Moderator: Adv. Col. (ret.) Pnina Sharvit Baruc
Dr. Aviad Bakshi | Dr. Yehuda Ben Meir | Ms. Sarah Haetzni-Cohen | Prof. Suzi Navot | Ms. Liat Schlezinger | Prof. Alexander Yakobson | Mr. Ben-Dror Yemini
The preservation of Israel's identity as a Jewish and democratic state is an important factor of its national security. There is a heated debate regarding the state of Israel's democracy. On the one hand the claim is made that there is a constant erosion of Israel's democratic foundations. On the other hand the claim is made that the democracy in Israel is as strong as ever and that the criticism stems from a political ideology that rejects the government's ideology. It is agreed that democracy depends on majority rule, but there is a dispute regarding the component of 'democratic values'- their meaning and their scope.
The panel dealt with four topics in this regard, and with steps taken by the current government in relation to these topics. The speakers weighed in on whether these steps threaten the Israeli democracy, or merely fulfill a legitimate political viewpoint.
The speakers: Dr. Yehuda Ben Meir (INSS); Dr. Aviad Bakshi (Kohelet Policy Forum); Ms. Sara Ha`etzni-Cohen (My Israel); Mr. Ben-Dror Yemini (Yediot Aharonot); Prof. Alexander Yakobson (The Hebrew University); Prof. Suzie Navot (College of Management); Ms. Liat Schlesinger (Molad).
The first topic: Balancing National Interests and Democratic values. The debate focused on the Nation-State Basic Law. It was argued that the law constitutionally anchors Israel as the national home of the Jewish people and does not affect the right to equality, which is already a part of Israeli law. The law is not anti-democratic since it does not take away any right from any person. On the other hand, it was argued that there is no other democratic state with a similar law anchoring its national character, without defining the national minorities' status as a part of the state. The law should be amended since it does not include equality, minorities or Israel's democratic character.
The second topic: Human Rights of Enemies/Foreigners. It was said that protection of the rights of foreigners and immigrants is a central element in Judaism and in the history of the Jewish people. Regarding the use of force against enemies, it was argued that deterring measures such as home demolitions against terrorists' family members preserve democracy by allowing fewer restrictions upon the uninvolved civilian population. Further, it was argued that today there is more restraint in the use of force than before. On the other hand, it was claimed that it is necessary to balance the need to fight terrorism with the need to preserve human rights. It was also claimed that arguments made in support of measures infringing human rights are not really motivated by security concerns but by sectorial political interests, while shifting the discourse away from substantial issues.
The third topic: The Independence of Gatekeepers and particularly the Supreme Court. The discussion revolved around steps such as the promotion of an override clause on Supreme Court rulings, political intervention in the appointment of judges, and strong criticism against the Supreme Court. On the one hand it was said that the notion that a group of judges protects democracy better than legislators has no basis and that there is a difference between the rule of law and the rule of judges. It was further noted that Israel is the only country in the world where a constitution was adopted by virtue of a Supreme Court decision, without a conscious decision by the legislative authority. Also, legal advisers' activism leads to an absurd situation where the government cannot express its position since it is bound by the legal adviser's position. On the other hand, it was said that the erosion of democracies is done slowly and gradually, in small steps, and only as time passes it becomes apparent that the state is not the same state. What is happening in Hungary and in Poland, where the governments are eroding the judicial organs, is an example. The Supreme Court allows curtailing human rights for appropriate purposes and in a proportionate manner. An override clause means that the Knesset will be able to adopt laws overriding Supreme Court decisions and impairing rights in a disproportionate manner. This could mean that the rights of each one of us will lose their protection from government arbitrariness.
The fourth topic: Freedom of Speech and Criticism. In discussing limitations on the entry to Israel, it was argued that such limitations upon hostile foreigners are not an Israeli invention. It is legitimate and legal to restrict actions that threaten the country. The restrictions on the establishment of mosques in Switzerland or on religious clothing in France can be taken as examples. States do not fund artists and bodies that attempt to subvert them. It is not an infringement of freedom of speech since the state is not obligated to fund such activity. On the other hand, it was argued that the current discourse in Israel is one of hatred and de-legitimization towards anyone who wishes to express criticism. Criticism weakens only the weak. Israel has a policy problem, not a "Hasbara" problem. A good Hasbara (propaganda campaign) cannot make up for a bad policy. Additionally, the internal disputes in Israel damage its national strength. It was further argued that even if it is legitimate to limit foreign funding of political activity, the limitations cannot apply only to foreign state funding (which usually goes to leftist organizations), while ignoring funding by foreign non-governmental organizations (which fund some of the right-wing organizations).
In conclusion, the chair of the panel, Col. (ret.) Adv. Pnina Sharvit Baruch, added that one should hope that the public debate regarding the Israeli democracy will continue to be conducted in a respectful, civilized manner as done in this panel, since such a debate in and of itself would improve the state of the Israeli democracy.