli Fruchter: I just saw this in The New York Times this morning.
Lahav Harkov: Yeah, okay. I’ve been living in Israel since 2005.
I had not heard of him. But as it turns out, he converted to Judaism more than a decade ago. His two children from his first marriage live here in Israel with his ex-wife. So he knows a lot about what’s going on here and sort of understands what’s going on here.
I don’t know what his specific politics are or whatever. But, you know, Ta-Nehisi Coates, the author Ta-Nehisi Coates, who just wrote a book about basically why the whole world can be analogized to the Jim Crow South. He went to visit different places in the world and then fit them into his very narrow prism of knowledge. And so he did that with Israel as well after a 10-day trip to Israel.
Because that’s all it takes, 10 days to understand everything. g here. He gave a very one-sided anti-Israel account. And Dokoupil started asking him tough questions and saying, why don’t you ever mention the terrorist attacks? Why don’t you ever mention the fact that Israel has offered the Palestinians a state multiple times and they’ve rejected it? And he was just mad and he blew the questions off.
He would not actually address those questions head on. And then CBS decided to basically penalize this reporter for asking tough questions. Now, this is like an important guy, right? He’s on the morning show. He’s like a big deal.
The fact that I hadn’t heard of him shouldn’t say, I mean, when you have a role like that, right, that’s an important role. You’re in front of the camera, you’re on a daily show. And yet they had a staff meeting and they said that his questions didn’t meet editorial standards. I’m sorry, asking tough questions doesn’t meet your editorial standards.
This is like a phenomenon that I like to call journalists against journalism, right? I’ve heard from a lot of different people that in their experience when they’re as journalists, they’ve been asked by editors, who does this serve? Which I think is a really poor question when it comes to journalism, because you should be pursuing the truth. What you should be serving is the pursuit of knowledge and truth, while telling things that are in the public interest. And I don’t see how he violated any of those very basic tenets of journalism. I think that this is just like a synecdoche for what’s going on in Western journalism at large.
And actually, in the best case, right, in the many worst cases, there are people who are just openly sympathetic to Hamas and Hezbollah.
Sruli Fruchter: You’re saying in the more mainstream media organizations and news outlets in the West?
Lahav Harkov: Yeah, I mean, you see these names pop up again and again in outlets like BBC, CNN, Reuters, even The New York Times, it’s very random, the New York Times reporters in Australia have been embroiled in some, they’ve basically been caught out on having extreme biases against Israel.
Sruli Fruchter: So it’s interesting in the question of biases, because one of the things that I think that we’re always talking about and calling out are different ways that the West is, in some ways, too limited by their worldview to understand or report on how we feel is accurate reflection of the conflict around Israel or what’s happening today with Hamas. When you look at Israeli journalism, where do you see the shortfalls or the limitations that are unique to Israel that aren’t necessarily shared by the West?
Lahav Harkov: Look, Israeli journalism is very focused on Israel.
Israel is a very small country. We have our own sort of very specific culture. And so I think, again, I think that this is a flaw shared with most people. But I do think that sometimes Israelis are a little too navel-gazing and they don’t quite understand the way other people see them or the way other people see the world more broadly.
When it comes to this war, I basically think that the average Israeli media view of a lot of things is right in the sense that the anti-Semitism is really horrible and the world is in many ways against us right now. Maybe that’s oversimplifying it, but more or less. But there are other things like the extent to which the Israeli media tries to blame things on Netanyahu. And I think they often don’t understand how that will be interpreted, which basically gets interpreted that this war or much of this war is not just and that it’s all just politics, which is damaging to the whole country.
And I know, I mean, these political reporters, I’ve known them now for 15 years almost. And I don’t think most of them think that way. They think that they don’t like Netanyahu, they want him out. They disagree with the way he’s conducting the war, but they absolutely think that this war needs to be happening.
That’s just one example.
Sruli Fruchter: What do you look for in deciding which Knesset party to vote for?
Lahav Harkov: I don’t like to talk about the way I vote, but I would say if I were advising other people.
Sruli Fruchter: Well, I say to clarify, you don’t have to say who you’re voting for, but what are the things that usually you’re thinking about or considering when you’re deciding who you’re voting for?
Lahav Harkov: Yeah, I mean, I think I look at what the big issues are and the important issues are in my life, as well as the greater sort of life of the nation. So national security, for sure, is important to me.
And the economy is very important to me, not something I write about or talk about publicly, but it is very important to me. I think a lot of people in this country have some very crazy views on economics that, I don’t know, as someone who like saw the recession in the US, for example, like, this is an old example. So, which is why I’ll be willing to say it. But there used to be this politician Orly Levy, who, who basically thought that there should be subprime mortgages in Israel after 2008.
This was like, I don’t know, 2018. And I was just like, what’s wrong with you? So, so the economy has become very important to me, too. There are a lot of things that I sort of don’t think are going to change, you know what I mean? Like, I really believe it’s important for Haredim to serve in the IDF, at least at numbers that are similar to the general public. But I am very skeptical about anyone being able to change it because of the way the politics are built in this country, for example.
So I would say, look realistically at what you think the parties can do, look at what’s going to affect your life and the life of your family, and then choose.
Sruli Fruchter: Which is more important for Israel, Judaism or democracy?
Lahav Harkov: Judaism, because everyone, I mean, everyone, there are dozens of democracies around the world, Israelis could probably choose to live in most of them. It’s, you know, as long as they’re skilled, etc. But the reason that we live here is because of Judaism, because not just Judaism as a religion, but Judaism as a peoplehood and as a culture and our history, right? You don’t have to be a religious person to understand that Judaism is what makes Israel different from, you know, I don’t know, the Netherlands. Many years ago, I was on the bus to high school in Manhattan, and I read an interview in The New York Times with Tommy Lapid that just has stuck with me more than 20 years later, where he said he wants Israel to be like the Netherlands.
And I said, why? There already is a Netherlands, right? He was, for those who aren’t familiar, he was a secularist politician who wanted Israel to be as secular as possible, and the father of Yair Lapid.
Sruli Fruchter: There’s always an active conversation in Israel, or at least the active debate about the Judaism and democracy tension. Do you see that as one that’s as serious as people presume it to be?
Lahav Harkov: I think that they are two things that are in tension, but tension is not always bad. I think that we have to be on our guard because I do think that democracy is very important.
It is at least the least bad way to run a country in this day and age.
Sruli Fruchter: Do you think it’s under threat in ways that many people or at least I don’t see many people, there are many people who say it’s not many people who say that it is or many people who say that it is and, you know, from the right and from the left. Do you see it that way? Or you think that there’s a sense of hyperbole involved?
Lahav Harkov: I don’t remember the exact Ronald Reagan quote, but you know, the Reagan had this quote that like, you’re always a generation away from losing your freedom or something like that. And so I think it’s very important that we safeguard our democracy.
I worry about growing populations in this country who are not educated to value democracy. And I think that that’s important. But I also think that it’s really overblown that a lot of the people and parties who people say are threatening democracy are not. They are trying to assert their own way of life because they in a way that secular Israelis had been asserting their way of life and forcing it onto religious Israelis for a long time.
And so I think that there’s these things are intention, but you sort of need attention to draw a balance. And I think that, you know, basically secular left leaning Israelis ran the country for its first decades, then the right won elections, but sort of didn’t assert the power or didn’t shift things very much. And I think that, you know, in in the life of democracy, the majority is going to try to change things. And yeah, the majority might not like it, but that doesn’t make it not democracy.
You know, there might be, you know, you might have people now being like, but what about this? And what about that? OK, there might be individual things that are more or less liberal, liberal in the sense of individual rights, not in the sense of left right. True. But there are things are more or less liberal with every government.
Sruli Fruchter: What role should the Israeli government have in religious matters?
Lahav Harkov: Very little.
I think that, yeah, let’s say since the destruction of the first temple, really not even the second temple, Judaism has been very sort of decentralized and it has survived many years that way. And I think we can still do that. And I think de facto, we mostly do that in Israel. But but there are a lot of things that really matter to people, including marriage and divorce, that are centralized and they’re doing a very poor job at it.
So I think, like, you know, the government’s role, there can be regulation of kashrut, for example, the way it happens in the United States, where if you commit fraud, like it’s fraud. If you say something is kosher when it’s not, that’s a good place for the government to step in, making sure that people don’t have to work on Shabbat and Chagim, and that those are the still national holidays in Israel, not just religious holidays. That’s a good place. But I wouldn’t want a lot more than that.
Sruli Fruchter: Do you think Israel should treat its Jewish and non-Jewish citizens the same?
Lahav Harkov: When it comes to individual rights? Yes. I think the the key place where it differs is aliyah, right? Is that if you’re Jewish and you live outside Israel, you have the right to move to Israel and become a citizen. I think we should maintain that. And there are some sort of complications with that in terms of if someone marries someone who’s not Jewish or if an Israeli Arab marries someone not Jewish from another country or a Palestinian person, there are complications with that.
But on the whole, I think that individual rights should be the same. And I think that on the whole that they are, right? When people complain about discrimination, it’s the same kind of discrimination against minorities that you see in many other places, including the United States, in the sense that minorities that maybe aren’t as well represented politically don’t end up getting the resources that they should in an equal way to the majority. And I think that’s unfortunate and can be fixed in many ways. But I don’t consider that not being equal under the law.
Sruli Fruchter: What I find very interesting is that a lot of times, I think when people think about Israel, definitely from an outsider’s perspective, it usually always is in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or regional threats and wars and bickers, if you will, or skirmishes, which is very legitimate in this very real part of Israel. I’m curious, are there any examples you’re thinking of when you’re talking about the ways that Israel has succeeded or in some ways struggled because that people probably aren’t aware of unless you’re really in the meat or in the sandbox of Israeli politics?
Lahav Harkov: Examples of what?
Sruli Fruchter: If I understood your answer correctly, is that something along the lines of that countries are allowed, so to speak, quote unquote, to struggle with giving equality or equally addressing the needs of each population in its country, because that’s just a part of what it means to be a country and to develop as a society.
Lahav Harkov: Yeah.
Sruli Fruchter: I’m curious, like ways that Israel has succeeded or struggled with that that people probably aren’t aware of.
Lahav Harkov: Oh, okay. I see what you’re saying. Yeah. I mean, I don’t want it to look like I’m like resigned to it.
And like, sorry, like the average Arab student is just gonna get less money than—
Sruli Fruchter: No, I didn’t understand that. I just thought that was like, it’s a it’s not an uncommon issue for a state or country to be struggling with.
Lahav Harkov: Yeah, I mean, I view if you visit a lot of Arab towns in Israel, on the one hand, I think you’ll see a lot of large magnificent, magnificent homes that the vast majority of Jewish Israelis don’t live in such big homes, like, but on the other hand, the infrastructure in the cities is really poor. And a lot of times the homes are like really built like right next to right on top of each other, because there’s not a lot of like land resources being given to these towns to expand with natural growth and things like that.
So those are some of the examples. I think Israeli Arabs are really, really poorly served by the representatives in the Knesset, although that has been improving somewhat in recent years.
Sruli Fruchter: You’re saying from their parties or from the Knesset overall?
Lahav Harkov: I would say both. I believe right now, the only non Druze Israeli Arabs in the Knesset are from the Arab parties.
I don’t think there’s any because in the past Labor-Meretz used to have Arab representatives. Now Meretz is not in the Knesset and labor is so small. I don’t think they have anyone right now.
Sruli Fruchter: You can stop by design, it’s because they’ve lost popularity.
So they can’t necessarily afford to give the same seats that they were able to in the past?
Lahav Harkov: Correct. Correct. So there were times where there were Israeli Arabs and Zionist parties, right? The Labor Party often had an Arab Knesset, but the Labor Party is now very small.
And so because they didn’t have someone Israeli Arab in like their top five in the primaries, then they’re not in the Knesset. Yeah. So as I was thinking about the Arab parties, I think that they don’t serve their base very well. They’re very focused on the Palestinian issue.
They’re very focused on fighting, and what I mean is by a contrarian way, I don’t mean like fighting for them. I’m not saying that they have to turn their backs on what they believe in, but I think that everyone chooses what they’re going to prioritize. So in more recent years, the Ra’am party has chosen to prioritize domestic issues and to try to bring more resources and more of what Israeli Arabs need domestically. And I think that’s only a good thing, and I hope it’ll spread and continue.
Sruli Fruchter: Now that Israel already exists, what’s the purpose of Zionism?
Lahav Harkov: I think that people are constantly challenging Israel’s existence. It’s not even just the right to exist, right? Which is basically Zionism is asserting Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state or as a state of the Jewish people, however you want to say it. But they’re also challenging our actual survival and existence, right? It’s not just a philosophical or rhetorical argument. We saw that on October 7th.
We see it every single day when rockets and missiles are being shot into here. And so I think that unfortunately, we see the purpose of Zionism now more than ever. And the idea of Israel being a homeland for the Jewish people who might need it, who don’t live here now, I think also is coming into clearer focus when there’s an explosion of antisemitism all over the world. It’s like the minute we showed any weakness here in Israel, and people said, the Jews don’t have somewhere to run away to, maybe, then it was open season.
Sruli Fruchter: Is opposing Zionism inherently antisemitic?
Lahav Harkov: It’s a question of whether you’re asking it philosophically or practically, right? Because I could see it philosophically, if you’re like a devoted communist who thinks there should be no nationalism or an anarchist or whatever, and who doesn’t believe in countries, like, okay, fine. But usually those things go along with beliefs that are antisemitic. And I just don’t think that I’ve found … I’m talking about secular anti-Zionism.
Yeah, I don’t think I’ve found many secular anti-Zionists who don’t hold some really deeply antisemitic beliefs. Unfortunately, I think it’s true of a lot of anti-Zionist Jews as well, again, secular Jews, who I think are, they believe a lot of things that are conspiracy theories about their fellow Jews. And that if you just replace the word Israel or Zionists with Jews, you would get classic antisemitic tropes. You know, Hasidic anti-Zionism depends how it expresses itself, right? If you’re just saying, I don’t believe in Zionism because Zionism is a secular ideology.
But like, you’re not out there, you know, visiting Iran and protesting with the Palestinians. No, I don’t think it’s antisemitic. I think it’s, you know, it’s sure it’s not Zionism, but it’s not like in any way that an outsider would actually understand. You know, so I think that’s different.
Sruli Fruchter: Are there any examples you’re thinking about from the secular anti-Zionists that, you know, hold like very deeply rooted antisemitic beliefs?
Lahav Harkov: Yeah. I mean, it’s just often comes in this belief that like, being a Jew means that you shouldn’t hold any power, that being Jewish and holding power is inherently corrupting. Right? And I think that that’s like the, the sort of Jewish currents kind of milieu, like that’s their belief.
And frankly, like, it just makes me think like, of, you know, Protocols of the Elders of Zion and things like that, like, oh, no, like, if the Jews have an army, like, what are they going to do to our babies on Pesach or whatever, or the banks?
Sruli Fruchter: Is the IDF the world’s most moral army?
Lahav Harkov: I don’t have like a scale of morality where we would place things. I’m not like a big fan of superlatives like that. I understand where the slogan comes from, though, because I think that it goes above and beyond what most modern armies do to try to avoid civilian casualties. You know, that they have like lawyers like sitting in all the rooms where the decisions are made to make sure that international humanitarian law is being followed.
Israel’s canceled very important strikes that could have been, you know, strategic wins for Israel because they’ve seen civilians in those areas. And when you look at studies done about the ratio of civilians to combatants, and not just studies done because this week, there was a report of a Hamas official saying that 75% of the casualties in Gaza were Hamas affiliated. So you see that Israel’s trying very hard not to put civilians in harm’s way as much as it can. So, you know, do they do it more than anyone else? I don’t have a list of all the world’s armies and what they do.
But I think we’re up there.
Sruli Fruchter: Are there any examples you’re thinking of about the strikes that Israel has canceled that would have resulted in casualties that they didn’t see as justifiable?
Lahav Harkov: I don’t have like a specific, but the IDF has released like videos of things like that where, you know, you’ll see they’re like, they’re videos of like a target. And you’ll hear the people talking, you know, in the room where they’re setting up the strike. And they’ll call it off because they see someone there who shouldn’t be there.
Sruli Fruchter: Do you know, I know, I’m not sure as a journalist, whether you would or wouldn’t, are you aware of what considerations go into making those kinds of decisions?
Lahav Harkov: Some somewhat, you know, I’m definitely I’m not there in the room. But I, you know, these are, first of all, I think that the standards do shift somewhat depending on like, what the target is, where it is and things like that. But basically, they often would tell people who are in a building, they’d send leaflets, they’d send text messages to people say, get out of this building. And sometimes, again, there have been recordings of this, of the IDF talking on the phone, someone from the IDF talking on the phone with someone who lives in a building being like, is everyone out? Are you sure everyone’s out? You know, so if there’s someone there who they don’t expect to be there, they might end up calling off the strike.
Sruli Fruchter: If you were making the case for Israel, where would you begin?
Lahav Harkov: The case for Israel in this war, the case for Israel’s existence?
Sruli Fruchter: However you interpret the question, as our listeners hate that I say, but yeah.
Lahav Harkov: It also depends who my audience is, right?
Sruli Fruchter: Feel free to include any qualifications in your answer.
Lahav Harkov: Yeah. I mean, I’ll start, I think we’ll start with the case for Israel’s existence, which is that if you believe in self-determination for most nations, right? And you think that, you know, people who persecuted minorities should be given rights, should be given, in many cases, sovereignty, then like why, then that’s Israel, right? You start with the fully secular sort of political ideology. There’s so many cases to be made for Israel.
That’s the thing is that you can go in deep and you can talk about the League of Nations mandate and all of these other things, and you can go biblical, you know, and you can talk about the Jewish history here. So it really depends who you’re going to talk to. I mean, in this war, you can talk about how, I mean, what other country would experience 9/11 times 12, times 12 and not fight back.
Sruli Fruchter: Which do you find most compelling in terms of Israel’s existence between the different channels that you mentioned?
Lahav Harkov: Do I find personally more compelling?
I think that Hashem promised us this land and it’s the land of our forefathers and that we’ve had a continuous presence here for thousands of years and, you know, the temple was over there. So that’s to me personally compelling, though, in my career and most of the people I speak to, I don’t think that it’s what they would find most compelling.
Sruli Fruchter: Can questioning the actions of Israel’s government and army, even in the context of this war, be considered a valid form of love and patriotism?
Lahav Harkov: Of course. Maybe I don’t like agree with the slogan of like dissent is patriotism because I don’t think that’s what defines patriotism.
But I think in a democracy, you know, not even in democracy, I think in general, in democracies, this is true. And I think in Judaism, in many of our texts, this is true. When you have multiple people sort of arguing about the best way to do something and they’re presenting multiple views, you end up with the better conclusion than if everybody’s saying the same thing. And so, yes, I think that you can criticize the government of Israel.
I think you can criticize policies. You can criticize the way this war is conducted. I think that there’s issues of how you criticize them, what the criticisms are, the tone, who’s doing the criticizing, then those are also fair questions to ask. But if we’re just asking the broad questions, then you can be patriotic and love Israel and do all those things.
Sruli Fruchter: I don’t usually ask this follow up question, but it’s just on my mind now. So I guess that makes you subject to it. There’s been a lot of debate, I think, in Israel and outside of Israel about how people understand the hostage protests in Israel and Tel Aviv and then, you know, more sporadically in different, usually inconsistently, but still in smaller bits throughout Israel. As a journalist, I’m curious how you understand that.
Lahav Harkov: OK, so in November already, before the first hostage deal was reached, I spent some time in the headquarters of the hostage family forum.
Sruli Fruchter: Oh, is there an actual headquarters?
Lahav Harkov: There’s a tech company in Tel Aviv that donated a building to them, small building. It’s like four floors or something, but they took it over.
And it’s huge. It’s not just people who are planning protests and press releases and marketing.
They also have like therapists there helping the family. They had like all kinds of things going on there to support the families like themselves, not just to get the word out. Yeah. And I wrote a very big piece about it for Jewish Insider.
I think in a lot of ways they’re doing really great work for these families. But when I was there, I was shocked to some extent how many of these people I knew, the people who were volunteering there, because at least at the time it was all volunteer based. Now that’s been a year. I hope some of these people are getting paid.
But at the time it was all volunteer based. And I was shocked by how many of them I knew from politics, from writing about politics, specifically left-wing politics, and how many of them were involved in the protests against Netanyahu, not only in the year before about judicial reform, but I think people are less aware that there had been fairly regular protests going on against Netanyahu for about five years at that point. And I said to myself, these people are doing a really good job right now. They’re mostly holding back.
They’re not talking about Netanyahu. But how long is that going to last? And by January, February, I think we got the answer that they’re not managing to hold back. And I think it was in May when there was officially a kind of split and a large number of the hostage families went straight up political, we want Netanyahu to quit. Now there’s a couple things.
First of all, I’m not judging them. They’re going through something completely horrible. And if that’s how they feel, I’m not going to tell them. I’m not going to tell them it’s not legitimate to say it.
But if I were advising them, I would say to them, even if you feel like your concerns are not being addressed by the Netanyahu government, you are using divisive language that is turning your cause that was uniting for Israelis into a cause that is more divisive than it should be. I think that either they were getting bad advice or they were not taking the advice they got. And I think it’s really unfortunate because I think you ask any Israeli out there on the street, they all want the hostages to come home as soon as possible. The question is more a question of what should be done to get them out.
Now the majority, probably the vast majority of the hostage families would like basically any deal. I’m sure most of them would say there are limits, but the limits are, I’ve heard a lot of them say, we can end the war, saying this six months ago, we can end the war now. And then we’ll come off the text again, we’ll just start the war again, which is a lot easier said than done. The international community was not going to be happy if there’s a ceasefire agreement that’s then broken. But fine, that’s the argument they made.
Then you have a small minority of hostage families that founded their own separate forum, by the way, in November already, because they saw, I guess, where the wind was blowing the way I saw it when I was there, that they actually oppose prisoner swaps and they oppose, I hate to even call it prisoner swap, because like a murdering terrorist is not worth baby Kfir Bibas. But that’s what it is. They oppose these kinds of swaps and they oppose ending the war before it needs to be ended, because of battleground conditions and not for their children. And those are two sides of the debate that I think you have out on the street in Israel.
And it’s very much a left-right debate, for the most part. For decades, the Israeli right has opposed releasing Palestinian terrorists from prison. And the left has been, I’m not sure that they love it, but they’ve been more willing to do it. Although Netanyahu is the released over a thousand Hamas terrorists in exchange for Gilad Shalit.
But ideologically, the right opposes it. So that debate, and then the adding into it, Bibi needs to resign kind of protests, has made the cause very politicized in Israel. And it’s sad. And I don’t think it serves these families well.
Sruli Fruchter: It’s very interesting, because I’ve heard more generally about the overall, about the hostage families and different things. Actually, I wasn’t aware of your article. I’m going to read that, because I’m very interested in it. I’m curious on another topic related to that.
There’s been much said of accusations that Netanyahu is, at least in some part, motivated by his own political ambitions or political considerations to stall the war, stall the deal. Similarly, in that vein, while we’re on the topic of, I think, deeper looks from an Israeli’s perspective or an Israeli journalist perspective, what do you think those views get right and get wrong?
Lahav Harkov: I think factually, the corruption trials against Netanyahu are still ongoing. They haven’t stopped. Maybe they’re going a little slower, but they’ve been proceeding throughout this war.
And I think in general, if you look at the way the Supreme Court and the attorney general have been conducting themselves during this war, you can agree with things they’ve done or disagree with them. But either way, they haven’t put everything on hold for the war. They did maybe for a couple of months. And now they’re doing other things.
They’re doing their jobs. Again, well or not well, different opinions certainly differ. And so I don’t think this war is going to get Netanyahu. It’s not a get out of jail free card, even though I think at this point, it doesn’t look like he’s going to, he would go to jail.
Electorally also, I think he was very unpopular in the beginning of the war, right? But in the beginning of the war, everyone agreed we needed to go to war. Now he’s doing a lot better in the polls, I guess, because we’re also doing a lot better in the war. But I just think that there was almost no point in the last year in which I thought the parties and his coalition would leave and trigger an election because none of them would do well in the next election. Even the Haredi parties, specifically United Torah Judaism, right? They have like a built in base of votes, right? That it only fluctuates when they have children, like when their children turn 18.
Like it’s just, it’s built in, right? Shas is a little different because they have a lot of voters who are like traditional, who don’t necessarily do everything a rabbi tells them, you know, vote the way a rabbi tells them to. But you know, those parties are probably going to get roughly the same votes. And yet they have no incentive to break up the coalition either, because if the right doesn’t win, then chances are they’ll be in the opposition. So I just don’t think that there’s like an incentive structure within this coalition to call an election, whether there’s a war or not.
And there have been all kinds of controversies where people have said, like, I’m going to vote against this, I’m going to cause an election, this and that. And it hasn’t happened. And it didn’t happen in the very difficult year before this war. And it hasn’t happened during the war.
So for starters, I don’t think that the continued political survival of Netanyahu is exactly because of this war. I almost think it’s counterintuitive, because, you know, in the beginning, I mean, not just in the beginning, to this day, many, many people blame him, or at least think he shares the blame. I also try, in general, in politics, unless proven otherwise, I try not to, you know, imagine that people have the worst possible intentions. I’ve learned, you know, I covered the Knesset for almost a decade, I met many of these people, most people think that they’re doing things for the good of the country.
That’s most people are actually motivated in that way, you might not agree with what the good thing to do for the country is, but they think they’re doing it.
Sruli Fruchter: What do you think is the most legitimate criticism leveled against Israel today?
Lahav Harkov: Well, let’s put it this way. The situation in Judea and Samaria, the status quo, cannot hold, it’s not good for Israelis, and it’s not good for Palestinians. I don’t agree with calling it apartheid.
I don’t agree with handing them a state on a silver platter when they’ve shown not only no ability to run a decent state, but also to not attack Israel from it. But I do think that the status quo is not good.
Sruli Fruchter: What do you mean by the status quo? Do you mean a more recent status quo, or like not much has changed in the last…
Lahav Harkov: The last 20 years or so.
You know, I don’t have a solution. You know, I see different elements of different things that people propose that sound okay. But I do think that it’s a situation that it just gets worse over time. And it’s a huge drain.
And the Palestinians also, I feel like living in this limbo situation is not good for them either. I mean, they know that they want to stay, but I mean, the effect it has psychologically on the Palestinians is not going to be good for us either.
Sruli Fruchter: Do you think peace between Israelis and Palestinians will happen within your lifetime?
Lahav Harkov: I want to be hopeful and say yes. But I do have a lot of trouble imagining how that realistically could be the case.
I’ve written a lot about the textbooks, for example, that Palestinians use in their schools, and just that absolutely rabid hatred of Jews and Israel that’s in those books. And I have had the privilege of meeting people who have been raised that way, not only Palestinians, also in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who were able to overcome the sort of propaganda that they were subjected to, but it’s a small minority of people. Most people, you just are sort of part of the culture around you. It’s going to take real courage and leadership that unfortunately, the Palestinians don’t have right now.
Hopefully, someone will rise up and do that. But I’m an optimistic person, but we also have to be realistic. So I guess, probably not.
Sruli Fruchter: That changed for you post-October 7th, or even before that, you felt similarly?
Lahav Harkov: No, I felt that before.
It’s interesting, I saw on Twitter the other day.
Sruli Fruchter: It doesn’t come up at all, this interview. That’s a problem on my end.
Lahav Harkov: Somebody said something like, how have your opinions changed since October 7th? And for most people, it was sort of about the nature of the Palestinians, and we can’t have a two-state solution.
I was like, none of my thoughts about that changed. And maybe it’s because I’m a is in this business, so I think about these things all the time. But the only thing that changed for me is that I shouldn’t underestimate them, their ability to get organized, and the level of their threat against us. That’s what changed for me.
Sruli Fruchter: Can you say more about that?
Lahav Harkov: October 7th was this huge operation that they planned for years under our noses, and we didn’t know, or we knew a very, very small fraction of it. And the tunnels also, I think it was 2021 where we had an operation where we blew up some tunnel in the middle of Aza City, and they were like, we destroyed the Gaza Metro. Now we know what a joke that is. That was a few kilometers, and it turned out that they had hundreds of kilometers of tunnels.
So I think that there’s a level of arrogance we had, and also thinking that we know everything, and then also just underestimating our enemies and the damage they could do to us. And I hope we don’t make that mistake again. I mean, we made it 50 years ago, also before the Yom Kippur War, so we need to be more careful.
Sruli Fruchter: What do you think should happen with Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict after the war?
Lahav Harkov: I think the ideal situation for Gaza in the short to medium term is for Israel to work together with other international partners to first make sure Gaza is demilitarized, which is basically what the Israeli army is doing now, but to continue to not allow arms in, and to work on sort of de-radicalization, de-nazification, essentially, the kinds of programs that we had in Germany and Japan.
I know the Palestinians are a very different society, but I think that that’s like sort of a model, combined with a sort of Saudi model, where they had a very radical Islamist education system and culture, and that they are now, their education system is much more modern, and as a society they’re slowly moderating as well. The hope would be that these Arab states that are trying to modernize, and I think have been able to modernize while maintaining an remaining religious, but a distinct identity, I mean, and remaining religious, that they can show the Palestinian society that they can do that too. Right now those countries are hesitant. I think it’s because the war is ongoing.
I am not necessarily saying the war needs to end right now. I can’t claim to have the knowledge of exactly what’s left to do in there, but I do know that the idea says that they’re mostly finished.
Sruli Fruchter: Do you think the war will end soon, or do you think that that is something that’s been said often?
Lahav Harkov: I think that this is a multi-front war, and that none of the Iranian proxies—we haven’t talked about Iran either—none of the Iranian proxies that are attacking us are actually going to stop until they sort of all stop together. That’s what they say, at least.
And while they could be lying, it sort of makes sense to me that that’s their plan. That’s what they’ve been doing all along. So I think that it’s just going to be at a very low intensity, what’s going on in Gaza, until we wrap up in Lebanon as well.
Sruli Fruchter: You mentioned Iran, and I’ll tell you this.
It depends sometimes when we throw in Iran, when we don’t. When we started the podcast, Iran wasn’t as present, I think. So I guess bonus question for everyone. Do you think the Iranian threat is being properly addressed?
Lahav Harkov: I guess my question in return would be, by whom? But it doesn’t even matter.
The answer is no. Like, it doesn’t matter. Not America, not Israel. Israel’s doing a little, you know, trying now.
Sruli Fruchter: Do you think they’re moving in that direction?
Lahav Harkov: Depends what moving in that direction means. But just to go back to why I think it’s not being properly addressed is that right now, the administration thinks that it can’t be—they think that the Iranian nuclear threat basically can’t be eliminated, and that it just needs to be sort of like dealt with.
Sruli Fruchter: The U.S. administration?
Lahav Harkov: Yeah. They need to be put in a box, is what Antony Blinken used to say all the time.
And I think that the box needs to be blown up. So I just think that there’s no—
Sruli Fruchter: Put in a box and then blow the box up.
Lahav Harkov: Exactly. I think that what we’ve learned is that, first of all, they’re moving very, quickly towards a nuclear bomb.
They’re very close to breakout. Now, after breakout—this is the thing that people often forget—after breakout, they then have to turn what was broken out, the nuclear material, into a bomb, and that takes some time as well. But even the most conservative estimates are putting them at like, I don’t know, a year. It doesn’t take that long.
You know, they have friends who have turned nuclear material into bombs, who can help them do that. So I just think, like, that’s it. Like, the clock is ticking. We’re five minutes to midnight.
Like, what are you waiting for? Like, the box is not holding them back, right? Now we have October 7th and the proxies and all these ballistic missile attacks, right? And then Biden says to Israel, take the win. Well, Israel took the win in April, right? There was like some small attack explosion in Iran, which I guess it was an important target. But still, it didn’t deter them from doing it again. It didn’t deter them from sticking all their proxies on us over and over again.
And they’re the core of the problem, right? They’re the root from which all of these branches have grown. If you don’t nip it at the bud, then it’s just going to grow again and again and again and again. So there’s two levels to this, which is that if they have a nuclear weapon, they’re going to threaten the whole world with it, certainly the whole Western world of Israel. And then they’re going to keep attacking Israel with their proxies if we don’t address it head on.
So I don’t want a war with Iran. I don’t want any war. But I don’t see how we in Israel can be safe if we keep trying to avoid it.
Sruli Fruchter: Where do you read news about Israel?
Lahav Harkov: Jewishinsider.com.
I write the news about Israel there. It’s from a variety of sources, but I try to mostly read the news in Hebrew because by the time it gets to English, it’s late. That being said, there’s some very good reporting in the foreign press because there’s a military censor in Israel. And so The Wall Street Journal is doing a really amazing job.
I have a lot of issues with the way The New York Times covers Israel, but they also get a lot of very good scoops. And so unfortunately, I have to read them a lot too. Those are the big ones.
Sruli Fruchter: Where do you identify on Israel’s political and religious spectrum? And do you have any friends on the quote unquote other side?
Lahav Harkov: Like I said, I don’t like to say who I vote, so I’m not going to identify myself politically.
And people can just like, guess.
Sruli Fruchter: When you say that, would you be comfortable saying if you’re more right, you’re more left?
Lahav Harkov: Look, I consider myself to be a fairly lowercase c conservative person. But I don’t think that conservatism, certainly of the American side, really exists in Israel. So I can say that.
Like, you know, I can say I’m a good old fashioned neocon. I think that America should support Israel and its wars in the Middle East, etc. Like, sure, it’s almost meaningless in Israel, because if you have neocon foreign policy views in America, that means like, you know, 80% of the Israeli political spectrum will agree with you. Like, religiously, I consider myself a religious Zionist. You know, I went to like Bnei Akiva camps in the US.
And then I came, I did Sherut Leumi when I made aliyah to Israel, which at the time, there were very few Orthodox young women serving in the army. Nowadays, I’m all, I was all for it then too. I’m all for it. I don’t think there’s a problem with it.
But it was sort of like, what was done at the time? Yeah, I’m definitely on the more liberal end of Religious Zionism, the more sort of seeking out more roles for women in a lot of places within Halakha. It’s an interesting place to be in Israel, because there’s not so many congregations in Israel that, you know, would let a woman do a Torah or would be okay with a women’s tefillah group or women’s Megillah reading and things like that. And that’s like, for me, almost like the minimum of what I’m looking for. So whereas in the US, like I grew up in New Jersey, like there’s a lot of that in New Jersey, New York.
But I’ve managed to find it wherever I’ve lived here in Israel. And yeah, that’s where I am more or less like, I hope like my kids will go to Bnei Akiva or to the religious scouts, they go to Religious Zionist schools. They’re little so you know, when they in Israel, it’s like when you get to middle school, high school is when you have these like big decisions of like what ideology they’ll do. So I’ll cross that bridge when I reach it.
Sruli Fruchter: And do you have friends on the other side of the political and religious spectrum?
Lahav Harkov: Absolutely. First of all, when you are in like a liberal Religious Zionist circle, the politics are super interesting, because stereotypically, Religious Zionists are very right wing in Israel. But because there’s this sort of more liberal religious element for many people would call it feminist. I don’t have a problem with the word feminist.
I just think it puts a lot of people off. So I don’t necessarily, I use it less for that reason, and not because I actually think it’s a bad thing. But and so you do have a lot of people who are, you know, shomer Shabbat, kosher, whatever they’re frum, but but will vote for the left. And so you have that in these very small communities and congregations.
And I find that very interesting. But also, you know, I reported the Knesset for almost a decade. And I met people really all across the political spectrum who are good people. As I said, I really do believe that the majority of people in the Knesset are there with good intentions.
And even within my family, like, you know, more religious, less religious, for sure. And also politically, maybe not all over the map, but over a lot of the map.
Sruli Fruchter: Interesting, you say that, because I think one of the things I’ve always been fascinated by is how even in the American labels don’t necessarily fit so well in Israel, but let’s say in who would be classically accepted as Orthodox and religious Zionist and Haredi circles, there are some areas that they’re both very much aligned than in other areas, like say, like army service, where then all of a sudden, the right starts to fracture, because you see the religion entering the equation a little bit more.
Lahav Harkov: Yeah, no, I agree with that a lot.
I just I think like, also in Israel, it’s all just really associated a lot more with politics, because you have all these political parties who claim to be representing religious groups. I didn’t like, for example, when the party of Bezalel Smotrich, the finest ministry, they changed the name of their party to the Religious Zionist Party. They used to be the Jewish Home Party. I just felt like you don’t, not all Religious Zionists vote for you, not all Religious Zionists agree with you.
You know, I’m sure he and I agree on a lot of things, actually. But I don’t like when I say I’m Religious Zionist, like, I’m not saying that I’m voting for him, you know, and so I found that very annoying. But listen, like Shas stands for Shomrei Torah Sfaradim, like Torah-observing Sephardic people. And there are, I don’t know, 10s of 1000s of Torah-observing Sephardic people who don’t vote Shas.
Sruli Fruchter: So our last question. It’s kind of funny, because you were a little bit answering this in the beginning, but I’ll ask anyway. Do you have more hope or fear for Israel and the Jewish people?
Lahav Harkov: I have hope. First of all, I always have hope.
That’s how we’ve survived, right? For 2000 years, we’ve survived on hope. But I think it’s justified. I think, in general, the arc of history, you know, moves towards progress. I think that there are bumps in the road, terrible, horrible bumps in the road.
But overall, we’re always trying to move forward and do better and grow and flourish. And I just think that we have it in us. The Jewish people do, and the people of Israel do. There’s so much talent here.
There’s so much heart and love for one another, so much wisdom, and that we can put it all together. And we can rise from this sort of pit of despair that many of us are in.
Sruli Fruchter: Okay, amazing. Well, Lahav Harkov, thank you so much for answering our 18 questions.
How was this for you?
Lahav Harkov: Good. Good. Yeah.
Sruli Fruchter: Any question we didn’t ask that you think we could have?
Lahav Harkov: Well, so my husband was in reserve duty for five months of the war, which I think it’s maybe not that much, but to some extent colored my thought about Israel and the Jewish people and things like that.
But I do think it’s just something that an aspect of what life in Israel has been like since this war began that maybe people outside of Israel don’t quite understand that there’s so many families that like, no, we weren’t there on October 7. I mean, my husband was called up for reserve duty on October 7. He turned on his phone in the middle of the chag and he had a message and he had to go. But the impact of October 7 has been huge.
It’s been a difficult year for so many Israelis and many Israeli children who are going to remember this. But I also saw, like I said, the strength, the resilience of Israeli people at this time and the ways the communities came together to help out and support families who had such a difficult year.
Sruli Fruchter: Okay, amazing. Thank you so much.
Thank you so much for listening to another episode of 18 Questions, 40 Israeli Thinkers. We are always looking for new thinkers, diverse thinkers, fascinating thinkers, controversial thinkers, important thinkers, and voices from Israel that we should be featuring. So don’t be shy. Reach out to us with guest recommendations or question recommendations.
And as always, a special shout out and thank you to our friends Gilad Brounstein for editing this episode and for Josh Weinberg for the video version, which is posted on YouTube or will be posted on YouTube by the time this comes out. So without further ado, thank you so much and keep questioning and keep thinking.
This transcript was produced by Sofer.AI.