By Eva Illouz – Sociologist and publicist, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Translation: Prof. Oded Balaban

The word «lessons» is unpleasant. It hints that something went wrong, and yet expresses its hope that the flaw can be fixed if only we can understand it . Still, what are the lessons of the recent elections in Israel?

Before getting into the matter, one question must be answered, the answer to which will guide the lessons that can be drawn from the political earthquake that is taking place in Israel: were the elections a kind of «accident» caused by negligence, amateurism and the arrogance of the political leaders of the “ camp of change”, or do the results reflect an inevitable trend, which sooner or later would take over Israeli politics?

My answer to this question is: it is possible that the rise to power of the extreme right would have been postponed, if it were not for the amateurish leadership of the opposition. However, the election results stem from two things: a long-term strategy of the extreme right, which has been working vigorously for years to change the character of Israeli society from end to end; and the second are the demographic trends that seem, at least for the moment, irreversible (although we should always be careful with demographic projections, which are much more complex than they appear). Well, what are the lessons to be learned from the elections?

Lesson 1 : Similar to many examples of settler nationalism, the story of Zionism is the story of the force required to defeat an indigenous population. The history of Zionism is also the history of the mythification of this power. Israel is not similar to the settler colonialism of the United States or Australia, because the establishment of the state was really a matter of survival. Protestant sects fled to the American continent because of religious persecution, but this was in no way comparable in its depth and systematicity to the abominable persecutions of the Jewish people.

The traumas experienced by the Jews erased from consciousness the power and violence they used to build their state and their institutions. The violence that Zionism was forced to use was turned into beautiful stories, songs, music, dances, and promises of redemption and election of the people. But after the results of the last elections, it is no longer possible to cling to the same myths and beautiful stories. We have entered an era of disappointment, which makes us see reality in its nakedness, devoid of gods and myths, in all its cruelty. All left and right utopias and mythologies have disappeared and Zionist nationalism can no longer be a unifying goal. In particular, it will be difficult to continue clinging to the story of the beautiful story that held the nation together about Jewish democracy, a story that embodies the ideological contradiction at the founding of the Jewish state.

We have reached the moment of truth when the deceit in the history of Jewish democracy is revealed to us

Countless researchers, philosophers, politicians and jurists have defended the «happy marriage» of the religious state (or at least a state where religion is found in all its bureaucratic mechanisms) with a liberal democratic state, which by definition is obliged to represent all its citizens, Jews and non-Jews. A liberal-democratic state is not just a state where people vote in elections; it is above all a state that represents everyone, the majority and to the minority equally, and guarantees fair mechanisms in case of conflict between them. Liberal democracy and universalism are mutually necessary. But Israel’s identity definition prevailed from the beginning over its universal vocation. While for a long time it was possible to believe that a Jewish democracy was possible, today this naive belief is not possible.

The first to understand the truth are the 42% of the Jewish public in Israel, who responded in a 2021 Israel Democracy Institute poll that in their opinion, Jews in Israel should have more rights than non-Jews, thus stating who prefer to renounce democracy in favor of the Jewish character of the country. These people understand better than intellectuals and politicians that we cannot break the circle of “Jewish democracy”. We have reached the moment of truth when the deceit in the history of Jewish democracy is revealed to us.

Lesson 2 : Religion exercises power and political control in Israel, but the left treated it as if it belonged to a minority in need of protection, according to the American or European model. The liberal establishment (intellectuals, university professors, journalists, artists, employees of the justice system, etc.) acted as if we have a solid liberal constitution that distinguishes between religion and the state and needs to protect the sensibilities, worldviews and imperatives of the religious. Remember the endless debates about whether the ultra-Orthodox should be allowed gender segregation in universities. We also fully accept the situation in which ultra-Orthodox parties prohibit the participation of women in their ranks, on the grounds that a democratic society is tolerant of different beliefs.

The liberals did not understand what Karl Popper called the paradox of intolerance. In his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper writes that if a society is tolerant without limits, its ability to be tolerant is ultimately destroyed by the intolerant. Popper called this a paradox, because «in order to have a tolerant society, society must be intolerant of intolerance.» This must be done through criticism and discourse, not through censorship. However, Popper took reservations, arguing that in some cases, when intolerant doctrines reject rational discussion or self-examination, we should suppress them (Popper did not clearly explain how). The simple point is that even a tolerant society needs to draw its own red lines.

The liberal left in Israel tragically overlooked the importance of the presence and even control of religion in bureaucratic systems. Religion is perceived by many as corrupt (remember how former health minister Jacob Litzman defended Malka Leifer, accused of pedophilia), pantheistic (the adoption of biblical law in a modern society and the rejection of any modernization are reminiscent of Sharia law), greedy (Economists estimate that, given the current coalition deals, the ultra-Orthodox will receive around NIS 6 billion in government budgets, while secular Israelis will pay six times as much in taxes as they do) and lust for power (it controls the lives of seculars and wants even greater control, as evidenced by the fierceness of the forehead in handing over public school curricula to fanatic Abi Maoz).

The state of religion in Israel is not suitable for a «new nation», and is more similar to the state of France before the revolution, when the church enjoyed enormous economic and political privileges. As in pre-revolutionary France, we live under an almost feudal regime, where some of the religious orthodox benefit from taxpayers’ money, while at the same time the left deeply considers its feelings and rights. This situation demands that we return to the position of the Enlightenment and that we make a harsh criticism of religion. If religion demands supremacy — and there is no doubt that that is what the Jewish religion in Israel demands — we must criticize it as such.

Religion cannot be an ideology and a control structure and at the same time enjoy the rights of a minority religion, which must be protected and treated carefully according to the Western model. We have entered an era of political and religious disillusionment reminiscent of the struggles waged in the Enlightenment against the dark forces of the Church.

We have entered an era of disenchantment that makes us see reality in its depth. Zionist nationalism can no longer be a unifying goal

Lesson 3 : The failure of the Labor Party is not just the isolated failure of Merav Michaeli. The party has become irrelevant in Israeli politics in the past 20 years, when it stopped treating the occupation as the main issue threatening Israel’s image as a democracy and when it promoted leaders who were better suited to lead the right-wing camp than the left wing. The Labor Party died in an act of suicide. Its heart may still be beating, but its brain is dead. But the great irony is that the success of «religious Zionism» in the political arena marks its irruption at the head of the territories. The reality of the occupation is what gave growth and strength to the parties that came together under the title of «religious Zionism.» The magnitude of the historic failure of the Labor Party in choosing to ignore the occupation cannot be underestimated. We learned that the occupation is Israel’s key political issue, that it precedes any other issue, and that the historic left, Mapai’s successors, are so infected by and blind to the mistakes of the past, that they must get off the stage.

Lesson 4 : Since Shas first contested elections in 1984, parts of the Eastern public have enjoyed a sense of cultural pride and politics that said they were trying to better themselves. The liberal left did not fight for them but «left» them adrift in mikvahs , purification baths for women after impure menstruation, and synagogues. Shas was soon exposed as a populist and xenophobic party, while claiming to represent the Eastern public. Progressive elites (Mizrahim and Ashkenazim) failed miserably when they did not strive to promote a liberal and social democratic point of view among Mizrahim, as if progressivism belonged only to Ashkenazim. Whatever the new political movement, it must first and foremost appeal to the Mizrahim, and its mission is to show that the Mizrahim have much to gain from a strong democracy, both culturally and economically.

One wonders «What to do?», similar to the title of a pamphlet published by Vladimir Lenin in 1902. Religion enjoyed privileges in the post-Enlightenment era, while at the same time imposing an almost feudal regime. The time has come to criticize religion and the ways in which it corrupts sound political institutions and distorts rationality in public discourse. Our critique must focus on the institutional level (how much power does religion have?) and its content (does religion promote human values and respect freedom and reason?). This critique will help forge a strategic alliance between the laity and the many religious people who are uncomfortable with the extremist leadership that claims to speak for them.

I estimate that the number of religious critics who want change is far greater than it seems. Only such an alliance, in which secular and religious people respect each other, will help Judaism escape the extreme direction in which it is moving. Secular and religious must cooperate so that Judaism does not become a religion that resembles the most extreme factions of anti-modern religions. There is much in common between laymen and religious who do not believe that occupying territories and brutally controlling other peoples is a divine mandate. It is time to break down the fences that politicians have built between us.

In this sense, the current coalition is unknowingly doing a great service to Israeli liberalism, because it is helping to form a new camp that believes in democracy and humanist values. The party or movement that emerges from the ruins of the left must start without concessions from the imperative of humanism of Michel de Montaigne: «I recognize each person as a compatriot»; and Montesquieu’s statement that if a person is forced to choose between his country and humanity, he must choose humanity; or Kant’s recommendation to treat others as we want to be treated, not because God commands us to, but because we recognize the dignity of each person.

I believe we can form a broad coalition of religious and secular, Jewish and Arab, that will promote what Thomas Mann called in 1935 «militant humanism.» Such humanism would be a value that could unite around fighting persistently and uncompromisingly for human dignity, the values of peace and fraternity. And the other part can be left trying to hold that these are rude words.