Several weeks ago, BeSheva, an openly right-wing free weekly, ran a double invitation to families who were directly affected by the war to spend two days at the Dead Sea.
One invitation addressed fathers, grandfathers, and brothers of fallen soldiers. The other appealed to wives, mothers, and sisters of the wounded. I was upset to see that the getaways were not organized by the Defense Ministry, which unfortunately has much experience in dealing with such families, but by the Settlements and National Missions Ministry.
What is wrong with providing a chocolate workshop to someone who has paid such a heavy price? A little music, some psychodrama?
What’s wrong is that, even as vital services are regularly cut, the shrinking public purse subsidizes a project that falls under the responsibility and expertise of a different agency.
Why do they do it? Because they think it is right, because they want to, because they can – the only rule seems to be that which serves those in power at a given time. In the words of the Talmud, “Ein din v’ein dayan” (“There is no law and there is no judge”), complementing the final words of the Book of Judges: “Everyone did as they saw fit.”
Undermining democracy and endangering Israel's survival
Those breaks at the Dead Sea popped into my mind with the firing of Ronen Bar, the head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency). Both cases – one trivial, the other major – reflect a process of disintegration: weakening of public service, disrespect for division of responsibility, and damage to law and order. All these undermine the foundations of democracy, which is now attacked to the extent of threatening our very existence.
In the early days of the judicial overhaul, a new immigrant asked me why I was so worried. According to her, weakening the rule of law will turn Israel into yet another corrupt Middle Eastern country, which will be unfortunate but not the end of the world.
However, whoever knows the region and recognizes what Israel faces, must understand that if Israel is corrupt, it simply will cease to be. If it prefers loyalty to excellence, if it chooses politics over efficiency, if proximity replaces expertise (like the fresh appointment of Ilan Rom, who has no macroeconomic experience, as director-general of the Finance Ministry), then the mediocrity that will envelop us will prevent us from facing ongoing existential challenges.
While critics of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will agree on the risks inherent in his actions, this piece is also directed at his admirers, who view all his decisions as wise and decent.
Surely you understand that, at 75, he will not serve indefinitely and that it is impossible to know who will replace him. What will you do if his successor is bad in your eyes? If judges are appointed by the rulers, where will you turn if authorities harm you? How will you express your views if laws and budgets prioritize media that admires him, while silencing critics?
Even before then, Netanyahu could change his mind, as people do. Contrary to his current actions, as finance minister at the turn of the millennium he cut subsidies and thus increased ultra-Orthodox participation in the workforce.
After years of criticism, he called Yasser Arafat a friend, spoke in favor of a Palestinian state, and later reneged.
He prided himself on obstructing efforts to change the way judges are selected, which he is religiously trying to do now. If he turns again, and you object, what recourse will you have?
Defending democracy urgently and strenuously against the onslaught from the country’s leadership should not be a matter of Right and Left, religious and secular, or any other grouping. It should arise from understanding that what is at stake is not the identity of the head of the Shin Bet (or who will arrange breaks for families of dead and injured soldiers) but no less than the very survival of the country.