A recent New York Times editorial lamented the fragility of Israel’s democracy, Haaretz reported. Haaretz was right to highlight the piece, for particularly with the American elections looming, the editorial offers a sobering window into how Israel and its conflicts are perceived by some of America’s elites.
The Times expressed dismay at the breakup of Netanyahu’s super-coalition, as the government would no longer benefit from “Kadima’s moderating force,” arguing that Mofaz’ departure was a symptom of a country decreasingly committed to democracy.
But that is a simplistic view of what transpired. Parliamentary democracies need real oppositions, and with the super-coalition, Netanyahu did not have one. Those citizens who voted for Kadima (which garnered more votes in the 2009 elections than any other single party) did not vote for Likud. If anything was troubling from the point of view of democracy, it was the super-coalition, not its demise.
The Times also hinted that it preferred Mofaz’ more draconian solution to the ultra-Orthodox draft issue to Netanyahu’s more incremental approach. But what American observers ought to appreciate is that Israel now confronts a social ill no less divisive than was slavery in the United States. As in the American situation, Israel’s founders ignored a gross social injustice which was then woven into the fabric of the country from its very inception. And as in the United States, mishandling of this issue could lead to a tragic tear in the fabric of Israeli society from which we might not recover. Yes, the status quo, in which the ultra-Orthodox do not serve their country, is a moral outrage; the good news is that increasing numbers of Israelis want the issue addressed.
But how to resolve the question is far from clear. The ultra-Orthodox are resolute and could unleash chaos on the streets or cause significant economic upheaval. The situation is explosive. Furthermore, many among Israel’s top brass do not want the ultra-Orthodox drafted. The IDF has no manpower shortage, and arming thousands of young men whose loyalties might well be to their rabbis and not to their commanders carries great risks. Israel’s conundrum is infinitely more complex than the Times editorial suggests.
Perhaps most egregious, the Times’ claim that “an influx of Jews from the former Soviet Union” poses a challenge to Israel’s democratic values is both appalling and ignorant. The experience of immigrants from the FSU proves precisely the opposite. Ex-Soviet Jews have formed their own political parties and have entered the political realm in far greater numbers than American immigrants, who virtually never run for national office. When Natan Sharansky’s Yisrael B’Aliyah party was absorbed into the Likud in early 2003, it was a symbol that Russian Jews had become more integrated into Israel’s democracy, not less.
The Times’ unfair dig at Russian immigrants may well have been directed at Avigdor Lieberman, whose style and substance on many issues Americans understandably find distasteful. But why did so many young people flock to Lieberman’s party? One prime reason is a growing sense among Israelis that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is simply unsolvable. Faced with the prospect of interminable conflict, it is not surprising that many have drifted to extremes: abandoning all interest in Zionism, or xenophobia. Israelis are witness to both.
Yes, Mr. Netanyahu is in many respects “a disappointing, risk-averse leader.” But U.S. policy is not helping matters. When Obama asked Netanyahu to agree to a second building freeze, he demanded nothing equally politically suicidal from Abbas. That sort of inequity prolongs the conflict.
The Palestinians understand that they have no incentive to make a deal; their position, they correctly deduce, will only improve with time. So they have proven utterly unwilling to negotiate. For the Times to say that the Palestinians “have not shown enough commitment to a solution” is like saying that North Korea has failed to bring freedom and prosperity to all its citizens. It crosses the line from understatement to untruth.
Americans intuit that the Palestinians will not budge. Because Israel’s values are much closer to America’s (which is why the Times is so concerned for Israel’s democracy), the logic goes, if pressure is to be usefully exerted, it should be exerted on the Israelis.
But that will not work. While Israelis do not relish American pressure, they do not capitulate to it, either. So long as the attitudes of the Times editorial reflect those of America’s elites, the current stalemate will persist and hardliners on both sides will prevail. Those wishing to buttress Israel’s democracy would do well to read Israel with greater nuance, and to apply pressure not only on the Israelis, but on those whose incalcitrance is the true cause of our deadlock.
Email
Print
Tags:
Dr. Daniel Gordis is Senior Vice President of the Shalem Center, where he is also a senior fellow. The author of numerous books on Jewish thought and currents in Israel...
The Jewish State must end, say its enemies, from intellectuals like Tony Judt to hate-filled demagogues like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Even average Israelis are wondering if they wouldn't be better off somewhere else. 
Arresting the Haredi shirkers is not an option. Cutting their money is the only way to put pressure on them. They declare they would rather die than submit to army service. Let’s see them give up the money they get from the Zionists.
The real civil war issue to compare to slavery is the settlements.
What sort of pressure should be applied to the Palestinians and to do what?
What should they capitulate to it?
As usual, Gourdis is all talk without specific policy.
excellent post
Somehow the Gray Lady has lost her way during the last few years as far as being able to interpret what is going on in countries that are outside of the US. Sometimes The Times does not seem to understand what is happening under its nose.
What I am not understanding about this entire Haredi/Arab service mess is that there are solutions available for all.
What do many people do when they do not want to be in the Army, do want to serve their country and are available? You do National Service.
Arabs could serve in their own communities and bring improvements to many institutions. Haredis could do the same. You can put in your time each day and then go back to studying in the Yeshiva. How do people manage in other countries?? No less religious or holy, they work, do not burden others and continue doing what they believe in.
The bottom line, I feel, should be that young people give a few years to help their country, or the place they live in as citizens in any way that is needed. I understand that the great fear is that these young souls will be exposed to the evils of secularism and free thinking.
I have not seen much discussion of this and just wonder why the Sherut Leumi option, or a form of it, has not been brought to the fore.
Incisive, modulated writing, Daniel.
Bravo!
Enjoy a Shabbat Nachamu Shalom U’Mevorach.
Moishe
As usual a realistic analysis of the problem. The New York Times and the so called American Liberals have been caught up in the left’s anti Israel obsession. I doubt that Israel will ever get a fair presentation in the Times.
Wonderful article. Thank you. The US is indeed wielding the wrong side of the stick with regard to the Israel Palestinian, or even the larger Arab Israel issue. Yet, while it might not be in the best interest of the Palestinians to come to the table; while they might well believe that the world is more and more of the opinion that Israel is, in fact, Palestine; it might also be in Israel’s interest to wait. Israel is also not exactly treading water. It is growing,as we say, from strength to strength, becoming more powerful and more prosperous with each passing year. Why should Israel not also join the waiting game? It is better than giving everything away for a peace that is not forthcoming. Let the world see that we are going about are days, doing what we have to – and not budging from our country. If the US wants to help the Arab Israel situation, it should either help the Palestinians build a home of their own on Arab land (after all, the Arab countries profess so much concern for their brethren) or they should leave well alone.
The Haredi situation is scary. If only Civil Service would solve the situation, but it won’t. Why should the rest of the country sacrifice their children to war, while the Haredi do social work?
A subtle, thoughtful column — but this should be published in the New York Times. I would hope that this can appear there — or, if not, in the Wall Street Journal.
Danny, your comments are right on and I am not surprised that the Times does not get it.
The press, in general,does not have an understanding of democracy and should spend some time in Israel to get a good understanding of the process.
Schabbat Schalom
Harry
Not pressuring the Palestinians to be democratic(or at least humane to their own people) is like addressing the Iranian nuclear issue by putting pressure on the US and allies to accomodate the existence of a world threat.
Beautifully said. Thank you. Has it been submitted to the Times?? If the editos there are truly committed to democracy, they should run it as an op-ed piece.
May I recommend an op-ed in the New York Times?
“Israel’s Fading Democracy” by Avraham Burg.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/israels-fading-democracy.html?hp
Thank you.
I would encourage you to send this outstanding response to the Times.
Thanx for the disecting the thought processes and assumptions about Israeli and Palestinian cultures and societies contained in this one editorial. As implied, this mindset is not only indicative of the NY Times reporting, but more generally, of the liberal, intellectual elite.
Dan, thank you for another thoughtful and insightful article.
While this is not on topic, permit me to say, having had the honor of knowing your late grandfather, Robert, as my congregational rabbi, that you resemble him both physically, and, more importantly, intellectually.
Always wonderful to “reconnect” through your writings.
The fact that the Times then chose to run Burg’s piece (which represents a miniscule minority of Jewish Israelis and probably even a minority of Ha’aretz readers) is just a perfectly Timed illustration of Daniel’s point.
The analogy made by Eric in the first comment is apt– the conflict over settlements would be closer to the issue if slavery in the US– an issue that could pit brother against brother, could lead to violence, and threatens societal cohesion. All of these developments are quite welcome to those who wish to eliminate Israel entirely, such as Students for Justice in Palestine or “Jewish” Voice for Peace. For those who do support Israel but oppose the settlements, it is critical that they stand JUST AS STRONGLY against groups like these. After all, the American South was fighting just to preserve a way of life and political autonomy, not to avoid a mass genocide as well.
Your analysis is excellent, multi-faceted and lucid. I appreciate it. I find two flaws: first, you manage to insert a dig at Obama for the settlement-freeze proposal, perhaps an error but certainly not responsible for the intractability of the Arabs; and, second, you speak of the “elite” or liberals as a monolithic group that is anti-Israel. This is clearly not the case with most American Jews, who are both liberal and also strong supporters of Israel. A favorite tool of the ideologically simplistic right is to label the left as anti-Israel for political gain. This is not only a distortion, it damages those of us who support Israel.
Dr. Burg is in error on several counts. Israel DOES protect its minorities and their freedom of worship and expression. The ‘minorities’ were NOT the original inhabitants of the land.
The proponents of a two state solution have clearly stated that the new Palestinian state would be Judenrein, like the Nazis and that it would be the first stage in the eventual expansion of their borders ‘from the river to the sea’, i.e. the elimination of Israel.
Does this world really need another non-viable Muslim country? The West has already donated more money to the Palestinians than was spent to rebuild Europe after WW2. What happened to the money? Where is the infrastructure? Roads? Sewage systems?