All experienced debaters know the importance of not overstating one’s case. A skilled opponent will seize on that one misstep and make it the crux of the debate. As with most of life’s valuable lessons this one usually has to be learned through bitter experience.

I was once debating someone with a kippah srugah on the Torah community’s conduct during World War II in front of a very mixed audience. He criticized the fact that funds were sent to Shanghai during the war to the remnants of the European yeshivah world and demanded to know why the yeshivaleit had not shut their Gemaras. There were five or six strong responses to his criticism and I made them all. But then I added that my opponent “hates Torah.” When the audience gasped I knew I had gone too far.

For the same reason it would be a terrible mistake for opponents of former senator Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be Secretary of Defense to charge him with being an anti-Semite. For one thing if you accuse a person of possessing a negative quality that he does not recognize in himself he will hate you for it. It is possible to create anti-Semites where none existed.

More important the whole debate would then center on that accusation and the accusers would quickly be put on the defensive. The issue would become one of whether the “Israel Lobby” employs McCarthyite tactics to intimidate critics of the allegedly right-wing Likud government.

Framing the debate as one over what is in Hagel’s heart can only work to his advantage. There is no way a majority of senators are going to go on record as accusing a former colleague of being an anti-Semite.

Yes Hagel should be questioned about his eagerness to close down the Haifa USO when he headed the USO despite the fact that it was both one of the most popular and most self-supporting of the USOs. Marsha Hatleman of JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) has stated that Hagel told her that if the Jews want a USO inHaifa“let the Jews pay for it.” And that is largely what happened. Certainly she should be called and Hagel should be questioned about it. But the word anti-Semite should never be raised. Let him explain what he meant.

Similarly Hagel’s reference to the Israel Lobby as the “Jewish lobby” suggests at minimum that he sees ethnic identity — not American interests — as the main reason to supportIsrael. If so his recent protestations that he has always been a strong champion ofIsraelring a bit hollow.

Hagel is reported to have been a regular speaker on the American Muslim lecture circuit in recent years. If so his addresses to those groups should be carefully studied and their press releases scrutinized. Did he frequently lament the inordinate power of theIsraelor the Jewish lobby? Did he decry too great a tilt of American foreign policy inIsrael’s favor? Did harsh criticisms of Israeli intransigence or of Jewish intimidation of members of Congress feature prominently at these conferences? Do the sponsoring organizations have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood? These are all legitimate questions.

I would add however that there is no reason that these questions need to be asked by Jews or that Jewish organizations need to be at the forefront raising these issues.

OPPONENTS OF THE NOMINATION would do well to remember that the great danger of Hagel’s appointment has little to do with what he thinks about Jews or evenIsrael. His views on the Iranian nuclear program are far more crucial. As Secretary of Defense Hagel would be required to oversee any American military action againstIran.

Yet Hagel is on record as calling a military strike againstIran“not a viable feasible responsible option.” Even sanctions againstIranwere too much for him. In 2001 he was one of two senators to vote against extending the original Iranian sanctions bill and in 2004 one of two to vote against the Libya-Iran Sanctions Act. He has downplayed the significance ofIranacquiring nuclear weapons in a world in which the nuclear genie is already out of the bottle.

In the confirmation hearings Hagel will claim that he is on board with the administration’s positions just as he has backtracked from his outspoken and negative opinions of certain minority groups whose opposition would have made him radioactive with Democratic senators.

 But it will not do for him to say that his thinking has changed or are not reflective of the “totality of who I am.” He should be pressed to explain why he thought what he did then and what has led him to change his mind today in some detail.

Hagel has consistently urged a more balanced American approach to the Middle East — one in which American support for “our ally” Israel is not at the expense of the Palestinian people or at the expense of America’s Arab and Muslim relationships.

Already in 2002 when Palestinian terrorism against Israelis was still in full swing — terrorism which Hagel justified as “desperate men do[ing] desperate things” — he opined that the time for negotiations had passed. “An endgame must be brought to the front now.” In short theUnited Statesmust impose a solution on the parties even when the Palestinians have yet to show any willingness to acceptIsrael’s existence.

At the very least these views place Hagel firmly in the realist camp of Zbigniew Brzezenski Brent Scowcroft Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer who have always seen resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the key to remedying all the deformities and backwardness of the Arab world. The recent civil wars inLibyaandSyria the revolution inEgypt the turmoil throughout the Arab world — none of which had the slightest bit to do withIsrael— have done nothing to dissuade them.

WHATEVER THE OUTCOME of the confirmation battle much of the damage has already been done. The nomination itself sends a message about the president’s intentions. President Obama well knew that Hagel’s nomination would not go down smoothly. His normally faithful lapdog Ira Forman the head of the 2012 campaign’s outreach to the Jewish community warned in 2009 when Hagel was appointed to the President’s Intelligence Advisory Committee that had he been appointed to a policy position with which the National Jewish Democratic Council (which Forman then headed) would “have real concerns.”

The president’s “in your face” appointment (in Senator Lindsay Graham’s words) was made because of Hagel’s views not despite them. We can fairly assume that they represent the president’s own. For that reason the appointment sends an important message toIran. And the Iranian foreign ministry was quick to hail President Obama’s nomination of an “anti-Israel” former senator who opposes military action againstIran.

Perhaps former New York Mayor Ed Koch one of Obama’s spokesmen to the Jewish community in the last election said it best. “Frankly I thought that there would come a time when [the president] would renege … on his support ofIsrael. It comes a little earlier than I thought it would.”

The Dark Cloud of Diminishing Clout

Israel’s elections are just around the corner and they will be fateful for the chareidi community. The end of the Tal Law means that the next government will have to address the draft of yeshivah students.

The Israel Defense Forces are not eager to absorb thousands of yeshivah bochurim but the incoming government will not have unlimited room to finesse the issue. The Israeli Supreme Court which struck down the Tal Law will be looking over the government’s shoulder. And so will the voters. “Equality in sharing communal burdens” is at the top of virtually every party’s campaign slogans.

At the same time the chareidi community’s political power has rarely been lower. In the past there was a clear divide between two major blocs in the Israeli electorate centering around the peace process. For both Right and Left the peace process was so crucial that they were willing to enter coalition agreements with the chareidi parties to ensure that their vision of peace prevailed.

But that divide over war and peace no longer defines Israeli society. Today there is a large consensus inIsraelthat peace with the Palestinians will not be achieved any time in the new future. Thus Shelly Yachamovich head of the Labor Party and likely head of the opposition in the next Knesset has spoken very little about the peace process focusing instead on socioeconomic issues.

But with no one issue on which passions run high dividing the electorate the value of the chareidi parties as coalition partners declines. There are at least six parties that could conceivably join with the combined Likud-Yisrael Beitanu list as part of the next coalition.

While most likely scenarios still put the chareidi parties within the governing coalition their leverage will be diminished. The threat to bolt the coalition only works when doing so would have the potential to bring down the government. But with so many parties grouped towards the center of the political band the prime minister will likely be able to find replacements for any party that leaves. 

And even within the coalition the chareidi parties will not be able to push their agenda forcefully because among their coalition partners are likely to be other parties that have promised their voters to “equalize the burdens.”

LACK OF INTERNAL UNITY could also lessen chareidi political power. One of the enduring mysteries of Israeli politics is how the chareidi population keeps growing but the number of chareidi Knesset members does not.

The most plausible answer is that many chareidim are either not voting or they are voting for non-chareidi parties. The slogan of UTJ — “we are all chareidim” — conveys a message of inclusiveness. But in that message is the recognition that there are segments of the community who today feel that their concerns are not being addressed or that the only time they are viewed as full-fledged chareidim is when their votes are being solicited prior to elections.