Rosner’s Domain: Israel Cannot Thrive on Disagreement Alone

A year and a few weeks ago, Yair Lapid sat in front of his computer screen for a Zoom chat with his political pal, Naftali Bennett. They were in the midst of negotiations. They were in the midst of forming a new government. A book cover protruded from the edge of the computer’s camera. “What’s the book next to you?” One of them asked. “That’s what I read,” said the other. Lapid picked up the book he was reading at the time. “Genius and Anxiety: How the Jews Changed the World 1847-1947”. A Hebrew version. The author is Norman Lebrecht, a British Jew, who speaks fluent Hebrew. 

On the other side of the screen, Bennett reached out and picked up the book he was reading: “Genius and Anxiety: How the Jews Changed the World 1847-1947.” A strange, intriguing coincidence. They both read the same book, without prior arrangement. Lapid told the author, Lebrecht, about it. He told several other acquaintances. As they were trying to change Israel, Lapid and Bennett jointly read a book about Jews trying to change the world. 

Lebrecht quotes many Jews in his book. He cites, for example, the great composer Gustav Mahler. He is an expert on music in general and Mahler in particular. A previous book he wrote is “Why Mahler? How One Man and Ten Symphonies Changed Our World”. In “Genius and Anxiety” Mahler’s beautiful sentence is quoted: “A Jew is like a swimmer with a short arm. He has to swim twice as hard to reach the shore”. As the Knesset decided on a date for a new election, Bennett and Lapid discovered that this is indeed the case with short arms. They did not reach the shore.

In February 1934, France went into political turmoil. The country was torn apart. Governments rose and fell. East of it, Nazi Germany got stronger, but in France it was impossible to reach a consensus on how to respond. The French were busy managing their internal fights, until it was too late. They could not agree on whom sould rule France, so the Germans made that decision for them. 

This is an extreme example of a political fracture and its outcome. An extreme example, which has no purpose in implying that Israel’s enemies are about to take over. Still, before rushing into the horse race of the elections, one should stop and say explicitly that Israel is in a severe, ongoing, and dangerous political crisis.

For the past four years, Israel has not made much progress in solving even one of its main problems. The housing crisis has not changed direction, the challenge of the rise of a non-working uneducated ultra-Orthodox community only intensified, the integration of the Arab sector has stalled, Iran has not been halted, the conflict with the Palestinians has remained the same, traffic jams have multiplied, the education system is close to despair. Regardless of the question of how to properly address these challenges, it is clear that it is appropriate to address them somehow. It is clear that a government is needed to formulate a policy and implement it for a long enough time to bring about change. 

For four years there has been no such government. There has been no government that can look at a problem, decide how to deal with it, and get to work. 

That’s how countries crash. That’s how empires fall. The familiar findings of the historian Edward Gibbon, about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, echo the power of internal tensions to rattle the foundations of a country. Historian Arnold Toynbee, who received most of Gibbon’s analysis, wrote that civilizations “die from suicide, not by murder”.

Alongside the Jewish spirit of Mahloket (disagreement), Israel must also have a government with a mandate to implement a long-term policy. 

The Jewish people “never excelled in achieving unity”, Dr. Shalom Wald wrote in “Rise and Fall of Civilizations: Lessons for the Jewish People”. This was less problematic when Jewish communities existed in the Diaspora, a network that could tighten or loosen with the tides of discontent. But in Israel, it is more problematic. Israel is a Jewish political actuality to which the Jewish people are not yet accustomed. A Jewish state cannot thrive on disagreement alone. Alongside the Jewish spirit of Mahloket (disagreement), it must also have a government with a mandate to implement a long-term policy. Alongside the Jewish spirit of Mahloket it must also have stability. The Jews of Israel (and the Arabs too) want to have a Mahloket as if they still reside in the Diaspora, as they can still have a debate without consequences – and also want to preserve their state without it falling apart. 

This might not be a possible undertaking. This might not be feasible. 

So, the important question in election number five is whether someone will get a clear mandate that can last for three or four years without too much disruption. How important is this question? Here is a somewhat provocative suggestion: perhaps it is more important than the question of whether it will be Benjamin Netanyahu or Yair Lapid. Perhaps this is more important than the question of whether there will be Arabs in the coalition. Perhaps this is more important than the question of whether the coalition will allow the tenure of a candidate under indictment. 

You may ask: More important to whom? Here’s the problem. It is more important for the maintenance of the state, but probably a little less important for each of the voters. Most Israeli voters today are in the kind of mood that Biblical Samson had when he collapsed the supporting pillars of the roof in Gaza. They’d collapse the ceiling, even if it falls on their own heads.

Something I wrote in Hebrew

Can the Knesset pass a law preventing a candidate under indictment from becoming the PM? Here’s what I wrote:

Currently, there is a political camp, or part of it, that supports the law. Currently, there is a political camp that opposes it. But the debate today is not about the merit of the proposed law. It is about the rules of the game. About when it is appropriate to change the rules of the game. Still, somehow, it turns out that a great many supporters of the law also think it’s okay to pass it even now, very close to a new election, and all opponents of the law think its current passing would be a scandal. 

A week’s numbers

Five media polls in one day projected 59-60 seats for a future Netanyahu coalition. That’s 1-2 seats short of what he needs. 

A reader’s response:

Naomi Hersh asked: “What are the chances of Bibi going to jail before Election Day?” Answer: zero chance.

Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.