[The previous article in this series can be read at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=4921.]
There are always two ways to look at limits. From one perspective, the limit is the most you can do, the best you can accomplish. Reach the limit, and then you can sit back and say, "That's it, I did all I can. The rest is out of my hands." From another perspective, the limit is a marker of the heights you can achieve. It delineates the goal of your striving, a point not yet reached, but visible, at least to your imagination.
It may be true that democracy has limits, that it really is "the worst possible form of government, except for all the rest." It does not have the ability to be the solution to all our problems, but it does set a goal way up high. Why? Because democracy at its core is based on a valuation of human life that is sacred, based on the concept that each person is created in God's image and therefore equal before the law. It demands we recognize every person's right to liberty, to have an opinion and voice it freely, to consent to the laws that will bind him together with his fellow citizens, in order to protect his rights and the rights of others - rights granted by God and only protected by men and law. Among other things, democracy well practiced fosters good leadership and prevents the creation of Caesars.
America took the idea of democracy from the Greeks, but they took its soul and values from the Jews. Read any of the writings of America's founders and references to Israel abound. In this, we can be proud to have fulfilled part of our responsibility to "be a light to the nations". Yet, that isn't the limit. We are still obligated to shine a greater light, the one that shows how an imperfect and nearly hijacked democracy can save itself. It is incumbent upon us to strive for this goal, to strain until we have not just rescued our government from its current illness, but also have healed it so a relapse is no longer to be feared.
In this, our pain and disunity have a hidden goodness. We have been given the opportunity to lead the way for all the oppressed and repressed communities of the Middle East. We must now demonstrate how a democratic people can face terror, implacable enmity, existential threats and a fractured polity without losing hope, without surrendering to diminished morality and a deflated humanity, without resorting to panic and violence and repression ourselves. We must show that democracy doesn't only flower in calm pastures, it survives and even flourishes under inhuman pressures, if only the people will support it with all their strength and resilience.
What is the limit of democracy here? We haven't yet reached it. Even if somehow the Disengagement Plan is not brought to completion and Jews are not dragged from their homes and communities by our own children-in-uniform, we still will not have reached it. The climax isn't the whole story; often, it is the preliminary material that has the most value. Referendum or no, we need to diligently pursue our democratic rights to debate the issues, make an informed choice, and have our views expressed and respected, even if not transmuted into policy.
This is not the type of limit where we can say, "We held so-and-so many demonstrations, wrote umpteen letters and so many hundred phone calls, and now it is out of our hands." On the contrary, this is the type of limit we must continue to strive for - a better democracy that doesn't protect the powerful with control of media licenses, suppression of debate, demonization of the religious and conservative, scurrilous charges, martial law and administrative detentions.
Inside a period of, say, two weeks, we could have a vigorous public examination of Ariel Sharon's plan. We could hold a series of debates, with the pro and con camp each nominating two or three proponents to present their case. The first debate could give each speaker a chance to make his case (uninterrupted!) for or against, for 10 minutes each. Then each could have a rebuttal period of five minutes each. I think perhaps three debates would be about right: one to focus on the relative merits of Sharon's Plan and alternatives, one to focus on balancing the rights and responsibilities of dissenters and proponents, and maybe one additional debate on the Israel-to-be, to focus on preparing for the future after this episode is behind us.
Many, many networks would televise these debates, not just our national stations, because they would be sure to make a profit just off the commercials preceding and succeeding the events. The newspapers would cover it with glee, not just nationally, but internationally. The whole world would watch us - they always do - and the spin-off debates on the merits of each point, in every lunchroom and bar and newsroom and classroom, would do more for the future of Israel and humanity than any undebated conclusion could possibly do.
The benefits of this approach are enormous: No one would feel disenfranchised. The media would have to give equal time, literally, to each side. The views of each camp would be presented raw to the public that watched - no spin and no out-of-context quotations. Holding the debates two or three times over two weeks would give the bloodhounds time to sniff out lies and deceptive statements and present the truth at the following debate; so any attempt to varnish or vanish the truth would backfire, and any assertion that is unsupported by fact would be publicly challenged.
Of course, to avoid embarrassment, we would have to clean up our act a bit for the public. Participants may not have to wear suits and ties, but they will have to renounce heckling and interruption, name-calling and other juvenile behaviors. They would have to be more persuasive with logic and less focused on simple sound-bites and slogans. But I have faith that our leaders and our media could rise to the challenge. The networks could air the debates, perhaps with subtitles (Russian, Amharic, English, Spanish). The newspapers could publish transcripts, in addition to their editorial opinions. The schools could encourage classroom commentary on the debates and also on the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The fur would fly all over the internet, even reaching into repressive totalitarian states and fledgling democracies.
Can you imagine this scenario? No wonder they're afraid of us. At the least it is a superb opportunity to increase the love and unity among Jews, and to bless the world with a vision to which they can aspire. It might even lead to a healing consensus on what to do next.
Our country will not live or die over Sharon's Plan, but our democracy might. The struggle to preserve our voice and liberty is far more important than the individual plan to be enacted. This calls not for violence, but for vigilance and an unbending insistence to be heard. We need a more constructive approach than blocking roads. I think maybe a general strike until debates are arranged is in order. We cannot afford to let this challenge pass unanswered. The referendum isn't, and must not be, the limit to our democracy here. Instead, let's show the world how it is done.
There are always two ways to look at limits. From one perspective, the limit is the most you can do, the best you can accomplish. Reach the limit, and then you can sit back and say, "That's it, I did all I can. The rest is out of my hands." From another perspective, the limit is a marker of the heights you can achieve. It delineates the goal of your striving, a point not yet reached, but visible, at least to your imagination.
It may be true that democracy has limits, that it really is "the worst possible form of government, except for all the rest." It does not have the ability to be the solution to all our problems, but it does set a goal way up high. Why? Because democracy at its core is based on a valuation of human life that is sacred, based on the concept that each person is created in God's image and therefore equal before the law. It demands we recognize every person's right to liberty, to have an opinion and voice it freely, to consent to the laws that will bind him together with his fellow citizens, in order to protect his rights and the rights of others - rights granted by God and only protected by men and law. Among other things, democracy well practiced fosters good leadership and prevents the creation of Caesars.
America took the idea of democracy from the Greeks, but they took its soul and values from the Jews. Read any of the writings of America's founders and references to Israel abound. In this, we can be proud to have fulfilled part of our responsibility to "be a light to the nations". Yet, that isn't the limit. We are still obligated to shine a greater light, the one that shows how an imperfect and nearly hijacked democracy can save itself. It is incumbent upon us to strive for this goal, to strain until we have not just rescued our government from its current illness, but also have healed it so a relapse is no longer to be feared.
In this, our pain and disunity have a hidden goodness. We have been given the opportunity to lead the way for all the oppressed and repressed communities of the Middle East. We must now demonstrate how a democratic people can face terror, implacable enmity, existential threats and a fractured polity without losing hope, without surrendering to diminished morality and a deflated humanity, without resorting to panic and violence and repression ourselves. We must show that democracy doesn't only flower in calm pastures, it survives and even flourishes under inhuman pressures, if only the people will support it with all their strength and resilience.
What is the limit of democracy here? We haven't yet reached it. Even if somehow the Disengagement Plan is not brought to completion and Jews are not dragged from their homes and communities by our own children-in-uniform, we still will not have reached it. The climax isn't the whole story; often, it is the preliminary material that has the most value. Referendum or no, we need to diligently pursue our democratic rights to debate the issues, make an informed choice, and have our views expressed and respected, even if not transmuted into policy.
This is not the type of limit where we can say, "We held so-and-so many demonstrations, wrote umpteen letters and so many hundred phone calls, and now it is out of our hands." On the contrary, this is the type of limit we must continue to strive for - a better democracy that doesn't protect the powerful with control of media licenses, suppression of debate, demonization of the religious and conservative, scurrilous charges, martial law and administrative detentions.
Inside a period of, say, two weeks, we could have a vigorous public examination of Ariel Sharon's plan. We could hold a series of debates, with the pro and con camp each nominating two or three proponents to present their case. The first debate could give each speaker a chance to make his case (uninterrupted!) for or against, for 10 minutes each. Then each could have a rebuttal period of five minutes each. I think perhaps three debates would be about right: one to focus on the relative merits of Sharon's Plan and alternatives, one to focus on balancing the rights and responsibilities of dissenters and proponents, and maybe one additional debate on the Israel-to-be, to focus on preparing for the future after this episode is behind us.
Many, many networks would televise these debates, not just our national stations, because they would be sure to make a profit just off the commercials preceding and succeeding the events. The newspapers would cover it with glee, not just nationally, but internationally. The whole world would watch us - they always do - and the spin-off debates on the merits of each point, in every lunchroom and bar and newsroom and classroom, would do more for the future of Israel and humanity than any undebated conclusion could possibly do.
The benefits of this approach are enormous: No one would feel disenfranchised. The media would have to give equal time, literally, to each side. The views of each camp would be presented raw to the public that watched - no spin and no out-of-context quotations. Holding the debates two or three times over two weeks would give the bloodhounds time to sniff out lies and deceptive statements and present the truth at the following debate; so any attempt to varnish or vanish the truth would backfire, and any assertion that is unsupported by fact would be publicly challenged.
Of course, to avoid embarrassment, we would have to clean up our act a bit for the public. Participants may not have to wear suits and ties, but they will have to renounce heckling and interruption, name-calling and other juvenile behaviors. They would have to be more persuasive with logic and less focused on simple sound-bites and slogans. But I have faith that our leaders and our media could rise to the challenge. The networks could air the debates, perhaps with subtitles (Russian, Amharic, English, Spanish). The newspapers could publish transcripts, in addition to their editorial opinions. The schools could encourage classroom commentary on the debates and also on the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The fur would fly all over the internet, even reaching into repressive totalitarian states and fledgling democracies.
Can you imagine this scenario? No wonder they're afraid of us. At the least it is a superb opportunity to increase the love and unity among Jews, and to bless the world with a vision to which they can aspire. It might even lead to a healing consensus on what to do next.
Our country will not live or die over Sharon's Plan, but our democracy might. The struggle to preserve our voice and liberty is far more important than the individual plan to be enacted. This calls not for violence, but for vigilance and an unbending insistence to be heard. We need a more constructive approach than blocking roads. I think maybe a general strike until debates are arranged is in order. We cannot afford to let this challenge pass unanswered. The referendum isn't, and must not be, the limit to our democracy here. Instead, let's show the world how it is done.