Levin’s Marshmallow Test

Are you sure you want all the details? It’s no problem for me to lay them out for you. But remember the details are often no more than a smoke screen to hide a heartbreak. And what we see in Israel today is no less than a heartbreak. A country devastated by war, possibly on the cusp of victory, which suddenly turns on itself to revive an internal battle for no apparent reason other than ego, vengeance, and … did we say ego?

Details: Justice Minister Yariv Levin is the father of the so-called judicial reform from two years ago. For almost a year now he was relatively quiet. Israel was busy fighting a war. But he never truly gave up on his dream of reforming a system that he believes is an obstacle to the ability of Israel’s current coalition to rule. And now he’s back. Maybe that’s a good sign – maybe this means that the war is truly almost over. Or maybe a bad sign – that Levin never truly internalized his personal responsibility to Israel‘s internal turmoil. Like the child in the famous psychological marshmallow test, he was able to wait for only five or six minutes, but no more. He must eat his treat. Now!

More details: Levin wanted to appoint his own preferred candidate to become the chief justice. This runs contrary to an established custom according to which the chief justice is the longest serving member of the court. The justices and the opposition did not let Levin get his wish and break the accepted norm. So, Levin, using his raw bureaucratic power didn’t let them – meaning us – meaning Israel – have a chief justice. If he doesn’t get the one he wants, there will be no chief justice.

The high court intervened. Levin was told that he must proceed. Levin used more tricks to postpone the elevation of one of the justices, the one he truly dislikes, to chief justice. The court intervened again. It set a deadline: January 16. By then Levin must let the committee appoint a chief justice.

These are details and there’s more of them. Levin proposed a compromise. He’d let the committee appoint the chief in return for a division of three marshmallows. One justice for him, one for his opponents and one – well, it’s truly another one for him. Some on Israel’s right believe that the compromise is fair. Maybe it is. The justices do not accept it. Some on Israel’s right believe that the justices are just being stubborn. Maybe they are. Details. Behind them, Israel’s heartbreak. Another round of a full-fledged fight between the government and the legal system. Another round of the full-fledged fight between opposing factions of Israel’s society. Another round – while hostages are still in captivity. Another round – while soldiers still pay with their lives on the battlefield. Another round – as many towns and villages only begin the long process of rebuilding. 

Is Levin right to demand a legal reform at this time? Does he offer an acceptable compromise that the other side rejects? The justice minister would like Israelis to have this debate about details. He wants them to talk about the unimportant things. He wants them to think that these are the important things. And it’s easy to fall for this argument because the nature of the relations between the government and the legal system is indeed important. Because some of the complaints Levin and his friends raise against the current system are worthy of a serious discussion. 

So why am I saying these details are unimportant? Because importance is never a fixed value. Importance must always be considered within a framework of some hierarchy. Everything is important, except some things are more important and some less so. When Levin demands to have his marshmallow now, like an impatient child, he fails to recognize the hierarchy of importance. Winning the war is important. Having solidarity is important. Rebuilding is important. Judicial reform can wait. Judicial reform is not urgent – but Levin is impatient.

Like an impatient child, Levin fails to recognize the hierarchy of importance. Winning the war is important. Having solidarity is important.  Rebuilding is important. Judicial reform can wait. Judicial reform is not urgent – but Levin is impatient.

That would not be a problem had the prime minister told him to stop playing with fire. He doesn’t. At least, not yet. Maybe Netanyahu wants the same thing Levin does. Maybe he doesn’t want to pick a fight with Levin. Maybe he’s too busy. Maybe he didn’t yet make up his mind. The result is another round of bickering. The closer we get to Jan. 16 the louder the debate will become. The closer we get to Jan. 16, unless there’s compromise, the more dangerous the situation will become. 

Did I say dangerous? Levin threatens to rebuff the court’s order, and that would be the seminal event that Israel managed to somehow avoid since the beginning of the judicial reform tsunami – a constitutional crisis. And that’s dangerous, war or no war.

Something I wrote in Hebrew

Here is what I wrote when Israel did badly on literacy tests of the OECD:

An Israel that is not literate will first of all be a less interesting place. Less culturally vibrant, less intellectually stimulating, less sophisticated and intelligent. But let’s say that the cultural arena doesn’t interest you. Even then you should be worried. Because an Israel that is not literate will be a place that finds it more difficult to maintain a sufficient level of excellence. And without scientific and technological excellence, it will be difficult for it to maintain a high standard of living. And without a high standard of living it will be even more difficult for it to maintain scientific and technological excellence. And without all these, which are the basis of a strong economy, it will not be easy to have a strong army, which is an expensive thing. And without a strong army — well, what will happen without a strong army doesn’t need much explaining. 

A week’s numbers

Ultra-Orthodox Israelis say no to military service, and it’s not because of their need for specific condition. Offer these conditions, and most still say no (JPPI survey released earlier this week).

A reader’s response

Gil Evenzur: “I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask a PM to be on a witness stand for so long during a time of war.” Response: I tend to agree. But I’m not sure there’s an acceptable way to avoid it.

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