Subscribe to 18Forty's NEW PODCAST "18 Questions, 40 Israeli Thinkers" on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen

Natan Sharansky: ‘If you don’t have faith or Zionism, your grandchildren will not be Jewish’

Listen_Apple_ButtonListen_Spotify_Button

SUMMARY

Antisemitism and assimilation are threatening the Jewish People, says Natan Sharansky, but to both Israel offers a solution.

 

Born in the Soviet Union and imprisoned by the authorities when trying to immigrate to Israel, Sharansky experienced brutal interrogations, forced feedings, and torture — sparking international campaigns to fight for his freedom in 1986.

 

Today, Natan is Chairman for the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy and has an extensive record as a human rights activist, Israeli politician, and advocate for the Jewish People. He is the recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1986 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2006.
Now, he joins us to answer 18 questions on Israel, including anti-Zionism, hostage negotiations, and the threats of antisemitism and assimilation.

 

This interview was held on Jan. 13.

Take our annual survery: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WZKXNWR

Join Share in supporting victims of terror on Jan. 25 while learning Torah and connecting to your soul. Sign up for Jerusalem here and Modiin (with David Bashevkin) here.

 

Here are our 18 questions:
  1. As an Israeli, and as a Jew, how are you feeling at this moment in Israeli history?
  2. What has been Israel’s greatest success and greatest mistake in its war against Hamas?
  3. How do you think Hamas views the outcome and aftermath of October 7—was it a success, in their eyes?
  4.  What do you look for in deciding which Knesset party to vote for?
  5. Which is more important for Israel: Judaism or democracy?
  6. Should Israel treat its Jewish and non-Jewish citizens the same?
  7. What role should the Israeli government have in religious matters?
  8. Now that Israel already exists, what is the purpose of Zionism?
  9. Is opposing Zionism inherently antisemitic?
  10. Is the IDF the world’s most moral army?
  11. If you were making the case for Israel, where would you begin?
  12. Can questioning the actions of Israel’s government and army — even in the context of this war — be a valid form of love and patriotism?
  13. What do you think is the most legitimate criticism leveled against Israel today?
  14. Do you think peace between Israelis and Palestinians will happen within your lifetime?
  15. What should happen with Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict after the war?
  16. Is Israel properly handling the Iranian threat?
  17. Where do you identify on Israel’s political and religious spectrum, and do you have friends on the “other side”?
  18. Do you have more hope or fear for Israel and the Jewish People?

Transcripts are lightly edited—please excuse any imperfections.

Natan Sharansky: We see today again very clearly how the forces of antisemitism and the forces of assimilation are really competing with one another. Which of these forces will damage Jewish people more? And I think that in both cases, Israel is the best answer.

Hi, I’m Natan Sharansky, I’m grandfather of eight, and I’m a chess player. All the rest is commentary.

Sruli Fruchter: And can you say, and this is 18 Questions, 40 Israeli Thinkers?

Natan Sharansky: No, that’s you will say, why I should say? I’m not going to promote anything.

Sruli Fruchter: From 18Forty, this is 18 Questions, 40 Israeli Thinkers, and I’m your host, 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.

Until this point, and today is our 25th Israeli thinker for the 40 Israeli thinkers of the podcast, we have had countless, or I guess not countless, 24 deeply impressive Israelis who are immersed in different fields within Israel as academics, as religious thinkers, as activists, but very few of them have been characters, so to speak, within Israeli history itself. Today’s guest is a name that I’m sure many, if not everyone in our audience recognizes, Natan Sharansky. Natan Sharansky was born in the Soviet Union and has now become a leading human rights activist.

In the 1970s, Natan applied for an exit visa to immigrate to Israel but was denied by the Soviet authorities. He was branded a refusenik and spent nine years in Soviet prisons and labor camps. He had brutal interrogation, solitary confinement, forced feedings, and much else while he was imprisoned by Soviet authorities. Obviously, the homecoming for when he was finally freed in 1986 was enormous.

He was welcomed as a hero in his new homeland. From the moment that Natan stepped into Israel, he wasn’t just someone who survived the Soviet government’s oppression of Jews and made his way back to Israel through aliyah, but he became a figure within Israel who entered the activist space, the political space, and the public intellectual space. He was deputy prime minister, minister of industry and trade, minister of internal affairs, and resigned from the Knesset, I believe, twice. His first time was in 2003 with disagreements with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s specifically regarding the US-backed Roadmap for Peace.

And his second time was in 2006 when he grew more disillusioned with the political process and wanted to instead focus on more direct advocacy and eventually emerged as a leader in the Jewish agency. Natan is also the author of several books including Fear No Evil, which documents his time in Soviet prisons, The Case for DemocracyDefining Identity, and Never Alone. He’s been an advocate for democracy, human rights, and Jewish identity and aliyah for the bulk of his life and has received numerous awards including the Congressional Gold Medal in 1986 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2006. One of the other things that Natan Sharansky is quite famous for, and this is briefly something that is referenced and discussed during the interview, is his tool for identifying when anti-Zionism crosses into antisemitism, known as the three D’s test, delegitimization, demonization, and double standard.

When Israel is demonized, delegitimized, or held to double standard, in Sharansky’s view, that is when the anti-Zionism or the opposition to Israel or Zionism becomes or truly is antisemitism. With all that said, it was a real privilege for me to interview Natan Sharansky and to speak with him, especially given the state of where Israel is today. And as the day of recording this on Wednesday, January 15th, there are many media reports floating that Israel is quite close to finalizing a hostage deal with Hamas. And at the time of recording this episode, which was several days ago, this was not yet public or at least publicly known with the same sort of assurance that it is right now.

And I hope that by the time I’m finished recording this and by the time the episode drops, the deal is finalized and is approved for the hostages to return. But just keep that in mind if that at all would change the content or the opinions of what’s shared in the interview. And so before we head into the interview, and before I make my regular pitch for questions and guest suggestions, I want to give a boost to an organization, a new organization that is collaborating with 18Forty called Share, headed by Rabbi Dr. Benji Levy, that is hosting two phenomenal events in Jerusalem and in Modiin, January 25 at 7:30 p.m. Motzei Shabbat, with wisdom, song, experience, and a host of incredible rabbis, thinkers, and spiritual guides. And our very own Rabbi David Bashevkin will be at the event in Modiin, January 25 at 7:30 p.m. And again, I’ll make that pitch to please check out our end of year survey, which should be linked in the description below.

We want to hear from you. We want to hear your thoughts on 18Forty, on 18 questions, and you’ll have a chance for a shout out, a $100 Amazon gift card, or some awesome books. And before we get into the interview, if you have questions that you want us to ask 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 and rate so that we can reach new listeners. So without further ado, here is 18 questions with Natan Sharansky.

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?

Natan Sharansky: Well, it’s no doubt it’s a historical moment, because when we thought that all our major struggles for our right to exist are behind us, and my daughters were complaining that we didn’t leave them any essential battle for the future of Jewish people. We had tragedy, which was also a big failure for us and the state. And then we discovered how strong our people, how idealistic and patriotic is our new generation.

And I think that we re-established our strategic thinking and our strategic positions in the state. The second big thing which happened is the exponential rise of antisemitism all over the world. I spent many years of my life trying to demonstrate the deep connection between some forms of anti-Zionism and antisemitism. You don’t need all these formulas, three Ds and others.

It’s so obvious that it goes hand in hand, the hatred of Israel and the hatred of our people. And that’s a historical moment when these two struggles will have to be united and one about the future of Jewish People.

Sruli Fruchter: So you mentioned that for so many years you’ve been very involved with trying to point out the connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. What is that like for you right now, seeing that you’ve spent so many years devoted to trying to address this, and now it’s all bubbled up before? In America and in Israel.

Natan Sharansky: I think now it simply became much more obvious. I’ll tell you one example. 20 years ago, I wrote an article in Maariv called “Traveling to Occupied Territory,” where occupied territory were American universities. So then I used it as a metaphor after my traveling all over America and for the first time seeing this phenomena that American Jewish students are afraid to express some of them.

Afraid to express public solidarity with Israel because it can damage their career. And I found that phenomena, then rather modest phenomena, very alarming that American universities become almost like Soviet universities, a place where Jews will be afraid to express their solidarity with Israel. 20 years later, it’s not metaphoric. There was occupation of the campuses, and I would say that the things which were almost secret, which you had really to discover, analyze, and station, became open.

So in a way it’s even better because, for example, there was a lot of illusions among liberal Jews and practically every Jew considers himself or herself liberal. I also consider myself liberal. But there was a lot of illusions among liberal Jews that their first and the biggest ally is progressives. Everybody who is progressive is for Tikkun Olam, which means it is Jewish in soul, if not in nature.

And I spent years trying to explain that progressives are not liberals, that in fact are neocommunists, that they want simply to replace our world of human rights with the world of ideological dogmas. And it was very difficult for many liberal Jews to accept it. Suddenly it became obvious, and so on one hand it’s awful, this atmosphere of hatred in the academia, when even the biggest tragedies, the biggest pogroms which are happening to us, welcomed as beginning of the anti-colonial struggle. So it’s really painful.

On the other hand, it’s good that people will live in no illusions who are our real allies and who are not.

Sruli Fruchter: What do you think has been Israel’s greatest success and greatest mistake in the current war against Hamas?

Natan Sharansky: Well, the mistake, because there are technical mistakes, meaning that mistakes of our intelligence, definitely failure of our army to come in time. But if you look not on the responsibility of one or another officer, but a big picture, I believe that all the concept of fighting dictators in the Arab world who will be serving our interests and who will be fighting our enemies was wrong from the beginning. It started with the Oslo agreement.

I wrote my first article against Oslo two weeks after it was signed. And I was against it not because I didn’t believe in the Palestinian autonomy. In fact, then I was speaking, and it was not popular that Palestinians should run their life on their own. I believed in it.

But when I understood that the hope that, in fact, what we are doing, we are bringing dictator from Tunis to Palestine, we are telling to Palestinians, whether you want or not, he will be your leader. And we hope that he’ll be a strong dictator to control his people and to fight against our enemies.

Sruli Fruchter: Who are you referring to?

Natan Sharansky: Yasser Arafat. We brought Yasser Arafat knowing and hoping that he’ll be a strong dictator, that he’ll be our dictator, because we will give him enough money and enough weapons.

He’ll be our dictator. And as a result, it was clearly said by our leaders in those days that he will defeat Hamas much easier than we, because, and I quote, he has no Supreme Court, no human rights organizations, and no independent press. And then I was really very concerned that suddenly we, as the only democracy in the Middle East, hope that it will be dictators around us who will do work for us to defend Israel. And in the article, which I wrote a few weeks after signing the agreement, I said, we want him to be dictator to fight against our enemies, but as a dictator, he will need us as enemies.

Dictator cannot survive without mobilizing his own people for the struggle against enemy. And there is no other natural enemy for Yasser Arafat than Israel. So it’s the next generation will be brought up in more hatred towards us than the previous one. And that’s more or less what happened.

And by the way, then I had a discussion with Yossi Beilin, who was then deputy foreign minister, deputy of human affairs. And he told me, look, not on your ideas about developing civil society, that we cannot really have peace with Palestinians if there is no developed civil society. They are good, but it means that we’ll wait for the peace for another 30 years. And we are doing peace in the next five years.

In the next five years, there will be a new Middle East, Middle East of cooperation, of peace. And 30 years passed after this. And we are in a much worse situation, much more far than then. And people are again thinking about solutions, who are those dictators who will help us? So all this concept, which went through Oslo, and then disengagement when I resigned from the government to Ariel Sharon, with whom we were in very good relations, because I thought it’s madness what we are doing.

We are creating ourselves the biggest region for the terrorism in the Middle East. But again, the philosophy was behind it. And I had conversations with Arik Sharon until the day of my resignation. He was trying to convince me that now we are giving them the area where they can do whatever they want.

But they know that the more they have one shot in our direction, we can destroy their everything, and the world will give us full support, because we gave it to them. And for the next 10 years, the free world will be with us if they will start anything military. And I told Franklin that I don’t think he has 10 years, maybe he has 10 days. The world will love us, but in the end, it’s all against us.

So it goes from Oslo, then it goes to disengagement. And that’s the concept of the last 10 years, that we will be strong enough against Hamas to give him a blow each time when they attack. And at the same time, we’ll give them a carrot, like $50 million that Qatar was distributing there. Hamas will be neutralized.

So we don’t have already illusions that Arafat will destroy them. We don’t have illusions that Hamas will be peaceful, but as disengagement. But we do have illusions that Hamas, between stick and carrot, will prefer to be neutralized.

Sruli Fruchter: Meaning the constant mistake you’re identifying is that Israel is misassessing the enemies and having some sort of illusion about what will happen.

Natan Sharansky: Yeah. In fact, we did hope that the dictatorial nature of Arab regimes around us will be in our favor, because we cannot make them democracy. So at least they will be our dictators. Or it will be dictators who are afraid of us, and that’s why control their people will not let them fight against us.

And that was all illusion. I personally believe that the only way that there will be any stability, or it will be stability based only on the strength of our army, or it will be stability based both on the strength of our army and some development of civil society, the Arab society around us. And we didn’t believe in it. We tried to find a way how those dictators will be cooperating with us.

And that strategic mistake which we were doing for the last 30 years, and unfortunately we paid a very heavy price for it. Having said this, I have to say that the way we remained as a Jewish democracy, we remained a very powerful state and very idealistic state. We didn’t know how idealistic and strong is our new generation. And we had many doubts about it.

We had all this TikTok generation who are not interested in anything but to look on the screens, and when they need some inspiration, they go to Thailand. And we found out not only that they volunteered immediately, but how noble they are, how read the letters which those who fell wrote before it, how they feel the importance of the historical mission of Jewish People in the State of Israel. So we found out that this Jewish state which was created during these years is really getting all the best which we had in Jewish people for the last 30,000 years. And that’s the real guarantee of the future of Jewish People for the future.

Sruli Fruchter: How do you think Hamas views the outcome and aftermath of October 7th? Was it a success in their eyes?

Natan Sharansky: Well, yeah, in terms of terrorist organization, it was extremely successful operation. For terrorist organization to plan something of such a size for years and then to implement it is historical success. The thing that did they expect that as a result we will destroy them? No, I think they hoped that as there were many signs that will happen in the last years, that first of all Israel will not be ready to have such big sacrifices but not destroy them, and that the world will not be ready to accept that we will simply go to other and almost eliminate Hamas. So strategically their leaders didn’t expect it.

But terrorist organization usually doesn’t think strategically. Think from one terrorist operation to the other, like Munich operation, assassination of the sportsman.

Sruli Fruchter: It’s very isolated.

Natan Sharansky: It was usually isolated.

In this isolated tactical world or work world of terrorist organizations, it was a huge success. They had a huge success and that’s why I think we had no choice but to destroy them fully. Otherwise, in this world of terrorist organizations around us, we will not be able to survive.

Sruli Fruchter: I want to turn to a different part of Israel more generally.

What do you look for in deciding which Knesset party to vote for? I’m not asking which Knesset party you vote for, and I know it’s an interesting question because you’ve been in the Knesset, but when you’re thinking about who’s going to deserve or earn your vote, what are the things that you’re considering?

Natan Sharansky: Well, look, elections. There is Israel before the 7th of October and after the 7th of October. It’s irrelevant now to go to the debates. I was in four governments.

I resigned twice. I resigned from Barak’s government when he tried to divide Jerusalem. I resigned from Ariel Sharon‘s government because of disengagement. So it’s clear on what political side I am.

On the other hand, I was unfortunately very lonely in Knesset in general speaking about the importance of connection between political process and democratic process, and I believe we can do much more in connecting the real belief in human rights into our strategic policy, and here there is no party which believes in it. So it’s difficult to say where could be my choice, but all this is irrelevant after the 7th of October. Now the main thing is to what extent the unity is the value for the politicians of the political party. It seemed to me it was clear just after the 7th of October that all this year of polarization and struggle when one half of the country was accusing the other that they are stealing our Jewish state, and the other part was accusing that they are stealing our democratic state, and all this was nonsense.

Well, then I was writing that accusing the other side that its dictatorship was wrong. We are not dictatorship. We will not be dictatorship in any way, but the war showed that the result of this passionate polarization is simply missing the real historical meaning of our state and its role, and I hoped at least in the first half a year that now it’s all in the past. Now the feeling that what unites us, our historical need to protect the only Jewish and democratic state, it seems that it unites all of us.

Now we see how the old debates are coming back. Just now there was proposed some compromise, and from my point of view at this moment any compromise is good, and immediately there are voices on the extremes, not so much extremes on the left and on the right, why we will not accept it because it betrays the ideas of our struggle before, and I would definitely vote for politicians who understand the importance of the unity at this moment. I think in the next couple of years we should not deal with laws which are dividing, or laws that we have to deal, like Jews serving in the army. Yeah, not conversion, serving in the army.

Conversion, inevitably it has to be given some time. I was pushing very much for many things to happen in a more tolerant attitude to different streams of Judaism, and I believe it’s very important, but at least we can wait for political steps because the situation itself helps us to be much more tolerant, but the law which has to be passed is who is serving in the army or who doesn’t have to serve in the army, and of course it’s very painful. That is a moment for all the sides to make bigger concessions than they were ready before.

Sruli Fruchter: Does that scare you?

Natan Sharansky: Well, look, I’m an optimistic person, and there are many things which we have to be shocked by them, and of course what happened on the 7th of October and the short sightings of some of those politicians who are coming back to the old wars as if we didn’t have this tragedy.

It doesn’t scare me. It simply shows me that our challenges are bigger than we thought, but that’s okay, you know. My daughters at least don’t complain that we didn’t leave to the new generation any serious wars or any serious challenges. At least they don’t complain about it.

Sruli Fruchter: Which is more important for Israel, Judaism or democracy? Just to get into that little debate that you were, not little debate, but the debate that you referenced.

Natan Sharansky: Well, I always insist, and sometimes I’m in minority of one, that they are both equally important, and we should not permit ourselves to give up on part of one for the sake of the other. And when I’m asked whether you’re to the left or to the right, I say that the definitions which we use here, what is left and what is right, are very confusing, and I can easily prove that I’m extreme right, or I can prove that I’m extreme left, because of these very unclear definitions. If you are against the Oslo agreement, you are the right.

If you are against removing from the national law the equality of all the citizens, you are left. And so from my point of view, those who believe that we should give up on the democratic state for the of Jewish character, those who believe that democracy is good if in addition to democratic Jewish state, and if it creates problems for Jewish state, it has to be removed. They are extreme right. Those who believe that Jewish character is like a museum, it’s nice to have it, it’s interesting to look at, but we need to live in the democracy and the freedom, they are on the extreme left.

And because I do believe that they’re both equally important, so I think I’m exactly in the middle of our political life.

Sruli Fruchter: You’re between both sides. Should Israel treat its Jewish and non-Jewish citizens the same?

Natan Sharansky: Well, as equal in front of the law, of course, all the citizens should be equal. On the other hand, where Jewish state, what it means? I had the right to, not only I, and every Jew in the world has the right to come and to get citizenship immediately.

No, no prime minister, no president cannot stop them from doing it. Because that, by definition of the state, it belongs to all the Jews of the world, not only to Sabras, not only to those whose fathers came and built here kibbutz or yishuv, but to every Jew in the world, even for those who are not thinking to come to Israel. That’s a very unique situation. That’s what makes this Jewish.

In addition to that, the state has to make sure that Hebrew will be alive, that Jewish culture will be connected between ancient and the future. There are many obligations that we will fight against antisemites, will express solidarity with Jews who don’t even think for a moment to come to Israel, but who are suffering. Prioritizing Jewish issues. Yeah, that’s what makes us a Jewish.

But nobody said that all the people of the world should be equal in Israel law. Exactly as nobody said that every citizen in the world should have the same right to be American citizen as the child who was born from an American citizen. Equality has to be for those who are citizens. So yes, there should be full equality on one hand, and at the same time, Israel as a Jewish state has very special obligations towards Jews of the world and towards the Jews who are coming here.

Sruli Fruchter: You mentioned earlier, and obviously anyone who knows anything about you would know, that human rights is so much a part of not just your personal story, but in terms of the life that you devoted to advocating for human rights, both for Jews and in the world more broadly. How do you see that taking form in Israel? Meaning, obviously every country is going to be dealing with human rights issues in one form or another. How do you understand those human rights issues, or human rights issues more generally, in the context of Israel and the Jewish state?

Natan Sharansky: Well, it happened so that Jews, from the very beginning of this world, let’s say, from the history of this world, we are in the center of the world of human rights. All the beginning of human rights starts from that we are all created in the image of God.

That goes straight to the beginning of Judaism. B’tzelem Elokim, in the image of God, created people. It means that they are equally precious to God, or whatever you believe in. And that’s the basis of equality, and as a result, that’s the basis of human rights, which is specifically formulated much later.

And Jews, automatically, because you can say they want interests of survival as the others among the other people. We are interested in the equality that the human rights will protect their rights as a minority. And also the messianic, if you want, vision of Tikkun Olam, by the way, human rights are there. Also, in our experience, we became, at the same time, that’s the uniqueness of Jewish people, we became a people, and we became free at the same time.

The first time we are called people. So when we go out of Egypt, we go out as people, as a family, as a tribe. We came out, and that’s when we are getting our freedom. So our freedom and our obligations as one people go one after another on Pesach and Shabbat.

So historically, it’s connected. And the challenge which we had for thousands of years is how to keep ourselves as Jews, in spite of assimilation, in spite of pogroms, in spite of hatred, how to see that, yes, we are unique, we are Jews. And at the same time, how to live in the world of human rights, of freedom. And, in fact, whether we wanted it or not, whether we understood it or not, in Israel, from the very beginning, it seems, oh, we were such socialists and communists, and we were such other Zionists.

So we created Israel as the only democracy in this part of the world. And so the challenge to be Jewish state and to be the island of democracy, it came from the same time. Israel is often criticized by some other parts of the free world. They never tried even to defend democracy in such difficult situations as we are.

And when some French diplomat was telling me, if you only were not insisting on being Jewish state, but be like us, the state of all the citizens, the world should have no problem. It’s simply such a deep misunderstanding. The same as some dictators think that if only they’ll stop playing with democracy, okay, they’ll be much more accepted. As I say very often to young pupils, young students, and I travel a lot and deal a lot with the students, because 20 years ago I said to Arik Sharon, that is the most important beachhead, the battlefield for the future of Jewish people, American universities.

So when I talk to them, I say, Tikkun Olam, that’s your ideal. They say, yes, of course. If you don’t dream about Tikkun Olam, then probably you’re not Jewish. It’s clear.

But they said, Tikkun Olam means a lot of strength. You can’t simply say, okay, I want the world better. If you really want the world better, you need a lot of energy, a lot of strength. There is no other source of this strength but your identity.

And that’s what I realized first in the Soviet Union, because it happened so that I became the Zionist activist, and at the same time became a free person, and then I became also a human rights activist. And so many people were saying to me, you have to choose. You can’t continue with them and with us at the same time. And I always felt it’s wrong.

If I had strength to fight for my rights, the rights of other people, for going to Israel and so on, and if I had the strength to help to many other groups in the Soviet Union, it’s only because I discovered my identity. When I was a loyal Soviet citizen, when I had no identity, I always thought how to obey, how not to be noticed that I have some different thoughts, that I had to be a loyal Soviet citizen to the end. Only when you discover that you have history, that you have people, that you have country, and they are all behind you, then you’re strong enough to fight for the freedom. And that’s a connection which Israelis, whether they understand or not understand, but they’re demonstrating it practically every day.

We are part of the free world, which gave up on identity, at least until recently. Now they’re coming back, but gave up on its identity. And we are insisting that we are part of the free world, but we’re a Jewish state. And we are the Middle Eastern country, whether we want or not, but geographically, we are in the Middle East, which gave up on the freedom, which all the fights, today’s Syrian dictator fell.

And he fell, it’s not that the democratic forces are replacing him, it’s another dictatorship. We insist that we are part of the Middle East, but we will be different. We are a country of the human rights. So it’s a very different challenge.

It’s often not appreciated, but that’s, I believe, our Tikkun Olam.

Sruli Fruchter: What role should the Israeli government have in religious matters?

Natan Sharansky: Well, I believe that, as I said, we are a Jewish state. So we have to support or to fight for the first of all, to make sure that Israel belongs to all the Jews in the world. And second, to do everything that Jewish heritage will stay.

But in the equations, which differ different parts of the communities of Jews in the world, we should play as little role as possible. As I say, we are welcoming Jews from all over the world. Make it clear, we cannot welcome them, but not their communities, not their rabbis, not their families. We as a state should create opportunities for all types of Jews.

And we can, again, Chief Rabbinate has the privilege to say from their point of view who are Jews and who are not. The state, in fact, doesn’t have this privilege. And in fact, it tries not to. If there is a Jewish community or established Jewish community, but they prefer a different type of prayer, even if it is not Orthodox prayer.

We don’t have to say, yes, that is a prayer. But we have to accept that is a community which has the right to live here. And so we have to give them all the necessary conditions. And as I said many times to my ultra-Orthodox partners in the government, you don’t have to call them rabbis.

You can call them community organizers. You don’t have to call the synagogue synagogues. You can say that it’s cultural centers. Because you think it differently.

But you cannot have the right to deny the obligation of the state to do everything that this community will feel itself as comfortable in Israel as they feel comfortable in America.

Sruli Fruchter: It’s going to that point of unity that you mentioned before, that it’s really important to bring a sort of cohesion and bonding between all the different types of Jews and backgrounds that people bring.

Natan Sharansky: So what’s the question?

Sruli Fruchter: No, no, no, I was acknowledging. That’s your…

Sruli Fruchter: That was my comment.

Natan Sharansky: That’s okay.

Sruli Fruchter: Now that Israel already exists, what’s the purpose of Zionism?

Natan Sharansky: Well, the purpose of Zionism is to make sure that Israel is connected to all the Jews of the world, and Jews feel themselves connected to Israel, and to guarantee survival of Jewish people. We see today again very clearly that how the forces of antisemitism and the forces of assimilation are really competing with one another.

Which of these forces will damage Jewish people more? And I think that in both cases, Israel is the best answer to all those efforts to undermine the future of our people.

Sruli Fruchter: Is opposing Zionism inherently antisemitic?

Natan Sharansky: No, opposing… Everybody has the right to have his or her ideology, and a person can decide that he wants to be assimilated. Or he can, or she can decide, because it was some Reform rabbi, she told me a few years ago that the time has come to build our identity without Israel.

Because for a thousand years, Jewish identity was not connected to Israel. And now we have to be responsible for all those crimes which Israel does. So I really, I think for my community, it’s impossible to survive Jewishly if they’ll be connected to Israel. So to say that she’s antisemite, I can say that she’s antisemite, but that she undermines the chances of Jewish people to survive, for sure.

Because as we saw, the more and more central part of Jewish identity today is connection with Israel. So people who don’t believe theoretically in Zionism, they cannot be called anti-Semites. But people who are actively working to weaken connection of Jewish people with Israel, in fact they are working actively to make Jewish people disappear, or disappear, but possible. So I think that active, aggressive anti-Zionism is turning into antisemitism.

That’s why I came with this formula of three Ds 20 years ago, and today is as actual as never before. In fact, many people, after the 7th of October, said that now they agree with my views about anti-Zionism, because now they discovered that this progressive left is not only anti-Zionist, it’s deeply antisemitic. And they hope that it will be our partners in the struggle for a better world. So that’s…

Sruli Fruchter: Can I ask, what did you respond to that rabbi who told you that she wasn’t able to connect, or she was trying to build a community?

Natan Sharansky: Well, I told her it doesn’t exist simply today. Look, she’s trying to do it not because her community is so deeply Jewish. To the contrary, because her community is assimilating and assimilating, and she feels that the behavior of Israel accelerates this process of people running away from their Judaism. So she wants to disconnect it from Israel in order to save them as Jews.

And I thought it’s simply like turning the world around, that they become more and more assimilated, because they more and more want to succeed in their society and disconnect themselves from anything that slows down this assimilation. And because now Israel became the factor which slows down their assimilation, so she wants to disconnect it. So I said that in the modern world, there is no way for… To the contrary, a little bit different, as I was saying, from my studies all over Jewish communities all over the world, there is a lot of assimilation.

There are only two factors which are slowing it down, is faith and Zionism. So if you are deeply religious person, don’t say now what kind of religiosity, but if you feel yourself very deeply connected to the history, to the culture, to the religious, it’s okay. If you’re deeply Zionist, it’s also okay. If you have both, it’s great.

If you are one of it, there is work to do. But if you don’t have both, if you don’t have faith and don’t have Zionism, your grandchildren will not be Jewish. That’s true about Russia, that’s true about Argentina, about America, and so on. So here you have community which is less and less connected by faith, and which decides to disconnect itself from Israel in order to save whatever Jewishness you still have.

There’s a guarantee that grandchildren of your community will not be Jewish. So that’s as simple as this. You should be interested. If you want to save your community, you should be interested to make it more and more believing, connecting to your religion, and more and more connected to Israel.

Sruli Fruchter: Is the IDF the world’s most moral army?

Natan Sharansky: Well, I don’t know what means most moral, so as we are saying that we are the most clever and most bright nation, I don’t know, but I think that IDF and Israel as a whole are facing the challenge which no other democracy in the world has. How to be the moral power at the time of permanent wars against those who want to destroy it. Let’s say if it was struggled to have a little bit more territory, less territory, the border of others should be here or there. It’s one thing.

But if you face the enemy who’s trying to destroy you, and you have to act very quickly against this enemy, and this enemy has no value of human rights of their own children, and for them anybody is simply a human shield, it’s unbelievably difficult for such an army to fight and to keep moral code behavior very high. And that’s what Israel army is trying to do. Are we doing it enough? I don’t know. But is there any other army in the world which makes such an effort as our army? I don’t know.

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

Natan Sharansky: Let’s start from the fact that every people in the world have the right to live their home, and there is no more ancient home for any nation than Palestine for Jewish People. And that’s why we have to start from our basic right to be here as a Jewish state. From there you start developing all the other layers, and of course it’s more complicated what it means politically, what it means culturally, what it means religiously, and so on.

Sruli Fruchter: The actions of Israel’s government and army, even in the context of this war, can that be considered a valid form of love and patriotism?

Natan Sharansky: A question? Yeah, I think we have to question.

No doubt, each time we have to question. Sometimes the actions are happening too quickly, but then we have to make analysis of this after this. In fact, when we are not questioning, then some big tragedies like the 7th of October is happening when we are so much deep in one conception. So to have a concept that whatever we are doing is moral and right also is the wrong concept.

We have to, yes, nobody faces such difficult conditions, but how we really face them and whether it was justified that we used this type of weapon in this area. That’s something, and there wasn’t the government, there wasn’t the security. We are asking ourselves all the time. Sometimes the world doesn’t see, or sometimes we are so much in the rage of the moment that we ignore it, but I think we are dealing with this question more than any other army in the world.

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

Natan Sharansky: Well, that we failed to see the real developments in the area, and by this we, of course, endangered ourselves greatly, but it was also a disservice, I think, for the world. For the world, it was easier to deal with dictators as the allies if it is okay with us. So it’s a little bit complicated to say, but well, that’s… Or, in different, I’ll say, for our political world, to see the right priorities, that priority of unity somehow disappeared from political thinking.

Everybody was for unity government, but it meant that if they want to join our program, they’re welcome to do it. And well, that’s the problem of the world, polarization in America and other countries is very big, but again, Israel is a test case for many other things. It was also a test case to what extent democracy can afford polarization, and we’re living in such a region and building the country from so many different groups who are coming back after a thousand years. It’s a unique experiment.

So we are responsible for this experiment, so to show the world whether it works or doesn’t work. And then, let’s say, at this stage, for these couple of years, we really failed. Okay, now, the fact that today we are in a much better situation than a year ago is, of course, a result of big efforts of all our people, big sacrifices and big efforts, but something very good and healthy in our nature, which does exist.

Sruli Fruchter: You mentioned earlier that a lot of times people will say to you that you being a Zionist and being a human rights activist are two things that are contradictory, they don’t make any sense.

In 2020, the Supreme Court, the Israel Supreme Court ruled that Israel was allowed to force-feed prisoners who were on strike or on a food strike, and you spoke out against it saying that was totally inappropriate, that when you were in Soviet Union, you were force-fed and it’s cruel and it’s an inappropriate thing to do. I’m curious how, in general, you find a balance between calling out the human rights issues that you may see in Israel, whether they’re common, uncommon, whatever form they take, while at the same time still being so committed to Zionism, to the State of Israel, helping to grow the country. Do you find that to be a difficult position? As you said earlier about you’re sometimes between the far right and the far left, I’m just curious how you navigate that.

Natan Sharansky: Of course, it’s easier to go to one extreme or to see the world black and white, and I’m on the side of black.

It’s much easier. But as a chess player, I can say it’s always good that you’re identified with one. But also, it’s very important that after this, you can turn the board and to start thinking for the other side and to understand, otherwise you can’t really understand your own mistakes.

So in this specific case, which you gave, I didn’t say that we should not feed them. I simply said the debate was whether it’s torture or to the contrary, luxury. And I said, you all speak so theoretically. I went through 34 force-feedings. It is a torture.

I can describe to you that it is a torture. Whether you should use it as torture, that special law has to be done. Like, you know, I was in the government when there was a big debate about law on Shabbat, what is possible or not possible to use during the situation of ticking bomb. And there were accusations against us, against me personally, how you who believe in human rights can even discuss things what can be done.

But with the time, the world understood that we are far ahead of all the world, because what it meant that at the time of ticking bomb, people can do the most awful things. And we know it from Vietnam, we know it from Hollywood films, that people not thinking about what is permitted or not, they will do everything. They will cut you in pieces, because at this moment, there is danger. We gave the laws like restrictive that even in this moment, maximum what you can do, this, this and this.

Which today, of course, is minimum, which everybody agrees that what can be done against who at this moment by getting information, you have to save so many lives. So I didn’t say no, never use force feeding. They said, don’t don’t don’t play with the truth. Yes.

And there are some extreme situation that you decide that you force feed. They say that they will suffer.

Sruli Fruchter: But be honest about what it is.

Natan Sharansky: Yeah, be honest with yourself.

So people didn’t like, but they had to accept it because nobody in the country had this experience. So they were all speaking theoretical. No, we see You were speaking from your life experience. And I’m speaking from my life.

In fact, I’m glad that I didn’t die during that long hunger strike, which I won in the end, 110 days, but I won only because all the world was, all the free world was on my side. And I can’t say that if they didn’t feed me with force and I would die, it could be better for me or for the world. But yes, it was a torture through which I felt I have to go through. And so that’s what I think.

We have to not to play with the words, but to say, in this situation, we are ready to do this and this too. And by this, we are minimizing the torture in the world and not maximizing.

Sruli Fruchter: We spoke a lot about your experience in the Soviet Union. Obviously now, one of the biggest things in the current war that’s lurking over everyone’s head is the about 100 hostages who remain trapped in Gaza.

How have you been thinking about that and about what needs to be done to bring them home and about what’s been done over the last 460 or so days?

Natan Sharansky: Well, first of all, I hope that while this interview will be in the air, the hostage will be released. I don’t know how quickly you are working.

Sruli Fruchter: It’ll be out on Monday.

Natan Sharansky: First of all, every day, as my wife was saying, she lived the way that as if the next day I can come home.

And when she was even discussing with the people that she’ll appear there with such a lecture, such a meeting, and she was always saying, providing that my husband will not come. Wow, she always held on to that. For 12 years, you have to understand, yeah. But so it’s really very important to live with this feeling that it can happen every day and to work for this.

And it’s very important that Chatafim will feel that the Jews of the world and Israel are fighting for them. Now, but it’s true that we had two challenges at the same time, survival of these people and survival of the country. It was like awful thing which happened to them, but awful thing what happened to our resilience, to our opportunity to survive in the Middle East. And that’s why I was always saying that, not like in previous exchanges that I was absolutely against, I voted against.

Sruli Fruchter: It was the exchange between the terrorists and the hostages—

Natan Sharansky: Yeah, well, there was Tannenbaum, I think his name was, who happened to be in Lebanon and Hezbollah caught him and then we released like 600 terrorists in exchange. And the it is very important for him that I’ll vote tomorrow with him because I was in prison, I know how it is. And I said to him, just because I am in prison, and I knew that not for every price you are ready to be released.

And I failed this station when I had to decide that I will not accept the conditions because I believe that it can weaken all our struggle. And even when there was reached some agreement between Americans and them, I didn’t accept them. And I spent another three years in prison, not knowing how many it will be. So I said to the country, my experience of being in prison said that they cannot support the deal when we are releasing 600 terrorists and so on.

And many of them who were released then later became our strongest enemies. I wasn’t in the government when there was Shalit case, but I was absolutely against. So this thing is different because it is we who have to be blamed for the fact that hostages are there. It is a huge failure of our army, of our intelligence, of our state.

And like the conflict which the state has with the citizens, it has to do everything to release them. Having said that, that’s why I don’t think that consideration whether these terrorists will be released or not can be consideration in this case. But consideration is the survival of us as a state. That’s why I said any price except the price of bringing back Hamas to power or deciding not to fight against Hamas, even if it means that it will go back, should be paid.

So this is the price which cannot be paid. And as I understood in the end, that is exactly the point debating whether the conditions of the release of hostages will permit to Hamas to survive and come back to power or not. And that should be our approach. I hope we are coming to a solution.

Sruli Fruchter: I mean, I hope this isn’t relevant by the time the interview is finished.

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

Natan Sharansky: I think a secured Israel will happen in our time. To what extent it will be really full peace.

I personally believe that full peace means that societies around us also have developed civil societies when their leaders think about the well-being of their people and not how to destroy us. And when I came with these ideas at the time of Oslo agreement or against Oslo agreement, I was told in a sense that it’s naive because it will take 30 years. 30 years after we are much more far from this because we permitted to our enemies to educate and grow their people in absolute hatred of us and with the absolute obligation to destroy us. So now I suspect it will take more than 30 years.

When they hope to live more than 30 years, I hope that’s …

Sruli Fruchter: We’ll celebrate together.

Natan Sharansky: Yeah, yeah. Okay. Yeah.

Sruli Fruchter: What do you think should happen with Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict after the war?

Natan Sharansky: Well, no doubt that Gaza will be rebuilt. What will be…

Sruli Fruchter: Rebuilt for the Palestinians or rebuilt for Israel?

Natan Sharansky: No, I don’t think it will be rebuilt for Israel, meaning that, no, peaceful Gaza, it’s the best thing which can be for Israel.

I was absolutely against destroying Gush Katif. I was a big patriot of Gush Katif. I don’t think that… I was a minister and before I resigned, I think I was the only minister who was in the government and at the same time participated in all the anti-government demonstrations on behalf of Gush Katif.

I think it was a practical crime what we did then. I don’t think it’s on our agenda today to rebuild Gush Katif. It should not be because we have so many priorities. How we are building a new type of Middle East, how we have to defeat our enemies.

We have to build relations with Saudi Arabia and others. We have definitely to destroy nuclear power of Iran. We have to encourage different types of structures emerging in our region. At this moment of history, the attempt now to build yishuv Yehudi be-ʿAza makes it much more difficult.

So I don’t think it is now a priority. I do believe that the real peace is when we can have our yishuvim in any place without being afraid. Exactly as Arabs are not afraid when they’re building another yishuvim in Galilee. They’re not thinking twice whether it is danger for them.

The ideal situation is when we don’t have to think twice building yishuvim in Gaza. It’s not a priority for this moment, I believe.

Sruli Fruchter: Is Israel properly handling the Iranian threat?

Natan Sharansky: Well, first of all, we are by far the first who understood that it was a threat to the world. In the first government, it was the beginning of me as a politician, his beginning as prime minister in the end of ’90s.

Then when I was going to Russia with my first visits, it was very symbolic. I’m coming back to Russia, which I left as a prisoner. Now I’m coming back as a minister. But he was asking me to deal with the question of leakage of Russian technologies to Iran.

He was the first who started dealing with the sanctions in Washington against Iran for this more than 20 years ago. And yes, it was all the time on the agenda how we destroy the nuclear capabilities and missile capabilities of Iran. We were right to be concerned. We were right to warn the world, to try to encourage the world to take sanctions.

Whether we were right not to have this military operation before, I don’t know because really, I’m not a military expert. I know that each time when we were very close to do, first of all, the West was pressing us not to do, and also understand the army was not ready. So in general, I think we are right. I think where we together with all the free world, we’re wrong, is to believe that our aim should be fighting with the regime and not changing with the regime.

I don’t mean changing with sending the army, but Iranian opposition is by far the biggest opposition which existed in any Muslim country in the world. And in 2005, six, seven, I was involved in dialogue with different parts of Iranian opposition. And there was only one person in the Israeli government who believed in it and who was also involved, and it was Uri Lubrani. Uri Lubrani, the last ambassador of Israel in Iran, the one who after this was working as the minister of defense, and who kept his connections with Iranian opposition and believed that that is the way to change things.

And nobody else believed. Nobody here, nobody in America. And when Iranian revolution really started, as many dissidents predicted, and in 2007, I was one of the organizers of big meeting of dissidents from all over the world, myself organized in Prague. And there were many dissidents from the Middle East.

Everybody was saying that number one target is Iran. And when it really happened in 2009, the free world betrayed this revolution. President Obama said that engagement with the regime is more important than changing with the regime, which was awful. So I think we were wrong that we underestimated the potential for changing, for internal change in Iran.

But that was the mistake which all the free world did. And I think now there is understanding of it much bigger. And so now I hope when our prime minister is appealing directly to the people of Iran over the head of the dictators, I think he’s doing the right thing. I hope that we are doing it on different levels.

I hope that America is doing it on different levels. Because in the end, I believe that, well, nuclear capabilities, we have to destroy them actively, militarily. And now I think we have more confidence in our capability to do it than before. But the fate of regime has to be decided by the people inside Iran.

After all, Iran is the only country where there are trade unions who are against the regime, student organizations who are against the regime, human organizations who are against the regime. And simply they have to be given an opportunity to act.

Sruli Fruchter: Where do you identify on Israel’s political and religious spectrum? And do you have friends on the other side?

Natan Sharansky: I have friends on all the sides. And as I said, I define myself as intermediate.

But historically, I think I’m still the member of the central committee of Likud, because everybody who was minister from Likud party, he’s like, for his life, the member of the central committee, for 15 years, he was not there. But it’s more and more difficult to me with the time to identify myself with any specific party, because the moment I think about this party, I think about that they disagree. So I do hope that before the next election, there emerge at least two new parties, one to the right from Likud, one to the left from Likud. They all will be initiated by people from one tank, meaning people who are coming from the battles, and who know the importance of being in one tank.

And then they will become the base of this coalition count where Likud can be inside. But yeah, we really need, I say to practically all of our millennium, we really need new generation of politicians. Yeah.

Sruli Fruchter: And our last question, do you have more hope or fear for Israel and the Jewish people?

Natan Sharansky: Well, I always have hope.

And I spent my life in learning and teaching how to overcome fear. My book of memories is called Fear No Evil. So it’s legitimate to be afraid, especially when they try to sentence you to death. And that’s what they try to do to me, that’s what our enemies try to do to Israel.

So it’s unnatural to have no fears. But then you have to know how to cope with the fear. And I think we know how to cope with the fear and hope should never leave us. And we are the people who proved more than anybody else, that if you are strong in your hope, it becomes truth.

Sruli Fruchter: Amazing. Natan Sharansky, thank you so much for answering our 18 questions.

Natan Sharansky: Okay.

Sruli Fruchter: That interview was really incredible for me on so many levels to speak to someone like Natan Sharansky, who has been through a life of experiences that I could never even imagine.

And to talk with him today, while Israel is in a recovery, or still in some way in a trauma of crisis, whether with the hostages, with the war, with all of the chayalim, the soldiers who fall by the day, who have fallen, I really appreciated his perspective and his openness and the vulnerability that he shared in this conversation. So be sure to check out our video episode of this podcast, Dropping, this week. And special thank you to our friends, Gilad Brounstein and Josh Weinberg for editing the podcast and video episode, respectively. As always, if you have questions you want us to ask, 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. So until next time, keep questioning and keep thinking.

This transcript was produced by Sofer.AI.