The wrong priorities: The absurdity of today's Israel is on full display - opinion

Rational observers of Israel may be pulling their hair out: What are the country’s leaders, in all three branches of government, busying themselves with at this historic moment? What is the dominant question in the public and media debate?

The Middle East is indeed being reshaped; IDF soldiers are fighting – boots on the ground – in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria; for the first time, a realistic opportunity has arisen, one that must not be missed, to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program; a new administration is about to take office in Washington, which carries both opportunities and risks for Israel; the society and the economy are groaning under enormous strain; and most important – we are still digging graves for those who fell in uniform, and a hundred of our daughters and sons remain in enemy captivity.

All of these are, of course, monumental, but nevertheless Israeli leadership pays much more attention to the question of whether the seniority system in appointing the chief justice of the Supreme Court should be maintained. This is complete madness and unparalleled irresponsibility.

And to add to this absurdity, the prime minister, the most central figure in shaping Israel`s future at this historic juncture, is required to appear three days a week in the basement of the Tel Aviv District Court to defend his innocence. Even in times of calm, it is said that the Israeli prime minister’s desk is busier than any other, and all the more so now, when the instability across the entire region requires undivided attention. There can be no doubt: we have lost our faculty of judgment.

AND AS in a Greek tragedy, the shrill drone of a refusenik chorus is heard from upstage: a former attorney-general who recommends that IDF reservists refuse to volunteer to serve if the judicial reform is relaunched; a former chief rabbi who calls on the ultra-Orthodox, one-eighth of the population, to refuse to enlist, advocating noncompliance with the Compulsory Service Law; a sitting minister of justice and members of Knesset who publicly air the possibility of refusing to yield to a High Court ruling. One Israeli cabinet minister has declared, with fanatical audacity, that he has not ruled out “regime change.”

These individuals are subverting the very ability to maintain the rule of law here, which is the only basis that keeps us from “swallowing each other alive.”

Amazingly, Israel has been successful on seven external fronts against its enemies, but it is dangerously close to losing on the eighth: the internal front against itself. The price of losing the internal war is structural and cannot be easily reversed: state institutions are undermining public trust in state institutions. The current government majority is exploiting the democratic system in order to erode its foundations.

And the main point: social solidarity – in a time of war – is cracking more and more. It seems that the immune system of the Israeli body politic is attacking itself.

Responsibility lies with those in power

THE MAIN responsibility for the situation lies with those in power: the prime minister and the entire governing coalition. They are determined to relaunch the judicial reform. The colossal damage caused by their attempt in 2023 has taught them nothing, and the folly of attempting to change the rules of the game unilaterally, without broad consensus, has returned to center stage. But others in high office are also participating in the tragedy: is it right to dig our heels in and insist on every single issue?

For example, in the case of the attorney-general – what would we have to lose if the state were to agree to conduct a criminal mediation process in the Netanyahu cases for a limited period of time so that a plea agreement might be reached by the court? This would immediately free the prime minister from having to give testimony and allow him to focus on fulfilling his role at this especially critical moment in time. Perhaps, if the mediation were to succeed and put a just end to the saga, it would be possible to heal an open wound that has been festering for years.

At the same time, in the case of the Judicial Appointments Committee – would the appointment of one judge who advocates the positions supported by a significant group of the ideologically conservative right cause irreparable harm to the Supreme Court? I am acquainted with one of the justice minister’s two candidates. His views do indeed differ from some on the current bench, but he is completely committed to the system itself and could represent another voice in the judicial orchestra – which, while not necessarily harmonious, would be valuable.

The bitter truth is that although the multi-front struggle is the result of genuine, patriotic anxiety on both sides regarding our shared future, the generals of the different camps lack intellectual flexibility and expansive vision. Each is entrenched in their own “Masada,” eyes shut to the overall good, which by definition requires compromise.

As noted, I do not believe there is an equivalence of responsibility here: the government is more responsible than any other party, because it holds the power and is obliged to wield it in a way becoming to statesmen. The fact that the coalition, which vaingloriously embraces the “conservative” label, is attempting to change the rules of the game is ironic in the worst sense of the word. All the polls show that public trust in the government is exceedingly low, and it certainly does not enjoy the support of the majority of Israelis.

A CEASEFIRE is needed on the eighth front, without which victory on the other seven fronts may prove pyrrhic. A ceasefire does not mean the dispute has been settled, but rather is a call for its removal from the nation’s immediate agenda. The debate must continue, but it must be conducted with the sincere intention of reaching an equitable balance of power between the branches of government, not by exploiting a political moment when one of the parties has the upper hand.

The parties to the dispute must understand that a decisive victory for one of them is a loss for all of us. A unilateral victory is not a state of equilibrium in Israel, because each of the camps is too large to agree to surrender. The losing side will regroup for another round in the struggle. Thus, for example, if the justice minister manages to pass some of the proposed changes in the Knesset, it is very likely that after the next elections those changes will be repealed by a new coalition. And along the way – we all lose. Not just the losers in the current round, but also the winners, who will lose in the next round.

“Compromise” is seen as a waiver of principles and an expression of ideological weakness. This is a grave mistake: compromise is the life blood of those who seek the good of the State of Israel, given the deep social divides within it. In compromise, no one comes out with all their desires fulfilled, but no one is defeated in a way that triggers extreme moves that could be destructive.

Those who have not yet understood this should take an unblinking look at where we are right now: a public sphere that is operating with a centrifugal force that has destructive consequences. The great Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai stressed this when he looked into the depths of the public psyche and determined that “from the place where we are right, flowers will never grow in the spring.”

The rules of the game for managing the Israeli dispute are unstable. A simple majority can – and is currently trying to – change them unilaterally. Israel’s future depends on the ability of our leadership, in all branches of government, to promote broad consensus on fair rules to be anchored in a “thin constitution,” which cannot be changed with a simple majority. A “thin constitution” is the necessary antidote for this crisis. Until it is enacted – and in times of war – a ceasefire is required. Only then will flowers grow here in the spring.

The writer is president of the Jewish People Policy Institute and a professor (emeritus) of law at Bar-Ilan University.