We are blessed to have won Tali Gottlieb. The member of Knesset from the Likud accused the President of the Supreme Court of being responsible for a murderous attack. Then she explained that “history will judge Hayut”. Judge on what? For “daring to come out to the people and rebel against right-wing rule”. It is worth reviewing Gottlieb’s words. Sometimes, the strangest sources can be a gateway to deep and fascinating issues.
For example: how to examine cause and effect. “I blame the President of the Supreme Court for the attack,” wrote the queen of Likud scandals, which evokes longing for the calm and normal days, the reign of Galit Distal Atbarian. Gottlieb’s “I accuse” is obviously an attempt to echo Emile Zola’s indictment, and to evoke identification with the modern incarnation of the Jewish officer Alfred Dreyfus. “In the attack” – this is probably evidence of the dispute between Gottlieb and the philosopher David Yom, who denied the possibility of clearly identifying cause and effect.
It is not easy to find a cause for an effect. What brought about the collapse of the Roman Empire? Some emphasize internal disintegration, some emphasize the barbarian invasion. But what brings about internal disintegration? Perhaps excessive prosperity. And what about the barbarian invasion? Maybe other barbarians, who pushed the feet of the invading barbarians. And what brought the other barbarians to push the feet of the invaders? Maybe weather phenomena, which forced them to look for pasture in a new place.
And why did the weather change? Perhaps it was a small, tiny shift in the rotation of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. And why does the earth change its course? This requires a complex physical explanation of the laws of inertia and gravity and more. This requires reviewing Newton’s first law based on the principle of persistence.
Here – this is the explanation for the destruction of Rome. The culprit in the destruction is the principle of persistence. And perhaps it is appropriate to move away from it even further, for the reasons and the reason for all reasons, from the well-known poem of Yeshi Rivo, and the slightly less well-known prayer of Rabbi Natan of Breslav. There is a cause, there is a result, which can be reached by a process similar to Gottlieb’s process of analysis and inference.
But why stop at Esther Hayut, that something in her conduct, even if it is not clear what exactly, led in a causal chain to the attack. We will continue to live, and try to go deeper. Who sat Hayut on her chair? Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit sent her to a temporary appointment in the Supreme Court. And who chose the bill for the Minister of Justice? Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. And who chose Sharon to be prime minister? Likud voters. They chose him. Therefore, say from now on: Likud voters are guilty of the attack. They chose Sharon, who appointed Shetrit, who promoted Hayut, who is guilty of the attack. cause and effect.
In a new questionnaire of the index website and news here (scan the code on the graph and come to answer), we try to help Gottlieb in the second effort she wants to promote – the trial of history. She says that history will judge Hayut for her actions. Presumably she meant not to “judge”, but to “judge badly”. In our questionnaire, there is no prior conviction. There is only a test. We ask, for example, how will history judge David Ben-Gurion for his decision not to promote, not to insist on writing a constitution for Israel?
This is a good question, a topical question. It is possible that if we had a constitution, we would not have fallen into the hands of Yariv Levin and Simcha Rothman. It is possible that if we had a constitution, we could roam the streets in our Mercedes, wearing our Rolex watches, without David Amsalem condemning us for the ugly ostentatiousness, which stands out so much against the background of the contentment with little and the modesty of Likud members of Knesset (the legacy of Menachem Begin, of course).
On the other hand, it is possible that if we had tried to write a constitution back in the days of Ben-Gurion, our fratricidal war – the one that the opposition leaders keep warning about, to the point that for a moment it seems they almost hope it will break out – would have broken out a long time ago, in 1950. Here, this is what the founder of the state thought at the same time At the time: “In view of the political culture and the structure of the regime in Israel, the move to enact a written constitution may inflame the spirits, ignite a culture war and possibly even a fratricidal war and jeopardize the important goal of building a democratic state of law.”
Nir Kider, in his book on Ben-Gurion and the Constitution, describes how those opposed to the enactment of a constitution, led by Ben-Gurion, feared that “the controversy surrounding the enactment of a constitution could jeopardize the ability of the Knesset and Israeli society to deal with the great challenges facing them.”
Prof. Ruth Gavizon describes Ben-Gurion’s motives in a way that brings up a surprising similarity between Ben-Gurion of that time and Yariv Levin of today (this, of course, is the only similarity between them).
“Ben-Gurion,” Gavizon wrote, “preferred to rely on the pure parliamentary system that Israel inherited from the Mandate period, mainly because his party was the permanent axis of the possible governments. He consistently opposed a rigid constitution, or restrictions on the parliament’s power to legislate, and certainly judicial oversight of principles The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In his opinion, a young nation struggling for its existence… cannot afford such severe structural restrictions on the power of the central government.”
Here, there is a possible key to understanding the depth of the dispute between lawmakers like Levin and Simcha Rothman, and opponents like Yair Lapid or Merav Michaeli. The former believe that Israel is still a young nation struggling for its existence. The latter speculate that in the year 75 Israel is no longer young, and its existence no longer requires a struggle that a constitution could complicate.
Ben Gurion (Photo: Fritz Cohen)
“The absence of a constitution for the entire period since the establishment of the state weighed on the ability to handle disputes within a common and agreed upon political framework,” Gavizon wrote. But there was never again a solemn, appropriate occasion to turn to the constitution. If it were written today, it would no longer be Ben-Gurion’s constitution, but a different constitution. If it were written today, there would once again be a danger of “inflaming the spirits, igniting a culture war and maybe even a fratricidal war”.
So what is the law of history? As mentioned, in the questionnaire of the index we ask to hear your answer. On the question of the constitution, and on many other questions. Looking back is complicated and demanding. What is meant by the judgment of history, should we judge what Ben-Gurion decided to do in the constitution against the background of his concerns since then, and the fact that he was somewhat preoccupied with establishing a state – or should we look at the Harari Compromise from the summer of 1950 (when it was decided to abandon a constitution in favor of the gradual enactment of fundamental laws, We all already understand what they are equal to. In today’s critical view, perhaps it should be said – again, in the spirit of Gottlieb – that Ben-Gurion is to blame for the socio-political crisis of the winter of 2023.
the necessary elites
I assumed that my televised conversation with Kalman Libeskind about elites and their meaning (look for the video online, if you care to watch) would not pass without some scolding or angry reactions. It’s the kind of tough, emotional stuff. Reactions along the lines of why-who-are-you, then-you-are-not-a-democrat, and that’s-arrogance, and out of spite – reactions that all basically mean one thing: democracy is good for you when your friends are in power, and when they’re not in power you look for ways to keep them in power. The rule of the elites instead of the rule of the people.
These responses are based on two assumptions that can be questioned. The first – that the respondents know who my friends are, or who I prefer in power. Not sure they really know. The second – that recognizing the value, power and importance of elites means heresy in democracy. In my opinion, this is a wrong assumption.
Let’s leave the questions of who my friends are, and whether they belong to the elites, and who I prefer in power, and try the more important, principled question. The question of elites. Recently, we often talk about elites – usually not in good terms. There are “old” elites – whose job it is to disappear.
There are “new” elites – whose main function seems to be to oust the old. It is not always clear why. That is, what is the great sin of the old elites. And there is talk of elites “not accepting the decision of the majority” and continuing to fight for “hegemony” and control of all kinds of institutions (the court, the military system, etc.). On television, we mentioned as an example those who won good jobs for themselves, such as servants in unit 8200, who come from the elites, while the non-elites are forced to enlist in combat units.
Let’s talk about the elites. And we will try to be content with general and principled statements. There is no such thing as a society without an elite. Every society has different levels of education, income, ability. A good company is a company that has a good elite. In a good society, the elite is a servant elite, which has public responsibilities.
Yitzhak Herzog, our president, who spoke this week with trembling hands, because he understands the magnitude of the moment, is a serving elite. George Bush was a servant elite. Winston Churchill was a servant elite. Benjamin Netanyahu too. Each one, its weaknesses, advantages, rights and failures – but all four belong to this sector. An elite that focuses its interest in the society in which it lives. Leads where she can lead, and pulls the rest of the population after her. In the best cases, upwards. For more education, income, tolerance, security, prosperity, meaning. Everything society needs, everything elites can give.
A country without elites is a country in trouble. Elites are a necessary thing. They are the locomotive. In the absence of an elite, there is no one to pull the wagons. In the absence of an elite, there is no one to set standards for excellence. Society needs good musicians, it needs good scientists, good economists, educated and broad-minded intellectuals, great philosophers, brilliant military men, creative engineers. Without all these – without these elites – society will falter. A smart society is proud of its elites, not insulting them (provided that they are elites who are not alienated from society).
Elites should be dynamic. The elites must allow entry (and sometimes also exit) of groups to and from them. But – and this is an important but that must be taken care of – the goal should not be the abolition of the elites, but the refreshing of the elites. This means that one should say “new elites” with emphasis on the “elites” and not on the “new ones”. The main thing is not a replacement, whoever it is, the main thing is that you remain elite. Whoever replaces an elite with a mob gets a disaster (and whoever asks for a reference to the history books, will gladly accept).
Elites are more influential than non-elites. It’s not a glitch – it’s a reality. Or as they would say in English: it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. That’s how it is, and that’s how it should be. A significant part of the conversation on television was devoted to this claim. Libeskind didn’t exactly flow with her. Neither do the commenters on Twitter. This means – so he and they argued – that the voice of an elite member is worth more than the voice of a mere citizen, like me or you. And yes, in a way that’s what it means.
Of course, in a formal context, when you go to the polls, every vote is exactly equal to a vote. The voice of the rich is equal to the voice of the poor. The voice of the professor is equal to the voice of someone who has not graduated from high school. And that’s how it should stay. But beyond the formal context there is also a reality that is not conducted in black and white. In this reality, as outrageous as it may sound, the voice of the rich is worth a little more. Why? Like that, because he is rich. Because in the real world money is a power multiplier. And education is also a force multiplier. And skills. And professionalism. and connections. And skills. It doesn’t matter if I want it to be like that or not. Simple, that’s how it is. And that’s not necessarily bad.
And it is true, there is a certain tension between the desire to be as democratic as possible, and the fact that the elites have greater influence. But tensions exist in democracy in many matters (the desire for freedom of speech versus the desire to protect privacy is just an example), and you have to learn to live with that as well. Whoever is not jealous or bitter, should be happy that the society he is a part of has excellent scientists and smart philosophers and brilliant entrepreneurs.
Now to today’s Israel. Are there “new elites” in Israel that can replace the old ones? First of all, you have to ask if there were old elites here at all. The poet David Avidan, who expressed an opinion on this subject, in a poem about the late summer of 1962, wrote that “there is no spiritual elite in this country, and I don’t know what we have in its place.” This is a statement, so he wrote in that song, “that you will not magnify, Kanera, my popularity”. An interesting question if he would have written differently today. If today he assumed that the slander of the elite is precisely the one that will glorify. Either way, if there are other elites, why replace them, what’s so bad about them. And if to replace, then one should ask: what does the replacement mean. What will we get instead of what will go?
Let’s take the Supreme Court – because that’s what we’re talking about now. It is clear that the meaning of changing elites in the Supreme Court cannot be “judges of a lower level”. Nor can it be “judges who do what the government wants”. She can be “judges of an equally high level – with a different background or worldview”. Which means: elitist again, but ones whose background they come to judge with is a little different.
President Herzog, in the wonderful and terrible speech he gave this week, a speech that I doubt if in our current state of accumulation (nervous, confrontational, angry) we deserve, said that there is a necessity to diversify the court. He also said that the court is a magnificent institution. And yes, both things are true. And that is exactly the challenge – both to diversify and to remain magnificent. Just a bad shade. Just magnificent, requires correction.
Let’s conclude: the duty of caution is on both sides in any discussion about the elite challenge. The conservative side, which wants to keep the elites in their place, perhaps because it has become accustomed to certain elites, needs to make sure that there are no containment mechanisms that prevent social leadership and renewal. He needs to make sure that there is no alienation between the elites and the rest of the public that creates unbearable tension, the result of which is populism. But the radical side, which wants to overthrow the elites, also has responsibility. He needs to make sure he doesn’t flush out an elite and get a mob in return.