Last week, Harvard University released the report of a task force established to combat antisemitism and anti-Israel bias within the institution. It is important to emphasize that this document was produced by the university itself, not by the Trump administration or an outside Jewish organization. At over 300 pages, the report presents a shocking indictment of what is occurring at the world’s most prestigious academic institution.

Harvard is the breeding ground for future leadership in the United States, and therefore, the significant shadow cast upon it is noteworthy in itself. However, the report not only sheds light on the institution but also raises the shocking possibility that the modern strain of antisemitism, as virulent as its predecessors, could become normalized even in the United States.

I studied for my master’s and doctoral degrees at Harvard in the 1980s. I never felt uncomfortable because of my Jewish or Israeli identity. Despite wearing a kippah, I never encountered a discriminatory or exclusionary incident. No one distanced themselves from me because of my identity or opinions. During the festival of Sukkot, my wife and friends erected a sukkah in Harvard Yard, and everyone, Jews and non-Jews alike, squeezed into it. During the High Holy Days, the synagogue was too small to accommodate the crowd, so prayers were moved to campus lecture halls (and even the local church). On the first day of Rosh Hashanah, there were no classes at the Law School. As a Jew, I felt “at home” at Harvard.

But according to the report, since the 2000s, an atmosphere of hostility against Israelis, Jews, and anyone expressing sympathy for Israel (even if they are not Jewish) has blighted the campus. Even Arab-Muslim citizens of Israel face hostility because they are Israeli.

Harvard’s complexion changed long before the Hamas attack. Through a well-planned, patient, and sophisticated operation, our enemies succeeded in executing an ideological transformation at the mecca of the West.

The fruits were reaped a few days after October 7, when 33 student organizations at Harvard determined that Israel itself was responsible for the Hamas attack. A world turned upside-down. The report places a polished mirror before the institution’s leaders – it reflects a colossal educational failure. The university’s values, as articulated in its own documents, include a commitment to respecting diversity, intellectual integrity, building bridges between identity groups, and ensuring a pluralistic environment.

These values are supposed to be a beacon for Harvard’s 2,400 faculty members and 25,000 students. To promote these values, the endowment fund of the world’s richest university has amassed over 50 billion dollars. However, the report paints a different picture, asserting that Harvard students are unable to cope with different, sometimes contradictory narratives, are unprepared to digest historical complexities, fail to engage in open debate, and are far from having a pluralistic understanding of reality. In my estimation, and this is not stated in the report, parts of the university, which purport to shape the worldview of liberalism in the West, betray basic liberal values when it comes to Jews and Israel.

According to the report, this hostile takeover of the marketplace of ideas at Harvard is deeply damaging to the intellectual quality of the institution.

Lecturers, courses, and entire programs are engaged in spreading lies under the guise of science. They do not recognize the historical connection between Jews and the Land of Israel. They assert that Israel is not a state but a “settler colony” of Europeans who stole land from the indigenous population. They even refuse to acknowledge the existence of antisemitism in human history and do not recognize the fact that Jews were a persecuted minority for much of it.

At Harvard, facts are twisted, distorted, or denied entirely in the service of an anti-Israel and anti-Jewish agenda. The result: 73% of Harvard’s Jewish students feel uncomfortable expressing their political opinions; 60% feel discriminated against or have been met with hostility due to their views; 44% feel mentally unsafe, and 26% even feel physically unsafe.

NATURALLY, THE report focuses on the negative aspects.

Alongside them, of course, there is also another Harvard. Evidence of this is that the university president, who replaced his woefully inadequate predecessor after her abject failure in a televised congressional hearing, is Jewish. And, of course, the very publication of the report reveals moral clarity and a courage of mind. It exudes a spirit of unflinching introspection and a genuine embrace of self-correction.

Antisemitism is indeed rearing its head, but the fight against it could garner widespread support. The fight against antisemitism is being led by Jews worldwide, along with many non-Jewish allies. Beyond that, it is worth thinking about the role the State of Israel should take in it. It does not have to lead the fight but should take part in contexts where it has a relative advantage. It is committed to this in the Basic Law of Israel – the Nation-State of the Jewish People, and it must honor this commitment.

Red lights are flashing in Boston. Jerusalem, awaken.

Published by Jerusalem Post

The post Flashing Red Lights in Boston first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

As the war in Gaza continues, impatience appears to be gaining momentum within the Israeli body politic, and voices calling for its end are increasingly heard. Those who support ending the war rely on three arguments: social/moral, security/utility, and political/democratic.

The growing concern for the fate of the hostages is at the core of the social/moral argument for stopping the war. There is an understandable, all-too-human desire for their return “now” and “at any cost.” Since Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar has conditioned the hostages’ release on a full halt of military operations, some feel that “there is no choice” but to end the war. The noble feeling of solidarity pushes us to do what seems most important: to save lives, literally.

There is also the security/utility argument: is Israel being dragged into the Gaza quicksand, where the continuing war exacts an ever-increasing price without achieving the strategic advantages that justify it? It seems that Israelis are afraid of this: according to the JPPI Israeli Society Index, at the onset of the fighting, 78% were certain of victory, but now it is just 61%.

The growing skepticism of victory is tied to the assessment that continued fighting will claim the blood of even more IDF soldiers, fragment Israeli “togetherness,” delay reconstruction in the Negev and the north, punish the national economy, and diminish political support for Israel around the world.

And now the political/democratic argument: the societal firestorm caused by the judicial reform, which brought us to the brink of civil war, and the security earthquake caused by the Hamas invasion, have dramatically altered the reality in which the state functions. This change summons Israelis to the voting booth to reaffirm their support for the current leadership or to replace it.

The JPPI Index shows that trust in the prime minister and the government is very low (30% and 35%, respectively). These figures indicate that the current leadership’s ability to rally public support for significant moves has been severely diminished. However, according to traditional political wisdom, going to elections is inconceivable in wartime. If this is the case, it is better to stop the war to allow the people to have their democratic say in granting or denying confidence in the government to lead Israel in the next campaign, the one beyond the war itself.

THESE ARE three serious arguments, but alongside them stands an opposing argument of massive, and in my view, decisive, weight: ending the war before the overthrow of Hamas rule would likely expose Israel to existential security threats. Former prime minister David Ben-Gurion understood that because Israel is dwarfed by its enemies – in demographic terms (100s of millions vs less than 10 million), in terms of strategic depth (100s of kilometers vs a narrow-waisted land base), and in terms of financial resources – they would be tempted to try, time after time, to destroy us.

This is why deterrence is such a crucial element of Israel’s security concept. Deterrence – erecting an “iron wall,” as Jabotinsky put it – forestalls the next round of war for as long as possible. Over time, it may lead our enemies to despair at the prospect of our destruction, thus opening up the possibility of signing peace agreements.

Israel’s clear victory in the Yom Kippur War, which ended with the IDF positioned 100 kilometers from Cairo, eventually brought us to a peace treaty with the largest and most formidable of our neighbors.

Ben-Gurion and those who followed him realized that to maintain deterrence, Israel must strive for nothing less than overwhelming victory in its wars. This is the only way to stave off the next war and preserve the peace agreements and informal alliances with various powers in the region and beyond. An Israel that loses its deterrence power may entice many – not only Iran and its proxies – to attempt to annihilate it.

This is the correct context for understanding the strategic significance of the dilemma of whether to stop the war or to press on. In its opening salvo, Hamas handed a humiliating defeat to Israel that will not be forgotten. The advance warning system, also a critical component of our national security concept, failed catastrophically on October 7.

But this one-off move, in itself, does not tip the scales in the overall balance of deterrence, which derives from the results of war, not the causes. This was also the case in the Yom Kippur War – which began with a failure of the warning system but ended with an overwhelming victory that strengthened Israeli deterrence and effectuated a strategic reconfiguration in the region.

The Israeli government was right in declaring that the goal of the war was to dismantle Hamas. This is essential to preserving Israeli deterrence, and to this end, the State of Israel mobilized impressively: the internal disputes fell silent at once; a quarter of a million IDF reservists were called up; tens of thousands were evacuated from their homes in both the south and the north to enable the war effort to deliver a crushing defeat to the enemy.

Israel exposed itself to unrelenting political attacks and a massive loss of support around the world, and Diaspora Jews are facing a wave of antisemitism unprecedented since World War II. This is the heavy price we are paying – and as the war continues, it will increase – but it is necessary for one supreme purpose: to restore Israeli deterrence by defeating Hamas.

HAMAS IS the weakest of our enemies; it has no air force, no strategic depth, and no real state resources. It is vexingly difficult to subdue it quickly – because of its sophisticated subterranean tunnel system, because it cynically and unhesitatingly puts its citizens in harm’s way, and because it has managed to turn kidnapped Israeli citizens into human shields for its leaders. But even if the Hamas surrender is delayed, its total collapse as the entity in control of the Gaza Strip is essential to preserving Israeli deterrence. If we do not act decisively to complete the task, we will send a signal to the entire region that Israel is vulnerable, and the appetite to wipe us from the map will increase. Ending the war without a decisive victory is tantamount to a whale bleeding profusely in shark-infested waters.

Israel’s national security concept is based on three components: deterrence, advance warning, and decisive victory. On October 7, the warning system failed. If we stop the war now, it would mean giving up on an unequivocal win. It would make us complicit in undermining our own deterrence. Our enemies may mistakenly believe that there are cracks in the iron wall. Those who wish to strengthen Israel’s security for future generations, and those who wish to convince our enemies that the path of peace is the only one available to them, must grit their teeth and continue the war until a clear and decisive victory is achieved.

Published by Jerusalem Post

The post Israel cannot afford to stop the war in Gaza first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

Israel’s political Center is in a state of profound upheaval. Until the beginning of this year, it had been hibernating, but in the past months it has been shaken awake and now there is a radicalization trend in some of its quarters.

The radicalization of the Center constitutes a tectonic change in the “Israeli situation.” It comes at a terribly steep price that is rising to a point of existential peril for the Zionist enterprise.

During its period of hibernation, the center was proud of its Israeli-ness and had a sense of partnership in the state’s successes and challenges; it was clear that Israel was “home,” not just physically but mentally as well. The key to the center’s sense of ease, its ability to maintain Israeli solidarity, was a basic, self-evident premise: “Israel is a stable democracy.”

The shockwaves that hit the Center at the onset of the judicial reform, came because our democratic stability was thrown – for the first time in its eyes – into doubt. Even if the crisis passes with no major change to Israel’s reality, an entire generation of Israelis got a frightening glimpse of the possibility that what once seemed obvious – that it is a democracy with a Western-liberal orientation – was no longer so obvious. The democratic consciousness has been showing cracks.

This disruption of the center’s complacency has produced impressive displays of civic heroism. The hundreds of thousands who crowd the public squares every Saturday night, draped in the Declaration of Independence, waving the flag, conduct themselves peacefully, careful not to fan the flames of hatred toward their brothers and sisters.

But, and here we come to the present moment, a palpable change is in the air. Before our eyes, another tragedy is unfolding – the radicalization of the Israeli center.

After months of inspiring protests, the threat to Israeli democracy remains. Proposed compromises were not accepted. I can personally attest to an entire range of sensible compromise proposals that were raised, discussed, and in large measure agreed upon by the different parties, and yet the extreme elements that dominate Israel’s governing coalition managed to thwart them all.

As part of the Deans’ Forum, I can report that we reached a consensus with the chair of the Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee on nearly all the issues, only to face rejection. In a joint effort, lawyer Raz Nizri and I proposed a solution to the reasonableness-standard dispute, which was adopted by the Histadrut, and accepted by important parts of the protest movement, and opposition Knesset members, but it was torpedoed by the coalition, which chose instead to enact a particularly extreme wing-clipping of the Supreme Court.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the coalition is determined to proceed with its reform package despite surveys showing that the Israeli majority – aka the Center, which includes at least a third of Likud voters – opposes further changes to the system without a broad consensus. The Israeli center understands that in order to stand up against its determined ideological opponents currently holding the reins of power, it must fight as never before. But how?

Some in the center are choosing, or considering, extreme courses of action that, in my view, are destructive.

A prominent example of this is the long line of former leaders of Israel’s security forces – salt-of-the-earth Israelis who made the country bloom with their sweat and defended it with their blood – who have nevertheless chosen to employ a doomsday weapon: the cessation of voluntary IDF reserve service, or even refusal to serve altogether.

This is an incomparably radical response, as it undermines our highest national interest: the combat readiness of the Israel Defense Forces – which safeguards this country’s very existence.

It is hard to believe, but the fact is that some of the former heads of the Mossad, the General Security Services (Shin Bet), and the IDF have decided to call for action that may topple the temple of mamlachtiyut (“responsible statehood”). With trembling but determined hands, thousands of reservists have decided on a devastating course of action. They realize that this is a weapon that other identity groups will deploy later on and that what is being done today cannot be undone – and yet, fearing the loss of the state’s democratic character, they are willing to go to the extreme. And, in my view – beyond it.

Another manifestation of extraordinary extremism is the rush among academically trained professionals to emigrate from Israel. Prominent among them are physicians. The essence of their profession is to come to the rescue of others, and yet they are announcing their intention to leave even at the cost of fatal harm to Israel’s healthcare system.

A third example is the call, emanating from parts of the Israeli center, for cantonization, i.e., the division of the country not between different nationalities but between different Jewish identity groups. A number of models exist for realizing such separation, but common to all is despair over the vision of a shared Israeli existence.

The radicalization of the center – the use of a doomsday weapon (by refusing to take up arms) to force capitulation, and the abject abandonment of the struggle (by leaving the country or dividing it into cantons) out of desolation over the very possibility of consensus – is a great threat to Israel’s continued existence.

It is a boomerang that will come back to hit us all in the future, regardless of how the current crisis is resolved. The new radicals of the Center are responding to the extremists dominating the coalition, but in their response, they join them in destroying the country.

The radicalization of the enter could crush the Israeli backbone. If it spreads it could reach a critical mass and bring an end to Israeli-ness as we know it.

Although the burden of addressing this danger lies unequivocally first and foremost with those who initiated the reform and those who hold a majority in the Knesset, the Israeli center also has a duty to care for the sake of Israel’s future. Its members must choose ways of resisting the reform that do not cause irreversible national harm.

Those who believe that the current strategy of struggle, based on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, is insufficient despite its considerable successes, can find a wide range of protest methods that have been used in diverse contexts around the world. The methods used may be aggressive, if deemed necessary – but the protesters must not tread a path that endangers the Zionist enterprise.

From a mamlachti (“state”) perspective, a protest effort that expresses readiness for personal sacrifice is preferable (Mahatma Gandhi chose hunger strikes), or protests that hurt the country’s economy, but not its institutions, such as organized strikes or, in the absence of a labor-union consensus, unauthorized popular strikes or work slowdowns.

Those in despair to the point of refusing to serve would do better to consider protest methods like this, which, though extreme (and, in my view, unnecessary at the moment), do not threaten the country’s existence.

To this must be added the political consideration that the factor that will decide the future of the struggle is the centrist faction of the right-wing camp. This group will distance itself farther from the protest movement the more radical it becomes. It can identify with a protest movement that is prepared for self-sacrifice, but not with one that pulls the rug out from under the state.

Israel’s real hope lies in the preservation of the Center’s enormous power – real and moral – and on the condition it continues to operate within the state framework and not against it. The Center’s political leadership condemns refusal to serve and abandonment of the country, which is commendable. There is a range of possible actions through which the Israeli Center can exercise its power, without causing colossal damage to Israel’s future.

It must refuse separation, abandonment, and dissolution. The future of responsible Israeli statehood is in the hands of the center.

First published by The Jerusalem Post.

The post Israel is in danger from a radicalized Center first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

The dispute is approaching its moment of truth. Next week – the week of Tisha B’Av, a national day of remembrance of the tragic consequences of an ancestral civil war – the Knesset is expected to officially enact the first legislative element of the contentious judicial reform package.

If the bill to limit the reasonableness standard passes into law in the form currently proposed by the governing coalition, opponents of the reform will inject new steam into the massive protest movement that first took to the streets six months ago. The basic agreements of Israeli society will be broken. The alliance of fate that unites Israelis will be deeply etched with fissures, and it is doubtful whether it will be possible to repair the breaches.

Sayeret Matkal (the IDF’s elite reconnaissance unit) will, for example, split into two camps. Around four hundred reserve officers placed, with “trembling hands,” a letter on the unit commander’s desk announcing that they would stop serving if the legislation is passed. In response, a group is being organized that is prepared to extend the duration of its reserve service to fill the gap.

What is happening in this elite unit – that counts among its veterans Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and his most unabashed and vocal opponent, Ehud Barak – is just one frightening example of the process underway among large swaths of Israeli society: pilots, physicians, academics, lawyers – the builders and defenders of the nation – all threaten drastic measures if the legislation is enacted.

Others, many of them from the same identity groups, are voicing the opposite view and calling for the legislation to be passed in its entirety. In the middle are families and communities eaten up by the dispute. Beloved Israel is being torn apart.

Four months ago, as part of the work of the “Deans’ Forum” – a group of 10 legal scholars assembled by the Jewish People Policy Institute – we submitted to both the opposition and the coalition a comprehensive proposal for a compromise framework for all parts of the controversial reform package. The proposal expressed our view that the system needs fixing but not smashing. That a better balance between the political and the judicial branches of government is necessary, but not one that erodes Israel’s democratic foundations.

From the countless conversations we held with relevant senior officials, agreement emerged on most of the proposal’s details. But unfortunately, it did not work out in the end. Since then, the situation has worsened: The streets are in chaos, bad blood fuels an increasingly extreme discourse, and we have nearly reached the point where brothers raise their hands against each other. An updated proposal that will allow the sides to back off from extreme choices is urgently required. The abyss is just ahead.

Opponents of the reform must remember that it is supported by 64 Knesset members who were elected less than a year ago, and whose vote represents the majority position in our political system. At the same time, the reform’s initiators must remember that the polls show that the majority of the Israeli public does not support the version currently on the Knesset’s table – and more importantly, that systemic changes must be drawn up with great care on the basis of the broadest consensus possible. Claims of “past injustices” – such as the enactment of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty by a small majority in 1992, or the judicial system’s longtime resistance to change – however well-justified, must not be regarded as license to forge injustices in the present.

At this moment in time, compromise is vitally needed, and it is within reach. The right-wing government cannot be expected to withdraw its entire agenda just because a veto effort is being mounted, whether through IDF reservists or the Israeli street.

The opposition camp must therefore allow the coalition the space to correct course, while also respecting the mandate it received at the ballot box. The coalition, for its part, must confine itself to amendments that will not rattle Israel’s democracy, certainly not when they are being made without the consent of at least part of the opposition.

We, therefore, propose that the two sides reach the following agreement: Restrictions on the reasonableness standard will be enacted, but in a more limited way than currently contemplated. In exchange, the coalition will commit to shelving the other elements of its judicial reform plan, for the rest of its term, unless it can achieve a broader consensus – one that includes some of the opposition – through talks at the President’s House (Beit HaNassi) or elsewhere.

According to our proposal, the reasonableness standard would be restricted so that it is insufficient, on its own, to overturn government decisions, including decisions made by ministers within the purview of their legal authority on policy matters discussed and approved by the government in a plenary session. Government appointments would be “immune” to the reasonableness standard only when they require Knesset confirmation (as with ministerial appointments).

In contrast to those situations, according to our proposal, decisions by government ministers – whether based on their direct authority or on Article 34 of Basic Law: The government, which grants ministers the powers conferred upon civil servants – will remain subject to judicial review, including on the grounds of reasonableness.

This would also be the case for governmental decisions regarding appointments or dismissals that do not require Knesset approval, as with the directors-general of the various ministries, senior public officials, and the like.

Our proposal constitutes a significant change in the existing situation, as it immunizes government-plenum decisions from judicial review on the basis of reasonableness, as well as government appointments for which Knesset confirmation is required.

There is a clear logic to this: as a general rule, the judiciary would retain the authority to examine the reasonableness of exercises of discretion by those vested with executive authority in Israel. However, where discretion has been exercised by the elected body at the head of the executive branch – the government, or in the case of an appointment that requires confirmation by the legislative branch – the Knesset, the judicial branch will not have the authority to invoke the reasonableness standard.

In this way, the law would reflect an appropriate balance of power among those who stand at the head of the three branches. Of course, the judiciary could continue to review government decisions through the lens of other recognized administrative standards, which are many and varied.

The opposition may still find it hard to accept this proposal now, for fear of establishing a precedent that may be followed by a unilateral coalition push to continue the reform process. The coalition – more precisely, the prime minister – must have clear intentions (in Hebrew, as already articulated in English).

The coalition must unambiguously commit to not allowing the reform plan to move forward without a wider agreement that extends beyond the boundaries of the current coalition (let’s say, 70 Knesset members or more). The opposition, for its part, should announce its continued participation in a genuine dialogue on the rest of the reform issues with the aim of achieving the necessary corrections and balances.

It must move forward in the spirit of compromise, without undermining the independence and robustness of the judiciary or the democratic underpinnings of the Israeli political system. These mutual clarifications would be a first step toward healing the fissures and fractures in Israeli society.

According to our proposal, none of the parties would declare victory over their opponents. The coalition would succeed – in a measured way – in effecting some degree of modification in the balance of power between the branches, and the opposition would succeed in ensuring the continued separation of powers, as required in a democratic system. All sides must realize that a one-sided victory would be short-lived and could quickly lead, quite literally, to chaos and destruction.

If the parties internalize and converge around this compromise framework – even if not happily, but understanding that there is no better choice – on this Tisha B’Av we will be able to feel that we have learned something from the past and will not repeat the mistakes of our ancestors.

First published by The Jerusalem Post.

The post To prevent another Tisha B’Av, we must learn something from the past first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

Conservatism is a worldview that is wary of significant change when the outcomes are hard to predict. The conservative looks to the future with the understanding that she cannot foresee what is to come, and therefore prefers to approach it with small, calculated, measured steps.

While the progressive navigates the world – confident that he has the answers to the problems that arise, which he then seeks to rectify, sometimes with revolutionary fervor – the conservative conducts herself with humility.

She respects the existing reality and examines its limits with great caution. She cherishes the institutions that have developed within society and takes great care not to disrupt them, if only because they have proven their durability over many years.

Yet now, in the name of that “humility,” the Israeli conservative movement has pumped the ideological wind into the sails of the starkest, most dramatic and far-reaching change in the history of the State of Israel.

Conservatism is not the driving factor of the government-led revolution – it was forged by a coalition of identity groups and interests based on faith (religious Zionists and the ultra-Orthodox), unbridled nationalism (right-wing extremists of various kinds), ethnic identity and even cultural outlook. However, the conservative movement in Israel wholeheartedly supports the revolution, by placing it on a pedestal of conceptual and intellectual depth.

What might have been perceived as a populist struggle between sectors wrangling over interests, or as an attempt by political leaders to extricate themselves from personal predicaments, has been painted by the Israeli conservative movement as a local expression of a heavy-weight, political and social philosophy with a global reach.

A long line of right-wing Israeli politicians have been basking in the generous sunshine of global and local conservatism for the last decade. An entire intellectual ecosystem – conferences, research institutes, journals, websites, and visits by sharp-tongued American and European celebrity conservatives – has laid the ground for these politicians’ actions in recent years.

However, when the first opportunity for a “full-on right-wing government” presented itself to those politicians, some of them poster boys of Israeli conservatism, they readily renounced their faith. It is difficult to depict a more absurd spectacle than the one we are living in: conservatives, who are revolutionaries and anti-establishment, uprooters of reality, eager to jump – in the most irresponsible way – into the unknown.

And what a jump: Just two months ago Israel was a growing and flourishing country with the strongest currency in the world, whose defense forces – its formidable and cohesive people’s army – were unmatched in the region; whose leaders were honored guests in government corridors worldwide; whose democratic character was beyond doubt; and whose rule of law was a self-evident fact for the vast majority of its citizens. All of this is about to collapse before our very eyes.

In the space of two months, the politicians who had been fed for years by the conservative umbilical cord have succeeded in dividing Israel in a way we have never experienced – not by the Oslo Accords and not by the disengagement from Gaza.

So divided is the country, that there are calls not to allow elected public officials to represent the state at ceremonies on Remembrance Day for the Fallen of Israel’s Wars and Victims of Terrorism. If those calls were heeded, that would mark an unparalleled societal break from the past.

The magnificent economy we built here, which has weathered numerous global crises in an amazing way, may be facing a crisis in the near future, as predicted by some 300 of the world’s top economists, including the Kohelet Forum’s chief economist. Hi-tech barons around the world are holding their breath at the prospect of the Start-Up Nation performing hara-kiri.

The dispute has seeped into Israel’s holy of holies – the people’s army – where cracks are appearing that no one could have foreseen until the conservative revolution. Refusal to serve – even “gray” refusal, when soldiers don’t show up for reserve duty without explicitly saying they refuse to serve – is deplorable in my view, but it has undeniably become a presence in our lives, with all its immediate problematic implications and catastrophic long-term effects.

Will it be possible to put the IDF refusenik genie back in the bottle? And our prime minister – the super-statesman with impressive achievements to his credit – finds the doors of Washington and the UAE closed to him – persona non grata.

The realization that Israel is drifting away from the democratic world undermines the stability of our greatest strategic asset – the partnership of values with the US. Recently, and concomitantly with the government-led revolution, the support for Israel among Democrats has dropped by 11%, so that for the first time a majority of the American ruling party favors the Palestinians over us.

Diaspora Jewry, for the most part, is tearing its hair out over the unfathomable gap they see between what is happening here and their hopes for us. Zionist brethren, once a real pillar of support for the state, are becoming more and more discouraged by us.

And most importantly – millions of citizens fear that Israel is becoming a dictatorship.

We have experienced a miracle for the past 125 years – starting with the First Zionist Congress, the Jews nurtured a Zionism rooted in democracy. Thanks to this, Zionism is the only national movement to have succeeded in establishing a state (almost) without bloodshed between brothers.

Democracy was the only option for us until two months ago. And now – incredibly – under the auspices of a conservative agenda, Israel could become, at least in the minds of millions of citizens, an actual dictatorship.

The governmental institutions, the checks and balances between them, and rule of law itself could be put to the ultimate test not long from now, if and when the constitutional crisis unfolds. “And his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor” is no longer a distant Biblical story, but a real possibility, just around the corner.

Israelis tend to be conservative. Unlike large swathes of the Western world, Israel celebrates family, community, and tradition. Israeli society ranks high up on the World Happiness Index (fourth place in 2023), among other things, because of these qualities. The Israeli is not an isolated atom rattling around a neutral public space, but rather “part” of a greater whole in which he feels “at home” – part of the ongoing “story” of an ancient people that transmits its legacy to the entire world.

According to its website, the Israeli conservative movement professes that its aim is to “translate the conservative, wise, and sober insights of Israelis into a clear language, and an intellectually coherent teaching translatable into a calculated public policy.”

These are things that speak to the heart, but do they speak to the revolutionary reality that is robbing us all of sleep? Is this jaw-dropping revolution a “calculated public policy?”

My fellow conservatives, if you are sincere in your beliefs, you must immediately denounce the governmental plan. Even if you think that the millions of citizens in opposition (including a quarter of Likud voters) misunderstand the initiative known as the “Levin Reform,” you must respect the fact that this is how your brothers feel.

Even if you believe that the tsunami approaching our shores is to be blamed on the opposition, which has shaken the earth beneath our feet to satisfy political ambitions, it does not matter. Your very conservatism should dampen the self-confidence that justifies this radical change to the Israeli status quo – this headlong “rush to the spoils.”

Israeli conservatives: Oppose the reform – immediately. Come back to your senses.

First published by The Jerusalem Post.

The post Israeli conservatism has collapsed first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

Although the legislative process is well on its way, it is still not too late to seek dialogue and reach a compromise to prevent a schism in Israeli society and preserve our solidarity

The first part of the Israeli government’s overhaul of the judiciary passed in first reading, bringing along with it the possible rupture of Israeli society. The only way to prevent this is a dialogue that will result in a compromise – but the only precondition for such a scenario is that the disputing parties recognize each other’s grievances as legitimate.

The mutual denial and ascription of malintent to the opposing side must be substituted with an attentive ear to each other’s concerns.

The proponents of the reform believe that the balance between the branches of government was thrown off keel. Indeed, the purview of judicial scrutiny over life in Israel has increased in recent years, giving a sense it is seeping into every aspect of public affairs while promoting a specific liberal ideological agenda that does not comport with the prevailing cultural and moral diversity of Israeli society, and that these changes were implemented without any discussion or broad public consensus.

On the other hand, the harsh response to the reform – which I share – stems from the fear that its acceptance means leaving human rights and protection of minorities in Israel to the goodwill of the government.

Thomas Hobbes taught us in the 17th century about the need for the existence of the “leviathan”, a central governing body that works to promote public goals. Citizens, within the framework of a “social contract,” entrust the leviathan with some of their “natural rights” and authorize it to exert force internally and externally.

But alongside the promise embodied in the leviathan, also lies the greatest source of danger in the public sphere. I, as a citizen, depend on the protection of the state but may also be persecuted by it. One such regime would be Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Thus, liberal democracies adopt a variety of defensive lines in order to reduce the risk of abuse of power.

Many of the lines of defense accepted around the world do not exist in Israel: We do not have a constitution that sets the limits to what is permitted – and, more importantly, the limits of what is prohibited – in a stable fashion; we do not have a Bill of Rights that guarantees the freedom of the citizens; we do not have Basic Laws that set the rules of conduct of the branches of government and the separation of forces between them.

And while we have a legislative branch, it lacks practical power to oversee the operation of the executive branch; we have no limits on the terms of the executive branch; we have no decentralization of responsibility and authority similar to that of federal states; we are not part of a multilateral union, such as the European Union, which subordinate its member states to the rules; And, we must admit, we do not have a proper political culture that sets limits on the conduct of the government.

Given this flawed reality, how will individual freedom be guaranteed? What is supposed to protect us from the leviathan’s whims?

The post Neither side can win on judicial reform first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.

The urgency of the moment obliges all of us to demonstrate maturity and responsibility, and to enter a dialogue aimed at reaching a compromise.

It is clear as day that the proceedings of the Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee do not rise to the level of serious dialogue between the divided people. We need a real dialogue between the parties – using legal experts from all camps – that will produce a compromise that will not fulfill everyone’s dreams but will benefit us all as a nation.

A Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) survey shows that 50% of Israelis would like to see dialogue on the reform before it is enacted, including 42% of those who voted for the coalition parties – and 56% of those who voted for the opposition parties. They understand that in the absence of real dialogue, ominous flames flicker just outside the gate.

These are the facts: 60% of Israelis feel that there is a high to certain likelihood that the struggle between the reform’s opponents and supporters will deteriorate into violence. This concern exists in all camps, at similar levels, regardless of political outlook, age, or religiosity level. Only 31% of Israelis, less than a third, think that the chance of such an outcome is low or nonexistent.

If violence, heaven forbid, breaks out, those who refuse to engage in dialogue today, may discover tomorrow that they acted irresponsibly in the face of danger. They won’t be able to say, “Our hands have not shed this blood, and our eyes did not see it happen” (Deuteronomy 21:7).

We have experienced severe traumas in the course of our national life, such as the Altalena Affair, Rabin’s assassination, and the disengagement from Gaza. Each of these events stands on its own and cannot be compared to the others – but all of them were moments when Israeli solidarity was put to a difficult test, and ultimately prevailed.

At this juncture, another perilous moment is brewing: according to the JPPI survey, 35% of Israelis – one in three – fear civil war. We double-checked: these Israelis don’t think it’s just political rhetoric or media spin; it’s a real concern.

Against  this backdrop, robust public action is required to promote true dialogue. The split in the nation over the reform is a fact – 41% support it and 44% oppose it – but the divide must not translate into civil war. The mechanism for preventing this is dialogue, in which we open our hearts and hear the plight of the other with a true desire to reach a meaningful compromise.

Compromise is not only the sole practical way to prevent disaster; it is also the will of the people: JPPI’s survey shows that Israelis do think the judiciary is in need of change (only 16% oppose all change), but they also believe that it shouldn’t be the revolutionary change proposed by the minister of justice (only 22% support every change proposed in the reform package).

If the clear will of the Israeli public is to be realized, it is impossible – indeed verboten – to hide behind the argument that “there were elections, and the matter was decided.” At the same time, it is impossible – indeed verboten – to stick our heads in the sand and claim that any change heralds the “end of democracy.”

The desired compromise must preserve the three-branch structure of government, with a healthy tension between them that ensures that no one branch gains dominance over the others, and empties them of substance and meaning. Those seeking the reform claim that it is necessary because Israel’s judiciary has overstepped its bounds, while those opposed to the reform claim that it will enable the executive branch to reign over the others. What is required, therefore, is balance.

Unfortunately, Israel is not ready to reach an agreement on the enactment of a full constitution with a bill of rights, as is customary in Western democracies. The difficulty stems from the ongoing culture war between Israel’s different ideological camps.

But Israel must accept the rules of the game by which the culture war should be conducted. These rules are anchored in all liberal democracies – in laws that cannot be changed by a simple coalition majority – with regard to legislation, adjudication, and regulation of the activity of the governmental institutions.

The lack of supermajority laws – that do not rest on shifting sands – is pushing Israel down a slippery slope of governmental instability. The constitutional vacuum creates a temptation that Israeli governments (both past and present) find irresistible; they change the rules as they see fit, according to momentary needs.

The current crisis can be a national opportunity to rectify the situation through broad compromise on the rules of the game that would bind us from here on out. To achieve this, actual dialogue is required.

Politicians – come to your senses. The writing is on the wall.

First published by The Jerusalem Post.

The post The time for dialogue is now! first appeared on The Jewish People Policy Institute.