Finding middle ground

Ruth Gavison discusses the challenges facing Israel, why she believes ideological platform of her organization is "rich enough to enable debate" on many proposals.

By RON FRIEDMAN
Ruth Gavison 521 (photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem)
Ruth Gavison 521
(photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem)
In today’s Israel, where extremist positions and rhetoric have taken over public discourse and society seems to be under threat of tearing at the seams, there is one person who chooses to embrace the existing tensions and, against all odds, use them to lay a path for the Jewish state’s long-term flourishing.
In 2005, Israel Prize recipient Prof. Ruth Gavison founded the Metzilah Center for Zionist, Jewish, Liberal and Humanist Thought, the stated goal of which is to strengthen and apply the intellectual basis for the long-term welfare and positive development of Israel and the Jewish people. Gavison is a longtime law professor at the Hebrew University, a one-time nominee to the Supreme Court, a member of the Winograd Commission to investigate the 2006 Lebanon War and a founding member of The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI). In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, she talks about the challenges facing an organization whose four pillars seem to be pulling in different directions, the difficulty of attempting long-term planning in the country’s political environment, the dilemmas standing before a supporter of human rights in 2011, and the possibility of a new Middle Eastern country emerging in the upcoming months.
“Our role is to provide accurate context and definitions to replace all the often misleading slogans that murk the political and strategic waters, to put all the existing tensions on the table and analyze them in an effort to [help] decision- makers and the public see where the proposed policies take them,” she says.
“We do not aim to provide solutions. Our ideological platform is rich enough to enable debate on many specific proposals. The moment you have a vision which has four components pulling in different directions, obviously you will have tensions, and it is essential that the tensions be examined. That is a challenge for Israel, which is rarely met because the political horizons are too close, there is too much polemics and fighting, and no long-term and structural policy-making, based on an integrated strategic vision,” she continues.
“We want to give a platform for, and to train people who can give our struggling political system, which can barely lift its head from dealing with putting out fires, a far-looking view of our national challenges. I think that the absence of that function is an existential threat to the country,” asserts the Metzilah founder. “I know it sounds dramatic, but that’s what I believe. I want support to deal with this challenge both from outside and from within. It is a critical problem both for Israel and for its relations with the Diaspora.”
Zionism and liberal humanism
Gavison is the first to admit that for international eyes, Zionism has become a controversial ideology.
“Today it is unpopular to talk about Zionism because the Jewish people have their own state and it is seen by many as occupiers and dispossessors, but at its foundations, Zionism’s battle is one that aims for Jews to have a corner of the world in part of their historic homeland, where they are a majority and where they can rule their national and cultural destiny. Just like other liberation movements in Europe were linked to liberal ideals, so is Zionism. Since these traditions make up the basis of the major international human rights covenants, Zionism is also entrenched in the humanistic tradition,” she says.
She concedes that some equate Zionism with the occupation of the Arab population, especially after the 1967 war and the Greater Israel vision it planted, but claims it does not have to be like that.
“It certainly isn’t what Zionism’s forefathers envisioned. Buber, Ben-Gurion, Jabotinsky, all addressed these issues and dealt with them thoroughly. I am not prepared to surrender Zionism to the right wing – that the right wing, and especially the messianic right wing, be the sole bearer of the mantle of Zionism and claim that anyone who doesn’t go along with the idea of ‘Greater Israel’ is not a Zionist. I am a Zionist who wants a liberal and humanistic Zionism. And I will fight for it because I believe the ‘Greater Israel’ vision is doomed to undermine Zionism, not promote it.”
The human rights debate
Refusing to be ideologically pigeonholed, Gavison, who helped found the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) nearly three decades ago, has critical comments for some on the left wing as well. One problem is that they seem to disregard all evidence that the absence of peace in the region is not only Israel’s fault. Another issue is the tendency to present all issues of deep disagreement as if they can be easily determined by the language of rights. If the Right seeks to appropriate Zionism, the Left does the same with the human rights discourse.
“Though I am now only a member in ACRI, I still take human rights very seriously. My work in Metzilah does not ignore human rights. Seeking to protect human rights for all is an essential element of its work. But in complex situations, the commitment to human rights may lead in more than one way. The analysis and the discussion need to be nuanced, and to balance rights and interests. In a way, I see Metzilah’s work as an attempt to provide a more nuanced discussion of the implications of human rights on topics that organizations like ACRI sometimes take too one-sidedly,” she says.
“The human rights discourse, which developed greatly after the Second World War in reaction to atrocities committed by states against their own populations, has proven to be both very lively and very effective. This is good and important. In the name of human rights, legislation can be invalidated and decisions by sovereign states can be condemned. But this success of human rights created an understandable tendency to expand the human rights discourse further than its original purpose.
“Now movements and organizations, within states and in the international arena, have begun formulating their demands, not as interests and claims, which can be discussed within the social and political process and resolved in the way regular political questions are resolved, but as inalienable rights,” contends Gavison. “There is great danger in this, and for that reason, I believe that people who fight for human rights should themselves advocate a minimalist conception of human rights.”
The more we expand the scope of rights, she argues, the more we diminish and impoverish the space of political discourse, in which people of different views negotiate and compromise on political arrangements.
“Human rights debates are fought in courts and through arguments. The expansion of rights talk polarizes the rhetoric, pitting good against evil, light versus darkness. The disagreement is not a legitimate ideological or political disagreement; it is always a violation of human rights. When this is the case, the power of the human rights claims to identify real atrocities or violations gets weaker,” she says.
“Moreover, it is often said that democracy means the protection of rights. When rights get an expansive meaning, the principle of majority rule, which is an important aspect of democracy, is challenged in the name of democracy itself,” she continues. “Whatever the right or wrong of the position advanced by the human rights activists, the expansion weakens clarity of thought and the understanding that despite disagreements we must work together for the flourishing of our society.”
As an example – less heated than war and peace, but now at the center of public attention due to the recent mass protests – she gives the political debate over a country’s chosen social-economic regime.
“I myself lean to the side of social democracy, and I think the state does have welfare duties toward all its citizens. A generous security net is an important part of Israel’s vision. It is critical for the right balance between Israel as a Jewish nation-state and Israel committed to the welfare of all its citizens irrespective of religion or ethnic identities. However, it is a bad idea to argue that Israel’s present arrangements violate my human rights. The question of the social and economic regime of the country must be determined by the political process. I am glad that the protest movement now is indeed political, and seeks to influence decisions of the elected authorities, rather than by going to court to argue that the socioeconomic arrangements are ‘unconstitutional’ because they violate people’s basic rights. It is also important [that] the discourse on the subject will include a reference to civic obligations and participation and not only to entitlements from the state.”
Another example is the case of immigration. Gavison edited a paper on this subject for Metzilah, written by Shlomo Avineri, Amnon Rubinstein and Liav Orgad.
“This is not only a question in Israel, but all over the developed world. Of course, people who enter the country without permission have some rights, and these are sometimes violated by the state authorities. The work of human rights organizations in pointing this out is critical. But some human rights organizations argue that Israel must, as a matter of human rights, grant them full equality of welfare and education. Turning this issue, which involves thousands of people and the country’s demographic future, into a matter of rights is not required by international human rights law. It is taking things too far,” she asserts.
“I believe that the human rights organizations in Israel fill a superimportant function because they are facing rhetoric that completely rejects any minority rights, or any respect for dissent. This is precisely why it is a pity that they are not choosing their battles wisely. Instead of concentrating on the many instances in which the question – even if it is debated and debatable – is clearly a question of human rights, they are not careful, and in many cases they are handling problems that should be solved by political means by employing the language of human rights.
“This is unfortunate in domestic debates. It is doubly unfortunate on the international level, where things are far more politicized. It is the duty of such organizations to point out and investigate and publish reports about the conduct of Israeli authorities during armed conflicts. At the same time, they should be extra careful with their fact-finding and their allegations when international human rights talk is being used by Israel’s enemies in a cynical and manipulative way,” warns Gavison.
She is no less concerned over the reaction of parts of the public in Israel, and especially of parts of the Knesset in recent months.
“Israel always was, and it must remain, a free country,” she states. “A stable, free society tolerates most speech, but does not necessarily endorse all of it. A democracy may seek to regulate speech and freedom of association, but it should do this very carefully, and it should make sure that the proposed remedy is not worse than the problem it sets out to fix. Parliamentary politicized investigations of activities and of funding of human rights NGOs is clearly the opposite of the way such issues should be dealt with. Thus such proposals in the Knesset increase divisiveness both in Israel and among Jews elsewhere. Against this background, the realization that there are those in Israel who are battling for the middle ground is very important.”
She posits that “despite the voices that come out of the Knesset, which portray it in a very bad light, our reality here is much more nuanced, more gray than black and white, and we have to raise awareness of that, both internally and outward to the world.”
A voice for middle
Israel Gavison is aware that her positions make it difficult to define her as either Left or Right, and reckons this may in fact be helpful for the role she seeks to fill.
“I believe that I can succeed because my path provides an alternative to the battle between black and white, forces of light and darkness, and aims to expand the meaning of Zionism to reflect liberal and humanist values versus those that would force us to choose to adopt the nationalistic version of Zionism or give up on Zionism altogether.”
She believes that Israel must stop controlling territories inhabited by people who are not its citizens. “This is not only immoral, but also unwise. But to do this we must have a political community of people who trust each other and are willing to make sacrifices because a majority said this should be done. This can only be achieved if all Israelis understand that they are members of the same political unit, and that they cannot just obey it when it suits them.”
Another paper she edited for Metzilah, written by Yaffa Zilbershatz and Nimra Goren, deals with the claim that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a “right to return” to Israel. For Gavison, the Palestinians’ “right of return” is one of the most important points in negotiations.
“The issues of borders and security arrangements can be settled as part of an agreement within the context of two peoples achieving self-determination in part of their own homeland. However, if the issue of the refugees – and specifically their future return – is left open, there may be two states, but the meaning of this is that it is not a solution of two states for two peoples, but rather the formation of a Palestinian state alongside a second bi-national state,” she says.
The paper argues that international law does not recognize such a “right” and that the issue should be resolved in negotiations. However, Gavison argues that the Palestinian leadership simply cannot come out and say they waive the right of return. “This is a fact of the political situation that we must understand.
Yet Israel cannot afford to recognize the right and allow resettlement of a large number of Palestinians in Israel.”
The road to September
While Metzilah intentionally does not have a position on what political steps should be taken on the Israeli- Palestinian front, its founder states that she is now pessimistic about a real prospect for a final-status agreement. Nonetheless, she believes it is important that there be a credible vision shared by all the parties – Israelis, Palestinians and the international community. “Two states for two peoples is such a vision, but it is much too vague. A shared goal is important even if it is not possible to reach it now. It is also important to make moves that show that the parties take the goal seriously,” she notes, pointing to the well-earned lack of trust the parties feel toward each other as a major hurdle.
Gavison has little faith that the big concessions required of the parties for a final two-state solution are possible now. Instead of giving up, though, she hopes for a gradual but persistent move in the right direction.
“From the Israeli side, this may require allowing the Palestinians more control over Area B – including letting them have control over areas in which there are Jewish settlements – while they share responsibility for their security.
The gradual development of practices that include Jews living under Palestinian control may be extremely important for the prospects of an agreement,” she says. “On the Palestinian side, the declaratory and educational attitude should be one that elaborates and articulates the benefits of a two-states-fortwo- peoples solution. These moves are not very popular with some of the respective parties, so maintaining the status quo and unilateral moves seem the best that we can have.”
At the same time, she believes September in the UN provides an opportunity and not just a threat for Israel.
“Anybody who is sincerely interested in ending the conflict has to create a system of incentives for both sides to carry forward. If pressure is only put on one of the sides, it’s counterproductive. It raises Israel’s suspicions and empowers the extremists who don’t want to see any concessions taking place,” she says. “If the UN move is aimed at UN recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders without resolving refugees and settlements, this preempts negotiations and is bad for an agreement. But if the UN resolution endorses, again, the two-states-for-two-peoples solution, leaving the details for a structured political process, which includes both negotiations and coordinated unilateral moves, September may be an important opportunity.”
It is hard to be an optimist these days, Gavison concedes, but she urges people not to lose hope.
“I fully believe the majority wants to live in, and is willing to protect, an Israel that is both proudly Jewish and Zionist, and at the same time democratic and fair and committed to the rights and welfare of all its residents. It does not want an Israel that is theocratic, racist, messianic or exploitative; it also does not want an Israel that is binational. If we are not able to create a state that most Israelis are proud to live in, I think our chances to survive here are not very good. It is a great challenge, but we can meet it,” she concludes. “We must.”