A few days before the end of 2018, Benjamin Netanyahu announced that early elections are to be held in Israel on April 9, 2019. His initiative seems to have been well studied as polls favour him and his opponents are anything but united. To be precise, the most serious concern of the Israeli premier relates to the ongoing corruption probe and his potential indictment by attorney general Avichai Mandelblit. And this is because the main opposition bloc is deeply divided. The same also applies on the right of Netanyahu where new parties and ambitious politicians join the race for a few Kneset seats under their helm. And amid this political backdrop a new party showed up, a party that seems capable of changing the picture. Not because it is able to outperform the ruling Likud, but because it can get a share of the vote that would allow it to play an important role in the post-election oriental bazaar for a coalition government; a process very typical for Israeli standards. The ostensibly paradox is that the name, the cadres, and the official platform of the new party are practically indifferent. The one thing that really seems to matter is the identity of its founder who does not even have to give interviews or address rallies to reach out to the Israeli public. Because, for Benny Gantz, in the capacity of a former head of the Israeli Army, there is a reputation that not only precedes him, but also speaks loud enough for itself. What is also worth mentioning is that the way Gantz tries to influence the politics of his country is neither new, nor unorthodox for Israel’s standards.
All those who advocate for Israel in the various international forums and media platforms make sure to promote a narrative that depicts Israel not, say, as a bastion of colonialism, but as a democratic oasis in the midst of a desert of reactionary and oppressive regimes. In this context, they reproduce a series of arguments which cite Israel’s freedom of speech, rule of law, elections transparency, proportional representation, and guarantee of social and individual rights. At first glance, the above constitute a set of achievements that could be hardly frowned upon. Yet, at the end of the day, we may simply have to do with fig leaves incapable of hiding neither the elephant in the room, nor a number of other important issues.
The elephant in the room is of course no other than the prolonged and illegitimate (from an international law perspective) occupation of the Palestinian territories and the consequent multi-faceted oppression of the Palestinian people. Because, although progressive initiatives like, for instance, Tel Aviv’s Gay Pride may rightly boost the image of the Israeli authorities, when they are weighed against the medieval style siege that the very same authorities have imposed on the Gaza Strip since 2007 then any initial positive impression dwarfs in comparison.
But alas, the issues of Israel’s democracy are not limited to the misdeeds that the country’s armed forces have been conducting in the occupied territories for decades now. In the so called 1948 lands there are people of Arab descent that the state authorities approach with suspicion and subsequently treat as second class citizens. To be more precise, as third class citizens because there also are the Mizrahi Jews, meaning Jews originating from the Middle East who have traditionally been discriminated by their Ashkenazi brethren. The Ashkenazis are Jews with roots from Europe and Russia and who after their migration to Palestine altered and dominated the Jewish community of the Holy Land. The process was not missed by the Arabs and this is why Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat made sure to refer to Mizrahis’ discrimination during his historic speech before the United Nations General Assembly in 1974.
In other words, the democratic achievements that Israel’s advocates habitually cite, seem to adequately apply only to one of the communities that reside within the borders that the Israeli armed forces are responsible for. But there are even further implications. It is true that in Israel elections are conducted regularly and transparently. It is also true that despite the serious security threats that the country faces, Israel still opts for proportionate representation. Yet, parties run elections with lists, meaning that leaders practically choose who will follow them in the Kneset. But even after the election of the legislative body, it is not up for its members to decide on critical issues associated with the state’s security and defense. On the contrary, it is the prime minister and a limited cabinet of ministers that decide whether, for instance, there will be a major offensive in Gaza, or a complicated operation abroad. Moreover, in those closed meetings the political leadership takes seriously into account the reports and suggestions of the armed forces. The trust that the political elite bears for the military comes almost naturally since those institutions in Israel mirror a system of communicating vessels. This is the case because the promotions of top generals are discussed and signed by the political leadership which consists of many former high ranking officers who after the end of their military career embarked on politics.
Israel’s democratic deficit has yet to become profoundly clear and obvious because although the Knesset had not actually been consulted for most of Israel’s recent military campaigns and operations, its majority happened not to disagree with them. However, if one takes a closer look at the facts, he/she shall realise that there are no sufficient balances and checks in place to guarantee that the democratic order will be respected in a hypothetical reverse scenario. In other words, Kneset may have inadvertently reached the level of Kaizer’s Reichstag. It is worth reminding that in July 2017 the German parliament voted for a ceasefire and peace negotiations with Entente forces. Reichstag’s vote proved irrelevant since the generals, who in the meantime had become the true rulers of Germany, thought otherwise and thus light-heartedly binned the parliamentary motion.
Israel’s militaristic aspect did not take shape recently or overnight. On the contrary, it is a distinct part and a structural component of its identity. In this context, Benny Gantz hardly does something unprecedented or sails uncharted waters when he tries to capitilise politically on his military career. Apparently, he dreams to assume a high profile ministerial portfolio in exchange for a few thousand votes that he actually takes so much for granted so as not to put significant effort into addressing the Israeli public. It is quite probable that Gantz’s political ambitions began taking shape when he joined the military for he was witnessing who were ruling his country since its founding in 1948. Israel would have never made it to statehood had it not relied on arms. As a result many of its distinguished soldiers had an opportunity to make a name that paved the way for a successful political career. And perhaps here lies one of the main reasons why Israel could not follow a more peaceful track.
Therefore, figures like Dayan, Begin, Shamir, Rabin, Barak, and Sharon were destined to play leading roles in Israeli politics and decision making. Even Netanyahu might have not been able to secure his political ascent, had he not served for 5 years in an elite military unit. Similarly, the incumbent education minister Naftali Bennett who aspires to play a prominent role in the post-Netanyahu era, plays constantly the card of his military record. To be precise, in almost every interview he gives, he reminds the public of his role in ambiguous operations behind the enemy lines in Lebanon. Given how the rules of the political game are set in Israel, figures like Benny Gantz will always have the advantage over others. Yet, in the view of the freedom of speech and political activism that most of Israeli citizens enjoy, questions emerge regarding the responsibility that the Israeli society bears for the general direction that the country has been following. Τhe answer, albeit frustrating, is simple. The greatest share of responsibility for this “Governo Militare” in the Holy Land does actually fall on Israelis’ shoulders for the simple reason that change can only occur via and with them.
* Georgios Rigas holds a Ph.D. in Modern Middle Eastern History from the University of Edinburgh