[Part 1 of this article can be read at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=3838.]
The Need to Strengthen Israel's Resistance to External Pressure
Who doesn't remember the summit meetings between US Presidents and Soviet General Secretaries to sign agreements in order to reduce and contain nuclear arsenals? Ford, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev. Treaties were signed, but sometimes Congress, which opposed them on several grounds, did not ratify them. Even when informally implemented, the US reserved the right to reverse its stand to protect its security interests. This is one of the best examples I can come up with of checks and balances to justify this form of government for Israel - where the leader does not have all the power.
Returning the canal to Panama also required congressional approval. And the US was returning far away water, not adjacent land.
In contrast, governmental decision-making in Israel is fraught with danger. A Road Map was pushed through the Cabinet in a matter of hours, without the possibility of proper debate. It could be implemented without Knesset approval because it is not a signed agreement. Likud cabinet members abstained so as not to lose their cozy jobs as ministers. To make matters worse, the Prime Minister issued 14 reservations that nobody abroad really recognizes.
Under no circumstances would an independent Israeli Congress allow this. Any "treaties or agreements" of this nature would be thoroughly scrutinized, a lot of debate would take place, and Congress would suggest changes and draw real red lines. The cost of poorly-made security decisions for Israel is too high.
Israel's present system of government worked better during the Cold War, when issues were more black and white - US and Israel versus the Soviet Union and Arab states. Nowadays, both Israel and the Arab countries work to influence the US. Israel has technological ability, which will become increasingly important in political calculations, but she does not have oil. The US (and other countries) has a wide variety of interests and concerns - which are subject to change. It is not safe for Israel to rely on her PM making ad-hoc verbal agreements with the US, let alone assume these can stand indefinitely. This is the third US administration since the end of the Cold War. All of them have applied a lot of pressure on Israel. As a result, the remote PLO is now the "friendly" Palestinian Authority next door.
In 1986, during the Cold War, when the PLO killed three Israeli tourists on a boat in Cyprus, Israel went after Arafat in Tunis. Today, over 1,000 Israelis have died at home in three years; Arafat lives just down the street, but he is untouchable.
Future Israeli Congressmen could legislate, send bills to the President of Israel for consideration and approval. They could also freely challenge the opinions of any world leaders without necessarily compromising the position of the President of Israel. The President would have more of a cushion. Furthermore, their jobs and reelection prospects would not be directly tied to or at the mercy of the President.
Not having all the power to push through dramatic initiatives at will means that the long-term interests of the State and her people are agreed upon between the two branches of government. These can not be changed unless both the President and a majority of Congress concur, regardless of personal opinions or outside pressures. Some key issues may even require a plebiscite, in order not to be lost among others during a general election.
What Israel Needs: A Constitution and a Structural Redesign
Israel badly needs a constitution. Israel needs to change the current system of electing a new administration.
I propose that two separate ideas, via a single plebiscite, be submitted to the Israeli people:
1) Approval to move from the existing system to a constitutional republic with a President and a Congress;
2) Approval of a constitution with two initial articles:
a) that Israel is a democratic Jewish state;
b) that her capital is the whole of Jerusalem.
Professor Paul Eidelberg, President of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, has spelled out the requirements of such a document (see, for example, his essay "Jewish National Strategy" in the September-October issue of Think-Israel). Here we will deal with some consequences of a new foundation for Israeli governance.
As things are now, long-term policies either don't exist or have become hostage to daily occurrences such as suicide bombings and other terrorist acts. Currently, every statement the PM issues can be seen as weakness, more concessions, retreating. For example, releasing convicted mass killers. How many soldiers have died capturing them? Did they die for nothing? What about the victims' families? Then why not free all Israeli violent criminals, together with Yitzchak Rabin's murderer, for consistency's sake? What policy can stand against a commitment to "make progress within 72 hours" every time an American official is coming to the area to visit? Do these actions help at all?
Long-term goals in the new system would comprise not only the issues of land and Jerusalem, but also a Congress-supported position on not allowing Arab "refugees" to return and turn Israel into a Muslim country. It can't be part of any proposals acceptable to Israel, unless the Israeli people vote to elect representatives who support their return.
The same applies to the fact that the Arab countries don't want Israel to exist as a Jewish State. Even assuming that the Palestinians Arabs "deserve" a state of their own, their present leaders have spread so much hatred that it will take at least two generations to turn it around. Last year, the PM indicated that they would get nothing without an end to terror. This year is a different story. Something is out of control.
The present system allows for the PM to accumulate other functions, such as Foreign Minister or Defense Minister. It has happened before. This only increases the dangers associated with one person making most of the decisions. Both in the long-term and in the short-term, Israel would benefit by having a future Congress set up committees to study security-related issues before rushing to decisions or compromises. Furthermore, it would have access to a wealth of expertise from people in the private sector not always available or wanted by a PM.
I am not advocating taking away the power of the future President to protect the nation. The proposed reformation would not prevent immediate action in an emergency. If the country is attacked, the President must have the power to act at once. However, peace proposals from foreign groups, threats of boycott, etc., don't need to be acted upon overnight, and must be given careful consideration by all involved. That's part of running the country in a consistent manner. With friends like the United Nations, precipitous decision-making is something Israel can't afford. And it shows when it takes place.
A restructuring of Israel's rules of government would improve communication with the voters, protect the status of Jerusalem and eliminate the damage an Israeli leader can do to the country. The rest of this essay will examine these issues.
Improving Communication Between Politicians and Israeli Voters
Changing Israel's governmental structure to a Constitutional Republic and adopting a constitution would represent an enormous morale booster for Israelis, a big change and a hope that their interests will be better taken care of. It would lead to less apathy and more public participation.
Nobody is perfect, not even politicians. But their having to account to the electorate in a more personal way through frequently meeting their constituents will improve communication and decision-making. Furthermore, it will force parties in Congress to work toward some form of consensus and better representation of popular will. An obvious benefit will be a better handling of unrealistic expectations coming from abroad.
The present type of system works for countries like the Netherlands, but not for Israel. Here are two reasons why: 1) The Netherlands built dykes to prevent seawater flooding of the land, while Israelis build fences on the land to prevent drowning in seawater; 2) the Netherlands is facing the issue of assisted suicide, which is handled by physicians, while in Israel, the "suiciders" are assisted by "engineers".
In the US and elsewhere, if, for example, the Foreign Minister or Secretary of the State is not in synch with the President, he will get the message and go back to private life. He can also be called to testify before an independent Congress. In Israel, the PM replaced an outspoken Foreign Minister with someone who had performed poorly running the economy. Then this FM was stripped of real power, with the PM running the whole show, and, if reports are correct, surrounding himself with inexperienced people while shooing away the proper expertise of the Foreign Ministry. This not only leads to bad decision-making, but also to non-sustainable long-term policies related to security and foreign affairs, as the weak reactions to recent events clearly show.
In the meantime, while doesn't this FM resign in protest? Could it be that he wants to continue to have a job as a minister and become the PM one day? By the same token, the Defense Minister finds the Road Map dangerous, but votes for it anyway. Why doesn't he resign in protest and submit a motion to bring down the government? Could it be that he wants to continue to have a job as a minister and become the PM one day? Well, that's bad for the nation and a recipe for future back-stabbing. Where are the checks and balances?
Even worse, what happens when a coalition government is necessary? In this case, we have witnessed the pathetic example of a Foreign Minister virtually acting on his own and undermining the PM. This particular FM also undermined a PM of his own party some ten years ago. At present, politicians in opposition are running around meeting with foreign leaders or their representatives, and pushing their own ideas. An enemy doesn't need to deal with the PM; he can get a better deal elsewhere or bide his time. Defeated politicians from abroad get a new lifeline by bashing Israel on live TV, while dealing with irresponsible Israelis who take foreign money and undermine their own country. Can this continue to happen in the future? Doesn't it contribute to anxiety and apathy within the electorate?
[Part 2 of 3]
The Need to Strengthen Israel's Resistance to External Pressure
Who doesn't remember the summit meetings between US Presidents and Soviet General Secretaries to sign agreements in order to reduce and contain nuclear arsenals? Ford, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev. Treaties were signed, but sometimes Congress, which opposed them on several grounds, did not ratify them. Even when informally implemented, the US reserved the right to reverse its stand to protect its security interests. This is one of the best examples I can come up with of checks and balances to justify this form of government for Israel - where the leader does not have all the power.
Returning the canal to Panama also required congressional approval. And the US was returning far away water, not adjacent land.
In contrast, governmental decision-making in Israel is fraught with danger. A Road Map was pushed through the Cabinet in a matter of hours, without the possibility of proper debate. It could be implemented without Knesset approval because it is not a signed agreement. Likud cabinet members abstained so as not to lose their cozy jobs as ministers. To make matters worse, the Prime Minister issued 14 reservations that nobody abroad really recognizes.
Under no circumstances would an independent Israeli Congress allow this. Any "treaties or agreements" of this nature would be thoroughly scrutinized, a lot of debate would take place, and Congress would suggest changes and draw real red lines. The cost of poorly-made security decisions for Israel is too high.
Israel's present system of government worked better during the Cold War, when issues were more black and white - US and Israel versus the Soviet Union and Arab states. Nowadays, both Israel and the Arab countries work to influence the US. Israel has technological ability, which will become increasingly important in political calculations, but she does not have oil. The US (and other countries) has a wide variety of interests and concerns - which are subject to change. It is not safe for Israel to rely on her PM making ad-hoc verbal agreements with the US, let alone assume these can stand indefinitely. This is the third US administration since the end of the Cold War. All of them have applied a lot of pressure on Israel. As a result, the remote PLO is now the "friendly" Palestinian Authority next door.
In 1986, during the Cold War, when the PLO killed three Israeli tourists on a boat in Cyprus, Israel went after Arafat in Tunis. Today, over 1,000 Israelis have died at home in three years; Arafat lives just down the street, but he is untouchable.
Future Israeli Congressmen could legislate, send bills to the President of Israel for consideration and approval. They could also freely challenge the opinions of any world leaders without necessarily compromising the position of the President of Israel. The President would have more of a cushion. Furthermore, their jobs and reelection prospects would not be directly tied to or at the mercy of the President.
Not having all the power to push through dramatic initiatives at will means that the long-term interests of the State and her people are agreed upon between the two branches of government. These can not be changed unless both the President and a majority of Congress concur, regardless of personal opinions or outside pressures. Some key issues may even require a plebiscite, in order not to be lost among others during a general election.
What Israel Needs: A Constitution and a Structural Redesign
Israel badly needs a constitution. Israel needs to change the current system of electing a new administration.
I propose that two separate ideas, via a single plebiscite, be submitted to the Israeli people:
1) Approval to move from the existing system to a constitutional republic with a President and a Congress;
2) Approval of a constitution with two initial articles:
a) that Israel is a democratic Jewish state;
b) that her capital is the whole of Jerusalem.
Professor Paul Eidelberg, President of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, has spelled out the requirements of such a document (see, for example, his essay "Jewish National Strategy" in the September-October issue of Think-Israel). Here we will deal with some consequences of a new foundation for Israeli governance.
As things are now, long-term policies either don't exist or have become hostage to daily occurrences such as suicide bombings and other terrorist acts. Currently, every statement the PM issues can be seen as weakness, more concessions, retreating. For example, releasing convicted mass killers. How many soldiers have died capturing them? Did they die for nothing? What about the victims' families? Then why not free all Israeli violent criminals, together with Yitzchak Rabin's murderer, for consistency's sake? What policy can stand against a commitment to "make progress within 72 hours" every time an American official is coming to the area to visit? Do these actions help at all?
Long-term goals in the new system would comprise not only the issues of land and Jerusalem, but also a Congress-supported position on not allowing Arab "refugees" to return and turn Israel into a Muslim country. It can't be part of any proposals acceptable to Israel, unless the Israeli people vote to elect representatives who support their return.
The same applies to the fact that the Arab countries don't want Israel to exist as a Jewish State. Even assuming that the Palestinians Arabs "deserve" a state of their own, their present leaders have spread so much hatred that it will take at least two generations to turn it around. Last year, the PM indicated that they would get nothing without an end to terror. This year is a different story. Something is out of control.
The present system allows for the PM to accumulate other functions, such as Foreign Minister or Defense Minister. It has happened before. This only increases the dangers associated with one person making most of the decisions. Both in the long-term and in the short-term, Israel would benefit by having a future Congress set up committees to study security-related issues before rushing to decisions or compromises. Furthermore, it would have access to a wealth of expertise from people in the private sector not always available or wanted by a PM.
I am not advocating taking away the power of the future President to protect the nation. The proposed reformation would not prevent immediate action in an emergency. If the country is attacked, the President must have the power to act at once. However, peace proposals from foreign groups, threats of boycott, etc., don't need to be acted upon overnight, and must be given careful consideration by all involved. That's part of running the country in a consistent manner. With friends like the United Nations, precipitous decision-making is something Israel can't afford. And it shows when it takes place.
A restructuring of Israel's rules of government would improve communication with the voters, protect the status of Jerusalem and eliminate the damage an Israeli leader can do to the country. The rest of this essay will examine these issues.
Improving Communication Between Politicians and Israeli Voters
Changing Israel's governmental structure to a Constitutional Republic and adopting a constitution would represent an enormous morale booster for Israelis, a big change and a hope that their interests will be better taken care of. It would lead to less apathy and more public participation.
Nobody is perfect, not even politicians. But their having to account to the electorate in a more personal way through frequently meeting their constituents will improve communication and decision-making. Furthermore, it will force parties in Congress to work toward some form of consensus and better representation of popular will. An obvious benefit will be a better handling of unrealistic expectations coming from abroad.
The present type of system works for countries like the Netherlands, but not for Israel. Here are two reasons why: 1) The Netherlands built dykes to prevent seawater flooding of the land, while Israelis build fences on the land to prevent drowning in seawater; 2) the Netherlands is facing the issue of assisted suicide, which is handled by physicians, while in Israel, the "suiciders" are assisted by "engineers".
In the US and elsewhere, if, for example, the Foreign Minister or Secretary of the State is not in synch with the President, he will get the message and go back to private life. He can also be called to testify before an independent Congress. In Israel, the PM replaced an outspoken Foreign Minister with someone who had performed poorly running the economy. Then this FM was stripped of real power, with the PM running the whole show, and, if reports are correct, surrounding himself with inexperienced people while shooing away the proper expertise of the Foreign Ministry. This not only leads to bad decision-making, but also to non-sustainable long-term policies related to security and foreign affairs, as the weak reactions to recent events clearly show.
In the meantime, while doesn't this FM resign in protest? Could it be that he wants to continue to have a job as a minister and become the PM one day? By the same token, the Defense Minister finds the Road Map dangerous, but votes for it anyway. Why doesn't he resign in protest and submit a motion to bring down the government? Could it be that he wants to continue to have a job as a minister and become the PM one day? Well, that's bad for the nation and a recipe for future back-stabbing. Where are the checks and balances?
Even worse, what happens when a coalition government is necessary? In this case, we have witnessed the pathetic example of a Foreign Minister virtually acting on his own and undermining the PM. This particular FM also undermined a PM of his own party some ten years ago. At present, politicians in opposition are running around meeting with foreign leaders or their representatives, and pushing their own ideas. An enemy doesn't need to deal with the PM; he can get a better deal elsewhere or bide his time. Defeated politicians from abroad get a new lifeline by bashing Israel on live TV, while dealing with irresponsible Israelis who take foreign money and undermine their own country. Can this continue to happen in the future? Doesn't it contribute to anxiety and apathy within the electorate?
[Part 2 of 3]