The Israeli parliament, the Knesset, is a curious place. As a general rule of caution, I’d give you the following word of advice: the more we talk about a proposed legislation in Israel – the less likely it is to pass. In other words: the Knesset does pass legislation, at times even important legislation, but it is often (not always) the kind of legislation of which the public barely takes note, or much milder versions of legislation proposals that Israelis know and vigorously debate about.
This will probably be the fate of the proposed legislation that aims to prevent the court-ordered evacuation of the settlement Amona. This will almost surely be the fate of the proposed legislation that aims to enshrine in law Orthodox control over the Western Wall. The legislation, in both cases, is unwise. The legislation, in both cases, is opposed by the Prime Minister and will not be supported by the opposition. The legislation, in both cases, smells like a PR stunt. In the first case, a stunt that has run amok without much consideration for the possible consequences. In the second case, a delay tactic that doesn’t have much chance to garner the votes needed for legislation.
Why connect these two cases and write about them in one article? Because in both cases we can learn more about Israel’s political culture (or lack thereof) than about Israel’s policies. It is a culture of constant handwringing, of constant challenges to hierarchy, of constant need to maneuver not just to get to the right decision, but also to implement it. The court ordered an evacuation of Amona. No serious leader in Israel argues that court orders should be ignored. But many leaders – some of them even serious – argue that there is still time to avoid an evacuation of the settlement without violating court orders. And in the meantime, just in case, the settlers and their supporters are getting ready to resist an evacuation, to make it difficult, possibly violent, to delay it, to complicate it.
The Prime Minister, the Defense Minister, and the Attorney General all agree that there is not much choice but to move Amona from its current location. The court might have been misguided in its ruling, the case brought before the court might have been poorly represented (as advocates of Amona convincingly argue), the decision might be detrimental to future cases, and hence problematic not just for Amona but for the settlement project as a whole – all of this might be true. But the court has made its final ruling. Refusing to implement court orders – by passing a hasty, unprepared, quite possibly illegal legislation – has one clear meaning: Israel refuses to be a country of laws. Israel dangerously navigates the treacherous waters of political chaos.
The newly proposed legislation on the Western Wall is different, but not much different. There is a government decision to create a new, egalitarian prayer space at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. There is will on behalf of the Prime Minister to implement that decision. But there is also an obstacle: the Haredi parties oppose the decision and vowed to prevent its realization. They did not completely kill the decision – the PM says that with patience and time the plan will be implemented. So now the leader of Shas is trying to kill it – or, to be exact, trying to prove to his voters that he did everything within his power to kill it. Best case scenario (his viewpoint): a political situation makes it necessary for the Knesset to give him what he wants in return for something the coalition badly needs. Worst case scenario: he doesn’t have the votes necessary to pass the legislation – and when the plan is implemented no one will be able to argue that he was somehow playing along.
Days of debates, weeks of media attention, energy, anger, frustration, will be wasted on these two acts. Coupled with the hysterical nature of public discourse, both will seem like dramatically consequential legislation moves. The end of it – most likely – is going to be less glamorous. Five years ago, a calming JPPI report about New Proposed Knesset Bills and Israeli Democracy (authored by Alexander Yakobson, Avinoam Bar Yosef, Suzanne Stone and Arielle Kandel) made the case that 2011 was not as problematic when it comes to so called anti-democratic legislation as people seemed to think.
The report argued “that claims of the imminent demise of Israeli democracy are not new. Since 1977, it has been claimed repeatedly that Israel’s democracy is eroding and that some sort of clerical fascism is taking shape. Many warnings were voiced in the late 1970s and 1980s with the ascension to power of the Likud under the leadership of Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. The rhetoric of ‘democracy in danger’ was heard well into the 90s. And yet, while many opponents to the policies of the Israeli right were predicting the imminent collapse of Israeli democracy, the country was in fact undergoing an extensive process of liberalization. Israeli democracy is not a formal democracy, but rather, a substantive one.”
This was true then, and it is still true today. Which, of course, does not guarantee that the Knesset is not going to pass foolish legislation, put obstacles before every government or court decision, toy with dangerous and idiotic ideas, play into the hands of Israel’s enemies, or enrage Israel’s friends. The Knesset is unruly, irresponsible, populistic. Yet in most cases – having exhausted all other options – it avoids passing truly harmful legislation. So – this is not a certainty, but chances are that Amona will move from its current location and that the Kotel will not be put by law under Orthodox control.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.