There’s not much to envy in the US political system except for the fact that when a president is elected, it is for four years. Not so Israeli politicians. The Israeli prime minister has no guarantee of even a hundred days of grace, and the coalition has no promises of continuation. Destabilization is built in.
Efforts to oust the premier and bring about new elections commence before the government has been sworn in and are relentless. Hence, the parties in power aim to rush legislation as soon as possible – the judicial reform being an obvious example – while the opposition does everything possible to trip the government up and bring it down.
The Hamas invasion and mega-atrocity on October 7, 2023, was so horrendous that it brought the country back together with slogans like “Together we will win.” But it should not be forgotten that the massive divide caused by the reform proposals – and the response to it – were a major cause of the Iranian-sponsored attack.
Israel’s enemies watched pilots and members of elite forces refusing to serve; hi-tech entrepreneurs threatening to relocate; talk of mass emigration of doctors; and wildcat strikes, and they detected weakness.
The discord pre-October 7 was marked by mass demonstrations – some of them creative to the point of being almost an art form – egged on by the mainstream media.
One wave of protests swept the country in March 2023 when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fired Yoav Gallant as defense minister.
The uproar was so great that Netanyahu rescinded the dismissal. Hence, Gallant was defense minister on October 7. It was on his watch no less than Netanyahu’s that the Hamas mega-atrocity took place.
I was reminded of Gallant’s dismissal this month when a similar outbreak of demonstrations surrounded Netanyahu’s decision to fire the head of the Shin Bet (Israel’s Security Agency). Ronen Bar had already admitted he played a role in the failure to prevent October 7.
If that wasn’t enough, it should be recalled that it was luck rather than Bar’s skills that prevented mega-bus bombing casualties last month.
I had plenty of time to mull over the issue as I sat on a bus in Jerusalem, stuck in traffic caused by demonstrations nominally against Bar’s dismissal. Demonstrations are, of course, an essential right in a democracy. Deliberately blocking main roads and intersections is not.
Bar had promised to step down but added last-minute demands: That he remain in place until the return of all the 59 hostages still being held in Gaza (only 24 of whom are believed to be alive); that he choose who replaces him; and that he stay in the job to investigate the Qatargate affair implicating members of the prime minister’s circle in receiving funds to promote the image of the Gulf state.
It is legitimate for him to recommend his replacement, but not to turn the appointment into a demand. As for the Qatargate inquiry, it should be asked why Bar doesn’t believe his successor can lead the investigation.
A lack of trust
The lack of trust between Netanyahu and the head of the security agency that operates under the auspices of the Prime Minister’s Office is no trifling matter. Keep in mind that the Shin Bet is responsible for protecting Israeli officials, as well as safeguarding the country.
Bar’s predecessor, Nadav Argaman, did not help. Argaman is one of a series of former Shin Bet heads who have openly come out against the prime minister and actively participated in the mass protests, but his recent comments were the most brazen. In an interview with Yonit Levy on Channel 12, Argaman issued a thinly veiled threat.
“There is great importance to the intimacy between the head of the Shin Bet and the prime minister, and I don’t think it is right to undermine that intimacy,” Argaman said. “... It is absolutely clear that I have a great deal of knowledge. I could use it, but I choose not to for the reasons I mentioned.”
If Argaman has knowledge of some serious misdeed by the prime minister, why has he been sitting on this information? Where is the democracy in a secret service head who gives the impression of building up incriminating evidence against the country’s leaders to be used when he decides the time is right?
Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara jumped in and declared that Netanyahu could not fire Bar. (The High Court ruled that he could not be fired before April 8, two days before his slated last day in office, and on Tuesday the court rejected her request that would prevent interviewing candidates for the job.)
Baharav-Miara has also been targeted by the current government for dismissal – and vice versa. The attorney-general has repeatedly rejected the government’s positions and is ultimately the prosecutor of the prime minister himself in his corruption trials. Conflicts of interest go both ways: The judges and the politicians all have vested interests in maintaining power. The difference is that the politicians are elected, while the judges are not.
Bar basically accused the prime minister of wanting him out of the way to block the Qatargate investigation, while Netanyahu and his supporters claim that Bar launched the investigation in order to stay in his job. Netanyahu this week went as far as to claim there is a “Deep State” conspiracy against him.
Even without a written constitution, the result is a constitutional crisis. And the demonstrations aren’t helping. The protesters have gathered under multiple banners with disparate messages – some demand the draft of the ultra-Orthodox, others focus on ending the war in Gaza; some seek financial help to reservists and those displaced in the war, others are protesting the decision to fire Bar.
The fate of the hostages has been thrown into this powerful emotional cocktail. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum fears that continued war will harm those captives still in Gaza, while the less publicized Tikva and Gvura forums, also representing families of hostages and fallen soldiers, say that only military pressure on Hamas can bring about the release of the captives and the end of the terrorist threat.
Politicizing the hostages
That the hostage issue has been politicized is one of the greatest tragedies of October 7.
At a rally in Tel Aviv’s Hostages Square last Saturday night, leader of the opposition Yair Lapid yelled that if the government ignores the court that overrules it, there should be mass strikes and a tax revolt.
Lapid’s voice has been heard loud, but not clear, at many of the major protests before and after October 7, 2023. He has screamed against the government until he is hoarse. But he hasn’t offered an alternative.
At the end of his few months as prime minister in 2022, he pushed through a deal giving Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon part of Israel’s economic waters and potential natural gas assets.
It didn’t prevent Hezbollah’s aggression any more than allowing Qatar to fund Hamas bought quiet in Gaza.Israelis are good in crisis situations. They are also prone to creating crises. We don’t need more threats either external or domestic. As the editorial in this paper on Sunday put it: “... Israelis should do whatever we can to make sure that the divisiveness and hate from within Israeli society don’t overtake the silent majority – who are looking for stability, safety, and peace.”
I believe some version of the so-called “French law” would be a good idea – limiting the number of consecutive terms the prime minister could serve but providing immunity from police investigations and charges while in office.
Some measure of judicial reform is also essential. The Hebrew title of the attorney-general translates as “legal adviser to the government”; but following Supreme Court president Aharon Barak’s judicial overhaul in the 1990s, the job became less that of an adviser and more that of the ultimate power, able to veto decisions of the executive at will.
Barak’s philosophy could be summed up in two words: “judicial activism”; or, in Hebrew, hakol shafit – “everything can be tried in court.” Not surprisingly, this has led to a feeling among many that the courts have become politicized and overly interventionist. And it underscores the need to separate the roles of the state prosecutor and the attorney-general, today absurdly combined.
When the dominant narrative in Israel becomes the threats of “Deep State” vs mass demonstrations, nobody wins – except the ayatollahs in Tehran and their murderous proxies enjoying the show. Better the French law than the French Revolution.