 |
| Image from JTA |
What precipitated this apparent change in political allegiances by some voters is not easy to answer. Depending on what side of the political aisle one is will determine what kind of response you will get.
As I have repeatedly been saying, the protests over the proposed judicial reform package is just a symbol of an underlying motive. That is made clear by the fact that even though the judicial reform package was tabled, the protests continued. Although there are several important underlying issues, I believe the primary one is about what kind of country Israel will be. Will it be a liberal democratic country where religious rights will be subordinate to civil rights? Or will it be a country where the reverse is true?
The country is divided along these lines. Those protesting now saw a majority of their electorate choosing the latter. Which is a sea change in what its founders envisioned the State of Israel to be.
An op-ed in JTA by Andrew Silow-Carroll seems to corroborate this view. The following are some excerpts:
Beyond the judicial reform itself, these stories include the Palestinians and the occupation, a resurgent patriotism among the center and the left, chaos within Netanyahu’s camp, a Diaspora emboldened to weigh in on the future of Zionism and the rejection on the part of the public of a reform that failed the “reasonableness test.”
(There are) a slew of issues just below the surface of the protest, including the simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, divisions over the increasing strength of Israel’s haredi Orthodox sector, and a lingering divide between Ashkenazi Jews with roots in Europe and Mizrahi Jews whose ancestry is Middle Eastern and North African.
For Alon-Lee Green, one of the organizers of the protests, the issues are equality and fairness... what (kind of) society (do) we want to live in: Will we keep living in a society that is unequal, unfair and that is moving away from our basic needs and desires, or will it be an equal society for everyone who lives in our land?”
“The split is between those that believe Israel should be a more religious country, with less democracy, and see democracy as only a system of elections and not a set of values, and those who want Israel to remain a Jewish and democratic state,”
As for the other side... they see an activist judiciary as an attempt by Ashkenazi elites to force their minority view on the majority. Supporters of the government think it is entirely unreasonable “for judges to think they can choose their successors, strike down constitutional legislation and rule according to ‘that which is reasonable in the eyes of the enlightened community in Israel,’” said Hazony, quoting Aharon Barak, the former president of the Supreme Court of Israel and bane of Israel’s right.
Daniel Tauber, an attorney and Likud Central Committee member, agrees that those who voted for Netanyahu and his coalition have their own concerns about a democracy — one dominated by “elites,” which in the Israeli context means old-guard Ashkenazi Jews, powerful labor unions and highly educated secular Jews. “The more this process is subject to veto by non-democratic institutions, whether it be the Court chosen as it is, elite military units, the Histadrut [labor union], or others, the more people will lose faith in democracy,” said Tauber.
This pretty much sums up the dynamics behind the protests.
So who’s right? Should Israel be a western style liberal democracy where civil rights override religious rights or should Israel be a religious country where religious rights override civil rights?
My answer - as always - is somewhere in the middle. The solution as I have said is compromise. Where each sides gets some of what they want but not all of what they want. But as things stand now, I'm not sure that’s even possible anymore. Too much anger on both sides. Which foreshadows an endless series of short term election cycles. If not a civil war.