I believe that by now no one can deny that Israel is in the middle of a very serious political, constitutional and social crisis, which if not resolved one way or another might easily deteriorate into a much deeper conflict and – Heaven forbid – even civil strife.
The question is, how on earth can we avoid the latter outcome? Cynics might say that a “good” external war could do the trick because there is nothing like a war to get us united, at least for a certain period. But I do not believe that cynicism is a good adviser in the current situation.
Because Israel is made up of so many ethnic, religious and national groups that hold so many ideologies, beliefs and traditions, compromise has always been the only way to maintain social calm and governability in the country. Mapai, under David Ben-Gurion, was considered to be the epitome of compromise but one shouldn’t forget that at first, the Herut Movement and the Communist Party, not to mention the Arab population at large, were excluded from the circle of those with whom Mapai felt obliged to compromise.
The three national unity governments of 1984-1990 were also an interesting experiment in a compromise between two main political blocs, which broke down over the issue of the peace process when Labor leader Shimon Peres was falsely led to believe that he could form an alternative government without the Likud.
Netanyahu's new government abandons the principle of compromise
Netanyahu in all his governments until the current one, also seemed to accept the principle of compromise, even though the partners and the issues over which compromises were reached kept changing. The difference today is that for the first time in its history, Israel has a government with a workable majority that is fully Right, without any Left, Center or Arab members in the coalition and with an almost full consensus within it, that the time has come for the Right to rule in full and to overthrow objectionable Left and liberal principles and elites.
Even within the government, the coalition is based on an almost full submission of the Likud to most of the whims and demands of its four religious party partners, in return for support for the Likud’s fulfillment of its plans for a constitutional revolution which threatens to abolish the judicial review function of the judiciary over the executive and legislative branches.
It is not surprising that the current government is not inclined to compromise with the opposition about anything, especially since, for the time being, its parliamentary majority (64:56) is safe and stable, even though I cannot imagine that its leaders are not aware of the dangers to Israel’s cohesion if they will refuse to budge.
Most of the opposition is also wary of compromise at this stage since it does not believe that what the government wants is a true reform that will rectify certain defects in the way the Israeli regime has worked to the present and the continued discrimination against certain population groups, rather than a deep constitutional change that will turn Israel from an imperfect liberal democracy into an illiberal democracy based exclusively on majoritarianism, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – with three open criminal charges against him – as its authoritarian leader.
I believe that the hope that President Isaac Herzog will somehow manage to get the two sides to sit together in his residence and try to work out a compromise at this stage is not realistic, even though he might be more successful in trying to get the two sides to sit together and reach some sort of agreement to reduce the toxic rhetoric between them.
EACH OF the sides keeps calling out to the other to stop the threats and mutual vilification. Just last Sunday, Netanyahu called out to the opposition to stop alleged threats on his own life and the lives of his ministers, coming from some of its supporters (though he said nothing about the fact that the security around Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, who has criticized his government’s legal reform plan, was raised last week to the highest level due to concrete threats on her life from amongst his own supporters), while the Opposition keeps complaining about a toxic machine within the Likud that keeps spewing hatred and fake news against the opposite camp and its members. Whether or not one or both of the sides are exaggerating, all this noise must stop by mutual agreement.
One of the problems in the current situation is that the government seems intent on making the fastest possible progress in its legislative agenda connected with the legal changes it seeks, at least until after the first reading of the various bills (some of which involve changes in basic laws), without any significant amendments being accepted by it at this stage. It is suggested that after getting over the hurdle of the first reading, the government will be willing to seriously discuss amendments to the bills.
This implies that all the current marathon deliberations in the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee are little more than purposeless rhetoric and fluff. The Opposition keeps complaining that the committee deliberations, which are the only deliberations the Government is willing to hold with the participation of the Opposition at the moment, are a waste of time because they are unlikely to bring about any change.
Perhaps the Opposition would soften its approach if it were convinced that toward the second and third readings of the bills, the government will be willing to compromise. For the time being, the opposition has no reason to trust the government on this count.
In the last few days, there have been suggestions that the government is considering reducing the number of reform bills that it plans to pass simultaneously via a fast-track procedure. This might be the result of the spreading opposition to the Government’s moves, the demonstrations in Israel and the growing criticism from abroad – not least of all is what French President Emmanuel Macron allegedly said to Netanyahu during his weekend visit to Paris about the question mark that looms over his government’s commitment to democracy.
Of course, if all this is true, one is still left with the question of whether reducing the tempo and numerical scope of the process will enable the creation of a new modus vivendi between the government and the opposition, and enable the two to unravel the Gordian Knot that has been created over the last few weeks or months.
The bottom line is whether a new modus operandi will finally emerge that will stop the rush to something much worse than a Gordian Knot. This will be impossible unless the government will make it clear that its purpose is to rectify past failings and injustices, and not a regime change. The opposition will make it clear that it is willing to play ball if it will be convinced that the former is the government’s intention.
The writer worked in the Knesset for many years as a researcher and has extensively published journalistic and academic articles on current affairs and Israeli politics. Her most recent book, Israel’s Knesset Members – A Comparative Study of an Undefined Job, is published by Routledge.