Mikhael Manekin: ‘This is a land of two peoples, and I don’t view that as a problem’

Transcripts are lightly edited—please excuse any imperfections.

Mikhael Manekin: But I would say a more challenging argument being leveled at Israel is that Israel not only in theory but in practice, or at least enough of its high-ranking cabinet members, are interested in practice in Palestinians not living here on a mass scale.

Sruli Fruchter: Meaning ethnic cleansing.

Mikhael Manekin: Yeah, but I don’t want to use that word purposely because I think that word doesn’t allow us to have a serious conversation about what a lot of people might think on their own, which is this fantasy that if we play our cards right, we can expel Arabs. Hi, my name is Mikhael Manekin. I’m an activist in Jerusalem.

And this is 18 Questions for 40 Israeli Thinkers from 18Forty.

Sruli Fruchter: From 18Forty, this is 18 Questions for 40 Israeli Thinkers, and I’m your host Sruli 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. A while back, I interviewed Nechumi Yaffe, a Haredi woman and professor of public policy at Tel Aviv University, who is part of HaSmol HaEmuni, the Faithful Left, or the Religious Left, based here in Israel.

Today, I interviewed one of the leaders of HaSmol HaEmuni, Mikhael Manekin. Mikhael is the director of the Alliance Fellowship Program, a network for quote, up-and-coming progressive political leaders who are focused on promoting civic equality. It specifically focuses on a strong relationship between Jewish and Arab leaders. Previously, Michael led the progressive think tank Molad, and was also the executive director of Breaking the Silence, an organization of veteran IDF soldiers that began in the early 2000s and quote, have taken it upon themselves to expose the public to the reality of everyday life in the occupied territories, end quote.

It is a very controversial group in Israel, especially while so many families and so many continue to serve, and the people within Breaking the Silence, having served in the IDF themselves, still have those relationships to navigate. Mikhael’s book, End of Days: Tradition and Power in Israel, was translated into English in 2023, and he recently published a Hebrew collection titled Sermons from the Abyss. I had actually heard of Mikhael in the same way that I have heard of Nechumi Yaffe, on a podcast by the left-wing non or anti-Zionist magazine Jewish Currents. And I had actually heard him speak at a conference in the US for a parallel, or at least a similar organization inspired by HaSmol HaEmuni, the Faithful Left in Israel, and in the US, it is going to be Smol Emuni US, Faithful Left or Religious Left for the US.

What makes this organization especially interesting in the context of Israel is that I think A, the left-wing movement in Israel has been dying for many years and post-October 7th has gotten significantly less popular. And B, the way that religiosity intersects with politics is a very unique feature in the Israeli landscape. And so I think a movement that is trying to bring that connection in a different way yields a really fascinating voice in that larger conversation that Israelis are having. It was a real pleasure to interview Mikhael.

Throughout the interview, I could really sense his political fervor and personal dilemma and personal relationships and complexity coming into play, which I think led to a really fascinating insight into how he thinks, speaks, and acts in Israel. So, thank you as always for tuning in to 18 Questions, 40 Israeli Thinkers. I know that it’s been a bit of time since our last episode, but I hope you had a wonderful Pesach. In the meantime, if you’ve missed this, well, you’re going to hear it again.

If you have questions that you want us to be asking, or guests that you want us to feature, please shoot us an email at info@18Forty.org and be sure to subscribe and share with friends so that we can reach new listeners. We are coming to a close of almost our full circle of 40 thinkers. Michael is our 33rd Israeli thinker. And you know what that means, seven left to go.

So, without further ado, here is 18 Questions with Mikhael Manekin. 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?

Mikhael Manekin: Confused. I know words like history are very big. I would probably say sort of like emotionally, politically confused is probably the dominant feeling.

Sruli Fruchter: What do you mean by that?

Mikhael Manekin: I think there’s a lot of questions which have to do with Israel, I mean that I focus on, a lot of questions which have to do with Judaism and with ethics and all sorts of issues of that nature.

But there’s also just a general confusion about the world and about politics in the world. Activists, we tend to be, I think, think about life many times simplistically. We’ll get involved in something and then something will change, which is obviously silly, but it’s, it’s part of your ethos and it’s it’s part of way the way you construct your day-to-day and it’s very hard to do that in the current moment in the world. So just thinking about who you are, how do you do things, and even before we talk about Israel specifically, I think raises a lot of questions.

So it’s not just saying, well, what what are the next elections going to be like? What do I think about Bibi? What do I think about the religious right? It’s actually asking questions like, who am I as a political player or somebody who wants to influence things in the current environment? So I’d say that’s the primary sort of sense or feel with everything that has to do with my sort of emotional political life. Also, it’s it’s really, I mean, there’s this duality where on one hand, the sort of larger situation in Israel for me and I think for a lot of people, it’s just very frightening, saddening, depressing. But on the other hand, I also have a lead a like Baruch Hashem, like a really enjoyable life here. My kids are happy living here.

I’m really happy that this is where we are. Um, so there’s also that weird dissonance of like the the political and the personal which you try to reconcile with. I guess that’s an added dimension of that general confusion.

Sruli Fruchter: Yeah, absolutely. And I guess now is the part where we kind of segue into Israel.

What has been Israel’s greatest success and greatest mistake in the war against Hamas?

Mikhael Manekin: I think Israel needs to be defined. When we say Israel, what do we mean? That’s a bit of a cop-out to what I’m going to say. Um, to what I’m going to say. I think so many elements of Israeli society have behaved so impressively over the last few years.

And here it is important for me to say I’m a very political person and I come from like this isn’t so sort of before I say the next sentence, this isn’t about this isn’t just about politics, meaning people from left, right, and center. I think there’s such a strength and beauty in the solidarity of Israeli society which I get really moved by. I don’t know if it’s unique to Israelis or Jews, and and in that sense, it doesn’t really, I don’t really care about that. Um, but there’s a real feeling of camaraderie and solidarity and people trying to figure out how to do the right thing not only for them, but for the people around them.

It makes me very proud to be where I am. So I would say that’s I think’s been the greatest success. For me, the greatest failure or challenge has been how to deal with, well, with with weakness or with with people who are weak or with people who don’t have. And that could be the hostages and the moving of them to the side.

It could also be the inability to talk about the suffering of those who are attributed to the enemy, meaning Palestinians. How do we talk about those who are in pain and in suffering and need our assistance or need our care or need our attention? And again, this this that’s a sweeping statement and maybe that focuses on only a specific type of Israel, but I think, um, the looking at morality or ethics as a luxury or as something that we can’t or as a weakness is something which has been really troubling to me. And that makes it even more complicated considering the first thing I said.

Sruli Fruchter: Yeah, soI was going to ask, it’s interesting that you note that you say solidarity is is the point of the greatest success against the war, and then also have such strong criticisms of the war and of Israel’s military campaign in specific. Especially given the fact that from the beginning of the war and, you know, I’d say through May, you know, probably be a little bit before, a little bit afterward, the sense of Israeli society standing behind the war, standing behind what has the military campaign that had already been done in Gaza was very, very strong.

So do you see that military, but you still see that solidarity as a success even given your critiques of the war?

Mikhael Manekin: Yeah, to some extent, yeah. I, you know, it’s something that’s just really, I’m very much against the war definitely now. So I’ll I’ll I’ll emphasize that.

Sruli Fruchter: Were younot in the beginning?

Mikhael Manekin: No. I think for the first, I thinkI was, I mean, I think there were a lot of questions, but clearly after the 7th of October and even if there was, you know, a 6th of October that frustrated with the country can’t allow itself to to behave in a passive way or a pacifist way post the 7th of October.

And there are things which could have been done been done differently and maybe I’ll talk about that in a second. But I think up until the first lull, like there was a space, I think it was in December when we returned the first hostages, where I felt question is and January after that, the question was open to where things are going. Um, and I think at a certain point, then I would have worded it then, I probably won’t say wouldn’t have said this now, but like worded it then, I said, I’m for a war but not this war. Meaning, uh, there was a sense that fighting should continue, but the goals increasingly made less sense to me and it was increasingly less clear where things are going.

In hindsight a year later, I maybe, and I’m I’m not saying this from a military or tactical perspective, but from a national perspective, I think if there was a, if there was a wait, a day or two or a week before going straight in, it could have changed very much the way the war happened. Ironically, I started thinking that after the Iran attacks, because Iran, once we attacked them, they took a while till they responded, and that made me think about how we behaved post the 7th, that there’s something about saying, we’re definitely responding, but we something happened and we need to stop maybe more and maybe think, and then we respond. And obviously, that’s more complicated than that hostages and and and soldiers and so on, but I don’t know in hindsight. In the more general attitude, I think probably since January, February of 2004, I didn’t I didn’t understand as an Israeli where thing where things are going, where this where is this headed and also what is the toll that the other side is paying, what is the toll that we’re paying? What is this saying about who we are? And questions increased.

Regarding the solidarity question, I mean, that’s why I said confused or complicated. People think that if you say, definitely today, people think think if you say something is complicated, it means you’re not real, you don’t really have an opinion about it or that you don’t have, you know, I’m I’m very much against this war and my feelings here in this world are complicated. And I think that makes sense. The closer you are to something, the more complicated it becomes.

Um, I’m I have friends who have been, uh, friends who have been killed in this war, increasingly soldiers, increasingly children of friends, and my relationship to them is is very much part of who I am. So it’s, you know, a war is a very, very violence is a very complicated thing and war is a very complicated thing. I think it’s okay to say I’m against something and also recognize the complexity of it.

Sruli Fruchter: How have your religious views changed since October 7th?

Mikhael Manekin: It’salways a hard question to answer in general, like how how views change, let alone religious views. I feel, and now I’m saying this sort of in and in missing something because maybe time has passed and I’ve sort of gone reverted to my usual self, but I feel that I davened much more uh post the 7th of October.

Uh, a lot more reading of of more ancient like Jewish like um texts, Middle Ages definitely. I think um

Sruli Fruchter: Any in particular that you’re thinking of?

Mikhael Manekin: I think we do sadness very well in our tradition. The the day after the war started, uh one of the folks in the um in the Smol Emuni, uh said uhThe religious left, the faithful left or the religious left.we decided to start doing a shiur once every a day for for 20 minutes and uh and people from the community on Zoom. People then we, you know, we gave a Mi Sheberach for for everybody we needed to give a Mi Sheberach for.

It’s a lot of people. And uh I heard we had in one of our classes somebody named Yehudah Mirsky, a rabbi, Rabbi Dr. Yehudah Mirsky, I gave a shiur on um there’s a Midrash on God crying and how God is the only um is the only one who knows how to cry all of the time. You have stories about um I think it’s Yirmiyahu who’s able to cry during the day or that uh people of Israel are able to cry during the night, but only God is able to cry 24 hours straight. And I think that ability to access sort of sadness and and recognizing sadness as something which which you actually want to connect with and not want to um um want to segregate is something which was very uh powerful for me.

I’d say that’s probably one. On a very different level, like the 7th of October this is going to be a bit esoteric found me reading uh Sha’arei Orah. It’s a book by Gikatilla. It’s a 10th sphere, it’s a like pre-Kabbalah.

I don’t know how anyone would want to call it. I don’t want to get in trouble with academics. It’s a very good book if you want to start learning Kabbalah. And there’s a lot of sections there about war or what happens in the heavens when people fight.

Uh and they were very powerful for me to recognize uh Jewish content and sort of our our ability of thinking that we’re right and they’re wrong is so uh powerful in any war and so prevalent in this war as well. And thinking about how do we access sort of our side and the heavenly sphere or in the ethical, for me it’s the ethical sphere as well, has been very sort of

Sruli Fruchter: Meaning that there’s likea spiritual parallel in some sense when there’s a war happening here?

Mikhael Manekin: pYeah, what uh eople in the East or West would call karma, but there’s like that there’s a relationship or what we call like … the expectation of God from us. Um and definitely the expectation from God from us on this land is a lot of the things that I’ve been thinking about over the last year.

Sruli Fruchter: So, I’m also curious. October 7th, I mean, we kind of alluded to this before, was a rupture in many ways from what Israelis or the world was expecting or thought of in the terms of the conflict, of the Israelis and the Palestinians.

And especially for many in on Israel’s left. I know that you’ve spoken before about how, I mean, you’re part of Smol Emuni, leader of Smol Emuni, the faithful left, uh, kind of like the invert of the um Gush Emunim, which is more of the the right-wing part of Israeli society that’s religiously motivated or religiously oriented. Did you find your theology in terms of how you think about Israel and how you think about the conflict and the future of the state changing from October 7th in ways that were, because I could imagine and I would understand, and I think many have spoken about this, how October 7th for them was a turning point in inverting or subverting a lot of their own expectations or thoughts about this region?

Mikhael Manekin: Yeah, um I think there were there were some things that actually, I remember very vividly giving lectures the half a year before the 7th of October, saying very pessimistically and darkly, what we view as non-violence is violence. And at some point, this violence is going to be turned against us, meaning there is there is going to be a tremendous amount of Palestinian violence against us. Uh this is what I’vebeen telling

Sruli Fruchter: What were you referring to when you said what we view as non-violence?

Mikhael Manekin: We Israelis. Meaning we Israelis think that the situation now is fine and there’s no violence happening.

Sruli Fruchter: This situation being in 2022

Mikhael Manekin: Yeah in West Bank and Gaza.We view that as a non-violent situation, but it there’s actually quite a bit of violence happening all of the time and it’s um foolish to expect that that violence won’t be um in in the most like physical level, like of physics, uh like at some point sort of it’ll be tipped against us. And what I would follow that by saying is I think there’s something a bit unnatural even of of the left position which is trying to solve this problem by advocating for non-violence and advocating for peace, but in a very pessimistic way, and I’m not an optimistic person in general, but in a very pessimistic way, um at this at one point this violence will be against us.

Now, I in a way, thankfully, didn’t know to expect the type of violence as it appeared on the 7th of October. I say thankfully because in my darkest like nightmares, I can’t still imagine the the sadistic and visceral elements of the 7th of October. And I’m and I’m still trying very hard not to watch a lot of the videos and so I didn’t know to imagine that. But I I think for a subset of of the left and a lot of the left is not necessarily engaged in actually being in the territories, but for people who like are there quite often, it was clear to me that we’re in amidst a very violent situation and that violence can be so it can be turned against us.

So in that sense, I don’t think I was something changed in me, meaning there wasn’t a rupture that I said, oh, I thought everything was fine and suddenly there’s this violent approach. And I think that’s more something that happened in what we would call in Israel the center than the left who really did saw this as a non-problem or as a problem that can be solved.

Sruli Fruchter: Meaning the left saw that the fact that the violence, you’re saying that violence was present in Israeli Palestinian and the left was using non-violence to try and address that, but meaning non-violence wouldn’t work, they needed to use

Mikhael Manekin: No, I’m not saying they needed it. I’m saying, I’m saying I had a I still have a fantasy that this place can get better in order to get better and doesn’t need to get worse to get better. I still have that

Sruli Fruchter: But if it doesn’t get better then violence inevitably like will.

Kind of like as you were saying in that like so to speak laws of physics that violence begets violence.

Mikhael Manekin: Yeah, yeah. Now I’m not saying that to God forbid justify violence. And there’s obviously an and there’s there’s always agency and responsibility in the sense that that the fact that the situation is as is doesn’t mean that every individual doesn’t have uh the will to behave the way they think they should behave. But I’m saying in terms of how I explain to myself the situation, it’s not like I was I said like where’s I I didn’t think this violence could happen.

The type of violence. And now I said about things that didn’t change, but it is important for me to say like articulate things, the type of violence that we’ve experienced on the 7th of October did and still shakes me in the sense of recognizing and trying to reconcile with like uh brutality in the region and what does that mean for somebody who wants to live here in a situation of um a positive relationship with other people living here. So like for somebody like me who thinks uh that not only is it the most natural but the most just and the most desirable outcome of the relationship between Jews and Arabs in this land is that Jews and Arabs in this land will live here together, recognizing the deepest and darkest sort of violences and seeing them and having them as part of our history, uh our recent history, doesn’t challenge that notion, but it complicates it, if that makes sense. Like I’m still I’m I don’t know how something moves from A to B in the way that maybe I did in the past.

And lastly, I think the thing that changed for me most in the 7th of October is I saw that my state can protect me and it didn’t. And there there was no state. Like on the 7th of October on every level, there was just nobody uh there. And that’s not, that’s not, I’m not saying that only the government, I’m saying that at, you know, at the military, at um uh the way the structures in in our society handled themselves.

So, you know, civil society or society at large stepped up and I talked about in the beginning, but there’s just real fear, definitely when you have now children in this country and I have children who are who will get drafted into this country, uh some sooner than others, that notion that there is no uh that feeling, uh that memory, uh that that there’s no state uh when you need it. And that’s something that it’s it’s important for me to constantly remind myself. The 7th of October could have happened very, very differently if we had a better protection. Uh meaning if we had better defense or even minimal defense or an understanding.

I think this is something that you hear from the right a lot and I think they have, you know, sometimes they say to divert uh attention from government, but sometimes, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. This was a complete failure of the Israeli military. That’s something very hard for a citizen to say. Um in the most basic sense.

So those are things that have changed for me that are still very much part of my life.

Sruli Fruchter: So I want to shift a little bit to speaking more about Israeli society more generally. What do you look for in deciding which Knesset party to vote for? On that same note.

Mikhael Manekin: Uh, yeah, I would say that I look less for for for parties and more for people. The American sort of political system is really, really confusing for me to understand. Like it’s so much more complicated I feel than the Israeli system. The Israeli system is I think pretty easy and that you have sort of sections which are you’re supposed to identify or sort of like parties or sections that you’re supposed to identify with most uh demographically and politically and and the intersection between them.

And then with but for me, within those parties, I always look for, so I’ll have some sort of general assumption of sort of where I am. Uh but then I’ll look for people who maybe represent me most or who I think are most um effective or efficient. I say that also because I recognize that as a as a religious Orthodox lefty, I think it’s a bit, there’s a bit of hubris to imagine that there’ll be a party that recognizes my uh that that, you know, reflects my demography and sociology and politics. And I should be happy that at least one out of the 120 are with me.

And and in a way, in an optimistic way, when I think about people and not of parties, there are actually quite a quite a bit of people in in different parties who I I think I’m really, really happy that they’re there. Uh but I would say probably that would be the main thing is identifying people who reflect my politics who I really want to bank on. That’s a very saying this out loud, I recognize what an opposition oppositional way of thinking about part politics that is. I’m not thinking about ruling, I’m thinking about government, I’m thinking about whatever, like an individual individual representation.

But that’s probably my optimistic view of Israeli politics.

Sruli Fruchter: Which is more important for Israel? Judaism or democracy?

Mikhael Manekin: I thinkprobably Judaism and that’s probably true for all sectors of Israeli society, including the left. Yeah, when one says democracy, that can mean a lot of different things. Of course, Jewry, but also democracy. I think um the identity of this country, first, the question of Jews living in Eretz HaKodesh in Israel is first and foremost a theological question, also for secular Zionists.

Like the question of your relationship with the land and the relationship with power power and the relation of sovereignty. And I think it still is. It definitely is post the 7th of October even more. And I think democracy when it’s viewed here seriously, it’s usually viewed as a a structure of an organization and less of something which is deep and deeply embedded into the psyche of the collective.

And I don’t say that negatively. I just think that’s um yeah, that’s the way it is. It’s definitely more important to me to be exact clear that Judaism Jewish tradition.

Sruli Fruchter: What do you mean when you say that the Jew, like when when I ask that question, how do you understand the Judaism and the democracy?

Mikhael Manekin: So, so yeah, in a way, uh I would probably the what I did in my head was I said, okay, let’s think about this as identity first, like collective identity.

Collective identity, who are we here as people, I would say is primarily a Jewish question for most Israelis. And to be fair, also in terms of even the structure of the country, I think. When I think of democracy, I think about it in its sort of modern liberal democratic sense and I think there’s not really a necessarily a strong liberal democratic backbone of this country. There never was.

It has a lot to do with socialist and social democratic roots of this country. It’s not only about religious people. That has a lot to do actually with the with the people who built this country who are who are um I don’t think really sort of strong liberal democrats. They were Eastern Bloc uh social democrats, you know, unionist social democrats.

That’s the backbone of this country. So liberal liberal democracy, I don’t think was ever really a strong feature of this country and I don’t think it’s I don’t think it was in the 90s, I don’t think it is now. I think if you want to find like true liberal democratic sentiment in this country, it’s usually among sort of the Arab minority. Uh and then it’s considered super radical.

Uh but really what it is is moderate liberal democratic another means. Again, I’m saying this um not yet as with an opinion but just sort of a reflection. So when you said democratic, I thought about liberal democratic identity and I don’t think that’s a very strong feature of uh of of of Israeli politics, including the Israeli left. I don’t think it’s a strong, it’s a strong feature.

And probably leftists wouldn’t agree.

Sruli Fruchter: So justto clarify your answer a bit because it’s give me more insight. You were answering the question not about what you think should be more important or what you think is more important in reality.

Mikhael Manekin: Yes.

Sruli Fruchter: Okay, fine. because Ia bit I was a bit thrown off by your answer. I was like, this is so interesting to come from someone who’s identified as a lefty. Which let me rephrase this. I’m curious which you think should take priority.

Which should be more important?

Mikhael Manekin: Well, that I’llsay yeah. No, well well in terms of my personal behavior of how the country should behave.

Sruli Fruchter: Yeah. Meaning, meaning you you wereyou were I guess you were you were giving a descriptive answer, I’m looking for a prescriptive answernow.

Mikhael Manekin: Thank you. Well, the prescriptive answer is I I would say that I would want uh the state as a state to behave democratically.

I would like to hope that for Jews that’s not enough on a lot of different levels. I’ve been thinking a lot recently in the last couple of months that when Judaism plays a role in the question of democracy and Jewry, it’s usually to allow things that democracy doesn’t allow. Uh so democracy gives you a certain set of rules, but we’re also Jewish, so we need to do a bit less. I it’s never the opposite.

It’s never democracy allows us to do all sorts of things, but Jewry forbids us. And that means the Jewry in the context of sort of Jewish and democratic, Jewish becomes what allows you um to uh to be less than democratic. in our context, it means it allows you to do things to Arabs that democracy doesn’t. If we want to be more sort of blunt about it.

I would like to hope, at least in terms of my Jewish upbringing and my understanding of Jewish tradition, is that Jewry a lot of times doesn’t allow you to do things that let’s say international law should allow you to do or can allow you to do. So the question is really, one needs to articulate what is Jewish in order to understand the question of Jewish and democratic. Maybe another answer would be currently the the country, the world is organized in nation states and in that sense, Jews have the right to have a nation state like everybody else. But it’s very, I think should be very apparent or obvious that if the Mashiach doesn’t come tomorrow then or in the next 100 years, then in 150 years, you know, communities will organize themselves differently.

So the question of sort of like the inherent value of the state is uninteresting for me. I’d like it to behave

Sruli Fruchter: Meaning likea nation state is what is the is the concept of how statehood exists today, but you’re saying it could be a different modelin 100 years that’s the norm.

Mikhael Manekin:  Yeah.

Yeah, and you know, and I I don’t I you know, and in that norm, I’d also want Jewry to to supply something different, which is sort of our our covenant of of with God and how we should behave as individuals and communities in this world and and the state is the state should be behave by norms of states. I’m also not very good in like sort of like big answers. Uh like I want our relationship in Israel with Arabs to be different than it is now. I don’t have any sort of deep I don’t think I have any deep thinking about how the world should organize itself nor of a very sort of like deep interest in how the world should conduct itself.

I the question that interests me, and this is also the last answer, I think to the Jewish and democratic, the question that interests me is like Jewish behavior and Jewish behavior of me, of my family, of my community. That’s the question that interests me. I’m not I don’t have some sort of like chiddush as to how the world should behave or what is the right way for communities. societies to organize themselves.

Sruli Fruchter: On the note of Israel’s identity, now that Israel already exists, what’s the purpose of Zionism? In your view, not necessarily in a descriptive view.

Mikhael Manekin: I think for me it’s a lot of things. First of all, for me, Zionism is a recognition of and thankfulness and critique, but also thankfulness. The critique is easy. The thankfulness is important.

This place provides me with a lot of meaning for my life. I love my children in Hebrew. That is not that that is a Zionist result of or that that is a Zionist project of speaking Hebrew. We always talk about the state elements, but the fact that I conduct myself in Lashon HaKodesh is a success of secular Zionists, which I think we need to be, we religious people need to be thankful for.

The fact that I can live in Israel happily is I should be thankful for. It’s a recognition of that part of history which affects my identity. It’s part of the cultural element which also very much excites me on an emotional level. So that’s answer one.

Answer two is that Zionism allows for Judaism to be something different. If there wasn’t people, you speak with post Jewish post-Zionists or things like that and they say, well we need to get rid of this, Israel doesn’t need this anymore, the state’s built. But we yeah, but it’s still called the name the second name of Yaakov Avinu. It’s still there’s so much there’s there’s no neutral identity to this country.

It’s a deeply Jewish or or a type of articulation of Jewry. And I’d rather have that word be Zionism than be the greater Jewish word because it allows my Judaism to be sometimes different and independent from Zionism, if that makes sense. I’m happy with that differentiation because it allows nationalism to not seep into everything in my life.

Sruli Fruchter: Do you see Zionism as inherently tied to Judaism?

Mikhael Manekin: Well, the way I have articulate for myself, I’m aware that there are many non-Jews, evangelicals and then who are not, but I to the extent that I understand their Zionism, it’s one that I’m opposed to. I was once at a conference with Arab leader speaking and then somebody raised their hand a Jew, raised their hand in Israel and she said it’s first important for me to say that I’m not a Zionist.

In a way just sort of approach him sort of amicably. And he immediately answered, what do you mean you’re not a Zionist? You’re still here. And I really identified with that answer. There’s also a lived for me Zionism is and and also in the way I articulated it up up until now is a lived experience.

It’s it’s every every act that I do in this country is part of a a a Zionist sort of thing in the world. Definitely so long as we’re still in conflict with the Palestinians. Like I think that that nature of Jewish nationalism Zionism has been heightened because we’re at war with our surroundings or we’re non-peace. So that people don’t really talk about Zionist economy or Zionist culture, but it makes sense that people talk about Zionists in the context of war.

And the fact that I think that war should end doesn’t mean that I’m not part of it. I also don’t think that if if I say something, it doesn’t stop me from being that thing. Like I feel that that’s a cop out to say I’m not part of that. Like I’m part of my community, my community is a Zionist community.

I should be thankful for what I’m thankful and try to take it in the way that I think is better for all of us.

Sruli Fruchter: So given your perspectives on the Israeli government and Israel’s relationship to the Palestinians, have you ever considered leaving Israel? From from a standpoint of culpability, meaning if you have a certain perspective that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, conduct of the war, and a host of other issues are inherently problematic, war crimes.

Mikhael Manekin: No, where would I go? I would just be culpable of something else. I’m I don’t No, I mean, I I have we, I think there there have been very few Israelis, I imagine, who haven’t had the conversation about, is this is this really like our you’re worried about your kids. You’re thinking maybe this isn’t the easiest place or this is the hardest place. There’s an economic question, it’s a bit rough recently.

And you can say, well, the US, which it would be my immediate, is not not so much better. But that’s also you honestly, that’s not necessarily the case. Like US is big enough that you can hide in a in a bigger bubble than you can here. But in terms of culpability or responsibility, no.

Lehefech. I mean this is like first of all, I it’s

Sruli Fruchter: You know, I only ask culpability question because from what you were saying before, it seems like your perspective is that by being a citizen of Israel, as someone who lives in Israel, everything you do is inherently supporting Zionism, supporting Israel.

Mikhael Manekin: Yeah, notsupporting part of, and part of part of means in a way maybe inherently supporting or at least but but but there are other forms there are other forms of resisting other than disengaging. And I think disengagement politically has become very sort of in in a lot of sort of sectors of sort of I point to myself when I say left. But like in the like in the left you say like, not in my name, not in my name.

Like that’s but that’s a very limited form of engagement is saying this isn’t me. And my engagement is different. So this is where my people are and this is my I I want to I before I say this is my fight, I want to say this is my community and this is my fight. And my responsibility is to my community and my community is here.

Like it’s it’s so I on the political level, I’ve never felt and definitely and not in the last year like this society society here is lost. Like that’s not something that’s crossed my mind in sort of the deep political sense. I can I can be very angry like a lot of people and frustrated, but I could also try to understand them and also recognize that everybody’s in the world has like different tzaros. Like it’s not, you know, and these are mine.

Sruli Fruchter: Is opposing Zionism inherently antisemitic?

Mikhael Manekin: I don’t think so.

The reason I feel sort of confused about this conversation is you need to categorize so many words to even have it that sometimes I just think this is a waste of time because you need to categorize what Zionism means, but also what non-Zionism or anti-Zionism and then antisemitism. These words mean already so many different things to so many different people. I would say that I mean, even for me, I imagine a lot of people in Israel hearing what I said now would say that’s not a Zionist position. And and then they would or that’s an even anti-Zionist position.

And then and then what does that mean about my

Sruli Fruchter: Do you consideryourself a Zionist?

Mikhael Manekin: Yeah. But I’ve also learned that that’s a question you need to answer really quickly because even if you stutter for a bit, people don’t believe you. But that’s what makes this conversation I think in a way, I don’t know if uninteresting, but sort of I don’t know what to do with it. I think

Sruli Fruchter: You mean the question I think is particularly interesting because it also kind of gets at to a little bit of a complexity between leftism in Israel and leftism in America.

Meaning on the 18Forty Podcast other channels so everyone can go and watch that if they’d like. Joshua and Shaindy Ort. So they they were speaking about the difference they find in terms of dealing with American leftists and Israeli leftists on the subject of Israel.

Mikhael Manekin: Right.

Sruli Fruchter: And so I think that already there’s a ton of nuance between what you’ve said and what a leftist in America would say who may not even qualify as a leftist based on your own positions and your lifestyle and so on. So I’m curious how you view that perspective given that unique like cross.

Mikhael Manekin: Well, I definitely find and and then it becomes even more complicated because what does it mean when you say American leftist? There are so many different types and I want to make make sure I’m not generalizing this community or that community. I don’t want to get in trouble with anybody. I find that it’s much more it’s easier for me to enter that conversation saying what I’d like for this region.

Rather than articulating what kind of ism that is because that makes it easier to have a conversation recognizing that Zionism means different things for different communities around the world, same as antisemitism. And it means different things for Nobody thinks that Gur Chasidim are antisemitic. And everybody is aware that they’re anti-Zionist and nobody, you don’t hear. So obviously it’s a complicated conversation which has to do with a lot of other elements other than what kind of Zionism you have, what kind of Zionism you don’t have.

I would say that my position regarding Israel, Palestine is that this is a land of two peoples. And I don’t view that as a problem, but rather as something that we should strive to see to build relationship of both nations which will allow for dignity of both. That is my and that includes everything including egalitarianism and and full dignity meaning I don’t want any Palestinian in this region to have any less than for me. And I think our test as Jews in this setting is to strive for that not as compromise, but as an ideal.

And it’s not that I wish it was only us, but since there are also Arabs, let’s let’s compromise and have two states. No, I I think we’re judged in this land by Hashem of creating an ideal of of dignity to those who are not part of our community. And for me that’s my that can be I I I can explain to you following why that’s a Zionist position and I can also I imagine explain to you why that’s a non-Zionist position, which I understand.

That that’s what makes the conversation I think limited. And that’s why I’d rather say what I want. I want to live here happily and I want Palestinians to live here exactly like I live here. Including everything, not including just, you know, including their rights and their birth rights and everything like that.

Shmuel Hugo Bergmann, who’s a really important I think figure in the past of this country. He built the National Library and a lot of other things, but he was also a writer and he has this famous and he was part of Brit Shalom and he has a beautiful line which says chesed asa Hashem l’amo, natan et moladato l’shnei amim, which is that God graced his people by by giving them his land for two peoples. And I really identify with that sentiment also post 7th of October. That I think our aspiration is to be able to share this place between people who are outside of our community, outside of our of our Jewry.

I would say that’s my position. I can very much articulate that as a Zionist position if you wish. And if you really want, I can explain to you why that’s anti-Zionist.

Sruli Fruchter: No, no, that’s that’s good. That’s good.

Mikhael Manekin: Okay.

Sruli Fruchter: Is theIDF the world’s most moralarmy?

Mikhael Manekin: Well, only if you tell me who’s second place. No, I don’t think so. I but I don’t know what that means. It sounds to me I mean people have been saying that for years and years.

I think the assumption is that anybody given our situation would behave worse. I don’t know if that’s the case, nor is that of any interest to me. I think from an international law perspective, we should behave we should be upholding ourselves we should be upholding international law. From a Jewish perspective, we should be behaving like what is expected and required from us.

I’m very, very, very nervous, worried about what we’re doing both in the West Bank and Gaza, not as a new phenomenon. I’ve been worried about this for years and I’ve been very sort of vocal and sort of organized around this issue. But increasingly so in the last year and a half. I I don’t think you need me to say that war is that that our rules of engagement have changed over the last year and a half.

There’s ample evidence. It’s something which is very frightening for me. Not because somebody else would have done it better, but because I think we’re we’re unnecessarily hurting and killing.

Sruli Fruchter: What do youmean by that?

Mikhael Manekin: Unnecessarily means thatwe’re callous. And I’m I’m trying to be on one hand exact, but I think we’re callous with the lives of Arabs.

For a for a variety of different reasons. Some of them more legitimate, like fear or worry about our own. Some of them natural but illegitimate like vengeful and angry. And some of them just downright sort of wrong in terms of changing of rules of war for a lot of different political and national calculations.

But for me it doesn’t matter if we look callously at how we hurt others, then that is something that’s that’s a you know, a Jew can explain why that’s from from a Jewish perspective and I don’t know, a secular humanist could explain it. For me it’s wrong. I think we we’ve become more upfront about our disregard. We in sort of the national sphere, like my community, Israel, Israeli Jews have become more easy with the pain of others.

And we can say give excuses to ourselves or to others all we want, but I but I think it’s a very, very sad reality of who who we are. And I think it’s it’s it’s going to take a a very long time to both recognize that and also to do teshuva on that as individuals in the community. and to rectify what we’re doing and it and it’s and and it’s it’s angring for me and it’s frightening for me. Dafka there it’s important for me to not sort of beat around the bush.

I think yeah. And it doesn’t matter the first place, second place, third place, like I I think we’re we’re objectively objectively or we’re we’re behaving in a way which we shouldn’t behave.

Sruli Fruchter: Should all Israelis serve in the army?

Mikhael Manekin: As a leftist, I think so. I’m really for universal conscription.

Sruli Fruchter: You’re saying sarcastically or?

Mikhael Manekin: No, I’m serious. But that includes everybody.

It’s it’s I think the only way to be responsible is to be is to partake in and then there’s obviously a choice of objection and that should be recognized to a degree. But you know, if for example, Charedim or Arabs for that matter, in a in a real universal conscription, so Arabs are drafted as well. And and if they’re very and they’re very right to refuse if they want to and pay the specific consequence for that. But I think that that creates a sense of responsibility which doesn’t exist now.

So when we allow full communities not to serve, we’re basically saying we’re not allowing them to partake responsibly in the community and and there we also don’t hear their voices. A lot of what’s happened in the past of this country had to do with soldiers coming out of from left and from right. Had to do with soldiers saying we refuse to do this. So in the left you had that in in service or or talk about, you know, or we don’t want this to happen.

So in the left you had that in the Second Intifada and after the the first Lebanese war and you had after the disengagement and during the disengagement, you had that on the right as well and and an evacuation of settlements. And I think that’s really important because it creates a relationship between between state and soldier. So yes, I think everybody should be required to serve and I and I hope a lot of people refuse when it when it undermines their own values. It’s a good Republican answer.

Sruli Fruchter: Should Israelbe a religious state?

Mikhael Manekin: No. I’d like a lot of people here to be religious, but I don’t think states are religious. I don’t think not all things that Jews do should be religious by virtue of Jews doing them … Like if you eat a sandwich, you it doesn’t become a Jewish sandwich. You just but you have to say a bracha. And I think if you have a state, doesn’t necessarily become a religious state, but you have to behave a certain way in it.

And in that sense, I don’t know what a a religious state would be, but I think it would require not only praxis, but a deep belief in a lot of different things. And I don’t think that’s ever been on the table, except if you read like Rav Yitzchok Breuerin the 40s. But I I think the reason why even people like that, he was one of the founders of Agudah and and an an important and interesting and sometimes forgotten thinker.

Sruli Fruchter: Why, what’s making you think of him now?

Mikhael Manekin: Because he wrote a whole thesis about what a religious state should look like. But a lot of that has to do with belief in Hashem.

Like it’s not just about places being closed on Shabbat and no civic marriage. It has to do with a deep I and I don’t I don’t see the use in that and and nor do I I I don’t even understand what that would mean. Like a religious state in that sense. And I think there’s so much to do up in that that it seems to me Yeah, not I I I don’t why? Like that would be sort of the main what’s I don’t think any Jew lives in Israel like this place there’s there’s no I don’t have enough ability to be Jewish here.

Like I wish there was more ways for me to be Jewish here. I do think there we should be thinking more about how do we behave as Jews in a state than we do. So the question is I think shouldn’t be only about or even primarily about the the the borders of the community, but should be about the individuals in the community. What does it mean for me to be a Jew in a state where I’m a citizen? I think is a really important question which isn’t asked enough because we constantly ask about the Jewry of the state and not about the Jewry of the individual in the state.

Sruli Fruchter: Yeah. Good.

Mikhael Manekin: Okay. Yeah.

Sruli Fruchter: If you were making the case for Israel, where do you begin?

Mikhael Manekin: I would begin in the fact that it’s the 21st century and it exists as a state. And I find there’s something very conservative or even not even conservative, it’s something sort of very historic about it having like a constant conversation as if we’re in the 30s and we don’t know yet whether Israel should exist or not.

Israel is a state.

Sruli Fruchter: What do you mean we?

Mikhael Manekin: Israel exists, has existed for a very long time.

Sruli Fruchter: That’s usually not an Israeli conversation though. Usually it’s a conversation citing I think some of the same objections that you have towards Israel’s conduct and military campaigns and so on. And then it then brings up the question of has this state lost its right, so to speak, to function as a state.

Mikhael Manekin: Yeah, I don’t yeah, I don’t think states have rights to lose in that sense.

And so it doesn’t and even before we ask about the practicality of what that means both in terms of of of what would happen with all the people here and also where would where would they go and all these questions which I think are are are many times asked, the assumption that states are these moral actors and that they forfeit rights if they behave in a certain way. If a state behaves or governments in a state behave immorally, then they should stop, they should be tried if needed and there there needs to be created another system when where that behavior isn’t happening immorally. And that I can fully stand behind. But the idea of losing some sort of sort of prior right on on based on based on moral conduct is confusing for me and seems to me sort of detached from the political.

So in a sense, because I believe less or am more pessimistic about sort of this moral sort of argument, I don’t understand sort of the negation of it. I personally, as Mikhael, think nation states are not like one day we’ll look back in history and we’ll say that was not really the best way to rule control the world in like different nation states. But this is what we’re doing now. And then we need to make sure that it happens properly and health and healthily.

As somebody not looking at this from the outside but from from within, I’d really like the place that I live in even live at a higher standard, but I I don’t think that’s relevant from a world perspective, that’s relevant from a personal perspective. I just don’t understand the argument which says if you if a if a if a if a government behaves immorally then that some sort of creates a notion going backwards. I do understand the argument saying that there are endemic flaws or problem or or flaws in this place way before 67 and I agree with that. And I think there are issues in ’48 which need to be discussed.

There are challenges not only in this country but have to do with refugees which need to be discussed. They need to be reprimanded. We need to we need to not reprimand. We need they need to be fixed and that requires Israel to do things which are fundamentally and radically different from the way we think.

But that I don’t think that has to do with our I don’t want to I don’t think that should happen by forfeiting rights. 

Sruli Fruchter: Can questioning theactions of Israel’s government and army, even in the context of this war, be a valid form of love and patriotism? Which is probably a silly question to ask but I’ll ask you nonetheless.I hope so. 

Mikhael Manekin: It’s still I think, you know, I think good tochacha like, youknow, that’s you know.

Sruli Fruchter: Like in your criticism, do youview that as I mean you kind of alluded to this to this before, but do you view that as a form of patriotism to the state?

Mikhael Manekin: I don’t knowif my instinctive word would be patriotism, but it would definitely be love for my people. Like I definitely

Sruli Fruchter: What draws youto the word love and repels you from the word patriotism?

Mikhael Manekin: It’s patriotism isjust not part of my it’s not part of my natural vocabulary.

It’s not, I’m fine to be called a patriot, but it’s I don’t think like Ahavat Yisrael is much more part of sort of my my like love of Israel is much more part of sort of the language that I I’d like to be connected to. And and definitely part of loving Israel from within is tochacha or or judgment or I don’t know what the right translation for tochacha is, but it’s definitely part of that. Yeah. I think it’s very the ear very much knows how to identify sort of love from within and reprimand from without.

So I don’t I don’t need I don’t think it necessarily needs to be sort of constantly judged from without. But yeah, I I mean I’ve I’ve I’ve spent most of sort of my adult career in sort of critiquing this place. And I’d like to hope that it’s from a deep love of this place or at least a sense of responsibility and and commitment and being part of. And also like deep interest, like self-interest at the end of the day.

Again, this is like this is my literal home. This is my literal living room and and it’s where my it’s where my kids grow up and hopefully this area is where they’ll raise their children and part of that is being in conversation with the general community.

Sruli Fruchter: What do you think is the most legitimate criticism leveled against Israel today?

Mikhael Manekin: Okay, I’m gonna I’m probably going to be I’m probably going to regret saying this. The easy answer for me would be that Israel is is not conducting rules of war properly and … which I think is true, and that we’re killing innocents more than we should, which I also think is true. But I would say a more challenging argument being leveled at Israel is that Israel not only in theory but in practice or at least enough of its high ranking cabinet members are interested in in practice in Palestinians not living here on a mass scale.

Sruli Fruchter: Meaning ethnic cleansing?

Mikhael Manekin: Yeah, but I don’t want to use that word purposely because I think that word doesn’t allow us to have a serious conversation about what a lot of people might think on their own, which is this fantasy that if we if we play our cards right, we can kick, we can expel Arabs.

And I think that’s that fantasy has heightened post the 7th of October. And I think given our our actors in government, it also has ability to manifest itself more than in the past. And and in a way what I’m saying is actually not shocking as well at all because like senior cabinet members are saying pretty openly that they want to expel Arabs. And I think we need to have a conversation about what that means.

And I in a way the reason I sort of was hesitant other than the sort of the cat is using the ethnic cleansing word is because it doesn’t allow us to have a conversation about expulsion as a as a desire of Israelis. And as a desire of of a lot of liberal-minded Israelis as well. And I think this this fantasy that we have that that they’re not here is a really troubling fantasy. So that’s why I was I was hesitant in answering because I don’t want this to feel like, oh, he’s he says we’re ethnic cleansing, but I but I do think we have a fantasy of expulsion.

And we need to have a conversation about it. What do we think about that? What do we think about that they’re not in the room? Can we say that we do want it? Can we say that we don’t want it? I and and if we don’t believe in it, how do we educate our train ourselves morally to say I have an interest in them not leaving. Which I think is a is something that you don’t hear enough.

Sruli Fruchter: If Imight briefly interject, I am curious because part of what’s coming to my mind now is at least the structures of a of what’s my mind I would say is like a a frequent debate between liberals and leftists in America or in general that liberals are often more interested in the conversations, in the ideas, whereas leftists are people of action so to speak for their beliefs. And I’m almost wondering that like if you’re operating in leftist circles, I find it interesting that when you know, you’re saying that you see this this fantasy of expulsion, the threat of expulsion and that your instinct is that it’s the conversation that you’re interested in among Jews but not necessarily a course of action against that.

Mikhael Manekin: No.

No, there’s definitely action against that. The action against that lies in a lot of how we do our very practical politics in this country. So in our case, you know, there there is a strong Arab or Palestinian minority and the question is do we a lot of times you’ll hear by liberals and the left in this country, well, obviously we’d want the Arabs part of government, but it’s less legitimate government to do things. It’s a very standard argument in Israel.

What do you mean it’s a less legitimate argument to do things? First of all, that’s so that’s a problem for us. We we should have an interest in having Arabs in in coalition or in government or in in in some sense we should have an interest in that type of politics. In our and that’s that’s in the in in Israel proper and in Israel citizenship wise. In the question of the West Bank, the question is how are we dealing with Arabs living in Area C? Do we view that as a problem? And I think in many senses, government right now and in some senses military viewed as a problem.

If you look historically, it’s not only something that the right viewed as a problem, it’s something that Yigal Allon viewed as a problem. It’s something that we need to talk about not only to have a conversation but to actually I’m a I’m a practical and pragmatic individual, I’d like to think. And definitely incremental in the sense that what needs to be done tomorrow. And how do we view ourselves in this region? Do we view Arabs as people who we should be partnering with politically or is it a problem? And you know, it’s such a it’s such a basic thing when you say it that it’s a problem.

When you say ethnic cleansing, it suddenly becomes like this boogey man. But the but but the reality of it is, for me, I don’t want people living here to not live here. And if I don’t want that, then I need to start behaving with them as people that I have political conversations with and not marginalize them. So it’s a very practical answer. I hope.

Sruli Fruchter: Do you think the state of Israel is part of the final redemption?

Mikhael Manekin: I no, like not not uniquely. I think, you know, I’m a very old school traditional Jew in terms of kol ha’kitzin. And that everything that happened after the destruction of the Second Temple is in part of the redemption. I don’t think there’s a unique thing happening here.

But I do think that it could be if we behave the way we should and if Hashem wants. I think the problem that I have with that dictating of is that it’s like it’s not a dialogue with God anymore. It’s like we’re we’re telling him what to do. Ultimately, we can do what we try to do.

He decides whether to respond in kind. I think that’s what that’s what davening teaches us. And I’m nervous about sort of Israel as the state of redemption turning into a monologue. And actually and and when when you turn our relationship with God into a monologue, you’re actually making him much less part of your life.

You see that very much in in Temple Mount in like Har HaBayit where like the presence of Hashem becomes so less important than our domination. There’s no moment where we say, I grew up in the Old City. For me, like going to Har HaBayit is like be’emet it’s like like the way I was raised in like living across the Kotel was going to Har HaBayit is like like eating on Yom Kippur. Like that because there’s things which are beyond beyond what you’re allowed to do or beyond beyond what a Jew can do.

And only when there’s a response on the other side can something happen. And I think by turning the conversation into a monologue, basically we’re marginalizing Hashem in the conversation. I know that’s a the judgment it’s definitely a judgmental thing to say. I’m not suggesting that the people who are doing that are less Jewish or less religious than I am, but I think there’s a deep flaw in the theology which marginalizes Hashem and and turns hester panim or his absence into something that we’re fine with.

Sruli Fruchter: Do you think peace between Israelis and Palestinians will happen within your lifetime? 

Mikhael Manekin: I mentioned before that I’m pessimistic in general.

Sruli Fruchter: There’s some good questions for you coming up.

Mikhael Manekin: Okay. I would also say, can I imagine, I’m trying to I’m trying to word I’m trying to word something that it’s coming out pessimistic as well. The way I imagine sort of dignity at this point goes through more and more violence first, which is something which is very hard for me to reconcile with in the sense that I can imagine sort of a different state of affairs where out of violence against us and out of our weakness and various different geopolitical calculations, we we submit to a different form of governance with the Palestinians which allow them for dignity. In a sense, it would be great for them to have dignity, but to say that as an Israeli who has very my physical reality is here, is not a very happy thing to say.

And so in a sense, even when I do imagine sort of peace in what I imagine you articulated, which is like that, you know, that there are two states or something, yeah, something of that nature, I don’t know. I can only imagine that at this point going through an immense amount of violence first. And that frightened me very much and it also makes it very challenging because I’m somebody who’s sort of supportive of peace. That being said … like maybe things will happen like our job is to do what our job is to do and I don’t know what the world wants for us.

So when I analyze I become very pessimistic, but also like I’m cautious of my very, very limited analysis.

Sruli Fruchter: So on that same note, I’m curious, what do you think should happen with Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict after the war? Although now the war is kind of in an interesting place where it’s kind of paused, not really paused.

Mikhael Manekin: Well, I think the question is, and definitely in Gaza, is who’s a sovereign. And I think when I mentioned way earlier that January, I was I started being very skeptical about this war, it’s because there was it was very clear that from the government’s perspective, there’s no interest in having an alternative sovereign. And the minute there’s no alternative sovereign, problematic as they may be, there’s there’s no alternative either to Hamas or to never-ending war. So I think the only way to end the war is to have some sort of sovereign on the other side.

I think it’s a pretty moderate answer. But I think, you know, and if that means the PA, then it’s the PA with all its problems and so on. But I don’t, you know, I imagine that if we wanted a sovereign on the other side who’s not Hamas, we’d be able to get to somebody. There were parts I think in March, April 2024 when they were talking about finding some sort of like coalition of like sheikhs and that and these ideas keep on coming like coming up and falling down because it’s clear that on the Israeli side, on the governmental side, there’s no interest in a real sovereign on the other side, which has always been the problem.

That we don’t want we want to be our sovereign. There’s no such thing of lack of sovereignty. Lack of worldly sovereignty in the context that we live in. So if we’re not like in the Book of Judges.

Like it’s, you know, there’s always going to be a sovereign. So if if we don’t allow for a sovereign, I mean if we’re the sovereign, what I’d want there to be in is to have an actor on the other side who we can engage with. I think there are a lot of options to that and PA being one of them, but I think for that we need the government to do it and it seems to me that it won’t be this government. So, in order to have any sort of substantial change, you probably need a different government.

I said before that I’m incremental in my approach to politics. I think the question should be what’s the orientation, where are we going? And the right, of course, but also the left is very critical of sort of Oslo for a lot of different reasons, but I think there was a brief period where it was out before Rabin was assassinated mainly in ’93, ’94, where it could have gone in a lot of different directions. So what does incremental look like? It means that Israel, Israelis in Israeli government come to a conclusion that Palestinians need the freedom that we have and go into a process where they try to move in that direction. And that turned out the way it turns out.

But I’d be interested in the country going into that direction.

Sruli Fruchter: Where do you identify? These are our last two questions. 17 and 18. Where do you identify on Israel’s political and religious spectrum and do you have friends on the quote unquote other side?

Mikhael Manekin: I would say, where do I identify in the religious spectrum? I would probably call myself like shomer Torah u’mitzvot, which means that I’m I identify within mainstream Orthodox halacha. These questions are so much more complicated than everything you’ve been asking me now.

I would say I’m a halachic Jew. That’s where I identify. In Israel we say smol emuni, the movement that I’m a part of, so obviously we identify left, but that obviously means very specific things in Israel. It would mean for me, left means that I’m worried of too much inequality and that I want a peaceful resolution and an end to occupation.

And so I need to clarify that in the Israeli context. So I identify there. What what else did I need to say about that?

Sruli Fruchter: Do you have friends on the quote unquote other side?

Mikhael Manekin: Yeah, most of my world is on on all other sides. I mean, I send my kids to Religious Zionist day schools.

So it’s so it’s, you know, it’s I think the chiddush is that I have friends on my side.

Sruli Fruchter: Well I mean I mean I’m curious like has that been hard for you? Because I can imagine with all the criticisms of the government, of the war, of the IDF. I know you were also previously the director of Breaking the Silence. How does that fit into the relationships you cultivate where there’s a draft for every Israeli Jew and, you know, the vast majority are if not right, then center right.

Mikhael Manekin: Well, I would say for me that that it also it it teaches you, I’d like to hope a bit of like humility regarding the importance of politics and also just understanding complexities.

I’m saying this again as somebody who’s deeply political and deeply critical. So it’s not like I’m saying this in order to be less critical, which a lot of times is what happens. But you know, some of the teachers of my kids vote for Ben-Gvir. And they wake up every morning thinking how can my kid be the happiest and healthiest person they can be.

And that’s really important for me as a life lesson to remember that there are people who can come to very different conclusions and I can be in very in very deep opposition to them and they really care most of the time about making my children happy and educated. So in many senses I’m very happy that I have the opportunity to to be not in my world and not in my bubble all the time. I say this also as this that’s true on the religious but it’s also true on the left. Very much part of liberal left circles in Israel and around the Western world in general is that it tends to be very secularly dominated, dominated places.

Which means that I need to allow myself to be a minority in that sense as well. Sometimes it’s incredibly frustrating, but it also teaches you a whole bunch of stuff. And lastly, a lot of my job is with non-Jews, with Palestinians, and for the and learning I think it’s also really this is true about the previous questions as well. You can learn how to love this place so much more and in such different ways when you talk with Palestinians in this country.

As as a Jew. So learning Tzfat or learning Akko or learning Lod, which I think as examples, which I think is fundamentally significant to somebody who cares about the the land. Doing that in conversation and in relationship with Palestinians or Chevron is actually really meaningful for me as a Jewish person who loves Israel.

Sruli Fruchter: Have you lost friends or familiar relationships from your politics?

Mikhael Manekin: Yes. Hey, we can have short answers as well. Yeah.

Sruli Fruchter: How have you balanced that or navigated that? And has it ever made you question being so outspoken?

Mikhael Manekin: Well, it’s always been my choice as well. Yeah, sometimes sometimes are irreconcilable differences. I mean sometimes like I’m a very political individual and sometimes and my friends, you know, people who I grew up in yeshiva with or people I went to high school with, you know, sometimes you come to not only to different conclusions but to lifestyle or life conclusions which are which are in direct opposition and conflict with things that I do and that obviously creates strains. But I think it’s true any anybody who sort of takes stances, I it’s not that you pay a price.

You’re a responsible individual and things happen and I think, you know, any but that’s true also for anybody, you know, if somebody’s a boss at work and they have employees, some employees are inevitably not going to like them. And it’s not going to be solved and I think this part of us has to do with relationships and some might think that I’m just a like an annoying or you know, individual and I might think that about other people. So I the reason I’m sort of like saying like answering you the way that I’m answering is that I don’t feel like in my life perspective, I don’t have any sort of like feeling of like outcastness or martyrdom or any of that stuff. And I really try.

But I will say for like for the audiences here, that’s a very Jerusalemite, like, left, Jerusalem, Jerusalemite leftists are very specific individuals who very much undersell their minoritiness as being something which is sort of like what needs to be discussed. I think because we’re constantly being asked, including secular Jerusalemites as well, how what’s it like to be a minority? You’re like, it’s not that bad. So I already recognized my instinctive like being from Jerusalem, which I would say is such a major part of my identity, is being of this city in my politics as well.

Sruli Fruchter: So our final question. Perfect for a pessimist.

Do you have more hope or fear for Israel and the Jewish people?

Mikhael Manekin: Yeah, probably more fear. Not I mean, I maybe my way to second answer that question is that I have I don’t think anything is truly solvable in like this world. But in that sense, it’s a very pessimistic answer and fear and so on. I do think that we’re very lucky, like Jews of our era are very lucky to have, most of them, not all Jews, but many Jews in our era are very lucky and privileged and fortunate to have the freedom we have to deal with these questions in the sort of the nature that we’re dealing with them.

And that creates, I wouldn’t say necessarily hope, but a sense of responsibility and a sense of calmness which is which is which we need to be say thank you for. I don’t I don’t have romantic notions about sort of like how great it was to have no power. It creates a different set of challenges and those challenges are sometimes very hard and sometimes one can be pessimistic about the outcomes of that. But the the fact that I can wake up in the morning and do this kind of thing for a living is actually quite incredible.

You don’t you don’t need a deep understanding of Jewish history to know that that that’s not always the case. And the fact that I can do it with the relative comfort that I’m doing it is for me very exciting and moving. I don’t know if that’s hopeful or pessimistic.

Sruli Fruchter: No, it’s helpful

Mikhael Manekin: But it’s definitely where I am. But it’s helpful. Yeah. 

Sruli Fruchter: Alright, well thank you so much for answering our 18 questions. How was this for you?

Mikhael Manekin: This was actually really interesting. I was like I was like, do I really think that? Do I not? I don’t know. I need to I need to go back and listen and and sort of re-articulate for myself.

But thanks.

Sruli Fruchter: Awesome. We’ll send you the link.

Mikhael Manekin: Oh, thank you very much. 

Sruli Fruchter: It was a real pleasure to speak to Mikhael Manekin in his home in Jerusalem. He actually lives very close to me, which I always find so funny.

And the shul he goes to happens to be packed with past 18Forty guests, including Daniel Gordis, Yaakov Katz, and many others. I hope you enjoyed the interview, and as always, we want to hear from you your recommendations, your suggestions, and of course, your feedback. Did you agree? Did you disagree? What surprised you? What upset you? What made you really happy? Shoot us an email info@18forty.org and be sure to subscribe and share with friends so that we can reach new listeners. Thank you as always to our friends Gilad Brounstein and Josh Weinberg for editing and videoing this podcast respectively.

And so, until next time, keep questioning and keep thinking.

This transcript was produced by Sofer.AI.