These are days of political storms in Israel. As the Winograd Commission, which investigated Israel’s handling of last summer’s war in Lebanon, releases its interim report and blames the country’s leaders and military for its failures, Israel’s democracy is being tested.
I write these lines just hours after a massive protest on Thursday, May 3, in Rabin Square, where an estimated 150,000 people called for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz to resign. I ask myself, “Is this a high point or a low point for Israel’s democracy?”
On the one hand, the prime minister and defense minister, who were found responsible for so many errors, maintain their positions in the government and refuse to resign. On the other hand, the Israeli public has found a way to express its anger and frustration without violence or revolution, but through a democratic protest in the public square.
Though our politicians were elected only a year ago, it feels like decades. We tend to forget that the central issues of last year’s election were a newly released poverty report and the question of removing settlement outposts. Now, we are talking about bomb shelters and war strategies.
For the last election, the Israeli public laid aside its existential anxiety and allowed itself to choose politicians who promised to focus on the country’s economic and social needs.
Newspaper articles that reacted to Peretz’s appointment as the minister of defense focused on his plan to cut the defense budget; they hardly judged his stance on the fighting in Gaza and Lebanon.
The truth is, the winners of last year’s elections never imagined they would have to deal with a month-long war on the northern border.
The Winograd Commission asked if the decision to go to war was a responsible one. But they did not ask another, far more complicated question — whether the Israeli public, which tried to behave like a “normal society” and turn its attention to social and economic issues, is able to take responsibility for its decisions.
Are last week’s protestors asking to replace the country’s leaders, or are they claiming responsibility as voters by saying, “We chose this government based on false assumptions and demand new elections?”
Those who follow current events know that the relationship between the Israeli public and its politicians is at a new low. The public is tired of politicians’ populist promises, high-level corruption and amateurish management. Israelis understand more than ever the direct connection between their votes and the personal and social effects of those votes.
But Israeli democracy is robust. Though it sometimes seems that the public has lost faith in its leaders, Israelis understand that a diverse society that wants to survive must unite around one power.
The fact is, Israelis are having a hard time choosing a leader who can deal simultaneously with security, social issues and the economy.
Polls show that no candidate enjoys significant support among the public.
Perhaps this crisis is an opportunity. It’s a chance for discussion between us and our leaders about responsibility. The question is, who is responsible and what then? Does the public take responsibility for its choices? Do we take responsibility for our unswerving support of our government in the march to war?
Do our leaders take responsibility for their decisions? And what does that mean — resignations or reform?
There is no doubt that the State of Israel is in need of serious and careful self-analysis. We just must decide what exactly that means.
Rakefet Ginsberg is community shlichah (Israel emissary) and director of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation’s Israel Center.
Loading ...