T. Belman. At least fifty years ago I read Israelis and Jews. Israel’s Jews were asked whether they see themselves as Israelis or Jews. The division which existed then, exists today.
It is hard to imagine both gr0ups coming together on a common vision. Perhaps Israel should be divided into two areas, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Tel Aviv would include the coastal region and Jerusalem would be the rest. Tel Aviv would be a liberal democracy or what ever they decide and Jerusalem would be as Jewish as it wants. The government of Israel would levy taxes on both groups and will be responsible for defence and national infrastructure and whatever other duties both sides gave it.
Of course both sides would fight over the budget. Tel Aviv would be much richer and Jerusalem much needier.
As we stand in 2023, a clear, unified vision for Israel’s Jewish inhabitants has yet to emerge. Instead, the existing government has given rise to two sharply contrasting visions
David Ben-Gurion (credit: GPO)
We stand witness today to an escalating identity crisis in Israel, one that threatens to cascade into a full-fledged constitutional dilemma. This crisis transcends the realms of mere political turbulence or potential judicial transformations. It dives deep into the ideological heart of the nation, reflecting a divide between two considerable Jewish factions with divergent visions of what Israel should be.
On one side of this ideological divide, we find the state camp, comprising those who interpret the creation of Israel as the culmination of the Zionist dream. They believe in a democratic, Jewish-liberal state that symbolizes the realization of this dream.
In sharp contrast, the other camp is made up of religious traditionalists who assert the primacy of Torah law over civil law. This faction strives for a conservative Israeli society that is more deeply steeped in religious values. This ideological divergence isn’t new. It has its roots in Israel’s inception in 1948, but it has become more pronounced over the last decade due to demographic shifts and the development of distinct political blocs.
An increasingly unbridgeable gap in Israeli politics
Between these two camps, liberal and conservative Israel, there yawns a widening chasm that seems increasingly unbridgeable. This divide is further intensified by a discourse laden with misinformation, offensive remarks, and the casual, often destructive use of rhetoric. Such a dialogue not only poses a risk to Israel’s international reputation, potentially affecting its rapport with powerful allies such as the US, but it also inflames a potentially insurmountable internal rift within the Jewish population itself.
Cast your mind back to 1948, when the dream of an independent Jewish state was brought to life. It happened when various Jewish ideologies coalesced around the shared goal of national self-determination. David Ben-Gurion, a leading advocate of this cause, managed to unite these diverse strands of thought, if only temporarily, and forge a path toward realizing the vision. However, this union didn’t manage to dispel deep-rooted disagreements about the structure and identity of Jewish society.
NOW, AS we stand in 2023, a clear, unified vision for Israel’s Jewish inhabitants has yet to emerge. Instead, the existing government has given rise to two sharply contrasting visions. This dichotomy has triggered an ideological civil war, pitting religion against democracy.
On one side, we see a conservative interpretation of Judaism, sometimes verging on the messianic. On the other, a democratic, secular state – a concept championed by both Ben-Gurion and Ze’ev Jabotinsky, calling for a clear distinction between religion and state.
Representatives of religious Zionism within the current government, far from satisfied with the existing arrangement, desire a more profound transformation. They envision a state that is governed by religious Jewish principles. The zeal of this aspiration is reflected in their recent legislative proposals.
Even if these proposals fail to make it through the legislative process, they clearly articulate a bold new vision for a religious Jewish state. This fervor has even led some to label those they deem insufficiently devout as “non-Jewish,” even if these individuals have a matrilineal Jewish heritage according to religious law.
Counteracting this vision, we find the state-owned camp. This group includes liberals, conservatives, religious, and secular individuals alike. Their shared vision revolves around a desire for a clear separation of powers, appropriate checks and balances among authorities, and a resistance to legislation that would enshrine the tyranny of a parliamentary majority.
They envisage a liberal, democratic Jewish state in line with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, embodying the ideals of Ben-Gurion and Jabotinsky. Their vision stands in stark contrast to that of their counterparts.
The emergence of this ideological divide can be attributed to three interconnected factors. First, demographic and sociological changes have inclined the majority of Israelis toward more religious and right-wing parties. Secondly, a number of elected officials, anticipating a persistently right-leaning political landscape in future elections, have been inspired to initiate legislation. Finally, the lack of immediate existential security threats has created an opportunity for domestic reform.
Regardless of the fate of the proposed legislation, the identity divide is undeniable and its effects increasingly potent. No existing leader seems capable of – or perhaps interested in – reconciling these varied groups: Orthodox, hard/soft religious sects, traditionalists, and secularists.
Moreover, this internal strife often overlooks the perspective of the non-Jewish minority, constituting approximately 20% of the population, in the broader identity narrative. In this context, talk of unity comes across as mere lip service, a placating rhetoric to stave off public disillusionment.
For those willing to confront the situation realistically, the picture is abundantly clear. The two camps are distinctly differentiated and resolutely entrenched. It seems an ideological separation is imminent. It would, however, be in the best interests of all parties if this were achieved amicably and without violence.
The writer is the chair of the Middle East and Political Science Department at Ariel University.
“This divide is further intensified by a discourse laden with misinformation, offensive remarks, …”
“Misinformation?” That is a USSR word adopted by Western Communists.
“Offensive?” That is a word meaning someone told a truth and someone else didn’t like it.
“Instead, the existing government has given rise to two sharply contrasting visions. This dichotomy has triggered an ideological civil war, pitting religion against democracy.”
So, Bibi Netanyahu created this ideological civil war? You are lying.
“They envisage a liberal, democratic Jewish state in line with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, embodying the ideals of Ben-Gurion and Jabotinsky.”
What? Ben Gurion detested Jabotinksy and everything he stood for. He wouldn’t allow Jabotinsky’s body to be brought back to Israel for burial.
“Moreover, this internal strife often overlooks the perspective of the non-Jewish minority, constituting approximately 20% of the population, in the broader identity narrative. In this context, talk of unity comes across as mere lip service, a placating rhetoric to stave off public disillusionment.”
The non-Jewish minority has a name, Gadi. They are called Muslims and are a group of people who hate Israel, Christians, Jews and anyone else who is not a Muslim. They would like Israel to disappear. The few Circassians, Druse and a small number of Christians don’t really matter.
The Jerusalem Post used to have intelligent, open minded editorial and op-ed writers. That was a long time ago.
Perhaps there are, as the author asserts, two ideologically incompatible visions for Israel.
Another possibility is that progressives refuse to compromise. Period. This can be seen in the multiple failed attempts of Prime Minister Netanyahu to meet with the opposition and craft compromise legislation on Supreme Court reform.
If one side is willing to compromise and the other side is not, it is not accurate to say all of Israel has an identity problem. Because if both sides were willing to compromise, differences of policy would be worked out and resolved.
Those who insist that they must have all of what they want or they will hold the rest of Israel hostage are not patriots. They show in their behavior they don’t care about their fellow citizens, they only care about getting 100% of what they want.
Israel has problems to solve for her people. If progressives want to be part of the solution, they can offer to compromise and help out in solving Israel’s problems. But if all they want to do is protest that they are not getting 100% of what they want, their efforts will produce only bitter fruit.
There are real compromises possible on policies related to the role of religion in every day life. There are real compromises possible on the reform of the Supreme Court. But the progressives are too busy demanding to be thinking about constructive compromises.
My vision for Israel is that Israel include all: secular, religious Jews, non-Jews, conservative, progressive, and moderates.
I encourage progressives to come to the table and present specific compromises that will allow for solutions to Israel’s problems. If not, I encourage the rest of the Israelis to move on and do the best you can in solving problems without them.
It’s important not to cater to self-centeredness in a family or in a country. Those who feel entitled may have to find out the hard way that they cannot hold their country hostage and expect to gain support for their policies that way.
I disagree with the author that in Israel today there is a tyranny of the Parliamentary majority. The tyranny is seen in those who demand 100% of what they want and who fiercely refuse all offers of compromise. These people who refuse to compromise are dangerous: take a lesson from what has happened in the United States: you do not want to empower people who refuse to compromise like Obama or you can kiss your country good bye.
?