Why I oppose the ECAJ/ZFA joint statement

Until I read it, I was relieved to hear that the ECAJ and the ZFA had published a joint statement in relation to what appears to be the most serious internal existential crisis that Israel has faced since the Altalena Affair of 1948.

I assumed that the joint statement would call upon responsible Israeli leaders who are opposed to the judicial reform to put a stop to their seditious anti-democratic rhetoric against the democratically elected government; to stop their irresponsibly dangerous game of publishing grotesque, absurd, inflammatory and incendiary assertions – including, inter alia, assertions:

• by former Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin that the current coalition “is not a fully right-wing government, it is a fully terrorist government”;

• by former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit that the legislation is a “regime coup” that the court has a “duty” to stop;

• by Zeev Raz, a former Israel Air Force fighter pilot and leader of the protest movement against the reform, that Netanyahu should be assassinated;

• by former prime minister Lapid that his political opponents are “sh*ts” and “repulsive” and a “TikTok clown” and “the forces of darkness”;

• by a former IDF general, that the Jewish residents of Judea-Samaria are “sub-humans” and “a corrupted version of the Jewish people”;

• by Avigdor Lieberman that Netanyahu – together with the ultra-Orthodox – should be loaded on a wheelbarrow and hauled off to the nearest garbage dump;

• by MK Yulia Malinovsky that Netanyahu’s supporters are “mindless minions, incapable of any independent thought” and that the Prime Minister is “a dictator, and that his supporters in the Knesset are his servants who came from Morocco to exchange one king for another”;

• by radio host, Natan Zahavi, that he wished that the right-leaning Channel 14 would “burn down – together with everybody associated with it” and that Charedi Jews are “dreckes”, i.e. “filth”, and that they should “hang themselves by their tefillin”.

I expected the joint statement to remind the opponents of the proposed reform that it is contrary to all principles of democracy to attempt to subvert the will of the people by blackmail and threats; and that while freedom of peaceful protest is a right, seeking to compel a democratically elected government to abandon the policies it pledged to implement by seditious threats and incendiary rhetoric and blackmail is contrary to Jewish and democratic principles – and civilised behaviour. And is also illegal.

I expected the joint statement to call upon the leaders of the Israeli opposition to engage in good faith negotiations with the democratically elected government, without preconditions, something that it has steadfastly refused to do – despite repeated requests from the coalition.

But I was mistaken.

The joint statement contains not a single word of criticism of any of the incendiary assertions. No complaint is made against the appallingly undemocratic conduct; there is no criticism of the terrifying blackmail or sedition. Nor does the joint statement contain any plea – or call, or request, or oblique suggestion – to the opposition to heed the requests of the governing coalition to engage in good faith negotiations, without preconditions.

To the contrary. Instead of calling out the undemocratic, inflammatory and seditious conduct of the opponents of the reform, the joint statement is directed – and only directed – at the democratically elected governing coalition, in an attempt to compel it to abandon the policies it openly pledged to implement.

Like the ECAJ and the ZFA, I believe that Israel must forever remain a Jewish and democratic state, rooted in the vision of the prophets. But, whether or not one agrees with the proposals, there is nothing in the proposed judicial reform that is undemocratic; and there is nothing in the proposals in relation to Law of Return which is inimical to Israel remaining a Jewish and democratic state, rooted in the vision of the prophets. It is precisely for that reason that I respectfully express my serious concern at – and opposition to – the joint statement.

While we are all entitled to our own views, the – no doubt unintended – vice of the joint statement is that it provides de facto support for – and indeed aids and abets – the anti-democratic conduct of the judicial reform opponents. It demonstrates to them that sedition works. And that is pernicious because next time the government (which may be a left-wing government) decides to implement an election pledge, those who are opposed will know that they simply have to engage in egregious conduct of the kind described above and, by so doing, they will receive the support and assistance of eminent leaders of Diaspora Jewish communities.

It is because I love Israel, and Judaism, and democracy and the vision of the prophets that I respectfully feel compelled to note my deep dismay and disappointment at, and opposition to, and disassociation from, the joint statement.

Mark Friedgut is a barrister and a member of the Sydney Jewish community.

comments