The following is a bit long, but is well-thought out and well-written. A friend of mine sent me his thoughts from the debate....and who he thinks should be supported for mayor

Impressions from the debate


Like (almost) all the people that attended the debate last night at Beis Tefilah between two of the mayoral candidates, Shalom Lerner (SL) and Moshe Abutbul (MA), I also came with a pre-defined decision about who I would vote for (SL) and the debate did not change my mind, but rather only strengthened my view (not to vote for MA).

With that disclaimer in mind, I would like to share some of my impressions from the debate (also based a bit on the candidates' election material as well as discussions I had with other participants after the event).

I think that the issues can be divided into three topics: Blah-blah, irrelevant issues and the main issues.

1. Regular Election blah-blah.

Each candidate promised that, if elected, he will clean up the city, solve all the problems with the youth, the education system, the parking, Kvish 10, Olim, Vatikim, old BS, RBS, English, Hebrew, Hilonim, Datiyim, Haredim, the budget, the environment, etc., etc., etc.

There is not much difference between the candidates in these issues.

I do believe that both the candidates have good qualities, much experience and many accomplishments, and will actually improve the city services for the good of the residents.

2. Issues that differentiate the candidates (that I think are irrelevant)

There are a number of issues that were mentioned (by the candidates, in their literature, etc.) that are totally irrelevant to the suitability of the candidate to function as a good mayor.

- English – I don't think that SL's English (or MA's lack of) will make either one a better or worse mayor. It may be more convenient for an Anglo new Oleh to speak to SL, but in Israel the language is Hebrew. Both agree that there is a need for some English speaking customer service in the Iriyah.

- Similarly, MA's being a "native" Israeli doesn't make him any better at dealing with the "Israelis" in the Iriyah. SL has been in Israel 2 decades also "speaks the language" just as well.

- MA's background in education, as well as SL's background in finance, are both fine qualities that will help them both in their jobs, and I'm sure they will have a slightly different way of working because of their different professional backgrounds, but once again, it is an issue that is not relevant in differentiating a mayor with a staff of professionals that will deal with the various departments. (Although I do feel that SL's financial understanding is more important to run a big organization than MA's background in education – as our incumbent mayor Danny Vaknin who also was a teacher and principal proves.)

- MA's big plan to make a "Minhelet" in RBS (some sort of mini city hall department specifically run by RBS residents) is also nonsense. If the sewer in front of my house is overflowing, what difference does it make if I call the maintenance department in the Iriyah in "old BS" who sends someone to fix it, or if I call the RBS-resident secretary in the RBS minhelet offices in RBS, who will then call the maintenance department in the Iriyah in "old BS" who sends someone to fix it? I do not understand what the minhelet will accomplish? The Iriyah can (and should) upkeep RBS, as well as all neighborhoods in the city, without having to open new offices. It won't give RBS any bigger budget and definitely not (and shouldn't) give preference to one part of the city over another. In today's day of telephones and automobiles, there should be no difference where the offices are physically situated. (Also, I understand that there was one some sort of similar Vaad Shechunah years ago which was similar to MA's minhelet which actually didn't do much and was disbanded after realizing that it was not needed.)

- There were also a number of other small issues that many of the participants noted that seem to may make one candidate better/worse than the other, that also may or may not be too relevant to running a city, and is more a matter of "style".

Many participants seem to think that MA was a better speaker than SL. (although there were some of the women that were quite upset that MA did not even once look towards the women during the entire speech – that may or may not show something about his personality).

I also was impressed by his method of speaking and his use of rhetoric and also think that he is a better public speaker than SL, but I also think that it is not so much of an important issue. You shouldn't elect a mayor (or a US president for that matter) just because he is a better public speaker than his opponent. Everyone will agree that Danny Vaknin is a speaker that would have outdone both of them – and we see what type of mayor he has been.

MA started the evening with the fact that it was the "yarzeit" of the murder of Yitzchak Rabin (as well as Rachel Imeinu) and mentioned 3 times! during the debate that "words can kill". Some people felt that saying that was very inappropriate. I also am not sure what he was insinuating and do think that it was a very stupid and inappropriate comment.

3. With keeping in mind that both SL and MA are good, qualified, dedicated and competent candidates for mayor, and either one will, as mayor, work hard to fix up the city for the benefit of the residents – as should be – there are a few issues that differentiate them and that should be that main issues when deciding who to vote for and what type of city you want for the future. In most of these crucial issues, I must admit that I was very disturbed by what I heard from MA and will therefore vote, and urge you all to vote, for SL.

- When SL brought up the issue of the Kanayim (the flag-burning, rock-throwing, women-assaulting anti-state neturei karta etc. residents of RBS B) creating a chilul hashem and that have made Bet Shemesh infamous (rightfully or not) in the "outside" world, and that MA has sided himself many times with these kanoyim, MA's response was some ambiguous statement that he is "for" everybody and that we "can't fight violence with violence" etc.
I do not know if MA has any back-room deal with these kanoyim or what his opinion is about the state or segregated busses etc. But I was fittingly upset with his response.

- MA made coalition agreements wit many of the non-religious (anti-Vaknin) parties in BS. In all the non-Hareidi newspapers (i.e. Temurah) MA is shown as the one single religious person surrounded by all the Hiloni leaders of BS. The promises (i.e. to give place of "biluy" for the youth etc) seem to me that he is trying to show himself as a big supporter of a non-religious BS. He of course doesn't mention that he is of the Shas party, and of course has very, very different ads in the religious RBS advertisements. This is in addition to the "rumor" that there is an "understanding" between them that he will let BS be "taken" by the non-religious and RBS by the hareidim.
In addition, MA has been known to say (refer to the "famous" resido video) that each "group" should have their own area. The hilonim should not come into the hareidi area and the hareidim should not have to go to the hilonin area (this was in reference that the government offices (i.e bituach leumi) should be separated fro hilonim and hareidim). Is this the way he plans on running the pluralistic, mixed city?
Any religious non-hareidi (and I do also include American yeshivish who are significantly different than Israeli hareidi) should be worried about this.

- Another point that bothered me is when SL talked about that after he becomes mayor to work with "everyone" and to give out jobs, resources, etc to every group fairly, (while MA already gave out all the jobs to the parties that signed with him already and has nothing left to offer anyone else). MA answered (to me it seemed like a very condescending way) that whoever joined him now will get "rewarded" and whoever did not join him will not ("will have to take the bus" were his words.) What bothered me more that MA's remarks were the "hooting" of the crowd who seem to like what he said (or really hate Gur).
I don't think that the purpose of this election is just to change the city government with a similar model that rewards his friends and punished those that didn't vote for him!

Finally, and not the least important, has nothing to do with MA or SL as individuals. It is not an issue of which candidate will be a better manager of the city departments. BS/RBS is at a point in the road which may decide the "style" of the city for many years to come. Shas is poring millions of shekels into MA's campaign. It is very, very important to Shas (i.e. for the national Shas party, not important to BS) that BS gets a Shas mayor. Also, all of the more right-wing hareidi leaders and Rabbis (i.e. national Agudah/UJT/Gimel) are pushing MA since it is very important to them also that BS gets a hareidi mayor.

Many dati-leumi, as well as American and more modern, working hareidim (see the TOV party) are worried that RBS will become a "ultra-Hareidi" city following the path of Beitar (which also was once a "mixed" city) Telshe Stone and Kiryat Sefer. Some people may surely think that that may be a good thing and vote accordingly. I myself do actually prefer to live in a religious neighborhood and think that it is very beneficial to me and my family (that being one of the main reasons that I moved here), but I am worried that in the current political situation (in BS and the entire country) that (with all due respect for MA) if Bet Shemesh gets a Shas, hareidi mayor (with connections to the most right-wing ultra-hareidi and kanoyim groups) it will not have a good impact on the future of the city.

Shalom Lerner, whom there is absolutely no disagreement that he is fine, bright, dedicated, accomplished, and honest, as well as religious and learned, and knowing the importance of keeping and helping RBS as a strong Torah-focused neighborhood will be a much better mayor for Bet Shemesh.

Vote accordingly.