Shas MK Ariel Atias speaks with 'The Jerusalem Post' about the challenges that Shas faces today.
By MATTHEW WAGNER, GIL STERN STERN HOFFMANAriel Atias 88 224(photo credit: Ariel Jerozolimski)
Communications Minister Ariel Atias is Shas's wunderkind. In the 2006 elections, just five years after leaving the Torah study hall to work in Shas spiritual mentor Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's kosher supervision apparatus ("I was 30 years old and had to find a way to support my family"), Atias was parachuted into Shas's Number 2 slot. Known as "the meteor," Atias leapfrogged numerous seasoned politicians on the Shas list - such as Nissim Ze'ev, 57 - who had been with the Sephardi haredi party since its very inception.
It is not difficult to imagine the jealousy aroused among more senior Shas MKs when Atias, who was a 12-year-old student in an Ashkenazi haredi yeshiva when Shas was created in 1982, suddenly became Shas's most powerful, most influential politician after party chairman Eli Yishai.
In an interview with The Jerusalem Post before the holidays, Atias expressed Shas's position - which is essentially Yosef's position - on a diverse set of issues, from peace negotiations with the Palestinians to issues involving the relationship between state and religion, to Shas's political aspirations.
Atias is a skilled speaker. An influential haredi PR consultant called him "haredi Jewry's most eloquent spokesman" and a "master of soundbites." But, in a short telephone conversation with the Post before the interview, Atias made it clear that he was willing to talk about any subject under the sun except one: internal Shas politics and his relations with chairman Eli Yishai.
"Ever since I became an MK, reporters have been driving me crazy with the question, 'Do you want to be the leader of Shas?' Once and for all, I don't want to be Shas's leader," he said.
Notwithstanding Atias's assertion, it is logical to assume that there is tension between Yishai, Shas's nominal chairman, and Atias, who has a special relationship with the source of Shas's political strength - Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.
You joined Shas in the last shmita [Sabbatical] year, which makes this the eighth anniversary of being connected with the party, right?
I did not join Shas eight years ago. I joined the kashrut operations. It is important to separate Shas the political party from Beit Yosef, the kosher supervision apparatus.
I became friendly with Rabbi Ovadia's son [Moshe Yosef, the rabbi's youngest and most politically powerful son, who is intimately involved with the inner workings of Shas and is also involved with the kosher supervision business].
It was supposed to be a temporary job for the duration of the shmita year. But the Holy One, blessed be He, aided me and when the shmita year was over I stayed on. Rabbi Moshe asked me to stay and work in marketing.
How do you explain your success?
First and foremost, from the heavens I was given grace. But on a practical level, my employers received more than they expected from me.
I developed market consciousness for Rabbi Ovadia's trademark. Anything that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is connected with has a tremendous market potential. And that potential was not being exploited.
I came in and after a lot of hard work managed to realize the market potential for food products that are under the kosher supervision of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. The large retail chains woke up to this potential and we even expanded our operations overseas.
At the same time, slowly, I became close to the rabbi. I noticed that Rabbi Ovadia was very interested in the kashrut business. Not because it was economically lucrative - the rabbi does not bother himself with money. Rather, because he saw the expansion of a quality kosher supervision apparatus as a way of saving souls from sin.
Before we came onto the scene Jews ate food that was less kosher. Now they were eating food that was more kosher, and that was a big merit.
And that is precisely why Rabbi Ovadia established Shas: to bring more Jews closer to the Rock, the Source of all. He created an educational system and encouraged people to move from secular schools to religious schools that teach tradition, honoring parents, love for the Jewish people.
Looking back over the past two and a half decades since the party was established, do you think Shas has helped Oriental Jews advance?
Shas gives Oriental Jews a feeling of pride, it gives them someone to identify with. They do not feel they are losing their tradition.
We are talking about a generation of people whose parents came here when the state was founded and it was hard for them to acclimate. My parents came here from Morocco and it was very difficult for them. It was not self-evident that they would take a part in the governing of things here. It was not self-evident that their children would receive the kind of education they wanted them to receive.
Shas does everything out of love...
If not for Shas, tens of thousands of women would not go to the mikveh [before having sexual relations with their husbands].
Where did the religious Zionists go wrong with Sephardi Jews?
The National Religious Party did not work with enough intensity on these [religious] issues. They were afraid of being separatists from the secular Zionist majority. Religious Zionists wanted to assimilate, to become a part of the majority, and to feel like seculars. But you can't live in two worlds at once.
Shas declared in a loud voice that we separate ourselves on religious matters. On social activism issues we take care of everyone. We want religious services for everyone.
How do you explain the numerous corruption convictions that have plagued Shas, whether it be Shlomo Ben-Izri or Aryeh Deri?
People who do a lot sometimes make mistakes. But there is no evil intent behind the different incidents. Rabbi Ben-Izri, for instance, I know him well. He does not live the way someone who embezzles a lot of money would live. He has a modest house. His clothes are modest. He has nine children. He lives a very simple existence, more so than other politicians.
I am convinced that within the framework of [political] action, especially in a party that was created ex nihilo, did not have a long political tradition, that never learned the intricacies of bureaucracy or of government, of how to work with a legal adviser, there was a sudden impulsive excitement to do a lot, and I would like to think that was what made some of our politicians err.
But I would also like to point out that Shas's failings pale in comparison to the corruption cases that have been tied to political parties recently.
Our main failure was in the [illegal] transfer of money to non-profit organizations and Torah institutions. The money never went into someone's pocket.
One of Shas's main demands as a condition for joining any future government coalition is that Jerusalem not be on the bargaining table. The Jerusalem Post reported, based on high-ranking Palestinian officials, that the prime minister was conducting negotiations on Jerusalem. The prime minister denied it. Do you really believe that Jerusalem has not been negotiated?
Believing is in the eye of the beholder. We have to ask whether we have sure knowledge that there are negotiations on Jerusalem. The Council of Torah Sages decided that Shas cannot be in a government that negotiates on the future of Jerusalem. The prime minister and the foreign minister said there haven't been negotiations. Should we believe official, or unofficial sources?
We have a commitment from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. He sent an emissary to Rabbi Ovadia that we would be warned before negotiations begin.
There have been many governments that negotiated and none of them were about peace for peace. Even Netanyahu talked about settlement blocs, which implies that outside settlement blocs he would be willing to compromise.
What is Shas's position on moving ahead with negotiations with the Palestinians?
We say there has to be a partner that can ensure peace. Up until now we have been burned by our partners. Even when we had leaders who wanted to give away everything, like Ehud Barak, they didn't get anything because there wasn't a partner.
During the disengagement [from Gaza], Rabbi Ovadia debated the issue. It is true that he said we can give up land to prevent bloodshed. Saving life takes precedence over fasting on Yom Kippur or resting on Shabbat, so it also takes precedence over holding onto territories - not because we think that we are rapacious occupiers, but because we believe that it is worth it for real peace.
The peace agreement Egypt has prevented bloodshed. Even people who opposed the agreement at the time admit today that.
What happened to the good relations fostered by Shas under Deri with Israeli Arabs?
I heard that there were good relations. But that was at a time when Deri was interior minister, which gave him a lot more opportunities to help Arabs.
Like Arabs, Sephardi Jews are victims of discrimination.
Both Arabs and Oriental Jews were not given a piece of the political leadership.
Do you think the government should do more to foster good relations with Israeli Arabs?
I think that you are not phrasing the question correctly. I think the question should be, 'How do the Arabs see themselves in Israeli society? Is their heart with Hamas while their head is here, or have they reached the conclusion that they cannot dance simultaneously at two weddings?
Should Israel take measures to strengthen Fatah?
We can't blame ourselves if Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] or Fatah can't control the PA. Right now [Fatah] is nice because they cannot control Hamas and they need us.
I think that we should not be hard on ourselves after we did everything in our power to free prisoners and to open up roadblocks and to compete amongst ourselves to see who is willing to compromise more, and after all that to be paid back with more terrorism.
I don't think we should weaken Fatah, but I don't think we should be too involved in the internal issues of the Palestinians. On the other I think we should be working to weaken Hamas.
Why are you considered a leftist within Shas?
My views come from Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.
I come from a right-wing house. I got a haredi education. We didn't learn about Greater Israel. We were not taught to sanctify the land. But in my house the empathy was always clearly for the Right, while the Left was always rejected in an extreme and obvious way. There are good and there are bad; there is the Right and there is the Left. That is what I was taught at home.
But my views on territories and the Palestinian question come from Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. If someone has a problem with that, it is his problem, not mine. Now, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef wrote a halachic opinion that for real peace, we can give up territory.
The difference between [Shas] and the Left is that the Left thinks we're occupiers, that we are conquerors in a land that does not belong to us. We don't think so. This land is ours. It is all ours. If we give any of it up, we do so with great pain, from a position of power, in the name of peace.
Just a few weeks ago, a Palestinian woman miscarried and lost her baby while waiting at a checkpoint. Do stories like this make you reconsider what we are doing in Judea and Samaria?
Focusing on these individual cases of Palestinian suffering is not fair. We are not doing it purposely, and if we do hurt innocent people, we always apologize.
I've never heard Hamas say they are sorry for hurting innocent people. In fact, they try to hurt innocent people all the time.
It is clear that the Jewish people is a compassionate people. I do not believe that there are Jews who learn from our enemies and truly want to hurt.
Regarding the roadblocks, we put them up not because we want to hurt anybody. We put them up because we want to defend ourselves. If they did not behave the way they do, we would not have to set up those roadblocks. They blow themselves up to kill us, so we say, as it is written, "When someone comes to kill you, kill him first."
One of Shas's most central demands is the increase of child allowances. Does Shas want to reverse the economic reforms instituted by Binyamin Netanyahu?
The Treasury says child welfare payments cause people not to work. Well, I have five kids and it costs a lot of money. It is ridiculous to think that for a few hundred shekels, someone would prefer to stay home - despite all the stigmas surrounding a household head that does not work, despite all the negative ramifications this would have for his children.
The Treasury's officials are insulting people's intelligence.
Eighty percent of the people living under the poverty line work. What are they [the Treasury] trying to sell us?
What we are asking for would not cost more than NIS 1 billion.
Bibi made a mistake by cutting suddenly. He hurt people who work and have to pay a mortgage and relied on a few thousand extra shekels a month that they were receiving from the state in the form of child allotments. All of a sudden these people were left stranded.
We are just trying to reverse some of the damage done. That's all.
The Treasury is ideologically opposed to child allowances.
Treasury Minister Ronnie Bar-On visited Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and told him it is not about money. Bar-On told the rabbi that he was opposed to child allowances in principle. So the rabbi told him that we will vote in favor of dispersing the Knesset.
Even from an economic perspective the child allowances make sense. All the money that is transferred to poor families will come to the economy in the form of consumption. Most people who receive the allotments are not going to spend the money in Turkey. They are going to spend it in the local grocery store for basic goods. And this encourages growth.
News media interviews with Atias in the months after he was appointed communications minister focused on the young, ambitious man's lack of political experience. They also played up the paradox of a modern, Western state appointing a communications minister who is ideologically and religiously opposed to having a television or Internet in his own home.
Liberal Israelis feared a new era of darkness led by a young Jewish ayatollah who would purge the television screens of women or confine them to burkas, block Internet access to all but the most puritanical sites, and launch a zealous campaign to regulate the media in accordance with ancient rabbinic law.
But more than two years after Atias was ensconced in the Communications Ministry, soft porn channels are still available on cable and satellite TV, erotic telephone calls are still an option by landline or by cellphone, and network TV content remains the same as the pre-Atias era.
In fact, some haredi activists think Atias is not doing enough to clean up communications and save precious Jewish souls from the dangers of gratuitous sex and violence on TV, the Internet or on the display window of a 3G cellphone. In a rash of anonymous pashkevilim [black and white notices plastered to walls, bulletin boards and lamp posts in haredi neighborhoods], Atias was baselessly attacked and vicious rumors were spread about his private life.
But most mainstream haredim understand Atias's political limitations.
One haredi source, who was intimately involved in the negotiations with cellular phone companies to create a "kosher" cellphone [no Internet access, no fancy ringtones, no erotic calls, no SMS], said that the very fact that Atias is haredi works against him.
"Legislation and regulations initiated by a haredi minister do not work," said the source, "because secular people see it as religious coercion. Exploiting market forces by threatening to boycott is the only way to get what you want."
Meanwhile, Atias has become the darling of the communications industry. Executives in the major cellphone companies say that Atias is a surprisingly fast learner and has a natural business sense.
During his stint in office, Atias has been involved in a number of major developments in the communications industry, from the introduction of competitors to the local telephony market once controlled by Bezeq, to the gradual privatization of postal services, to the enhancement of competition among the four major cellphone companies by making it possible to switch from one to the other without changing numbers.
But Atias received the most news coverage for his role in advancing Internet censorship legislation that would require Internet Service Providers to filter Internet sites featuring pornography, gambling and violence. Only end-users who specifically request it will not be filtered.
Do you think that because you are haredi you have had more opposition to this legislation than if you were, say, a secular, leftist woman?
I think that a good portion of the media did not look at the content of the legislation and instead attacked the person who proposed it.
Many of the people who attacked me did not even read the law.
It is my obligation as a minister not only to deal with regulations and consumer issues, but also to formulate a value-based policy. I don't care what people say.
I am working so that when I leave the Communications Ministry, my influence will continue to be felt. I want to help the children of Israel so that they do not fall into the spiritual trap of being exposed to the negative elements that are on the Internet.
It is not difficult to make cosmetic changes. I want to do something that will save souls. We have to do everything possible to reduce the negative impact of the Internet on the youth and to do it via legislation and directives that will remain after I leave this office.
In this last government Shas received portfolios that in the past were not traditionally held by religious parties. This can be viewed as the maturation of the religious parties from very parochial concerns to much wider concerns. Do you see a situation in which there will be a haredi prime minister?
No. We are a minority and we don't want to force our views on the majority. We are here to maintain the Jewish identity of Israel, like preventing civil marriage and selling hametz on Pessah. We are here to make sure our constituency gets equal funding, and to help the poor. We have no desire to run the country.
Our fights are restricted to maintaining the Jewish character of the state. We fight civil marriages and encourage giving more budgets to Torah institutions and to the financially weak.
What about all the people in Israel who immigrated here from the FSU under the Law of Return, who serve in the army and work but can't get married here because they are not Jewish? Do you think that is fair?
We have to ask what's more important for the country. We fought for this land because God gave it to us. We did not pick the nicest piece of land. We are here because we are Jews.
God gave the land to us and that's why we fought for it. Assimilation and mixed marriages can end the Jewish identity of Israel. If we do not protect our Jewishness we are likely to find ourselves thrown out of this land and into the sea. If we allow assimilation, within 20 to 30 years the entire Jewish nation will disappear. We already have wars in which soldiers give up their lives to protect this nation. We cannot afford to be like other nations, because if we do, there will be no reason for us to fight for this piece of land.
Do Shas's rabbis really reach out to all sectors of Israeli society? And if so, why do you think there is a need for organizations such as Tzohar?
Rabbis that are connected with Shas do not try to create a new religion. There is one religion. There is one Torah that was handed down to us from Moses on Mount Sinai.
When you talk about the rabbis who try to create a custom-tailored religion that fits like a suit each person in accordance with his personality, that is not religion.
We say to people, "this is the truth." If you cannot keep it all, keep part of it. Go to the mikveh, keep kosher. Do what is possible, and what you can't do, save for tomorrow.
But you cannot pick and choose. There is no such thing as different religions for different people. We are willing to help you come closer to God, but it has to be done in the true way.
if(catID != 151){
var cont = `Take Israel home with the new Jerusalem Post Store
