Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin is not a man to sit quietly in the President’s House and restrict himself to playing a ceremonial role. His political career proved him a master of getting media attention, a master of likability, a master of communication. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposed Rivlin’s presidential ambitions, he knew what he was doing. He knew that Rivlin was going to be a pain in his neck. He knew that Rivlin was going to draw some attention away from him.
Rivlin is doing all of that and then some.
In the last couple of days, Rivlin has been at the center of controversy for three things he dared to do: Meet President Barack Obama and say nice things about him; refuse to dance to an Orthodox tune in talking to progressive U.S. Jews; participate in a conference (organized by Haaretz Daily) with several controversial figures and organizations.
Many leaders and voters on Israel’s right are angry or disappointed with Rivlin for all these things. Well-known commentator Irit Linur said Rivlin’s appearance at the White House was a toady show of flattery. She called it a “scandal” and suggested Rivlin is willing to go so far as “rewriting the Chanukah story to seem likable to Obama and to a Reform rabbi, who is a member of organizations supportive of BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions].” The conservative website Mida published an article that also accused Rivlin of pandering to leftists. Columnist Kalman Liebskind wrote that Rivlin doesn’t miss an opportunity to defame Israel.
They all have legitimate complaints. Rivlin’s White House visit does contribute to undermining Netanyahu’s standing in the U.S. His new, friendlier approach to progressive Jews is indeed a disappointment to some of the parties that supported him because of the assumption that Rivlin, a man of principle, is not going to suddenly change his tune. His participation in a conference in which BDS supporters and harsh critics of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) also took part does contribute to the legitimacy of their viewpoints.
Some demanded he cancel his speech at the conference because Breaking the Silence was also invited to speak there. Rivlin did not budge. At the conference, he made a speech in which he hailed the IDF for its moral conduct — the same conduct that Breaking the Silence is questioning — and also answered the complaints against him with the following logic: “Without a live and kicking opposition, our democracy is worth little. I am here today because I believe that the free market of ideas is a holy principle.” Rivlin, in other words, says he does not believe in not talking to opponents and does not believe in boycotting conferences even when harsh critics of the IDF and its morality take part in these conferences, or when people who support BDS, such as Roger Waters, participate in them.
The debate on the efficacy of boycotting one’s opponents is a long and inconclusive one. It is a common debate in the Jewish world: Jews in America and in Israel debated whether J Street should be embraced or shunned. It is common in America: President George W. Bush would not talk to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria; Obama does not believe in not talking to people.
In fact, Rivlin himself is not always consistent concerning this issue. Just a few months ago, Rivlin refused to have a meeting with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Clearly, Rivlin thinks that some people, or some circumstances, justify a decision to shun a meeting. But, of course, he can argue that speaking at the same conference is not the same as meeting with someone, and that the internal Israeli debate has rules different from the ones governing foreign relations, or that Carter is worse than Breaking the Silence. He can justify his decision in many ways, some of which are quite convincing.
Did Rivlin make a mistake when he agreed to speak at the Haaretz conference? Last June, I thought that Rivlin was too rigid in his treatment of progressive Judaism. Today, I think that he has been too flexible in accepting the invitation to the conference. But in both instances, I understand the case is not as clear-cut as people make it seem. Rivlin is trying to navigate treacherous waters: to be acceptable to Israelis from the left without burning bridges with the right, to be able to defend Israel abroad without being castigated as a right-wing hack, to educate Israelis without losing their ear, to play a constructive role with American Jewry without alienating Israel’s Orthodox groups.
There is an interesting comparison to be made between Rivlin and his predecessor, Shimon Peres.
When Peres was elected president, he was at just the beginning of a long road to rehabilitation. He was not well liked by Israelis. He was not a member of the center-right majority. Peres used the presidency to become a man of the consensus, to become acceptable, for the first time in many years, to Israeli factions that were highly suspicious of him.
Rivlin is taking the opposite route: He was elected president as one of the few politicians in Israel whom everybody liked and respected. He basked in the praise of right and left, proficiently juggled shiny balls of admiration, and used humor and honesty to defuse tensions. Unlike Peres, whose days in office were partially spent gaining political capital while wearing the mantle of president — Rivlin seems to be using his days in office spending political capital that he gained as a lovable member and speaker of Knesset.
The result is telling: Peres was careful to not annoy most Israelis when he was president — while Rivlin is being bold, already managing to annoy quite a few of them.
The last couple of days could be the days he annoyed too many, too deeply. These could be the days he lost his ability to explain, because his explanations no longer carry much weight with certain Israelis. These could be the days when some Israeli circles will decide that the president flipped because he cares more for the cheers from abroad than for the barraging at home.
Rivlin — as I wrote a year ago — “has done an admirable job of encouraging Israelis of different stripes to live in harmony.” He plays an important role under tough circumstances. He can be reasonable where other leaders feel the need to sound radical. He can be moderate where other leaders feel the need to go to extremes. He can tell Israelis the truth about their deficiencies without them thinking him a bitter or hostile hack. Yet to do all these things, he has to keep juggling — to keep being sensitive to what Israelis think and to the way they feel. He has to make new friends, but also be able to keep the old ones. Being president of Israel — a position with no executive responsibilities and few obligatory roles — is still not as easy a job as some people might think.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.