By Dr. Chen Yehezkely, July 2021
Dedicated to the memory of Hillel Kook, Founder of the he Emergency Committee for the Rescue of European Jewry in the Holocaust, Israeli statesman, member of the Constituent Assembly, and champion of civic solidarity in Israel
Description of the initiative: Abstract
In one boat – Towards civic solidarity in Israel is a grass roots social initiative that aims at a far-reaching political change in Israel: the creation of the political solidaric organization of all Israeli citizens, of all communities, religions, splinters, factions and sectors, without discrimination, without coercion, and without demanding of any group to renounce its uniqueness, ways or traditions.
The initiative stands on three premises: First, civic solidarity in Israel is possible since that which we all share outweighs by far that which divides us, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. Our common interest in – and common desire for – a better future for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren alone must outweigh all else. Second, civic solidarity in Israel, in addition to (obviously) being good and worthy, is also vital: without it, our very existence is in question. And third, the obstacles on the path of the creation of civic solidarity in Israel are formidable, and the relevant questions are serious, complex, and pressing: thus must be treated with the appropriate seriousness.
It is therefore necessary to ask the relevant questions, to invite all disputed parties to voice their views, to discuss their differences, in a germane, friendly and respectful atmosphere. For this end we propose to convene the Congress for Civic Solidarity. We believe that if we merely discuss our differences in this manner and nothing else, we will, thereby, make a significant contribution to promoting civic solidarity in Israel, even if we reach no agreement other than the agreement to disagree: civic solidarity is solidarity amongst the differing. It neither assumes nor strives to create homogeneity.
WHAT IS CIVIC SOLIDARITY
Civic solidarity has different names in literature: "body politic", "civil society", "civil nation" and possibly more. These expressions – especially the last one – are excessively charged in Israel, thus divisive, which is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. We have therefore chosen to describe the desired thing as the inclusive, egalitarian, multicultural and multi-religious organization of all Israeli civilians; in brief: civic solidarity.
Be our expression of choice what it may, it cannot avoid being an abstraction, with an inevitable degree of vagueness. It has at least three elements: the formal, the affiliative, and the social. The formal in that it relates to all citizens, and "citizen" is a formal status. Affiliative, in that an effort will be made to create affiliation of all citizens to said group, and even partners in efforts to make it better, fairer, more supportive and enabling, making it easier to be proud of being associated with it. And social in that all citizens share feelings of mutual care, respect, and sympathy within that which is reasonable. In other words, it is not enough to be tolerant of our differences, but we need to rejoice therein: diversity is not a dictate we need to come to terms with, but a gift to rejoice in.
Existing situation a: Description
Those who describe the current situation in Israel use different words and make different emphases, but all are agreed that the situation is concerning. Israel is in a constant state of ongoing conflicts with all our enemies, and especially with the Palestinians, and of ongoing and deepening conflicts within Israeli society. All these conflicts have been going on for decades, and do not seem closer to being resolved today than in the past, so much so that most Israelis have learned to accept them as dictated by nature: it is the very nature of group X that they cannot live in peace and in good relations with Group Y.
Indeed, everything seems to support this view. The ideologies expressed at times by the extremists in all groups; The fact that more and more people are becoming extremists; The fact that all attempts to create solidarity, toleration and co-operation — all noble and worthy — have no cumulative effect; and all past experience: all of these seem to support the view that the nature of the groups in Israel is that they cannot live in peace and in good relations with each other.
That and more. Each of the aforementioned conflicts fuels at least one of the others. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict (widely considered by experts a paradigm of intractable conflicts) is the one most fueled by others. For example, the conflict between Jews of the "national religious" camp and those belonging to the "secular" camp causes any solution that is acceptable to one of these two groups to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be unacceptable to the other, sometimes to the point of justifying violence. This, besides being detrimental to democracy, also prevents any progress towards resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Or, if we take another example, the conflict between Jews and Muslims within Israel strengthens the tendency of Muslims to define themselves as Palestinians, which strengthens the opinion of the Jews that when it comes to a proposed settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the views of Muslim citizens of Israel should not be considered. This too is detrimental to democracy, and this too prevents any progress towards resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Existing situation b: FUTURE PROSPECTS
The situation described is a state of unrelenting conflicts, on the one hand; coupled by political paralysis, on the other. In such a situation, the conflicts deepen to the point of explosion. Sometimes the explosion is relatively small, for example in police clashes with the ultra-Orthodox public. Sometimes it is relatively large, for example, the events of October 2000 and May 2021. Sometimes they shake the foundations of our existence, as we have seen in the assassination of the Prime Minister against the background of his willingness to allow foreign sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. The direction in which things are heading is of constant aggravation even when there is no explosion, with the threat of civil war which may rake the entire region into a bloodbath which may include ethnic cleansing and mass murders. It should be noted that this last statement is not a prediction: the future's not ours to see. But one can always see where things are heading.
This direction of progress is also reinforced by the dynamics of self-fulfilling prophecy. The prevailing opinion is that the various groups in Israel have no common values, needs, or interests. This opinion inspires and empowers another view: there is no one to talk to. This view is frequently expressed by all parties on all sides of all barricades. In fact, the very fact that people hold the first of these two views (there is no common denominator), makes the latter (there is no one to talk to) necessarily a truth, in the sense of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
EXISTING SITUATION c: Diagnosis
Many of those who identify the situation as described above, provide the diagnosis that there is not enough civic solidarity in Israel. This is true, of course, but partial. It speaks of solidarity as a purely communal phenomenon: there are communities in which there is more of it, and there are communities in which there is less. Indeed, solidarity is a communal phenomenon – but by no means purely so. It is also a civil, i.e., political phenomenon. Civic solidarity is the political body of all citizens of the country. What is the nature of this body? It is not clear. What is the weight of the formal part in it? What is the weight of the civil part? Of the social part? The interpersonal? This too is not clear. It is only clear, for example, that in some countries the citizens are united in one solidarity body – call the body politic, civil society, civic nationalism, or what you may. In these countries citizens have the power to demand of the state to recognize its commitment to their common interests, as well as the power to demand of themselves to act with the degree of tolerance, acceptance of the other, mutual respect, caring and cooperation required for reasonable political existence.
Therefore, to say that Israel does not have enough civic solidarity is only part of the picture. The other part is that in Israel the solidaric body that includes all Israeli citizens is recognized neither by the state nor by the citizens. Recognition is the stuff that solidaric bodies are made of. Thus, it transpires that in Israel the solidaric body of citizens is absent.
This diagnosis explains the fact that is familiar to all those involved in the sacred work of cultivating solidarity, cooperation, and tolerance between the various groups. Although the people and bodies engaged in the craft are many, although their work is truly admirable, their work still does not have the desired cumulative effect. The explanation given by our diagnosis is that these all operate solely on the communal level – while the action required is both communal and political.
The absence of civic solidarity is at the heart and behind the scenes of all the major crises in Israel, including civil unrest, international tensions, the threat of civil war, incessant conflicts and political stalemate and paralysis. Without civic solidarity, any legitimate solution to any of the problems on the agenda immediately provokes bitter opposition in one or more of the groups involved. This kind of situation always has the same spiraling effect: it deepens the paralysis, which then functions as an incentive and license for extremism, violence and disregard for legal and ethical considerations, which then render the chances for civic solidarity even slimmer…
The long and the short of it is that the absence of civic solidarity threatens democracy and endangers our very existence.
The purpose of the initiative: one boat – towards civic solidarity in Israel
Therefore, the purpose of our initiative is distinctly political: to promote the establishment in Israel of a solidary that is multi-religious, multicultural, egalitarian, and inclusive: civic solidaric body politic. This body will require the state to recognize it, as well as its own responsibility thereto, including the responsibility to initiate measures to facilitate peace, both internal and external, to encourage healthy interactions between all factions, to enable good neighborly relations with our neighbors inside and outside, to provide for the rule of law, and to safeguard people's livelihood and basic freedoms. This body will also demand from the citizens that we become law-abiding, that we respect the beliefs and ways of others, and that we practice tolerance and acceptance. Some say that these things are included in the Israeli Declaration of Independence. If this is true, the role of civic solidarity is to bring us back to the ideas and values of our Declaration of Independence. Others say that our Declaration of Independence is flawed and that corrections should be made. If so: Which ones? These questions will also have a place in Congress.
Operative Strategy No. 1
The operative strategy of the initiative is twofold. The first strategy is to convene the Congress for Civic Solidarity in Israel, thus, also to launch, encourage, and lead an extensive public debate in Israel on the question of civic solidarity and all adjacent and relevant questions. This discussion is to take place in all possible forums: classroom meetings in schools, teacher lounges, student councils, youth movements, NGOs, political parties, union meetings, social networks, interactive websites, TV talk shows, and so on. This strategy rests on two considerations as follows.
The first consideration is this: taking millions of people who are divided to many separate affiliations to many different groups, some of which share a long-standing animosity, and turning them into one solidaric body politic, while taking care not to interfere with their current affiliations, is a formidable task. This task invites a host of questions, all serious, all complex, and all in dispute: we – the initiators – do not pretend to know the answers to even a few of them. The task also involves obstacle that we do not know how to overcome, difficulties that we do not know how to deal with, and problems that we do not know how to solve. These things require as broad and open a public discussion as possible.
The second consideration is this: a broad and open public debate is also an inclusive debate. It welcomes people with different and opposing opinions, traditions, views, and priorities. These contrasts must not undermine the feeling of partnership and cooperation. Indeed, they can illuminate and emphasize the common longings, needs and interests which underly them. Whenever two people hold opposing answers to a question, it is a sign that they have a common interest in the question itself. It is thus our contention that via the very act of engaging an open public discussion of the controversies around the question of civic solidarity, in a friendly and respectful manner, we practice solidarity right then and there, even if we attain no agreement other than the agreement to disagree. For in this we practice the famous statement attributed to Mahatma Gandhi: be the change you want to see in the world.
Operative Strategy No. 2
The second strategy is to start a mass petition in Israel in which people will express their support of the idea of civic solidarity and of the efforts to bring it about, and will declare their wish to be part of said solidarity. This petition will be accompanied by explanatory remarks, media posts, interviews and any media presence that will bring the initiative to the awareness of all citizens of the country.
Questions for discussion: Partial list
An open public discussion is a discussion that rejects any prohibition on the wish to engage in examining together any question. The question of civil solidarity has numerous accompanying questions – and the higher the resolution, the more numerous they become.
These questions can be completely abstract, such as: What is multi-religious, multicultural, egalitarian and pluralistic – in short, civic – solidarity? What are the minimum requirements for such solidarity? What are the obstacles on the way to its creation? How can these obstacles be overcome? What is the price of solidarity? What is the price of its absence? How can one cultivate solidarity without requiring consensus or homogeneity, and without threatening the character, customs, values and traditions of each of the different groups? What degree of uniformity is required, if any? In what matters? What are the dangers of non-uniformity? What are the dangers of over-demanding uniformity? What is the connection between solidarity and justice? What historical or current injustices need to be remedied before civic solidarity can be created? What injustices cannot be remedied? When does redress justify discrimination (in the form of affirmative action)? What needs to be done to enable all citizens of the country to feel that they are part of the civic solidaric body? What needs to be done to enable them to feel proud of it? What needs to be done to enable the political institutions and symbols defined as belonging to a "people" or a "nation" to indeed belong to the political body of all citizens of the state? What needs to be done to enable the state to recognize its commitment to the political body of all its citizens? What needs to be done to enable the political body of all citizens of the state to recognize itself, and to enjoy a healthy, responsible affiliation to its state? And so on.
The questions can be more specific, such as: How can the injustice done to the people of Ikrit and Biram be corrected? Should the anthem be replaced? What must be done in order for the Muslims of Israel to stand at the siren on Remembrance Day of their free volition, of course? That Naturi Karta will pray for the safety of Israel? What are the obstacles on the path of an ultra-Orthodox to become prime minister? A Muslim to become the chief of staff? How can we make it so that the state will stop interfering with the rabbis' rulings, which rulings belong to the Rabbi's alone? How can we make it so that the state will also stop enforcing these rulings by means of legislation and law enforcement, which means belong to the state alone? What needs to be the status of the Jewish National Fund? Should it become part of the state, in which case it must cease to practice religious discrimination, or should it be allowed to continue to practice religious discrimination, in which case it must be without any political power? How can we make it so that every citizen will be free to marry any citizen, and that whoever wants to prevent this can use the tools made available to him by the community, not the state? How can we create a new national ethos that will include all citizens of Israel? How can we make it so that all Israeli citizens will be free, indeed proud, to say: I am an Israeli?
Possibly the answer to one or another of these questions is that it is not possible, and/or that it is not essential, and/or that it requires extensive study, and/or that discussing it will be immensely time consuming. Possibly, also, there will be people that will challenge the legitimacy of any given question, and will even threaten to leave if a certain question which they hold illegitimate will be discussed.
In the congress for civic solidarity in Israel, none of all these considerations will constitute a justification for abstaining from asking and discussing any pertinent question.
It may even be that in the midst of our discussions a new wave of hostility will wash our shores. Let us pray that this will not happen. Let us also be resolute enough that, if this happens, we will not take this as pretext to stop our discussions but as inspiration to reaffirm our commitment thereto.
CONCLUSION
It is customary in Israel to condemn extremism, hatred, incitement and violence. Countless people in countless organizations devote their time and energy to the struggle against these evils. These people and organizations toil diligently and selflessly to cultivate tolerance, understanding, acceptance, and cooperation between different groups in the population. These efforts deserve all the praise and encouragement.
Unfortunately, these efforts are not enough. The reason suggested here is that this is because they all apply to the community realm alone – never to society as a whole: which is to say, they are all communal, not political. The present initiative is both communal and political: it is a proposal to include all Israeli citizens in one inclusive solidaric body that will allow for a unity amid the diversity, a partnership within variety, a joint enterprise between the assorted. In the words of the outgoing president, Reuven (Ruvy) Rivlin, what is required is "a transition from the accepted perception of majority and minority to a new perception of partnership. Partnership between the various sectors that make up Israeli society."