War of North Versus South

Apart from Israeli democracy, there exists almost no country that won its democracy without a civil war. Democracy in Israel was established by agreements and compromises that succeeded in maintaining unity and the myth of “eternal Israel”. From its inception, Israeli democracy was based on demography, i.e., on the creation of a Jewish majority. This ongoing concern to preserve the Jewish majority has become the primary social and ideological political axis in Israel. This is also how the “status quo”, an agreement between secular and religious, took place. In fact, for the sake of “peace at home” it forced a compromise on secular residents in the form of keeping the Sabbath and recognizing the value of studying Torah for its own sake. This is the source of the “hybrid” dubbed the Jewish and democratic state. Following the fundamental contradiction between Judaism as a religion and democracy as a liberal secular value, the Knesset refrained from establishing a constitution. David Ben-Gurion left this task to future generations. And so, ahead of the upcoming celebrations of its 75th anniversary, Israel is facing a regime change, which seeks to erase the same balances and understandings that created the Israeli “miracle.”

Not 20 years have passed since in 1948 Israel established its demographic majority by deporting 750,000 Palestinians, and the same majority became virtual. Following the 1967 war, Israel took control of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with inhabitants it previously exiled. Since the Jewish majority became decidedly fictitious, Israel has made countless attempts to preserve the Jewish and democratic character of the country, starting with the autonomy plan and the Jordanian option, through the Oslo Accords and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, to the construction of the separation wall, but they all collapsed. Following this, most of the Israeli public decided to ignore the Palestinian issue, allowing the army to manage the “conflict,” and also to ignore the harsh reality in the occupied territories.

It was the “government of change” let by Naftali Bennet and Yair Lapid which included the right, the centre, the left and even the Islamic movement, that brought this idea to the level of absurd. All coalition members vowed to leave ideological differences aside, and to manage the country as though the demographics between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River had not changed for 55 years. As if a complex reality had not arisen, endangering Israeli democracy! Some 450,000 settlers have made their home in the occupied territories since 1967. The settlements were built in proximity to Palestinian villages and cities, on “state” and private lands. And here is the paradox: as the settlements grew and expanded, the Jewish and democratic state withered.

Within the “Green Line” the country’s citizens belong to diverse and multicultural communities: secular and religious, Ashkenazi and Mizrahi, Arabs and Jews, right-wing and liberal, LGBTQ and straight. In contrast, the character dominating settlements is uniform – Zionist, religious, messianic and racist. Since the settlers represent a cohesive group residing among and within the Palestinian population, they do not have the privilege of ignoring the occupation. They live this violent conflict daily, effectively under military rule with Israeli law spreading its protection over them with the help of temporary decrees.

This is why the settlers demand a final decision. In their eyes, the idea of simply “managing the conflict” in accordance with convictions of Israeli liberals, who care about the democratic nature of the country, costs the settlers loss of life and ongoing insecurity. As long as there is no decision, the settlements remain temporary and the settlers feel like second-class citizens. They feel that they sacrifice their lives for the homeland while the liberal majority moves away from Jewish values in favour of a secular, materialistic, permissive life.

Religious Zionism strives to instil in hearts and minds its ideology, according to which Judea and Samaria are part of Israel, and whoever mentions the word “occupation” is betraying his homeland. They have appropriated the flag, have always claimed the Palestinians are not and will never be a partner, and that dividing the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is impossible. As the general public has also adopted the “no partner” idea, the settlers decided that the time for a decision has come. No more idle talk about managing the conflict, but ending it by taking the last necessary step and annexing the West Bank to Israel, just as Jerusalem was annexed in 1967. The annexation would normally mean immediate citizenship for 3 million Palestinians and violation of the demographic balance. However, Religious Zionism’s solution to the demographic problem is simple: deny Palestinians human and civil rights, chief among them the right to vote.

The first condition for realizing the annexation plan was to create a full-fledged right wing coalition majority by the joining of three forces: Netanyahu’s “second Israel” with the ultra-Orthodox and Religious Zionism. But how did the three gang up? Particular conditions were created. The prime minister is on trial for breach of confidence and bribery; to save his skin and escape the horror of judgment, he was willing to let religious Zionism receive everything it desired. The last elections produced the necessary majority. In addition, the Palestinians are divided: the Arab citizens of Israel are preoccupied with internal crime and murders, Arab countries have given up on the Palestinians, the world has turned to other concerns, and the coalition’s 64 mandates are the signal that the time is ripe and the opportunity is here.

But the path to annexation goes through the Supreme Court. The latter is the only branch entrusted to maintain the state’s democratic nature. To realize messianic ideology, one must resolve once and for all the fundamental contradiction between the state being simultaneously Jewish and democratic. According to the coalition members the “sovereign” people, gave them a majority to implement their platform. They view the Supreme Court as the enemy of this “majority” since it is unelected and acts to preserve the egalitarian and democratic nature of the state. This conflicts with Jewish values such as the settlement of the Land of Israel, observance of the Sabbath, exemption of the ultra-Orthodox from military conscription, and might back protections for Arab citizens, Palestinians and asylum seekers. The solution to this problem, namely the high court is simple: the majority will choose the judges “like in America,” and the judges will rule according to the will of the majority. This will pave the way for Israel to become a fully Jewish state in the entire area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

This is how we have devolved into a full-blown civil war, just like the American civil war between the democratic liberal North and the South that advocated slavery. It was one of the painful stages that established American democracy. In Israel, the liberal democratic “North” is fighting the racist messianic “South”, which also advocates racial segregation and denies the human and civil rights of the Palestinians. This war cannot end in a compromise because it is impossible to compromise between slavery and democracy, just as it is impossible to compromise between apartheid and democracy.

In the case of the United States, there was no doubt who would win: the South represented feudalism while the North represented modern industrial society. In Israel, too, the liberal North is teaching the fascist South that the majority does not always decide, and that progress, high-tech, academia and science are what drives society, and therefore this battle will be decided in favour of the democratic camp. Yet fascist messianic ideology will not be defeated until the fate of 3 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and 2 million Palestinians living in Gaza is decided. The political reality that the occupation created in the West Bank and Gaza, which is characterized by discrimination, despair and poverty, makes it very difficult to start a conversation about the democratic future of the two nations.

It can be assumed that the basic attitude of the Israelis flocking to the streets for weeks to save democracy opposes the occupation. This approach has not yet solidified into a political program, and the Palestinians’ avoidance of participating in this historic struggle does not help formulate a political plan suitable for the needs of the two peoples living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The nationalist and fascist camp is the common enemy of Palestinian democrats and the Israeli democratic camp. Fascism can only be defeated by joint forces, and the way to do this is through the overthrow of this malicious government. Support for the protest movement must therefore be unconditional, and every democrat must work for its success.

Print Friendly