An Urgent Task: Liberal Israelis Must Persuade the Right to Change Course - Opinion - Haaretz

An Urgent Task: Liberal Israelis Must Persuade the Right to Change Course - Opinion - Haaretz.com

An Urgent Task: Liberal Israelis Must Persuade the Right to Change Course

Israel is at an historic crossroads so political debates must be insisted on despite the unpleasantness. There is no persuasion as effective as personal interaction and liberals have the advantage when it comes to convincing fellow citizens as most also don't want omnipotent executive or theocracy

It is among the least controversial proposals one can make at Israeli gatherings: “Let’s not get into politics.” The discourse seems so toxic and the challenges so confounding that debates on the issues can seem only slightly less appealing than showing off vacation photos in polite society.

And that’s a shame, because Israel is a country that is going through one of the more fascinating existential ruptures in history. It is a conflict of ideas that goes to the essence of what this country should be, and discourse is essential.

Politics are at a boil the world over because of concurrent dislocations driven by tech disruption, social media, globalization, immigration and climate change. But Israel’s cultural war is of a different caliber, with especially high stakes for the country.

But all of that complexity has realigned and crystallized in recent years into something perhaps strangely more manageable and due to the uproar over the government’s proposed judicial overhaul, no longer escapable.

Protesters attend a protest of the government's plans for judicial overhaul in Tel Aviv last month.Credit: CORINNA KERN/ REUTERS

On one side of the current divide you will find Israelis who want to at the very least retain the country as it is: despite imperfections, a liberal democracy aligned with Enlightenment values, independent courts, rule of law and a fundamental openness to the world and to progress

Indeed, many of them, shocked out of their complacency, seek much more: a reset that might include a constitution, explicit guarantees of equality, perhaps an end to the West Bank occupation.

On the other are arrayed groups that see little value in any of this.

Some are driven by religion: they have no interest in Theodor Herzl’s vision of a Judenstaat in which religion is kept in its lane. They want the most rigid version of Judaism to dominate society. They basically want theocracy.

Some are driven by a sense that the conflict with the Arabs cannot be papered over by land deals or compromises. They think these project weakness, and that liberal democracy is ill-suited for so visceral a conflict. They basically want autocracy.

Israelis demonstrating for the government's judicial overhaul protest in Jerusalem last month.Credit: Itai Ron

These two groups are united in the right -religious bloc headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, which enjoys an inflated 64-of-120 majority in the Knesset due to opposition splits in the last election.

The plan to neuter the courts is the natural projection of this alliance, amounting to a proposed new governing system in which the government appoints judges and if the puppets fails to please can even overrule them. That would carry a huge cost, in outflows of capital and likely mass emigration of middle and upper middle-class Israelis. It would yield another kind of country – poorer and more religious and authoritarian.

I know which side I want to prevail, and the reader can easily guess which one that is.

But I still think there is value is persuasive political dialogue. That means cultivating a compassionate-minded space where people with divergent views can both actively listen and be heard. Both sides must talk, both on the state level and among ourselves as citizens.

That’s why, though I have little trust in the government, I support the talks under the aegis of President Yitzhak Herzog.

There is a notion we live in a mulish era when persuasion no longer works. This view reduces elections to a census, with the outcome determined by which tribe turns out most. The logic drives everyone to extremes to animate their base, and accommodation suffers.

Israel President Yitzhak Herzog overseeing talks between Israel's ruling coalition and the opposition to discuss the judicial overhaul plan in March.Credit: GPO/Kobi Gidon

But Israel’s liberals actually have the advantage when it comes to persuasion. If issues are framed correctly they are still in the majority by far, despite valid concerns over ultra-Orthodox birthrates.

The avoidance of political discussion allows these Likud voters to ignore their own interests. It should be possible to either move them leftward or move their party in that direction.

Evidence exists that events can shift opinion, even in a political atmosphere as seemingly ossified as Israel’s. During the Second Intifada, when it seemed Palestinian society responded to not-unreasonable peace offers with suicide bombings, opinion moved to the right. Every poll in recent weeks shows a swing away from the right in response to a seeming effort to Putin-ize Israel.

There are all kinds of ways to persuade and democracy depends on people being able to talk to one another and hope to find consensus.

Even opinion articles can play a role – and a cost-effective one at that. A recent Yale study actually set the cost: up to $3 per mind changed from reading an impactful op-ed.

A study by Pew last year found that most liberals in the U.S. have stopped talking to at least one person about politics in recent years. That can be read two ways: they’re fighting, yes; but also that they have given up trying to persuade someone who was previously close to them. The same, I know from experience, holds in Israel.

Avoiding debate with those who disagree can seem essential to maintaining sanity. But there are times when it's an abdication of responsibility for the future of a country at an historic crossroad.

Political debates should be sought after and insisted on despite the unpleasantness, even at the Shabbat table. There is no persuasion as effective as personal interaction.

It is commonplace among liberals to claim that the problem is not right-wing voters but their politicians. Those who recognize the extent of the damage Netanyahu is causing - incitement and alleged corruption, hastening a non-democratic bi-national state, the enabling of the avoidance of a core curriculum for Haredi children, the attempt to engineer unlimited power for the government - should take their concerns to their fellow voters who are electing the politicians lighting these fires.

Most of these calamities can still be corrected. Paradigm shifts can happen very quickly. Democracy comes from the Greek "demos" for people and "kratos" for power.

You want to speak truth to power? Talk, then, to the people.

Dan Perry is the former Europe/Africa editor and Middle East editor of the Associated Press. He is managing partner of the New York-based communications firm Thunder11, has authored two books on Israel, and writes widely on global events. On Twitter: @perry_dan