A political storm involving Israeli Knesset Member Yinon Magal has been dominating Israel's news media in the last week. A tempest in a teapot compared to other news: Russia punishing Turkey for downing a Russian aircraft, Europe grappling with the aftershocks of terrorism, the world is getting ready to battle climate change, Palestinian stabbers still trying, and at times succeeding, to kill Israelis – all this is happening, and yet Israel is busy with an MK that is guilty of, well, bad manners, foul mouth, inelegance, bullish behavior toward women. Possibly even criminal harassment. Magal used explicit language, and (allegedly) his hands and mouth, to sexually harass women with whom he worked when he was still a journalist. Condemnation of such behavior is unanimous, and Magal had to first resign his post as the Jewish Home Party’s Knesset faction chairman because of it – and later, this morning, to realize that he can no longer remain a member of Knesset. Magal resigned after getting some credit for immediately admitting and apologizing for some of his faulty behavior.
Why is this an important story?
There are the obvious reasons: Magal behaved badly, and as a public figure his condemnation and possible punishment could be a warning sign for other men who do not know how to properly behave in a professional setting. Israel has already sent a President to jail because of sexual misbehavior. In the case of President Moshe Katzav the allegations were much more serious, of course. He was found guilty of rape. Magal's case is less dramatic and less clear-cut when it comes to criminal charges. The police is looking into it. Legal counselors are going to get involved. But there is a chance that the (former) MK will not be criminally prosecuted. And in case he is prosecuted, the charges will not be as dramatic as rape or assault. That is, unless new information emerges of which I am not aware. New information about a fourth woman, claiming she was kissed by Magal without prior warning or reasonable pretext, was published on Sunday evening – and was the last straw in forcing Magal out of the Knesset.
In some way, though, Magal’s case is more interesting than previous such cases (Katzav, or Minister Haim Ramon) because of the political connotation and because Magal was not a Knesset Member of just any party, he was an MK of a Zionist-religious party. A party that is committed, at least on paper, to family values and to modest behavior when it comes to relations between the sexes.
The political connotation makes this case, like many other debates that Israel is currently having, somewhat sad. People, rather than looking at the case before them, at the facts and their meaning, are looking at the party and the political camp. They defend the behavior of someone belonging to “their” side, behavior they would not tolerate on the “other” side – or criticize the behavior of someone belonging to the “other” side that they quite easily tolerate on “their” side. The result is what you'd expect it to be: Magal was criticized by left wingers, the political rivals of his party, much more than he was by right wingers. And he was defended by right wingers much more than he was defended by left wingers.
Similarly, when Minister Haim Ramon of Kadima was convicted by the court because of an unwanted kiss he forced on a female soldier, Uri Ariel was quick to explain that this was “another stain on the character of the Kadima Party” – a party with which he was disillusioned because of the disengagement from Gaza and other things. But last week, when Ariel's own party was involved, the minister was worried about the “unnecessary public lynch.” MK Bezalel Smotrich, also a member of Magal's party, was even more forgiving. Magal's desire to “make teshuva” is “worthy of appreciation and allows us to put matters behind us… and continue to serve the Nation of Israel,” he said.
To be fair to Ariel and some of his other friends – Magal, unlike Ramon (or Katzav), has not yet been investigated by the authorities. He was not prosecuted, and he was not convicted of wrong behavior by the court. There is a chance that he will never have to stand in court and defend himself against the allegations as it isn't clear if anyone wants to formally file a complaint against him. Thus, Magal is not (yet) a criminal in the official sense – he was just an MK whose behavior was exposed and shamed on Facebook by two females who formerly worked with him. So Ariel can still say: if he is prosecuted and convicted, I will use the same language I used against Minister Ramon. And Smotrich can also say: Ramon was slow to acknowledge the seriousness of the allegations and slow to offer proper apologies.
If you want to believe that is why Magal was treated differently by his friends on the right, go ahead and believe it. I think he was treated differently because his vote was needed, and because he is a fellow fighter for the same political agenda – against the leftist media, against the leftist courts, against the leftist elites, for the settlements, for a hawkish foreign policy.
He was also treated differently by the left because of the opposite reasons: because they want the right to be humiliated, because they want his party to be in disarray, because they dislike Magal – a charismatic speaker for rightwing causes who suddenly seems vulnerable. Thus, MK Stav Shafir, who had no trouble supporting a politician suspected of high corruption for President, could now say that she will boycott all activities in which MK Magal will be involved. And columnists who have no problem writing for a newspaper, even though their fellow columnist was accused of worse deeds and keeps writing for the paper, were quick to demand that Magal resign from the Knesset.
Yes, these people also have good arguments with which to defend what seems like a hypocritical double standard. Magal admitted his sin, so there is no need to wait for the court. Magan is a public figure and the Knesset a public institution, so the standard for it should be higher.
Can one overcome one’s biases and look at Magal's case without thinking about the MK's political affiliation? That is also a problematic proposition. The party of which he is a member is a religious party whose members often lecture the other public about their faulty promiscuity and lack of respect for modest behavior. So no, it is not worse for a member of a religious party to be guilty of sexual harassment than it is for a member of a non-religious party; but it is somewhat more complicated for a religious party to look the other way when one of its members admittedly used the kind of language Magal used. And it is somewhat more complicated for the voters of a religious party to look the other way when one of their representatives – married with children – approaches other women the way Magal did. In other words: If what Magal did was criminal, then it is criminal for everyone. But if what he did was just in bad taste and inappropriate, such impropriety should be harder to swallow for a party presuming to occupy a higher behavioral ground.
To me, it is quite obvious that Magal should not be a Member of Knesset. Not because he is a terrible person, or because what he did is shocking, or because there is no way for him to atone for it. Magal should not be a member of Knesset even though there are MKs more embarrassing than he is (Oren Hazan is the prime example), and there are MKs more corrupt than he is (as far as I know, Magal was never accused of corruption), and there are MKs more dangerous than he is (Hanin Zoabi comes to mind). Magal should not be an MK out of his own choice. He was smart, and somewhat brave, to admit his misconduct, and offer an apology to his accusers. He should offer a similar apology to the voters that sent him to the Knesset, and that are currently at a loss for words – having to engage in an undignified defense, or to insist on a politically uncomfortable offense.
The decision to resign was the right decision not because of the attacks of his political rivals. He needed to resign not because of his being an unworthy person. Magal said: I've made a mistake, this is not who I am, please forgive my misbehavior. He needed to resign since that's the only thing that could make it easier for everyone (well, at least for those who have not yet completely lost their ability to listen to people with whom they disagree) to believe him.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.