Animosities in Israel Could Become Threat to the State

The recent violence in Israel between ultra-orthodox religious and secular militants has reinforced concern among allies and friends that internal divisiveness may become as much a threat to the state as any outside force. Many fear that the animosities that have been escalating between major political, religious and social groups--Arab versus Jew, left versus right, orthodox versus secular, Ashkenazi versus Sephardim--if unabated, could lead to unprecedented civil strife.

Israeli democracy has always allowed for the coexistence of ideological factions; unfortunately, this “agreement to disagree” is not supported by a tradition of tolerance.

One could argue that the public diatribe in Israel is benign compared to that in many other countries. But for those concerned about the democratic character of the state this is little consolation. The fact is that since the end of the 1970s there has been a dramatic increase in Israeli extremist groups, extraparliamentary factions that believe that their grievances cannot be addressed by lawful mechanisms. Ehud Sprinzak, an expert on extremism in Israel, concludes that at least 20% of the Israeli electorate today is in the extremist camp.

“People do not want to recognize the magnitude of the problem,” Sprinzak says. “I am not saying that tomorrow we will have a fascist state, but that these groups are having a tremendous influence on the erosion of values in schools, synagogues, the marketplace, everywhere.”

A 1985 study undertaken by the prestigious Van Leer Institute of Hebrew University concluded that 40% of Israeli high-school youths support Meir Kahane, the right-wing militant who calls for the expulsion of all Arabs from Israel.

“What we have here is not a social upheaval but a slow, imperceptible glacier movement that is only visible in the long term,” said social scientist Ephriam Yaar, director of the sociology department of Tel Aviv University.

It can be argued that there are stronger values uniting the country than dividing it, that Israel’s political cohesion should not be underestimated. The majority of secular Israelis, for example, do get along with the majority of the religious, and most Ashkenazis (European Jews) live and work in harmony with most Sephardim (Jews from Arab North Africa). Moreover, Israel has faced enormous internal stress since its creation, managing to overcome the worst of times. Many Israelis would also contend that the good old days had more than their share of good old controversy, recalling stories of bitter strife between the Begin and Ben-Gurion camps, replete with alleged assassinations.

But an important difference is that the public debate was controlled in the early years. Even in the face of intense personal antagonisms, political foes were not in the habit of publicly referring to one another as liars, traitors, Nazis or any of the other pejoratives now commonly heard in Israeli leadership circles. Over the years freedom of speech in Israel has unfortunately become a license for freedom from political civility. While name-calling does not directly cause violence in the streets, it certainly nurtures an environment for the extralegal expression of grievances.

A prominent Israeli architect, Zalman Enav, who was deeply involved in bringing young refugees to Israel during the 1940s and ‘50s, contends that Israel’s youth today is alienated from democratic mores by the “bickering and petty behavior” of its elders. Take for example a recent criticism of three female lawyers serving in Israel’s attorney general’s office, which was published in the Israeli press by the leader of a “moderate” religious faction. The gentleman in question described these women as “Amazons,” and also insinuated that they were prostitutes. Or take the Herut convention last spring that deteriorated into a physical brawl, with politicians hurling tables at one another, leveling blows and barking epithets that would put war combatants to shame.

An Israeli businessman told me, painfully, “The level of discourse between our leaders is so low that our teachers tell the children, ‘You’d better behave yourself; you’re not in the Knesset.’ ”

Former Defense Minister Moshe Arens cautions that although the political atmosphere in Israel “is not what it was” 20 or 30 years ago, “I do not think there is room for the impression that the people are indifferent.” Sprinzak concurs: “I hate the term irreversible ; I can tell you that people care.”

Indeed, there are important new positive forces in Israel challenging the ethos of extremism and intolerance. These include the introduction--remarkably, for the first time in Israel’s history--of democracy as a main theme of the school-year curriculum. (Israel’s democratic character was so taken for granted that the schools never stressed the subject.) Israeli Defense Forces are also highlighting democratic issues as a principle focus of classroom debates. Anti-racist and civil-libertarian committees are multiplying. Major funds are being contributed by Israeli citizens, rich and poor, to enable such groups to function.

Allies and friends outside the country can lend intellectual support and reinforcement to this process. But Israel’s leaders alone have the mandate and the power to sustain it.