It’s still about democracy

[UPDATED on Nov. 26, 2014]

Against the backdrop of increasing terror in Israel, the right-wing bloc in the ruling coalition proposed legislation that seems to give Israel’s Jewish character primacy over its democratic nature, creating a rift with the coalition’s centrists.

For those interested in early elections, apparently including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the bill’s content may be less important than the political crisis it is creating. For others, particularly on the nationalist and religious right, it is an opportunity to unravel the democratic fabric of Israel. For them, Jewish already trumps democratic.

Ironically, as this debate was taking shape in Israel, Sheldon Adelson, the American political mega-donor, was himself publically expressing doubts about the value of Israel remaining a democratic state. Speaking in Washington at a gathering of the Israeli-American Council on Nov. 9, Adelson said that “God talked about all the good things in life [but] He didn’t talk about Israel remaining as a democratic state.”

It’s not surprising that the latest attack on Israel’s democratic character is taking place when violence in Israel is on the rise. Our own experience after 9/11 reminds us that civil liberties often get sacrificed to fear.

When I was in Jerusalem during the week before the horrific Nov. 18 attack by Palestinian militants at a synagogue in Jerusalem’s Har Nof neighborhood — in which four beloved and esteemed rabbis, and a courageous Druze policeman were murdered — I could already feel the tension palpably rising in Israel’s capital. Spasms of Palestinian terror were being dubbed the “car intifada”; religious Jewish extremists were stepping up the violent rhetoric, against Arabs and Jewish “traitors” alike; and civilians were beginning to feel a familiar trepidation in public places.

The Har Nof terror attack will no doubt be used by proponents of the latest anti-democratic legislation to buttress their case. It will also spur others — in and outside of Israel — to question the wisdom of maintaining democratic norms when Israelis are feeling besieged by the bombastic words and actions of Palestinian extremists. If Arabs support the killing of Jews, the ultranationalists argue, they have no rights, civil liberties and due process, even though, as the leader of the religious-right HaBayit HaYehudi Party, Naftali Bennett acknowledges, the vast majority of Palestinian-Israelis are nonviolent and peaceful.

Assaults on democratic principles and institutions have indeed been on the rise in Israel. But those very dangers underscore how integral democracy is to Israel’s character and to its future as a safe haven and homeland for the Jewish people.

One of the best places to witness the clash over democratic values is on the floor of Israel’s Knesset. Three years ago, in 2011, when members of Israel’s ruling coalition proposed draconian legislation limiting the ability of nonprofit organizations to receive funding from foreign sources, the U.S. ambassador to Israel personally conveyed the administration’s view that the bills were too extreme and outside the standards of a western democracy.

The Knesset debate was heated and the proposed legislation was ultimately defeated largely due to the efforts of a coalition of civil liberties and grass-roots advocacy organizations — working in cooperation with many Jewish groups in this country as well.

Some Knesset members have also gone beyond their parliamentary walls in order to subvert democracy and the rule of law. In recent weeks, tensions in Jerusalem have been stoked by MKs who ascended the Temple Mount, pressing for the imposition of Israeli sovereignty and the commencement of Jewish prayer, in contravention to Israeli law.

Certain elected officials have taken the lead in racial incitement as well. In its 2013 annual report, the Coalition Against Racism (CAR) in Israel identified 107 incidents of racial incitement by elected officials and other public figures, almost double the amount reported the previous year.

The CAR is made up of just the sort of nonprofit groups that were targeted in the 2011 proposed legislation. Its very existence demonstrates the critical importance of the freedoms of inquiry and speech, which are still protected in Israeli democracy. Following the disclosure of these events and the community organizing efforts of the CAR and its partners, a significant decline was registered in incitement by public figures. The CAR’s 2014 report showed only 22 such instances.

But that report only covered events up until the end of this past February. Incitement and subversions of democracy are on the rise again, both as a result and a cause of the spike in Israeli-Palestinian violence this year.

To be sure, expressing radical views and even verbal incitement are not the moral equivalents of cold-blooded murder. But the environment they create — and re-create in response to the incitement and brutality of Arab fanatics — helps perpetuate a vicious circle in which innocent victims are inevitably trapped.

Finding the right balance between democratic and defensive measures is not easy. Many of Israel’s neighbors simply outlaw dissent, especially in times of conflict. Many of Israel’s neighbors also outlaw freedom of religion, assembly and expression. Israel not only has these rights, it has and needs organizations and institutions that make sure those rights are protected.

Take the example of the Israeli university that prohibited a group of students from hanging posters and distributing leaflets against Israeli government policies, on the grounds the group’s activities were offensive (and could lead to a libel suit). The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) represented the student group and the case ultimately reached Israel’s Supreme Court, where the ban was struck down. In the words of Supreme Court President Asher Grunis: “An academic institution entrusted with academic freedom ought to recognize freedom of expression.”

This example of democracy in action is familiar in the U.S. and other Western democracies. But unlike its democratic allies, Israel is in a constant state of conflict with its neighbors, one that is frequently violent and brutal. The inclination to limit democratic rights and freedoms is understandable. But doing so is no less harmful than it would be to subvert democracy in a time of peace.

In times like these, when a public figure says that a “terrorist who harms civilians shall be killed,” as Israel’s Minister of Public Security said after a Jerusalem terror attack earlier this month, it may not be so easy to object. Nevertheless, ACRI asserted “a command to kill a terrorist when it is not necessary in order to neutralize the present threat is a manifestly illegal order that must not be obeyed.”

There are those who say that ACRI’s actions, when vicious extremists are killing innocent civilians, were ill timed. But democracies insist on the rule of law precisely so that it will be applied at times like this. As ACRI put it, “The expectations raised by the Minister’s remarks — that police officers will act as jury, judge and executioner — is improper and unacceptable.” We know this at times of peace, and we must remember it in times of conflict and war.

A few days after Adelson questioned the value of democracy for the State of Israel, I met with Talia Sasson, an Israeli attorney who will soon become president of the New Israel Fund, which supports ACRI and other Israeli nonprofits that analyze the impact of government policies, develops alternative policies for dealing with the untenable status quo in the West Bank and Gaza, promotes inclusivity and protects the rights of all Israelis. After 25 years of service in the State’s Attorney’s office — half of which were spent representing the government of Israel in the Supreme Court — her perspective is different than Adelson’s. “If we give up on democracy,” she said, “we give up on Israel.” 

Jonathan Jacoby is Senior Advisor to CEO and  VP for Southern California of the New Israel Fund.