The protest movement in Israel exposes a fundamental fault line in Israeli politics, culture, and society between religious and secular Israelis and their supporters throughout the world. The basic difference that separates them is over two questions:
(1) the role of Judaism in the state, and
(2) Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), the “settlements,” which are overwhelmingly populated by observant Jews.
The second question has riled many in the international community who are opposed to settlements and advocate for a Palestinian state run by the PLO and Hamas in Judea and Samaria: the “two-state-solution.”
The issue of judicial reforms, therefore, is a convenient excuse for opposing the current government, not about issues upon which most Israelis agree and are accepted in laws and by Israeli society as part of Israel’s development as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
The fundamental secular-religious divide in Israeli society raises questions about the meaning of Zionism today and the future of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. It’s about our national identity.
The controversy over judicial reforms is fundamentally about how a democracy should work, and how differences can and should be resolved. This demands a clear delineation of responsibilities for governing. Judges and legal advisors cannot be allowed to make up laws, or intervene in policy decisions. Only the Knesset can make laws. A system of checks and balances must be defined by a constitution. That is why judicial reforms are so important.
The issue of consensus is important, although it was rejected by the Labor Party when it received Knesset approval of the Oslo Accords by a single vote, and despite getting that one vote by bribing two members of a tiny Right-wing affiliated party.
Consensus was rejected in 2000 by then-PM Ehud Barak when he offered Arafat all of Judea and Samaria. It was rejected by PM Ariel Sharon when he implemented the destruction of a dozen Jewish communities in the Gaza Strip. It was rejected by then-PM Olmert when he revived Barak’s offer. Naftali Bennett didn’t consider consensus when he betrayed those who voted for his party and formed a coalition with Leftist parties and the Arab bloc.
Arguments over judicial reforms, therefore, are not about democracy and Israel’s judicial system; it’s about who controls and conflicts in our society. Protest demonstrations represent an ideological divide between those who support a Jewish state with Jewish values, and those who oppose it. That is why the protest movement is led by secular Jews and is supported by many in the international community who oppose Israel’s national identity as a Jewish state.
The current crisis, however, offers an opportunity to clarify these problems and provide meaningful dialogue, and, hopefully, acceptable solutions. It can strengthen our judicial system and its integrity. It can lead to a renewal of our essential unity and national purpose.
Dr. Moshe Dann is an historian and writer.