Striving for consensus doesn't mean abandoning our principles - opinion

October 7, 2023, was traumatic and revealing on many levels. It was also cathartic, meaning that the reality of what happened, compared to what we thought the state of things was, produced great soul-searching and introspection.

One of the shocking realizations was that the luxury of our heartfelt disagreements about several deeply felt issues had consequences. We had weakened ourselves, we had gnawed at the social fabric holding a wildly diverse society together.

In the wake of the attacks, people of strong political and social convictions, but also of deep love of their country, immediately put aside their advocacy in order to achieve the holy grail of unity.

Unity was the piece sorely missing from our social equation. Achieving it not only produced social tranquility, but also kept us away from self-destructive tendencies.

Unity became the goal, the result of focusing solely or at least overwhelmingly on so-called consensual issues. So, consensus became the driver, the mantra of what to focus on, in the name of retaining unity.

WHAT DOES it mean to focus on, let alone to achieve, consensus? An attempt to delineate it inevitably invokes US Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart’s classic depiction of pornography: “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”

So it seems to be with the idea of reaching consensus. Surely it cannot mean that we all agree about everything. Is consensus a shorthand way of saying that most people, a supermajority, would agree as to a particular idea or issue?

How does one even know that an idea or issue has achieved supermajority support?

Ultimately, we can start by focusing on first principles, a Zionist 10 Commandments. There are indeed some ideas, convictions, and beliefs that would seem to be consensual because, if they were not held, the ones not holding them should, for their own sanity, not be here.

Israel as a Jewish and democratic state is one of those principles. Of course, there are those who prioritize one descriptor over the other, but, taken together, there is only marginal support for having Israel be only one or the other.

Attempts to forge consensus around the war

During the past year, there has been an attempt to forge consensus around the goals of the war. Most exciting has been the often voiced goal of victory. Victory is a disappearing concept in the Western world, and its reemergence here has been nothing short of galvanizing.

However, is the idea of achieving victory over our enemies still consensual in Israel the way it was in 1967 or 1973? Well, doesn’t it depend on how one defines victory? Is victory the elimination of Hamas/Hezbollah, or merely diminishing them, or defined first and foremost with reference to the release of our hostages?

It’s not so self-evident. Victory would seem to be a quintessentially consensual notion, but peeling back its details makes it murkier.

One issue that seems to be fully consensual is the lack of support for a two-state solution. Here we saw that a highly contentious issue morphed over time to become fairly straightforward and clear to the hoped for supermajority. There’s nothing like global chanting of “from the river to the sea” to clarify one’s thinking.

Interestingly, the flip side of the two-state solution question, sovereignty for Judea and Samaria, is the opposite of consensual. While there is a strong and growing sovereignty push, assisted most recently by former ambassador David Friedman’s One Jewish State project, there is still adamant opposition to sovereignty.

However, when one delves here into the details, ironically one finds more consensus on certain facets of the issue. For example, there is consensus that the settlements there are a fait accompli, and that they are not going anywhere.

In addition, there is a widespread understanding that Israel has a vital security interest in the Jordan Valley, and indeed in all of the areas that are adjacent to the center of pre-’67 Israel.

When Donald Trump reassumes the American presidency next January, it might behoove us to focus him and his advisers on these more consensual aspects when contemplating the future of Judea and Samaria. We could build on the Pompeo declaration that these areas are not illegal, and likely derive greater recognition based on the security imperatives that the very long border with Jordan pose.

We live in a world where “my truth” increasingly directs an individual’s actions, regardless of the larger implications. Not only that, but those not subscribing to my truth are unworthy of a counter point of view.

We need to avoid this at all costs. Yes, we are the linchpin of the West; yes, we are the vanguard of a massive civilizational struggle, but yes, we are also only a tiny nation of 10 million people.

Let us not lose sight of how effective we can be, and yet also how we readily affect those around us. Striving for consensus does not mean dumbing ourselves down or abandoning our principles. It means that we act with conviction but also awareness.

Let’s strive to make being consensual a truly consensus issue.

The writer is the chairman of the board of Im Tirtzu and a director of the Israel Independence Fund.