Israel is on the brink of civil war. An irreconcilable rift is beginning to open up between rival segments of Israeli society, which no amount of unilateral goodwill can amicably bridge. The tectonic fault lines, threatening to split the nation’s societal fabric asunder, center on Benjamin Netanyahu’s tenacious hold on power, despite multiple attempts to pry it loose.
Weaponizing the legal system
Having seemingly despaired of the possibility of defeating him at the polls, his adversaries have turned—more clumsily than not—to weaponising the legal system as a means of realizing their political goals.
This precipitated the maladroitly concocted indictments against Netanyahu, in which. whenever a prosecution witness took the stand, his/her testimony ended up strengthening the defense!!! Indeed, after hearing the prosecution’s case, the judges (even before the testimony of any defense witness), in a rare moment of judicial lucidity, warned the prosecutors that they had not made their case on the corruption charges against Netanyahu, and suggested they be dropped. The suggestion was obdurately ignored, apparently in the desperate hope that the defense witnesses would provide the proof that the prosecution witnesses failed to do. Go figure!
Thus, goaded by their incandescent anti-Bibi enmity, the people, who have done the most to erode public trust in the legal system in general and the judiciary in particular, are the jurists in general and the Justices in particular. Nothing could underscore this more than the recent High Court decision regarding the dismissal of Ronen Bar, the current head of Israel’s Internal Security Service (ISS, widely known as the Shabak). Indeed, it was so patently absurd as to make it almost comical. As an unvarnished attempt to smother common sense with legalistic gobbledygook, it made a caricature of the judicial process.
Undisputed failure insufficient grounds for dismissal?
Arguably, the most ludicrous element in the verdict was the assertion that there was not “an adequate factual foundation” for the dismissal. This is an astounding claim, itself devoid of any “factual foundation”. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of anything more counterfactual. After all, what could comprise a more valid factual foundation for Bar’s dismissal than his undisputed failure to give the alert over the impending Hamas assault on October 7th, his equally abysmal failure to prepare for it and to respond to it adequately once it occurred? In fact, if the government is to be faulted over the Bar’s removal, it should be over why it took so long to do so.
Likewise, the court’s assertion that the PM could not be involved in the dismissal decision since he was in a position of a “conflict of interest”—because two associates of his were being investigated on flimsy charges of having illicit dealings with Qatar, makes little sense. Unless, of course, the intention is to pave the way for disqualifying the PM from future decisions. For, the clear significance of this verdict is that all it takes to preclude the PM from taking part in any future decisions, is to implicate some of his associates—even on the most implausible grounds—in a trumped-up investigation expressly designed for that very purpose.
The onset of dystopia?
Interestingly, the clear—and erroneous—implication of the court’s ruling is that ongoing Shabak investigations come to a shuddering halt whenever the Director’s term ends, and a successor is appointed. Otherwise, why would any successor be presumed to pursue suspicions of Qatar-related malfeasance less vigorously than the current Director? Indeed, given his past failures, why would the current Director be considered essential to the Qatar investigation—unless his overt anti-Netanyahu proclivities are deemed an overriding consideration??
Sadly, it appears that enmity towards Netanyahu has pushed his antagonists to the brink of insanity and, in some cases, arguably beyond. Likewise, it has propelled Israeli society to the brink of a dystopian reality, and in some cases, arguably beyond.
Thus, enraged and exasperated by Netanyahu’s remarkable ability to withstand their continued and concerted efforts to remove him from office, his adversaries—including former PMs, defense ministers, IDF Chiefs-of-Staff, heads of intelligence services—have committed acts of unmistakable sedition and treason, openly urging members of the military not to serve—thereby conveying a message of national disarray and division, emboldening the country’s enemies, bent on its destruction.
With regard to the onset of dystopia, it should be noted that what once was the socio-political divide between Left and Right in Israel has been largely replaced by a schism, separating the fervent anti-Bibi zealots from those who are not. Although these dividing lines are not identical, they do largely overlie and overlap each other. Accordingly, keeping this minor discrepancy in mind, I will, for the sake of semantic convenience, retain referring to the rivalrous factions as “Left” and “Right.”
Rift unbridgeable by rational reasoning
With this methodological/linguistic caveat behind us, it is important to note that those on the “Right” generally seem unable to gauge the depth and intensity of the hostility and opprobrium their political rivals on the “Left” feel for them. Naively, those on the “Right” believe that what separates them from their countrymen on the “Left” is a difference of opinion (albeit profound) that, potentially, can be bridged (albeit with difficulty).
Sadly, this is not the case.
The rupture is not one that can be bridged by rational reasoning or argument—not even by bitter experience that unequivocally demonstrates how unfounded their positions are. Indeed, to a large degree, many on the “Left” do not have an opinion as such, but rather an ambition, and to fulfill that ambition, they are willing to adopt any opinion—as well as its diametric opposite—so long as it can be used to malign their opponents on the “Right”.
Thus, as the socio-political agenda of the “Left” gradually drifted further and further away from the harsh realities of the Middle East, its electoral constituency shrank accordingly. However, this was not something the “Left” found particularly perturbing. For as long as they controlled the judiciary (and to a lesser degree, the mainstream media), they still could determine much of the tenor of the socio-political realities prevailing in the country.
Understanding the “Left’s” incandescent fury
This is the reason for the near apoplectic reaction to the attempted judicial reform in early 2023—particularly the system of appointing judges. For, this directly impacted the epicenter of the “Left’s” power. Thus, given its diminishing electoral appeal and the unlikely prospect of it ever regaining power via the ballot box, the “Left” responded with a combination of horror and fury that drove it to unprecedented extremes—including reinventing, even inverting, the use of language, which exposed its true beliefs regarding the imperatives of political life in Israel.
Accordingly, as soon as then-newly elected Justice Minister Yariv Levin presented his initiative to the public, they immediately branded it as a “Revolution”, a term usually reserved for extra-parliamentary opposition to an incumbent government, not to policy proposals from such governments, particularly lawfully elected ones. Indeed, the use of the term seems to indicate that they believe that the “Left” is the truly ordained leader of the country, and the incumbent government is merely an impudent usurper, swept to unmerited positions of power by unworthy “plebs”, otherwise known as “Bibists” (reminiscent of “Baboons”?)
Thus, in their eyes, the judicial reform is an insufferable challenge to the established order and to the true ruling class—hence a “revolution”.
Borderline sedition
Furthermore, the reform’s proposal, that decisions should be transferred from unelected, unaccountable forums to elected, accountable forums, makes the “Left’s” accusation that the measure is somehow “undemocratic”, manifestly ridiculous. After all, is palpably absurd to claim that a system, in which a narrow, unelected forum of around a dozen appointed officials, with no accountability to the public, has the ultimate authority on matters of vital national importance, is more democratic than one, in which that authority is vested in the hands of over 60 elected parliamentarians, regularly answerable to the public.
Accordingly, the Bibi-phobic “Left” have created a dystopian-like reality in Israel, where, just as in Orwellian Newspeak, language is manipulated and distorted to serve political purposes. Thus, words take on meaning antithetically opposite to their commonly used sense. In Orwell’s 1984 dystopia, “war” was “peace”; “freedom” was “slavery” and so on. In the emerging Israeli dystopia, “dictatorship” is “democracy”; “revolution” is “elected government policy”; “entitlement” is “patriotism”; and “sedition” is “loyalty”.
Indeed, it is a sense of entitlement, not of patriotism, that drives the anti-Bibi “Left”. It reflects a selective loyalty to Israel, in which borderline sedition, purposefully undermining the nation’s security, economy and international standing, is preferable to accepting the victory of political rivals.
Time to gird our loins
There is a popular belief that, in Israel, civil war is not possible because a war requires two opposing sides to participate in it, and the “Right’ will always refrain from a fratricidal conflict against fellow-Jews—as was the case when Menachem Begin restrained his followers from the responding to the lethal sinking of the Altalena off the coast of Tel Aviv by forces under the left-leaning David Ben Gurion.
Sadly, today this belief has been overtaken by events and is no longer valid. The gravity of the Bibi-phobic “Left’s” actions is such that it can no longer be condoned. Action against them must be taken, lest the very bedrock on which the nation is founded be irreparably eroded. Indeed, it is clear that today, the “Left” is determined to prevent the government from making any significant decisions in the future—by means of torturously concocted quasi-legal impediments. No amount of rational reasoning will be of any avail. A confrontation is both unavoidable and imperative. A line must be drawn in the sand. It must be made indelibly clear to the anti-Bibi “Left” that there are limits to political rivalry, which cannot be breached. Sedition in the guise of political dissent will not be brooked, and the State apparatus will be mobilized to confront, contain, and counteract any such instances.
Such confrontation cannot, and must not, be delayed. Leniency today will only compound the problem—and the peril—tomorrow.
Sadly, the time to gird our loins is now!
