Israeli Protests Were Decades in the Making; Now the Country Must Determine Its Future

The dramatic events in Israel are not just the result of proposed judicial reforms. They are not caused by the bill to eliminate application of the “reasonableness doctrine.” The reforms are the catalyst of the crisis, which has been slowly building over the past few decades, and finally erupted in full force with the legislative initiatives of the current government. Just like the bankruptcy process, so vividly described by Ernest Hemingway, it first occurred gradually and then suddenly. The genesis of the problem lies at the moment of Israel’s creation and the genius of Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion.

From the destruction of the Second Temple until the creation of the State of Israel, Jews had not existed as one nation. The Jews of the Holy Land, on the eve of Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948, were a group of very different communities tied together by the history and the great catastrophe of the Holocaust. Ben-Gurion understood that very well. It was an issue that had to be successfully solved, even if temporarily, for the new state to win the war and survive in the inhospitable environment of the Middle East and the Cold War. The future first prime minister was one of the best students of history this world has witnessed, and he applied his knowledge to solve the problem to the best of his abilities.

By the end of the Second World War, it was clear that the most prosperous and successful form of state structure was a stable democracy. Not just a democracy, but one that can survive and grow without imploding, disintegrating, or becoming a tyranny of the majority. Yet the question of what democracy represents is not simple. Some would argue that it is a system of government that guarantees freedom to individuals under its jurisdiction. It does do that, but only indirectly.

Unless one believes in direct democracy, along the lines of the Ancient Greek city states, that guarantee is unattainable and practically destructive. A democracy is a complex written, or unwritten as is the case with Israel, agreement between diverse social, cultural, and economic groups. A democracy balances at times diverging interests of each of those groups, maintaining an equilibrium and stability necessary for any social structure to exist. That creates an environment that all groups want to maintain, because it benefits each group separately and all groups together. Personal freedoms are a direct byproduct of this very delicate balance of forces, even if one’s personal freedom is part of the written compact between the groups.

However, every stable democracy is different, because its contours depend on the groups comprising it. Israel is no exception. Back in 1948, Ben-Gurion faced daunting tasks: there were a myriad Jews of different cultural, social, and economic backgrounds comprising the nascent nation (if one believes Polish and Romanian Jews are similar, one really needs to wake up).

It is fashionable nowadays to accuse Ben-Gurion of making a tragic mistake by exempting the Haredim from military service, and, for all practical purposes, allowing them semi-autonomy. Ben-Gurion did not like that choice. Yet he understood that at that junction of Jewish history, he was obligated to make everyone, no matter how reluctant, part of the democracy of the new state.

The makeup of the Israeli people have been changing, and the old assumptions, the pillars of democracy, have started to crumble. The compact of 1948 was made with the Israeli people, but the Jewish state’s population has changed. In this regard, Israel’s situation is not unique. The United States is undergoing a very similar process. The American system of government, with its peculiar characteristics such as the Federal system and the Electoral College, was designed and worked very well for the people who for centuries called themselves Americans. But Americans have changed dramatically in the past 50 years, and the previous stability of American democracy is under enormous stress. In Israel’s case, the minority groups previously satisfied with the status quo are asking for more power due to many reasons, the demographic one being of great importance. The problem is they are not the majority, as the current government misleadingly claims. Yet, the old compact appears to be broken for good.

The old divide of Israel’s politics was about war and peace. It is clear, based on the makeup of the pro- and anti-reform camps, that this is no longer the case. The question of what Israel is, not even who is a Jew, is the new political divide. No matter if some or all proposed reforms pass, the crisis will only deepen. Historically, the societies finding themselves in situations similar to today’s Israel have found only a few options out of the crisis. One is the civil war. After blood is spilled, either the country falls apart or, exhausted by the strife, people find a new paradigm for coexistence. Fortunately, Israel is not ready for that. The other option is a dramatic political realignment with the clear majority, via a compromise with the minority, setting new parameters for the democracy, perhaps a constitution. Israel is back to the drawing board of 1948, but without the wisdom of Ben-Gurion.

The author lives and works in Silicon Valley, California. He is a founding member of San Francisco Voice for Israel.

The post Israeli Protests Were Decades in the Making; Now the Country Must Determine Its Future first appeared on Algemeiner.com.