What should a person like me do, who has been calling for limitation of powers for a long time – whether for the Supreme Court or the Knesset – but is stuck between sides acting to limit only one of the two? What should a person who believes in the State’s responsibility to keep their promises, but sees importance in listening to the opposition’s positions?
What should a person who wishes to listen to a proper public debate do when they discover that the most extreme and strange opinions are venerated and receive more attention?
What should a person who recognizes the importance of changing the legal system, however does not believe in a total regime change or that they are a risk to the essence of democracy?
And primarily: what should a person do when they peel away the different positions and realize that there is no space that cannot be bridged between them? Whether discussing the override clause or the composition of the Justice Appointment Committee, whether discussing reasonableness or establishing guidelines for the crime of treason.
The time has come to say: this continuous arm twisting is tearing us apart. First, it leads to improper decisions that do not take other positions into account. Second, this conduct causes the radicalization of positions opposed to reform, even if a short while earlier they themselves agreed that some of these changes were necessary. Third, they radicalize the opinions of the proponents as well, who ignore the obligation to relate to the danger that extreme change can bring.
The manner by which the public engages in discourse forces us to decide “are you one of us or of our enemies?” and does not encourage the position that Kohelet advocates for: “grab one without letting go of the other”. The method by which we evaluate the rationale of both sides allows us to decide that we all can live with this.
However, the danger of twisting one’s arm is greater. It changes us from dissenters to enemies, from one who claims that a path is not correct to one who negates the legitimacy of any other position. What should one do if they believe that everyone supports the State of Israel, but is confronted with the negation of this assumption? This leads to hatred.
A Dangerous Tactic
There are those who say that this is a tactic: one can enter a public debate with a strawman in order to remove it later and reach an agreement. However, what should one do if they believe that this tactic is invalid, distorts the truth, and makes us pay a heavy price?
It is doubtful that the hostility that is created by this can be healed by “removing the strawman” from the discussion, for the manner by which public debate is run is already determined and is moving towards discussions of silencing, legal prosecution, turning criticism into incitement and calls for civil rebellion. This genie will indeed be difficult to return to the bottle. However, are the gaps truly smaller than we think? Can we adopt a conversation of trust and decision-making? I believe that we can, and this is the culture of arguments in the beit midrash. I also estimate that a large portion of the public prefers this. If so – all demographics have a responsibility to demand of their representatives to act in this manner: to fight not only the extreme views of the opposition, but also those which are presented by those who we voted for. We must decide that we are not taking part in extreme discussions. This is not the time for silencing others, but a call for communication: do not focus on the extreme, but on the disagreement itself.
This may also interest you:
