This time it's for real
In Israel, every political crisis feels like the point of no-return. This one may be just that
As I write this, tens of thousands of Israelis are headed toward the Knesset building in Jerusalem, to demonstrate their opposition to the package of legislation about the judicial system that is being brought to the first of three votes today in the legislature. There is no question that the legislation will pass in this initial ballot, as the coalition, which is sponsoring the bills, has a clear majority, and there are no signs of any rebels in the ranks, not on this topic.
Last night, however, President Isaac Herzog asked the government to slow down. Making an “emergency” speech to the nation about the crisis provoked by the pending legislation, Herzog spoke movingly about the extreme anxiety he feels about the very future of the country, expressing his fear that “we are moments from a confrontation, perhaps even a violent one.” Herzog requested that the coalition postpone the initial vote long enough to allow for negotiations between the government and the opposition about the proposals, and even offered his own outline of principles he thinks should guide such talks. Compromise was critical, he stressed, because, “if only one side wins – no matter which side it is – we will all lose.”
Unfortunately, in his desire to appear even-handed and above the political fray — as the president’s position requires him to be — Herzog talked as if both sides were behaving unreasonably, and that what was required was mainly a lowering of the flame. But, putting aside momentarily the fact that the content of the legislation would do mortal damage to the rule of law in Israel and to some of the safeguards necessary to preserve minority rights in a multicultural society, any honest observer can see that the government is uninterested in consensus, nor does it have any intention of working with the opposition on rethinking the current balance of power between the Knesset and the courts. The officials that have crafted the “reform” package (with a lot of help from the American-inspired, libertarian Kohelet Policy Forum) need the legislation to go into effect immediately — if not sooner — so that they can proceed with an entire agenda of other plans for Israel without the interference of a meddlesome Supreme Court.
And indeed, within hours of the president’s speech, Justice Minister Yaniv Levin announced that the first “reading” of the first package of bills would not be delayed, although he did not rule out the possibility of putting a hold on the legislative process after that initial vote. The opposition, on the other hand, has repeatedly declared that it was willing to negotiate, but only if the legislation’s sponsors agreed to put the process on hold while negotiations went on.
I include the update above as accompaniment to my posting of the opinion piece I published in Haaretz English Edition today. There, I respond to the column my colleague Gideon Levy wrote last week, in which he explained that, although he has sympathy for the protest movement, he won’t participate in it as long as Israel is occupying the Palestinian territories. Preserving the status quo in Israel is not going to save democracy, Levy believes, but rather amounts to a continuation of “apartheid.” I disagree, and I attempted to explain why in my oped, which I am reproducing below.
Israel’s anti-Netanyahu Protest Movement Can't Afford Political Purity Tests
Change begins under a big tent, making diversity key in Israel’s protest movement
David B. Green
Haaretz English Edition, February 13, 2023
In his last two opinion columns in Haaretz my colleague Gideon Levy offered up two cheers for the national movement protesting the government’s legislative blitzkrieg. Two cheers, not three, because the protest, argues Levy, although justified in attempting to stop the Netanyahu government’s nefarious plans, is not really about saving Israel’s democracy. That’s because, he argues, Israel long ago ceased to be a liberal democracy, most obviously because of the occupation. And ending the occupation is not even on the protest movement’s “to-discuss” list.
I agree that Israel is a highly imperfect democracy, and that as long as the Palestinians in the territories live under our military rule, it will never rise above that generous characterization. For me, though, that’s a reason to participate in the protest, not to stay home. That’s why I have joined the Saturday night demonstrations taking place outside the President’s Residence in Jerusalem. To me, they are the very essence of democratic speech: an essential and galvanizing call to action in cities and towns across the country – at some 40 locations and counting. We’ve seen high-tech workers, army reservists, feminists, former national security advisors, anti-occupation activists, LGBTQ + community, and religious Zionist speaking out.
These protests are but one manifestation of a spontaneous national response from a diverse public that appears to have been jolted awake from a long, untroubled sleep by a Netanyahu government that may finally have overplayed its hand with its crude grab for power.
From what is has already shared of its package of disingenuously termed “reforms,” it is clear that the government’s goals are far more wide-ranging than its plan to both pack and emasculate the Supreme Court. Passage of its judicial remake, however, is intended to pave the way to the frictionless approval of its other legislation. The latter includes bills meant to weaken organized labor and its ability to strike; new restrictions on civil-society organizations (a longtime nuisance to a prime minister who acts as if anyone who disagrees with him is a mortal threat to the Jewish people), and their ability to raise money abroad; a bill that would strip the job of legal adviser to a government ministry of any real oversight; and a plan, currently frozen, to shut down the independent and feisty public broadcaster, Kan.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s refusal to consider delaying “for even a minute” the judicial plan in order to allow for bipartisan discussion with the opposition, betrays his real intentions and just what the man thinks about democracy. He has as much as said that a shock-and-awe offensive was the only certain way to foist his plan on the public before it could organize resistance. But he miscalculated. The panic and outrage that have greeted the announcement of even part of the program is the sound of a public shaking off decades of complacency and apathy.
Reclaiming responsibility and power cannot start with a demand to end the occupation, however much we may believe in the necessity of that. It was therefore correct for the loose coalition of groups organizing the protest to begin with a much more general agenda. This is a big-tent operation, under whose top everyone can feel welcome if they value the multi-cultural nature of Israel society, and if they are no longer willing to allow those in power to cultivate hatred and mistrust between the different groups that make it up.
The people who are standing out in the winter chill at Habimah Square; the hundreds of Orthodox and Haredi people who filled the auditorium at the Chief Rabbinate building last month to talk about how their vision of Jewish morality has been perverted and politicized in what should have been the world’s exemplar of Jewish pluralism; the legal scholars who are giving daily primers on Zoom about the ins and outs of “override” laws and the right to strike – come from a wide array of backgrounds and have a variety of political worldviews.
In this sense, I see the movement as a sort of civic equivalent to the short-lived “government of change,” led by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid in 2021-22, whose main accomplishment was in demonstrating that it is possible to work together for the commonweal, and that politics need not be a zero-sum gladiator sport. Democracy is not about annihilating your rivals when election victory offers the opportunity, but rather about balancing the results of elections with the need to protect the rights of those who are in the minority.
So, the very act of demonstrating together – amicably, respectfully – is an expression of democracy. Joining together to say “No pasaràn!” – “They shall not pass!” – is a stage we need to go through if we are going to begin a more substantive civic dialogue about the basic ingredients that must be agreed upon if we have any hope of building a more egalitarian and just society.
Foiling the government’s plan is necessary, but not sufficient. We should harbor no illusions that it will be adequate to save Israel’s democracy, flawed as it may be. Hopefully, though, the public conversation that has already begun can continue, and lead people who are not used to doing so, to examine some of their self-satisfied assumptions about, for example, the relationship between Israeli Jews and the Palestinians with whom they share this land.
Once we have returned to a semblance of civic sanity, it may also be possible for an honest and multi-partisan examination of the judicial system, and seek to arrive at a consensus for change, if it is agreed that change is needed. That could then lead to a wider conversation about why Israel lacks a constitution, how that has contributed to our current perilous situation and, ideally, even lead to (another) attempt to create one. From there, we can move on to the occupation.
For now, this historic moment is not the time for tests of political purity. We need as many people in the mix as possible, with as many voices inside this big, boisterous tent of democracy as are needed to save it.
On Monday a general strike is planned across Israel. All are welcome. All are needed. This is what resistance looks like.