In an introductory book on Israeli democracy by the Open University, Prof. Benjamin Neuberger referred to "active acts of rebellion, including illegal demonstrations, blocking roads, burning tires and besieging the prime minister's house," noting that "this activity, which is intended to bring down the government, fits the definition of 'rebellion' in the criminal code."
He was of course talking about the "This is Our Land" movement after the Oslo Accords, but what has been happening in recent months is more serious, including illegal shutdowns, massive harassment and even violence of elected officials and their families, and the threat of mass refusal to serve in the reserves. Recently, opponents of the government have stepped up their actions, which have included publicly undermining, and abroad, the very legitimacy of the current government to operate the IDF, while at the same time disrupting prayers and harassing worshippers. These actions appear to be part of a broader campaign aimed at undermining the legitimacy of the government, intimidating its voters, deterring it from implementing its policies, and even toppling it.
The justification given for these actions is the defense of democracy against the "dictatorship." It is therefore important to emphasize that despite the widespread use of the word democracy by the protesters, the protest is not in favor of democracy. The protesters, as a whole, are terrified of democracy, that is, of the idea that the public will be a partner in determining its future. They believe that the public is not mature, wise or enlightened enough, and therefore they are interested in a kind of supreme committee that will make the substantive and moral decisions. The public will be able to elect its representatives in order to maintain a semblance of democracy, but they will not be able to determine anything without the approval of the Supreme Committee and its representatives.
It used to be "popular democracy," and now we talk about "substantive democracy," but what these alternatives have in common is that it is not democracy but a different system, which uses the word democracy for public relations purposes.
The political outlook underlying the protest was accurately articulated by George Orwell in his book Animal Farm, which was a parable about life in the Soviet Union during Stalin's time. After the animals protested that Napoleon - Stalin's likeness - had cancelled the assemblies in which they could speak, his representative explained the decision in the following words (translated by Abraham Yavin):
"There is nothing more assertive than Comrade Napoleon in his belief that all animals are equal. It would be very happy to let you decide your own affairs, but you might sometimes make the wrong decisions, friends—and then what will happen to us?"
This, in essence, is the worldview that fuels the protest. The protesters do not trust the public, and therefore want a supreme commission that will control the judiciary, legislative and executive branches, including control of the army and police, whose heads are required to declare loyalty to the Supreme Committee (even though, according to the law and as is customary in democracies, they must obey the elected government).
The protesters have the right to believe that oligarchic rule is preferable to democracy, but their use of the word democracy is Orwellian.
The widespread support of the capitalists, senior bureaucrats and other elites for the protest seems puzzling: Don't they see what the majority of the public sees?
The protesters do not trust the public, and therefore want a supreme committee that will control the judiciary, legislative and executive branches, including control of the army and police, whose heads are required to declare loyalty to the Supreme Committee
Orwell found it very difficult to publish Animal Farm. The days were the days of World War II, and Britain did not want to upset Stalin. A frustrated Orwell addressed the difficulties—and the importance of free speech—in his introduction to the book. After vigorously defending the importance of free speech, Orwell writes:
"The common people still vaguely support this doctrine and act according to it. In our own country... It is liberals who fear liberty and intellectuals who seek to harm the intellect."
This is a summary, rather bleak, of the situation in Israel. The arguments are, of course, legitimate, but in a democracy, the public determines the direction of the state and its values, through its freely elected representatives.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us