I’ve lost track of the Israeli news lately, but it appears that Donald the Savior has not made the grand appearance, nor fulfilled the promises attributed to him by the far right in Israel, and thus the end of Netanyahu appears to be on the horizon – and that horizon may not be far away. Akiva Eldar of AL Monitor is clearly relieved to see him go, but is concerned about what he’s leaving behind:
Even if Netanyahu wakes up tomorrow morning with a song of peace on his lips, he would likely be unable to uproot the Israeli hatred, fear and mistrust toward the Palestinians that he has nurtured for eight years. The Aug. 2 Peace Index, the periodic survey conducted by Tel Aviv University and the Israel Democracy Institute, provides cutting proof. It indicates that a sizable majority (77%) of Israeli Jews do not believe there is a connection between the current wave of terror attacks and Palestinian despair over the impasse in talks on a peace agreement. Under Netanyahu’s rule and with his encouragement, more than 70% of Israel’s Jews support Netanyahu’s proposal to execute the terrorist who stabbed to death three family members in the settlement of Halamish on July 21. About two-thirds of respondents support the death penalty for murderers of Israeli soldiers.
When Netanyahu disappears from public view, he will leave behind a scorched democracy. With his unusual gift for demagogic rhetoric, Netanyahu has managed to destroy everything that’s good about the system of checks and balances in Israeli society. Channel 10 poll results aired on Aug. 6 (after recent publications about Netanyahu’s criminal investigation) show the Likud running well ahead of all other parties, reflecting the extent to which Netanyahu has managed to undermine public trust in law enforcement. His systematic reiteration of the lie that police investigators and state prosecutors, and of course “leftist” journalists, are “hunters” who only want to unseat an incumbent prime minister has clearly reached broad swathes of the public. But these people ignore the ridiculousness of this claim: Israel’s attorney general and police chief were both appointed on Netanyahu’s recommendations.
From what Akiva says in the article, as well as what I’ve read over the years, it seems every time the Prime Minister was faced with a choice between advancing the cause of peace for Israel, or destroying a political opponent or otherwise advance his own personal survival in the political arena, he picked the latter, gambling that Israel could continue to survive using force and the formidable backing of the United States, rather than negotiating for long-standing peace with neighbors. Because of these choices, we see an Israel with a poor international reputation borne of their own choices, rather than propaganda of enemies. Would the modern founders of Israel, Ben-Gurion and all the others, be proud of what Netanyahu has wrought, between the corruption investigations engulfing his family and the dubious position of Israel?
But can he serve as a personal example to the Americans and their choice of Trump? There is little evidence that Trump is willing to make sacrifices to safeguard the United States; rather, he and his family appear to be using the office of the President for pecuniary gain, and his management of the American government has been marked by chaos, mendacity, and a careless lack of nominations to important positions throughout the government.
The problem in using the Prime Minister as an instructive example is the distance of Israel from the United States. If Israeli democracy were to collapse tomorrow, I doubt a majority of Americans would do more than shake their heads and then wonder just where the hell Saudi Arabia or Iran is in relation to Israel.
Just as importantly, though, is the current era’s distrust of expertise in combination with the many defenders Netanyahu will retain even as he goes down in flames. Much like the United States, as a democracy the final responsibility for the choice of leadership lies with the people. If a substantial percentage of the people refuse to consider seriously the advice of experts, of people who have studied subjects for decades, then how can a credible examination of the failure, near or total, of the Israeli democracy take place, and the necessary lessons be learned? The cacophony of voices enabled by the Web makes it that much harder, as Joe Blow, a guy with a grudge, an elegant voice, and little else can go head to head with former ambassadors to Israel. Sounds like a blowout? All it takes is an ambassador who understands the nuances of the issues to attempt to convey them, and the audience will reject the expert in favor of Joe Blow. Because Joe makes it sound simple and easy.
But as H. L. Mencken pointed out long ago …
… there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.
And that’s why we have experts, experts who can avoid that little sand trap on the way to the goal. But I fear experts in such soft subjects as diplomacy and international relations may not find their services desired for a little while, until the people find their fingers burned, their children dead, and their taxes raised to pay for some fool leader’s easy little war. And all for the same reason – because the Party winning, or even some individual winning, was far more important than securing the future of Israel.
Or the United States.
