Independently of my kibbitzing in the Knesset, I've been quite active in a particular radical political organization (RPO). Today I'll explain why I think that organization is important and what its prospects are.

While there always have been, and there still are, numerous organizations and parties devoted to infusing the notion of Jewish statehood with concrete meaning, most of these are of limited value because they have failed to understand the nature of Israel's problems and consequently have no hope of offering reasonable solutions.

Israel's problems are rooted in the fact that the self-appointing elite who run the country (police, army, prosecution, courts, press, academia etc.) suffer from a serious crisis of identity that leads to vindictive, destructive acts. I've discussed this in the past and won't go through the gory details again. (If you have the stomach, read Ozrad Lev's recent book about how Yossi Ginosar, a well-connected slimeball with huge financial interests in the Palestinian authority, was Ehud Barak's key negotiator and how the whole establishment was enlisted to let him get away with it.) The highest priority of anyone who cares about Israel's future is to throw the bums out and replace them with new leadership with a clear sense of Jewish identity. Unfortunately, among those playing the game here, RPO seems to be the only organization that has understood this basic truth.

Take the Mafdal. (Henny Youngman reference here.) The Mafdal has been through various phases. Initially, they were apologists and spear-carriers for the Labor party to the point of inventing a whole theology of self-debasement. They imitated every secular Zionist meshugas but only just after it had gone out of style. In more recent phases, they've taken to sitting on the sidelines like Statler and Waldorf making cynical comments and criticizing every initiative without ever doing anything constructive. (They're useful for little budgeting arguments or getting some of their own people appointed as dayanim.) What has remained unchanged throughout is their mindset: they are strictly backseat drivers. Sometimes they flatter the driver and sometimes they berate him but one thing they will never presume to do is to actually take over the wheel. Mafdalnikim may be hacks but they won't drive the cab.

RPO has at least rejected this Mafdalian attitude. It has defined its objective as replacing the current leadership. It's tactic of infiltrating the Likud, in an entirely open and forthright manner, is precisely the right tactic. This is why I am involved with RPO.

I'm not oblivious to the fact that presumptuousness alone does not qualify somebody for leadership. To lead, you need to know what you want and you need to know what you can get away with. Any shlepper -- even the Mafdal -- can criticize others without offering a better alternative. Any adolescent can engage in dangerous political fantasies while taking for granted that some grown-up will put his foot down when matters threaten to unravel. If you want to sit at the desk where the buck stops, you have no such luxuries.

So then, does RPO have what it takes? To be honest, I'm skeptical. But they are doing some very good work in the trenches and they've reframed the objective. How it will all play out is an open question. But here are some of the seismic fault lines that will determine RPO's path:

1. Protest or revolution? Most of those involved in acts of civil disobedience or refusal to follow military orders do not view such activity as a threat to the regime. They take the continued functioning of the state and its institutions, especially the army, entirely for granted. Chalk it up to youthful exuberance and naivete. The leaders of RPO, however, are actually aware that these activities can spin out of control and lead to total anarchy. This is what some of them are hoping for because they think that somehow a state of anarchy will facilitate their own rise to power. I'm aware that getting corrupt people out of power can't be achieved without breaking some of the rules they make, but this is very dangerous thinking and I worry where it might lead. Some will know when to exercise self-restraint but many will not.

2. Tactics or principle? In the last internal Likud elections, there were three factions: Omri Sharon's thugs, Yisrael Katz's makhers and Uzi Landau's people of principle. The RPO deal-makers swung a deal with Katz rather than Landau because Katz has the votes and Landau could be taken for granted. The foot soldiers were quite pissed off. This is going to happen a lot. One thing that should be borne in mind is that every radical organization will attract lots of out and out lunatics to its ranks and I can attest that RPO is no exception. Such people operate in permanent anger mode and have no interest in deals that require restraint now in order to reap a payoff later. (In this particular case, I think they were actually right because Katz's people are not trustworthy.)

3. Yiddishkeit or Eretz Yisrael? One rift within RPO regards the question of who are closer allies, those who are firm on territory but soft on religion or those who are firm on religion but soft on territory. ("Soft on territory" is a relative term. Here I don't refer to Oslo supporters but rather to those who think retrenchment is simply usually a dumb idea rather than a misalignment of the cosmos.)

4. Political reformation or building the Beis Hamikdash? Most of the time, the makhers in RPO speak in political terms but there are some who are more preoccupied with reviving malchus Beis Dovid. I've had some highly amusing public debates with a particular colleague who wished to eliminate internal votes in RPO's committees ("demokratya shmemokratya") since he felt we ought to set an example by granting our chairman privileges of royalty. (When he had a falling out with our royal chairman over item 3, I accused him of being mored bemalchus.) We have people starting sanhedrins, preparing klei mikdash, and I-don't-want-to-know what else. The main makhers seem to me to mostly be humoring these people but I'm not sure.

5. Ego, ego, ego. All the above is small potatos compared to potential rifts revolving around who decides what. So far it has held together remarkably well even if the rhetoric often slides into demagoguery (or, on occasion, megalomania). Given all the above, opportunities for self-assertion on the part of internal dissidents should prove to be plentiful.

Not a pretty picture, I know, but organizational politics never is pretty. In the final analysis, RPO has truly grasped something fundamental. If they manage to stay the course and avoid the temptations of dechikas ha-ketz, good things might happen.