Kfir fighter aircrafts . (photo credit: IAI)
X ![]()
Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analyses from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.
As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.
For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:
- A user experience almost completely free of ads
- Access to our Premium Section
- Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew – Ivrit
- A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel
Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.
Thank you,
Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief
UPGRADE YOUR JPOST EXPERIENCE FOR 5$ PER MONTH Show me later
Unassuming, studious and soft-spoken, Moshe Arens never thought of himself as a leader of the masses. That is why in 1992, when he was a natural candidate to succeed the resigning Yitzhak Shamir, he left the arena for his protégé, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Even so, history found itself wrestling with the bespectacled aeronautical engineer.
In 1981, Menachem Begin wanted to appoint Arens as minister of defense, but Arens refused, and thus paved the way for Ariel Sharon’s appointment.
How would the First Lebanon War have unfolded had Arens been defense minister? Would its conduct have been as adventurous, unruly, and disastrous as it was under Sharon? Would Arens have prevented the circumstances that made Begin clear the stage prematurely?
In 1987, on behalf of prime minister Shamir, Arens torpedoed then-foreign minister Shimon Peres’s London Agreement with King Hussein, in a meeting with secretary of state George Schultz. Had Arens taken Peres’s side, would the first intifada that erupted later that year – and which in many ways is raging to this day – have never broken out?
Lastly, as defense minister in 1991, Arens thought the IDF should attack Saddam Hussein’s missile operation in west Iraq, but was overruled by Yitzhak Shamir. How would history have unfolded had that attack been waged?
These and other “what ifs” that checker Arens’s biography await history’s judgment, but on other fronts Arens can be appreciated today as a scholar who brought both principle and worth to politics.
As an idealist, Arens turned down in 1981 the offer to become defense minister because he refused to oversee the evacuation of the Sinai, to which he was opposed. Similarly, when the government voted to nix the Lavi fighter-plane project in which he believed, similarly he resigned.
As a paragon of meritocracy, Arens won the Israel Defense Prize for leading Israel Air Industries’ development of the Kfir fighter plane. As such, Arens personified and helped inspire the spirit of innovation on which the Jewish State takes pride.
As defense minister, Arens created in 1983 the Ground Forces’ Command and in 1992 the Homefront Command, both of which exist to this day. Arens thus demonstrated that a civilian can be more effective than many retired generals as the military’s political guide.
Yet Arens’s most telling legacy is in the civic realm of Jewish-Arab relations.
Although he was a territorial hawk who opposed the very concept of “land for peace,” Arens was a genuine liberal, a true disciple of Ze’ev Jabotinsky.
Just like he thought Israel should be this big, he also thought it should be this just. That is why he vehemently opposed the Nation State Law which he said would alienate Arab citizens, and that is why as the minister in charge of Arab affairs he fought to raise government spending in Arab towns.
This was the complex background against which Arens called in 2010 to annex parts of the West Bank and offer their Palestinian inhabitants the option to become full Israeli citizens.
Arens believed that if treated as true equals, the Palestinians would become peaceful neighbors of Jews, and loyal citizens of the state.
While obviously debatable, it was part of a legacy whose origins lie in 19th-century Italian thinker Giuseppe Mazzini’s liberal nationalism, and whose impact on Jabotinsky was decisive. In that thinking, nations are meant to be not bitter enemies, but happy neighbors.
In today’s Likud this legacy is still upheld by President Reuven Rivlin, former justice minister Dan Meridor, and MK Benny Begin. Otherwise, this thinking is increasingly challenged by the populism and grandstanding that now sprawls from the White House through the Philippines, Hungary and Brazil to MK Oren Hazan and Culture Minister Miri Regev.
A principled, thinking, humble and low-keyed liberal like Arens would doubtfully give to our era the kind of public positions he held in his. As Israel today lays him to rest, an irritating question arises: how many in the next Knesset will possess the merit, idealism, sobriety, modesty and gravitas that followed Moshe Arens wherever he went?
Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>
Comments are closed.