A strategic analysis of issues relating to national security requires a consideration of the internal disputes in Israeli society. It appears that many of the more fundamental conflicts are linked to matters that affect national security. In this panel we focused on these conflicts among the Israeli Jewish public. We examined the link between them and the different concepts of the values underlying the State, particularly over the meaning of its definition as a "Jewish and democratic" state and the place of liberal values, and we tried to determine how a balance can be found between competing values. We ended with a review of the significance and implications of the issues affecting national security, with recommendations for the future.
Adv. Col. (res.) Pnina Sharvit Baruch: This panel was based on an article co-authored with Dr. Zipi Israeli. We focused on four main points of contention: 1. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict; 2. the relationship of the state to the Arab minority; 3. the relationship to the enemy; 4. the position of religion in the state.
Prof. Asher Cohen, head of Communications at Bar Ilan University and head of the Institute for Zionist Strategy, argued that Israeli society is made up of those who champion single values or those with multiple values, such as Zionism, Judaism, and democracy. Those that champion single values win the media over those that promote multiple values. It is always the extremists who get the headlines. These values reverberate much stronger, but they do not reflect our society. If the majority of the people maintain multiple values, then we can retain this country.
Prof. Sammy Smooha, professor emeritus and Israel Prize laureate, stated that the Jewish and democratic state does not meet the needs of the Arab minority. In the current formula, the meaning of the Jewish state is that Israel is the state of the Jewish people alone. It is based on exclusion. It could be a state of the Jewish people and all its citizens. This formula does not turn Israel into a binational state, as the Law of Return would remain in place and the state would retain its Jewish majority. A more serious problem is the democratic state. Democracy is the main factor why the Arab minority observes the law. It is vital for the state to foster democracy if it wishes to maintain stability within the state. He warned that the government has stopped the process of democratization since 2009, and that the state of Israel is on a slippery slope, which could lead to a severe conflict between Jews and Arabs in Israel.
Maj. Gen. (ret.) Hagi Topolansky in relating to the attitude toward the enemy and maintaining military ethics, Topolansky stated that the IDF needs support so it can do its mission without fear. In reference to the case of Elor Azariya, an IDF soldier who shot and killed a terrorist after he had been already neutralized, we should not support crimes within the IDF, and the IDF must differentiate between mistakes and crimes. He further argued that the IDF must be allowed to be independent from the political echelon and that the army must remain an army of the people, which belongs to everyone, and everyone should be recruited. Finally, the IDF must be transparent.
Prof. Daniel Friedmann, Tel Aviv University and Israel Prize laureate, and former minister of justice, addressed the place of the High Court of Justice, and outlined its changing position since 1948. For the first 35 years, the court emphasized liberalism, and then from the 1980s until 2012 or so, it assumed a harsh view toward liberal values, and overturned previous verdicts. Since 2012, the court has been in between the two extremes of liberalism and nationalism and has been extremely considerate of the nationalist aspect. The strength of the court is quite limited, for example, it had no impact on the settlement enterprise.
Ms. Polly Bronstein, founder of Darkenu and former CEO of One Voice, stated that Israeli society does not appreciate pragmatism and moderation enough, and that we need to appreciate a leader who compromises. She later noted that the issue today is not the two-state solution and managing the conflict, but rather it is about separation or annexation of Judea and Samaria. The majority is opposed to annexation.
Khader Sawead, INSS respondent, stated that he is concerned by an extremist trend among the younger generation, which challenges the state and challenges the collective identify. He is also concerned about the weakening and/or halting of the Israelization among the Arabs in Israel.
Dr. Carmit Padan, INSS respondent, stated in response to Toplonsky, that in the case of Elor Azarya, outside factors intervened, which ran counter to the norms of the army. The army needs to stand firm against those who try to intervene.
Ms. Kim Lavi, INSS respondent, answered in response to Prof. Cohen, that the Palestinian issue is where the struggle for liberal-democratic values has come to light, with the government’s ideology of Greater Israel in collusion with the values of democracy. This has implications for human rights. She suggested that our Jewish identity is inherent and should not be seen as a value.
Dr. Kobi Michael, INSS respondent, responded that Israel can respect religious values and be pluralistic at the same time. The problem is extremism. He also stated that to allow the army to run its own affairs would be a grave error, and that the state has a responsibility toward it.