War is not the time for slogans - opinion

These days, we are constantly told that we require unity, and also that now, when soldiers are risking their lives, is not the time for politics. 

It sounds persuasive until a superficial examination reveals that both are slogans. 

They are alternate terms for “trust us” and which are intended to give a free hand to those under whose watch we suffer this disaster.

Imagine a person – for convenience let us call him Issy, short for Israel – who faces a challenging medical problem. 

He is lucky to have access to a medical team that is considered among the best in the world. A long-time expert leads the group. He directs and supervises professionals who are replaced every few years, each of whom is considered an authority in a particular field. The treatment they prescribe is very expensive, but Issy is assured that other than infrequent eruptions of symptoms, everything is under control. 

Baseless promises 

Then one fine and festive day, Israel learns to his horror that the promise made to him is baseless, and the expensive treatment is worthless. The problem has erupted with unprecedented severity, the pain is intolerable. Issy and the medical team leader have a contract, so in the meantime, the same team continues to treat him.

Only a fool – and our Israel is no fool – would waive the option of questions. 

What does a victory in Gaza look like? Hoping and assuming that the Hamas infrastructure will be irreversibly dismantled, who will manage the area? 

Who will collect taxes, appoint school principals, ensure there is running water? 

Israel? 

If not, whom? 

Are there any plans in place? 

Discussions designed to further such plans?

Issy does not expect to understand the scientific logic behind every bitter pill he is expected to swallow, but he wants to have a general idea about the prospects and seeks reassurance that he will not find himself, during and after the emergency treatment, in a worse situation than when the problem erupted. 

Who of you, dear readers, would trust those who were in office during such a major failure, after learning on your own flesh the consequences of their flawed judgment? Who would enable them to proceed without asking questions, demand explanations, talk politics?

What are those politics that we are expected not to discuss? Definitions focus on the totality of relations between people living in a society, and which are played out between individuals, groups, and the authorities. The product of this interplay is binding decisions. Every act which can influence decisions and outcomes is political. 

This is true for families, neighborhoods, organizations and countries.

A political act designed to convey a message 

WHEN THE prime minister replaces his customary dark suit, white shirt and tie, with a black open-necked shirt, that is a political act, designed to convey a message. 

When he refrains from answering questions for three weeks after the outbreak of war, that is a politically motivated decision.

If he finally speaks to reporters, and says that responsibility will be allocated after the war, he is obviously engaging in political considerations. A tweet sent in his name several hours later, laying the blame on leaders of the army and the security services – does it get more political than that? It does, when he withdraws that statement, obviously understanding that it was a political mistake. 

There are many such examples relating to assorted players and echelons, but the principle is clear – those under whose management and leadership we arrived at this sorry moment are constantly dabbling in politics. 

Yet they tell us that we must not, because this is not the time, and we are disturbing. Trust us, they say, but do not explain how and why we should.

As for unity – like motherhood and apple pie, who can object? 

We are indeed unified. 

We share the pain for so many dead. We are one in concern for the injured. There is unity in anxiety and hope for the hostages. We have a common sense of undermined personal and national security. Our knowledge that the country failed in its basic duty, to protect us, is another unifying factor. Other than those who despaired, we are united in the hope that we will recover, and that life in Israel will once again be normal.

And beyond that? Unity does not exist in a vacuum. 

It is not an entity unto itself, but envelops a common denominator, such as identity, opinion, goal. 

Lacking common objectives and agreement on how to reach them, there is nothing to unite around, and “unity” remains an empty slogan.

A lesson which should be learned from recent events is that it is better to be cynical, suspicious, and careful, so as to avoid falling into traps laid for us by slogans and sloganeers. 

If only we learn to engage wisely in politics, meaning ask the right questions and demand answers, if only we are active in the issues between individual, society and state, only then we may develop a pivot around which we can converge, and strive for this elusive unity.

The writer was Israel’s first ambassador to the Baltic republics after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, ambassador to South Africa, and congressional liaison officer at the embassy in Washington. She is a graduate of Israel’s National Defense College.