Rosner’s Domain: Not Violence – Cessation

On Sunday evening, Israeli President Yitzhak Herzog — his hands slightly trembling, his voice (never his greatest asset) somewhat shaky, his face grim — gave his most important speech to date, and possibly also moving forward. He was pleading with Israelis to step back from the edge of an abyss. He was offering them a possible path backward. 

The other leaders of Israel proved unworthy of him. The Prime Minister was mum. The Justice Minister politely rejected Herzog’s plea. The head of the Knesset Committee in charge of discussing the proposed legal reform refused to a temporary halt in the process. Some Likud members, less polite, responded dismissively. And so, on Monday morning, as many thousands of Israelis took to the streets in protest, the mood was one of war, not conciliation.

It is a war that could be easily avoided. The president presented a plan of compromise. The plan is a huge victory for those demanding reform. It accepts the need for significant changes. It offers a path for the Knesset to reassert its power. It reduces the ability of the Supreme Court to intervene in legislative and executive action. It strives to make the court less homogeneous. The president asked the coalition to make two small compromises: delay the process to allow for a detailed negotiated plan to be hammered down – and to agree to a reform slightly less dramatic than the one proposed. 

The return for accepting such a plan could be huge. A reform passed by a broad majority. A reform that could not be undone by an accidental coalition. A real triumph, with the added benefit of not putting more pressure on a highly tense society. Or maybe that’s the downside? Is it possible that the coalition prefers a flawed reform that enrages the opposition over a moderate reform that the majority supports? 

On Monday, I was climbing the small hill opposite the Knesset, alongside thousands of Tel Avivians who took the day off to travel to Jerusalem. Were they enraged? To me, they seemed more determined than enraged. Determined not just to make their voices heard but also to make their opinions count.

That’s the scary thing about our current predicament. There is a coalition, determined to pass legislation. There is an opposition, determined not to allow it. Both sides speak as if nothing is going to stop them. 

That’s the scary thing about our current predicament. There is a coalition, determined to pass legislation. There is an opposition, determined not to allow it. Both sides speak as if nothing is going to stop them. That’s why the president cried that “we are in a moment before an flareup, a moment before a brother turns against brother.” He warned that “violence of any kind is a red line that we must not cross under any circumstances.” 

But protestors weren’t speaking about violence. They weren’t plotting an armed rebellion. They were thinking about acts of cessation. They were entertaining thoughts about autonomy for liberal Israelis. The education minister, a Likud member, warned school principals in Tel Aviv against allowing teachers and students to quit a school day to go to the rally. They ignored him. He said their pay will be cut. Businessmen announced that they will take it on themselves to compensate those in need. 

Herzog was careful to balance his message, give each side its due, remind his listeners that both sides have legitimate complaints, both sides have pain, both are angry. But ultimately, he pointed his finger more at the government. The government is the initiator of the reform. The government holds the majority in the Knesset. The government is in charge. If “a constitutional and social collapse” materializes, as Herzog warned, it is on this government’s watch.

Something I wrote in Hebrew

Responding to anti-elitist rhetoric in Israel I wrote the following:

Elites should be dynamic and allow the entry of new groups (and sometimes the exit of old ones). But — and this is an important “but” — the goal should not be the abolition of the elites but rather a renewal of the elites. This means that one should say “new elites” with emphasis on the “elites” and not on the “new.” The main goal is not a substitution, no matter who comes in. The main goal is that an elite remains an elite. Whoever replaces an elite with a mob gets a disaster.

A week’s numbers

A parliamentary majority doesn’t always mean public support. Israelis prefer compromise and a dialogue. 

A reader’s response:

Protesters attend a massive demonstration in front of the Israeli parliament on February 13, 2023 in Jerusalem (Amir Levy/Getty Images)

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