Why is Michael Oren repeating the Right's anti-democratic drivel? - opinion

How very surprising to hear former ambassador Michael Oren, one of the few politicians I have always admired and whose democratic leanings I have never had cause to doubt, blogging in The Times of Israel, perpetuating the same anti-democracy drivel coming out of the mouths of the most rabidly right-wing of the Israeli government.

First, Oren pats himself on the back for his early initiation of what later became government judicial reform policy, the idea of “increasing the government’s ability to appoint part of the court.” Sure, in a country with a constitution and strong checks and balances, this might be a good idea.

But surely former ambassador Oren knows enough political science to realize that, unlike in the US, where you could have a Democratic president, a Republican House, and a Libertarian Senate, in Israel the legislative and executive branches are effectively the same: The prime minister is of the same party that controls the Knesset.

Why Michael Oren repeats right-wing drivel

Moreover, there is no constitution; there is no bicameral system; and there is no federalism. So the judiciary is in fact the only balance in the system. Strengthening the government’s ability to appoint politicians to the court is the opposite of what you want to do to maintain democracy.

Second, Oren concludes that “the coalition had the right idea but the wrong implementation and the wrong sponsors.” 

Two truths and a lie: It is not just the extremism and the implementation that are the problem, although they certainly contribute, and yes, Oren is correct in noting that (at least eight) Knesset members have criminal records.

It is the set of bills themselves: Everything from special rewards for just the haredi and settler communities (from money being pulled from the municipalities to funnel to those niche communities, to an announcement of higher bus fares so the secular can subsidize the religious and the settlers) to real infringements on human rights.

When the Knesset reconvenes in October, it is said that the government will be looking at 42 laws that seem designed to neuter the judiciary, 11 laws to control the electoral process, 24 laws to strengthen religious control of the country, seven laws to politicize public bodies, 30 laws that infringe on basic human liberties, four laws to close down the media, and 12 laws to regulate academia. Respectfully, that doesn’t sound like “the right idea” to me. 

Third, Oren decries the opposition for not “recognizing the government’s legitimacy.” Here Oren conflates the opposition (which has unhappily completely recognized the government’s legitimacy, including many months of what sounds like frustrating negotiations at the President’s Residence) with the protest movement, much of which, according to polls, would indeed prefer a new government. In fact, protesters are not the only ones of which this is true: Polls taken many times since January have consistently shown that coalition support has fallen, and were there to be elections, a Gantz government would likely win by miles.

Fourth, Oren announces, “I felt for those Israelis unable to get to work because of the demonstration.” Seriously? With democracy on the table – with the very foundations of the state disappearing before our eyes – your biggest fear is that people will be inconvenienced in their commutes?

You note your discomfort with the doctor, military, business, and Histadrut labor federation strikes, saying that politics have no place in those realms – but how, then, would you prefer people protest? Have you swallowed the antidemocratic Kool-Aid so fully that you would have people not protest at all?

It is nice to see that in the next paragraph of his dismayed missive, Oren pays lip service to losing the “respect of foreign allies.” I am sure that former ambassador Oren knows, as few others might, just how much more than the “respect” of the US Israel has lost with this little contretemps.

These are the words of someone who is trying to have his cake and also gobble it; of someone who is angling for a spot in the next government, but still wants the lucrative speaking invites from US Jewish organizations; who is attempting to straddle the fence in a situation where one must take a principled stand.

This is the same Michael Oren who very recently, in an interview, announced that the problem is that the Supreme Court is entirely homogeneous, entirely Ashkenazi. We have heard this falsehood from much of the coalition, repeatedly; it is the most commonly cited reason for why the government is redoing judicial selections. 

In fact, of the 15 Supreme Court justices on the court, there are three settlers, twice their representation in the general public; at least four religious, exactly their proportion in the public; and, leaving aside the one Muslim justice, three non-Ashkenazim and another two justices with non-Ashkenazi spouses. Moreover, 10 of those “leftist” justices came in on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s watch.

In this same interview, Oren notes the difficulty of divisions within the army, saying: “And I’m not even sure if we were in a national emergency right now, this government would have the legitimacy and the national coherence to order a preemptive strike such as we saw in June 1967.”

I sincerely hope this was Oren’s own ruminations, not the government floating the idea of a preemptive strike in Lebanon – because here Oren is correct. I’m not sure this government, having so thoroughly ripped up the social contract, does have the legitimacy or national coherence to order such a strike.

But all is well, because at the very end of his piece, Oren acknowledges how the coalition members, after an acrimonious vote following 29 weeks of harrowing, soul-searching, social-contract-breaking torment, took selfies in the Knesset to celebrate their victory, and that offended him.

I am so glad that Oren found that distasteful. 

So did we.

The writer runs JewishSpeakersBureau.com.