Existential, Shmexistential

On the eve on Israel’s 67th birthday, there is one thing on which Israel’s left and right are close to agreement: that Israel is in grave danger. An existential danger. If there are disagreements between the two camps — and, of course, there are — they do not usually concern the enormity of the danger or the imminence of it. The debate between the camps focuses on the source of the danger to Israel. There are those (the right) who believe Israel is under great threat because of external reasons — a nuclear Iran, a radicalized Middle East and, most of all, a biased world that is ready to throw Israel under a bus. And there are those (the left) who believe that Israel is under great threat because of internal reasons — anti-democratic sentiments, occupation, religious zealotry and corruption. In other words: Some people think Israel is in danger mainly because of non-Jews, and others believe it is in danger mainly because of Jews.

Take a deep breath: Israel has serious problems, external and internal, but it is not likely to disintegrate anytime soon. In fact, Israel’s main problem might be anxiety. It worries too much.

It worries about its current situation, and it worries about the implications of any attempt to change its current situation. Half of Israel worries that the advancement of any agreement with the Palestinians for which concessions might be required could signal an end to the Zionist project, and the other half worries that a lack of any imminent advancement on the road to peace signals an end to the Zionist project. Half of Israel thinks that letting buses run on Shabbat would be the end of Israel’s Jewish character — and half of it believes that having buses on Shabbat is fundamental to keeping Israel a reasonably liberal society. Half worries that if the liberal courts get to set more liberal precedent, Israel is doomed, and half worries that if the liberal court doesn’t get to set more liberal precedent, Israel is doomed. And on and on it goes.

Israel is not doomed. It will not cease to be Jewish if there are buses on Shabbat, and will not cease to be a vibrant liberal democracy if buses remain in their garages. It will not be finished if it takes more risks as it seeks peace. It will not be finished if it concludes that currently there is no point in taking more risks as it seeks peace. Israel ought to relearn that not every decision is fateful, that not every obstacle leads to catastrophe. Making mistakes is as essential for a country as it is for human beings. And Israel’s friends also ought to learn to allow Israel to make what they think are mistakes, without seeing every mistake as if it were the last straw on a back that is about to break.

Israel and its friends should worry, but not without some perspective: Fewer than 70 years after its inception, Israel today is, in reality, stronger than ever. It has military power that no Arab military currently entertains any dreams of beating. Its economy is thriving, and in some fields — including high-tech and agriculture — it is a shining example of excellence. Israel’s Jewish population today is 10 times — repeat, 10 times — larger that it was in 1948. Unless Israel does something really foolish, like annexation, there is no demographic threat to the Jewish majority. Its democracy is strong and vibrant. Checks on the power of government are all in place. Elections, fair and frequent, give Israelis a chance to make a choice. The idea that Israel’s democratic process is threatened — as was recently expounded upon in a long and idiotic article by Vox’s Max Fisher — is laughable. Just try taking the right to vote, or worse, the right to speak up, away from Israelis and see what happens.

Fisher is merely continuing a long and not particularly distinguished tradition of penning articles that predict an imminent end to Israel. In their milder form, these articles simply raise the question in one form or another: Will Israel live to 100? Will Israel live until the author gets to be 100? In their blunter form, these articles say it straight: Israel will not live to 100. Or it will not still be around by the time the author is 100.

Why Israel and not other countries? In fact, occasionally there are articles that ask such questions about other countries, too. Belgium has a problem that has made it a target of such existential examinations, as well as surely Iraq and other countries in the Middle East, such as Syria. But Israel seems to ignite more such predictions and more emotional intensity on the part of the writers who pen them, most-often Jewish. In fact, maybe these predictions are themselves a Jewish tradition that mirrors a similar anti-Semitic tradition. The difference is that the anti-Semites are gleeful when they anticipate doom, while the Jews mourn and sob as they publicize their own version of an inevitable dark future.

It is all anxiety, coupled with hubris. Anxiety for the obvious legitimate reasons — Jews, in Israel and elsewhere, have many enemies, most of them not imaginary. And they also have a history of self-damaging behavior (think Judea and the Romans).

Hubris, because all these predictions, large and small, presume an ability to make reasonable predictions. But such ability is no more than a mirage. Case in point (and I wrote about it recently, but I never tire of repeating its lessons): The decision less than two years ago to raise Israel’s electoral threshold — the minimum need for party representation — from 2 percent to 3.25 percent.

Much ink was spilled denouncing that decision as anti-democratic, racist, deranged and dangerous. So many self-appointed prophets explained how the new legislation could end up eliminating Arab representation in the Knesset, turning Israel into a democracy for Jews only. When the legislation passed, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel declared “the basic principles of the Israeli democratic system are being undermined.” The opposition staged a silent protest. Israeli intellectuals signed and published a letter of protest. Petitions to the High Court argued that “the newly legislated threshold is geared to entirely remove Arab parties from the Knesset.”

The result: There’s more Arab representation in the Knesset today than ever before. And if that’s not enough, the new legislation served a blow to the radical Jewish right wing, whose party — Yachad — did not get enough votes to pass the new threshold.

I’ve yet to hear a word of remorse from all those who argued that raising the threshold would be the end of democratic Israel. I’ve yet to see a letter of retraction by any intellectual who — again — got it all upside down. (By the way: The right wing, dreaming that the new legislation would help its cause, also got it all upside down). I’ve yet to detect the calming effect that such a small, yet telling, lesson would have on future predictions. No, what I hear is more predictions of democratic Armageddon because of this or that. Right now, it is about the possibility that the new government will decide (as it seems to want to do) to alter the way High Court justices are elected. Or if the government decides (as it seems to want to do) to somewhat limit the ability of the High Court to declare future legislation unconstitutional.

It is reasonable and even justifiable to be suspicious of such proposals to change the rules. It is good that a vibrant opposition is there to question the proposed changes and to try to amend them or sabotage them. And it is no less reasonable and justifiable for proponents of such proposals to be dismissive of the argument that any tweaking of the rules governing the relations between the courts and the legislature means an end to Israel’s democracy — and thus an end to the Zionist dream.

Of course, there are more serious issues than the occasional controversial legislation, ones that do cast a darker shadow over Israel’s future. Iran’s nuclear program is one obvious example. Israel’s inability to better integrate into the workforce large segments of Israel’s society is another example. Israel needs to act, at times boldly, in its attempt to solve these problems and remove the shadows hanging over it. But it would be better off doing so calmly, pragmatically, confidently — and humbly. Remembering that those shadows never disappear entirely, they’re just replaced by other shadows. Remembering that circumstances change, that surprises occur, that grounds shift. That today’s grave crisis might look negligible tomorrow.

Most events that will shape the future of Israel cannot be predicted. In 1948, no one could have foreseen how strong Israel would become in fewer than seven decades. In 1967, no one imagined the impact that the great victory of the Six-Day War would have on the entire Middle East. In 1977, Egypt’s decision to end its war with Israel came as huge surprise to most people. And some more-recent examples: The 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001 unpredictably and dramatically changed the circumstances for Israel. In 2008, a new American president changed the circumstances again. In 2010, a protester in Tunisia changed them again. In 2015, an agreement with Iran might change them again.

The world keeps changing, and Israel has to ensure that it remains strong, militarily and morally. And it has to respond to changes and to attempt to shape its corner as best as it can. But in many cases, it can’t.

This is not a bad situation: History shows that Israel is quite good at adapting to quick changes. Its transition from a community to a state was relatively smooth. The implementation of essential institutions like the Israel Defense Forces was successful. Dramatic political changes have never rocked Israel’s basic democratic principles. Attacks from the outside were rebuffed. Internal economic crises were contained. Thinking about Israel in light of Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s “Antifragile” — a fantastic book — one might come to the conclusion that Israel has developed into a society and a system that is very far from perfect but is nevertheless quite impressive at adapting to rapid changes as the need arises. Israel should make sure not to lose this pragmatic quality. It should make sure not to lose its head and overreact. It should relax and pause to celebrate 67. In Israel’s case, this is not yet retirement age.