|
Just make peace already and go away Many academics and intellectuals don't like Ehud Barak's attitude toward democracy and proper administrative procedure. But they are silent. By Lili Galili(Haaretz,21 August) Comments and remarks - the headlines over the last few weeks are full of them -- what he said, how this one reacted, what she declared. Every such statement feeds the public until the next new statement comes along. Some of them touch on the past, which an offhand remark transforms into a burning issue. Others focus on current events, which become irrelevant with dizzying speed. With this vigorous verbal backdrop, the silence of one population group is all the more thunderous: Academia has been totally silent about anything related to the prime minister's upholding of democracy and proper procedure.Large swaths of the population express displeasure with Prime Minister Ehud Barak's understanding of these two fundamental elements of a state's existence: his opponents speak of total destruction; his supporters refer to stretching to the limits of and walking a fine line between what is and what is not legitimate. All are disturbed by his mocking attitude toward the Knesset, which even if it is not particularly popular, is still considered the cornerstone of a democratic society. In the face of all this, academia and the intellectuals are silent. The answer to the question that has already become a cliche - "what would they do if it were Benjamin Netanyahu and not Barak" - is obvious. However, the prime minister now is Barak, who set out to bring peace, and it's as if emergency regulations had taken effect, and the voices of all the political science professors, legal scholars, sociologists, heads of university departments and research institutes who designated themselves the watchdogs of democracy have gone silent. Not only aren't they biting now, they're not even barking. Only behind the scenes, among themselves, do they very quietly talk about this silence of theirs, how confused and even embarrassed they are by it and occasionally, they will decide to say something "next time." This silence which is subordinating intellectual thinking to the desire to end the Israeli-Arab conflict, is one of the destructive results of the long occupation. "We definitely do not treat Barak the way we treated Bibi," says a well-known professor who is quoted here anonymously at his request, as are several others. In the past, this professor did not hold back his criticism of Netanyahu and any open microphone was a convenient venue for a sharp attack on the damage the former prime minister was inflicting on the foundations of democracy. He continues: "We're influenced by the fact that Barak is leading a process which we support. You really can't cut yourself off from your ideology. We are affected by an inner disquiet and constantly ask ourselves if this is an honest position or does the political aspect dominate our behavior. The answer to the question: what is intellectual honesty in this complex situation is not entirely clear; I have a problem knowing what the truth actually is in this situation." There is no love lost for Barak when academics identified with the left discuss him. There is a kind of instrumental approach to the prime minister who set out to implement at least one part of their agenda; it is the same instrumental approach that they accuse Barak of using in his attitude toward people. This attitude is expressed in an extreme form by Dr. Yossi Yona, a senior lecturer in political philosophy at Ben-Gurion University and a member of the Middle Eastern Democratic coalition. Prior to the last elections, Yona was a member of the team that advised Barak on social and educational issues. At the end of a long conversation last week, he said somewhat contradictorily: "Do you know what I really want? I want him to bring peace and then get out of my sight forever." Not exactly a manifesto of support for a leader, but certainly a fairly precise summary of a position also voiced by many others. "I might even vote for him again, albeit my attitude toward Barak is now devoid of any empathy," says Yona. "He misled me on all of the socio-economic issues and even if I don't think he is really harming democracy, he is definitely walking a fine line and rapidly approaching the red line. "But Barak came upon us with a political vision that I like and transformed Israeli discourse when he made also discussing the Jerusalem issue into a legitimate question. There's no doubt that if Bibi had done what Barak is doing, we would have turned the world upside down, but I admit that I have a hard time talking in Limor Livnat's voice. Now we are showing a forgiving attitude that is a result of support for his political agenda. I see reflected in this dilemma a sentiment of a camp caught up in a fierce battle between what is good and proper procedure. "The American philosopher John Rolles talks about the reciprocal relation between what is 'right' or 'correct,' which is procedure, and the 'good,' which is an ultimate goal or value that is striven for. Rolles gave an unequivocal answer advocating adherence to what is right. We on the left are caught in an intense conflict between the correct and the good; we have a moral preference for 'the correct,' but flirt with 'the good,' which is peace, out of a clear recognition that 'our good' is not common to all." The question of whether the end, as exalted as it may be, justifies the means also troubles another well-known professor, who spoke off the record. He is especially bothered by the fact that given the blurry outline of the new regime in Israel, which resulted from the direct election policy, the nature of the regime will be defined by the behavior patterns brought in by the prime minister operating within this system. In a kind of legal precedent, the prime minister's behavior determines the nature of the future regime and fashions its legislative practices. "In another generation, anyone writing about the Israeli regime will rely on what Barak is doing, starting with the enlargement of the cabinet and moving to the statement that 'The Knesset doesn't interest me.' These are exactly the kinds of things that are bad for democracy." After-the-fact advantage The professor is deliberating over the legitimacy Barak has to promote the peace process with a minority government and in the absence of a broad consensus. "There are some issues that in order to promote them, a leader almost always has to go beyond the social consensus. That is the case, for example, with human rights. Abolishing the death penalty has almost always been done contrary to broad public consensus. The question is, is peace one of those kind of things? Is it close enough to human rights issues, regarding which a leader does not reflect current public opinion, but goes beyond it? I don't have a clear answer to that. I admit, that even the fact that the agreement is to be presented to the people to decide on, it doesn't neutralize the democratic problem that was created. There is after all a clear advantage for someone who comes with an agreement, and it is not at all clear that a democratic decision at the end fixes the democratic problem that occurred along the way." The professor cited another, surprising reason for the silence or even the failure to discuss the issues publicly: "I have no doubt that there are quite a few psychos on the fringes of the right who are capable of violence. When someone like me gets up and says that the legitimacy of Barak's actions is questionable, am I not putting a bullet into the chamber?" The political arena is therefore such that there is constant capitulation of and tension on the rules of the democratic game and proper procedure beneath a veil of silence by consent. Everyone agrees that a war situation justifies the imposition of emergency regulations, which push aside democracy; the question is, does a fight for peace as well as for the secular revolution, also justify this type of "emergency regulations"? Some academics answer this question with a hesitant yes, arguing that the big picture justifies changes and a different perception of what is right in terms of the regime; others say no, but unequivocally state that the government may rule as long as it has not been brought down, both formally and qualitatively. "I certainly don't think the end justifies the means," says Ze'ev Sternhell, a professor of political science at the Hebrew University and an ardent Barak supporter. "Barak's scorn for the Knesset or the attempt to bypass [it] is an unacceptable approach. Barak, who has chosen in a direct election, can take advantage of the tools provided by this method and in effect do the same thing he is doing without mocking the parliament. I have a feeling that he isn't so much denigrating the Knesset as an institution as denigrating the personalities who comprise the Knesset, out of a deep disgust for political life, which in his eyes [is] synonymous with partisan life, which to him is another word for dirt. But party politics is the heart of democracy and Barak doesn't understand that." On the other hand, Sternhell is unequivocal in his position that there is no doubt about Barak's legitimacy to continue working toward a peace agreement with a minority government and on the basis of the assumption that he derives legitimacy from the public that elected him, even though the election was based on other data. "Rabin also wasn't elected to arrange Oslo, which was essentially a quick operation," says Sternhell. "De Gaulle also wasn't elected to withdraw from Algeria." Barak's problem is more one of style than of content, he says. Sternhell, unlike many others, actually likes the new Barak more than the Barak he voted for. "I have a sort of weakness for him," he says, "I prefer him the way he is now over the way he was a year-and-a-half ago. He appeals to me more now, because he is trying to alter a bad reality and achieve something big. The method or means used by Barak until now don't really threaten the foundations of government. He isn't hurting the rule of law or threatening the attorney general. If peace comes at the expense of norms and regulations of government and law, I say 'no' to that kind of peace. So far, that hasn't happened. What I would like to see is him softening up his working style. In my opinion, he is simply someone for whom everything in life went easy, who never failed. He is a spoiled person. Life pampered him and he needs himself more than he needs others." The last time Israeli academia reacted in full force was when a group of professors called for a boycott of Netanyahu's attendance as prime minister at the Hebrew University graduation ceremony in 1997. Today, some say with a sad smile that Barak isn't even looking in the direction of academia. The last time a formal organized meeting between Barak and academicians was scheduled to take place was when he was invited three months ago to a discussion at the Israel Democracy Institute. The professors did show up; Barak canceled his attendance after everyone was already seated. Some say that this complex relationship is a result of the lack of a tradition of discourse between academia and the Israeli administration; it is possible that it is just a matter of mutual disrespect that is enlisted for common political purposes. One of the problems resulting from the current silence is its future impact. The academia that is now suffering in silence is losing the moral basis for it to level any criticism against a right-wing prime minister. |
The Case Agianst Israel's Enemies by Alan Dershowitz 
Coming from England and particularly from the BBC, MUST BE SEEN VIDEO! ANOTHER MUST SEE VIDEO |