Confession: as a girl, I had a crush on Prince Charles. We would meet (how was not clear), he would convert, etc. That didn’t happen, but the word “king” brings him to mind.
Nowadays, while standing at a junction holding an Israeli flag or a picture of a hostage, I hear it often. Most cars drive by apathetically, a few drivers press their horns in support, and some call out counter-slogans, including “Bibi Hamelech” – Bibi the King.
When the Children of Israel were in the desert, the future bearer of that post was instructed (Deuteronomy 17): “He shall not acquire much silver and gold for himself. He shall write for himself two copies of this Torah on a scroll. And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord, his God, to keep all the words of this Torah and these statutes.”
The commandments anticipated the corruptive qualities of power and the need to guard against them. Netanyahu’s supporters may wish to consider his material and personal humility, or ask themselves to what extent he studies the laws and abides by them.
Later, when the nation demanded a king (1 Samuel 8), the prophet consulted with the Lord and warned: “He will take your sons, and appoint them to him for his chariots and for his horsemen. He will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive trees, and will give them to his slaves. And he will tithe your grain crops and your vineyards, and he will give them to his officers and his slaves. And he will tithe your flocks, and you will be slaves to him.”
Samuel was right. Military service is extended (he will take your sons and appoint them for his chariots) while efforts continue to formalize ultra-Orthodox exemptions. Cost-of-living rises, with taxes to follow (he will tithe your grain crops and your vineyards), while services will be cut because he will give them to his coalition partners, slaves who serve him.
The absent king?
Of the kings mentioned in the Bible, Netanyahu reminds me most of the absent one (Judges 21). When the national security minister unilaterally changes the status quo on the Temple Mount and barely receives a slap on the wrist, when the police do not arrest armed insurgents into army bases but regularly handcuff protesters, when an army officer singlehandedly decides to distribute fliers instructing the residents of southern Lebanon to evacuate, that is anarchy. Or, in the words of the Bible: “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his eyes.”
At present, crowned heads in the West are powerless figureheads and do not meddle in politics. When the role of the king of the United Kingdom requires him to speak, he does so in first person while stating the government’s policy, as though expressing his own opinions. A recent ceremonial speech in Parliament after a change in government was rife with “my government believes,” “my ministers will act,” and “the new law will,” even as several months earlier he was instructed to say the opposite.
There are those who retroactively try to apply those same principles of powerlessness to the ruler of Israel. He didn’t know, he doesn’t really decide, the officials determine everything, they did not inform him. Never mind what Israel’s long-serving prime minister said about the personal responsibility of Ehud Olmert, who took that post a few short months before the Second Lebanon War. When it comes to taking responsibility, our king could well be Charles.
The writer was Israel’s first ambassador to the Baltic states after the breakup of the Soviet Union, ambassador to South Africa, and congressional liaison officer at the Israeli embassy in Washington. She is a graduate of Israel’s National Defense College.