Not all of them are existential threats, although a High Court ruling against ousting the Shin Bet chief could become a true crisis.
The government’s strategy is public bombardment: placing myriad issues on the national table to exhaust the citizenry and advance objectives that, under normal circumstances, could not be endorsed.
In some cases, the barrage is merely performative, such as the government’s unanimous expression of no confidence in the attorney general. This is a toothless PR stunt that will not yield the intended result because the legal obstacles are insurmountable. In other cases, the goal is to upend reality – for example, the bill to change the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee, which entered the statute book this week without public protest, despite its enormous importance, under the fog of bombardment.
The government’s decisions set the domestic front ablaze: Israel against Israel. They push us all into a morass of dispute over the most central elements of our national life. They cut into the living flesh of the body politic in wartime, on the eve of a large-scale reserve call-up, and induce enormous anxiety and a sense of emergency (again) among the majority of the people, including its own supporters.
Each of the five issues below is paramount, but it is important to distinguish between them and take a position beyond a simple thumbs up or down toward the government. Their meaning and possible ramifications must be apprehended in a reasoned, principled, and concrete manner.
1. The hostages
The dilemma of returning the hostages in the face of renewed war raises critical existential, moral, and security questions. Opting for combat is a legitimate decision for an elected government, and should not lead to flouting rules, such as refusing to serve. Combining the protest over hostages with demonstrations against other government actions conflates unrelated issues, which has the practical result of hindering dissent against problematic government moves.
2. The Netanyahu trial
The trial against the prime minister should have concluded long ago. Ideas like a plea bargain and criminal mediation have been proposed. Brave legal leadership, like that of Aharon Barak (who allegedly heads the “deep state”) and Avichai Mandelblit (who filed the indictment), offered such solutions, but the current legal leadership has dug its heels into the sand. While it is easy to agree that power should not intimidate and that discrimination is verboten, leadership is measured by courageous decisions that consider the broader picture under the solemn weight of responsibility for Israel’s future. The blinded Samson brought down the Philistine temple in Gaza – on his enemies and himself. We must not follow in his footsteps.
3. The commission of inquiry
Establishing a state commission of inquiry is critical for national resilience. If my advice were taken, it would be agreed in advance that the committee’s mandate would be limited to investigating processes and institutions, not finding culprits. The focus should not be on pointing fingers but rather on clarifying the infrastructural failures in the thinking and operational processes of the apparatus entrusted with our security. The committee’s purpose should be “correction,” not “justice.” This wouldn’t neuter the investigation; it would enhance it, enabling its crucial work to be conducted more efficiently (without lawyers and prosecutorial warnings) and openly so that its findings do not become contentious and thus diminished.
4. Qatari money suspicions
The “Qatar-gate” affair must be thoroughly investigated, professionally and swiftly. But as long as there is no evidence linking it to the prime minister and no proof of a significant “influence operation,” or worse, it is irresponsible to tar the prime minister with accusations of treason. Such claims are reckless and counterproductive.
5. Democracy
The weakening of Israeli democracy is the greatest threat to our future. This was expedited by government actions that have succeeded in stirring up distrust toward the individuals and institutions responsible for the rule of law. It must also be acknowledged that certain decisions and conduct within the judicial system also contributed to this dangerous erosion. It would be catastrophic were Netanyahu, inspired by Trump, allowed to usurp its power. Without the judiciary, “one would swallow his neighbor alive.” (Pirkei Avot 3:2). The great and immediate concern is that the High Court of Justice will rule that the ouster of the Shin Bet chief is illegal due to an improper procedure or because the established legal criteria for dismissal laid out in administrative law were not met. The prime minister might claim the court overstepped its authority and its ruling doesn’t merit compliance. The head of the Shin Bet, who has already stated that he will only answer to the law, may entrench himself in that position. Who will decide? Will Israel become a banana republic where those with physical brawn determine who holds the reins of power? Such a dire and confrontational scenario must be avoided. I find it hard to believe that Netanyahu wants to reach this point. If he does, regardless of the outcome, he will go down in infamy in the annals of history.