We hear a lot about it nowadays. Civil disobedience is the new miracle cure for the infirmities (or insanities) that weaken us. Well, maybe.
As a technique, civil disobedience works on the conscience of witnesses. It is designed to show opposition to government policy in times when ordinary petitioning is ineffective or not possible. In essence, it challenges the government: defend your policy if it is righteous; if it is not, to what lengths will you go to silence my protest or force my compliance?
Those who participate in acts of civil disobedience do so because they believe that to comply with the demands of the government has too high a price. They weigh their honor and core beliefs against the penalty the government will inflict, and find the punishment of the government is preferable to capitulation. It is not a game for the light-minded.
Civil disobedience is not a publicity stunt. It may attract attention, but unless the protesters can convince others to see their point of view, it is not going to be effective in forcing reform or a change in policy. Sometimes, all that can be accomplished is to maintain one's self-respect.
Most people think of civil disobedience as it was used in the Indian independence movement led by Gandhi, or the civil rights protests of 1960s' America. These ultimately were successful campaigns, in part, because of the protesters, but also, in part, because of the nature of their opponents. A government that can be swayed by civil disobedience is one that sees itself as moral and benign, not to mention possibly fallible. Such a government will choose to amend its policy rather than enforce it, especially if a convincing argument to do so can be presented. It remains to be seen if our present government fits this description.
Clearly, the usual venues of public dissent in Israel are being closed off and it is difficult to make our voices heard. The Knesset opposition does not fill the role of a check on the prime minister's powers. We are denied a full and unbiased hearing in the press, our radio station (Arutz-7) has been confiscated, our request for new elections, or even a referendum on the Gaza plan, has been refused. Those may be reasons for responsible people to consider resort to civil disobedience -- but slowly, wisely.
The idea is not to cause as much disruption as possible while shouting slogans at each other. True civil disobedience is dignified, respectful and relevant. More than disobedience, it requires civil discourse. We must have the ability to discuss the issues clearly with others. In the matter of disengagement, we are doing far too little of this.
Like civil disobedience, civil discourse is a skill. It takes some training to really hear what someone else is thinking and saying. It takes strength to keep explaining your point of view; it takes self-discipline to continue calm discussion even when provoked. But we must continue in our efforts to develop a consensus, for to be divided only aids our enemies. We as a people need to take a deep cleansing breath and start again from the beginning.
Forget the Arabs. For the moment, just focus on all those other Jews. They are not the enemy. They are us; we all want to create, to grow, to progress. We all want to be safe. We all want peace. Each one of us can sympathize with fear, each one of us has been scarred, has known pain.
So far, we have been like the audience at a magic show -- too distracted with political sleight-of-hand maneuverings to give our full attention to the real action. There are legitimate reasons to be wary of the aftermath of an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. There are ethical issues to debate, competing rights that have to be weighed and serious, life-threatening risks that must be evaluated. Meanwhile, it seems that most of Israel's public discourse has degenerated from its usual mindless exercise in advertising and spin into a "Yes/No" shouting match.
We have to do better than that.
It is time to take strength from our massive prayer meetings, to daven (pray) with special intensity for intelligence and wisdom, and then to have as many face-to-face discussions with as many Israelis as we can.
We need to be very clear about why the unilateral disengagement and withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank is a bad idea:
This isn't just about Gaza, but about all of Israel. The planned withdrawal is dangerous to all of us because of its context. It isn't just the settlers of Judea, Samaria and Gaza who are the problem, and the Arabs aren't pursuing a terror war just to force the Jews out of Gaza. To the Arabs, we are all settlers and every inch of Israel is occupied territory that they want to rid of its Jewish population. If we concede our right to live unmolested in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, we will find we have also conceded our right to live unmolested in Tel Aviv or Haifa.
We are not anti-democracy; we are anti-fascist. We don't want to overrule the majority; we want a referendum to identify the majority, or else we want new elections. This is a goal that most Israelis can understand, and it will improve our chances to discuss the issues thoroughly with our leaders in the press and in public forums. The government needs to give us a full public hearing, not a PR campaign. We need to insist they present verifiable facts and solid evidence to back up their opinions. That is the only way we citizens will be able to reach a consensus position that most Israelis can live with.
What are the benefits of the planned withdrawal? We might consider giving up the settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza if it really would benefit the nation. But what evidence do we have to make us think it will? We have security experts like Avi Dichter who do not believe it will make Israel safer. It will not even help our international standing. The European Union and the United Nations will not be satisfied with half a loaf - they want us to go back to the 1948 armistice lines. They are already saying publicly that this withdrawal is only a first step. Furthermore, after disengagement, the plight of Gazan Arabs will likely be worse than before, as more terror attacks interfere more with the passage of workers and goods across the border - and we will be blamed for keeping control of Gaza's borders or engaging in anti-terror raids within Gaza.
If we really want to defeat the retreat, we need to communicate our reasons to everyone around us. We need to invite discussion, and make sure it is a friendly experience. We can all find something to agree on; after all, we are all Jews and we all want to live in security. We all have the same enemies -- and they aren't us.
As a technique, civil disobedience works on the conscience of witnesses. It is designed to show opposition to government policy in times when ordinary petitioning is ineffective or not possible. In essence, it challenges the government: defend your policy if it is righteous; if it is not, to what lengths will you go to silence my protest or force my compliance?
Those who participate in acts of civil disobedience do so because they believe that to comply with the demands of the government has too high a price. They weigh their honor and core beliefs against the penalty the government will inflict, and find the punishment of the government is preferable to capitulation. It is not a game for the light-minded.
Civil disobedience is not a publicity stunt. It may attract attention, but unless the protesters can convince others to see their point of view, it is not going to be effective in forcing reform or a change in policy. Sometimes, all that can be accomplished is to maintain one's self-respect.
Most people think of civil disobedience as it was used in the Indian independence movement led by Gandhi, or the civil rights protests of 1960s' America. These ultimately were successful campaigns, in part, because of the protesters, but also, in part, because of the nature of their opponents. A government that can be swayed by civil disobedience is one that sees itself as moral and benign, not to mention possibly fallible. Such a government will choose to amend its policy rather than enforce it, especially if a convincing argument to do so can be presented. It remains to be seen if our present government fits this description.
Clearly, the usual venues of public dissent in Israel are being closed off and it is difficult to make our voices heard. The Knesset opposition does not fill the role of a check on the prime minister's powers. We are denied a full and unbiased hearing in the press, our radio station (Arutz-7) has been confiscated, our request for new elections, or even a referendum on the Gaza plan, has been refused. Those may be reasons for responsible people to consider resort to civil disobedience -- but slowly, wisely.
The idea is not to cause as much disruption as possible while shouting slogans at each other. True civil disobedience is dignified, respectful and relevant. More than disobedience, it requires civil discourse. We must have the ability to discuss the issues clearly with others. In the matter of disengagement, we are doing far too little of this.
Like civil disobedience, civil discourse is a skill. It takes some training to really hear what someone else is thinking and saying. It takes strength to keep explaining your point of view; it takes self-discipline to continue calm discussion even when provoked. But we must continue in our efforts to develop a consensus, for to be divided only aids our enemies. We as a people need to take a deep cleansing breath and start again from the beginning.
Forget the Arabs. For the moment, just focus on all those other Jews. They are not the enemy. They are us; we all want to create, to grow, to progress. We all want to be safe. We all want peace. Each one of us can sympathize with fear, each one of us has been scarred, has known pain.
So far, we have been like the audience at a magic show -- too distracted with political sleight-of-hand maneuverings to give our full attention to the real action. There are legitimate reasons to be wary of the aftermath of an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. There are ethical issues to debate, competing rights that have to be weighed and serious, life-threatening risks that must be evaluated. Meanwhile, it seems that most of Israel's public discourse has degenerated from its usual mindless exercise in advertising and spin into a "Yes/No" shouting match.
We have to do better than that.
It is time to take strength from our massive prayer meetings, to daven (pray) with special intensity for intelligence and wisdom, and then to have as many face-to-face discussions with as many Israelis as we can.
We need to be very clear about why the unilateral disengagement and withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank is a bad idea:
This isn't just about Gaza, but about all of Israel. The planned withdrawal is dangerous to all of us because of its context. It isn't just the settlers of Judea, Samaria and Gaza who are the problem, and the Arabs aren't pursuing a terror war just to force the Jews out of Gaza. To the Arabs, we are all settlers and every inch of Israel is occupied territory that they want to rid of its Jewish population. If we concede our right to live unmolested in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, we will find we have also conceded our right to live unmolested in Tel Aviv or Haifa.
We are not anti-democracy; we are anti-fascist. We don't want to overrule the majority; we want a referendum to identify the majority, or else we want new elections. This is a goal that most Israelis can understand, and it will improve our chances to discuss the issues thoroughly with our leaders in the press and in public forums. The government needs to give us a full public hearing, not a PR campaign. We need to insist they present verifiable facts and solid evidence to back up their opinions. That is the only way we citizens will be able to reach a consensus position that most Israelis can live with.
What are the benefits of the planned withdrawal? We might consider giving up the settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza if it really would benefit the nation. But what evidence do we have to make us think it will? We have security experts like Avi Dichter who do not believe it will make Israel safer. It will not even help our international standing. The European Union and the United Nations will not be satisfied with half a loaf - they want us to go back to the 1948 armistice lines. They are already saying publicly that this withdrawal is only a first step. Furthermore, after disengagement, the plight of Gazan Arabs will likely be worse than before, as more terror attacks interfere more with the passage of workers and goods across the border - and we will be blamed for keeping control of Gaza's borders or engaging in anti-terror raids within Gaza.
If we really want to defeat the retreat, we need to communicate our reasons to everyone around us. We need to invite discussion, and make sure it is a friendly experience. We can all find something to agree on; after all, we are all Jews and we all want to live in security. We all have the same enemies -- and they aren't us.