Sitting in the front seat next to my father, I intently stared out the window exploring the dark horizon. Our car was packed with my friends and teammates coming back from a little league baseball game played in Netanya. Passing the army checkpoint and driving the dark narrow roads, we all put on our baseball gloves in apprehensive anticipation. We would be ready to catch whatever was thrown at the car.
On this same road on a late night in early 1987, a car returning home was hit with a Molotov cocktail. The interior caught fire and exploded like a tinder box. Ofra Mozes and her five-year-old son, Tal, were killed and her husband Abby and three other children were seriously burnt. This attack was the opening shot of what became known as the First Intifada, a period of terror and violence that saw many dozens of Israelis killed and countless wounded.
The Intifada had a secondary effect, as well. It opened the door to secret diplomacy between Israel and the Palestinians, which ultimately resulted in the Oslo Accords.
The belief on the Left side of Israel’s political map was that the establishment of a Palestinian state through territorial concessions was the only action that would bring about the quiet Israel so desperately sought. In addition, due to the assumed demographic trends amongst the Arabs, they argued that only a complete separation would allow Israel to remain a democratic and Jewish state.
The Right on the other hand believed that in the Middle East, any territorial compromises would be interpreted as weakness and would lead to further terror and death. Furthermore, any land conceded would be used as a launching pad for future attacks against Israel.
Those years were marred by a deep ideological, strategic and political divide. Both sides of the argument were adamant in their belief that the very existence of Israel was in the balance. The opposing policies, whatever side of the divide you were on, were a real threat to Israel’s future. The stakes were as high as they can get.
YEARS LATER, it is clear to all that the Oslo period and the subsequent disengagement from Gaza created a genuine and significant rift in the country. It has taken many years to recover and decades to heal.
Today’s situation is extremely different.
At present, the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews oppose territorial concessions to the Palestinians and support the IDF’s strong response to terror emanating from Judea and Samaria and missiles from Gaza. The vast majority is united in preventing Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons while supporting the Abraham Accords and further peace with regional Arab and Muslim countries. In matters of security and diplomacy, this is the broadest consensus Israel has ever known.
The strong Israeli economy and the hi-tech boom have created a unified policy, as well. While the public debate on spending does exist and education, healthcare and welfare discussions carry on, the general economic parameters remain the same. Policy differences between the various governments over the last couple of decades have been minimal. Free markets, entrepreneurship, increased employment, technology and improved infrastructure have been the hallmark of Israel with no regard to Left or Right.
That leaves us with the judicial reform that is being so hotly contested today, to the point that there is an open discussion of civil war. Within the plethora of articles written and staunch positions taken, we have heard from both sides that the end of democracy is near if we don’t implement the reforms or because of the reform.
The doomsday prediction of foreign investment drying up, as Israeli companies actively initiate the implied financial Armageddon is yet another battlefield engulfed by this dispute. Yet there is one point in this debate that is not being heard sufficiently: a majority of Israelis support some kind of judicial reform.
In public statements by opposition leaders Yair Lapid, Benny Gantz, Gideon Sa’ar, Avigdor Liberman and even former prime minister Ehud Barak, each has expressed support for judicial reform. Certainly, there are differences and distances between what the coalition has presented and those changes that the opposition members would support, yet those disagreements are certainly bridgeable when considering that all the parties involved do in fact support some kind of amendment.
Let me be clear, not all voters are alike and not all policies fit everyone. There is, no doubt, a considerable external chasm between the average Shas voter and those from Labor, a void between Yesh Atid and Religious Zionists. But on the core policies of security, diplomacy and economy, there is much more in common than we are led to believe and the policy gaps contested in other areas are not as great as presented. Heritage, Jewish identity and national pride permeate all sects of our society.
So why the talk of rebellion and uprising, bloodshed and violence?
If most Israelis are in the same ballpark on the most pressing issues and hold bridgeable views on others, why are we on the verge of the precipice?
Politics 101 teaches that in order to see who is fueling a debate, just look to see who gains the most from it. In the case of judicial reform, there are only two such groups: Members of Knesset and the media.
Knesset members thrive on controversy and debate, it’s what defines them and what allows them to differentiate themselves from the competition. To paraphrase Niccollo Machiavelli, if you don’t have an enemy, create one. The public tug-of-war and the national polarization may serve the political purposes of both sides of the debate but we the people are the ultimate losers.
The second beneficiary is the media. Controversy and conflict, outrageous comments and shocking actions are what sell. If mainstream media platforms were used to promote shared goals and values rather than what divides us and encourage our leaders to reach a compromise rather than fuel the flames, our situation would be different.
A reform of historic national harmony is within reach if we just open our eyes and our hearts to this basic truth. If we, the people, take ownership of our common narrative and not abandon it to the machinations of our Knesset Members and media, the light of true unity will shine bright.
“I don’t need you to agree with me, I need you to care about me!”
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
Demonstrations and actions are indeed necessary, the masses should take to the streets but in the name of a shared future and profound brotherhood. To quote the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, “I don’t need you to agree with me, I need you to care about me!”
The writer is a former chief of staff to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.