At first glance, the protests against the government’s judicial overhaul plan had nothing to do with the occupation. Anyone who dared to criticize the protests for ignoring the occupation was told, “Not now!”
Nevertheless, the unspoken motivation driving the architects and supporters of the “reform,” as well as the protest leaders, is umbilically connected to the occupation, and above all to the diplomatic horizon that each side envisions. Question: Are there any supporters of a two-state solution among the people pushing the legal overhaul?
Whenever the country’s two political blocs have met in the streets, it has always been about a diplomatic issue (the Oslo Accords, the disengagement from the Gaza Strip). Even though today, we’re ostensibly talking about changes to the judicial system and the correct balance between the different branches of government, what the government is actually doing – and this is the ideological battle that’s taking place beneath the stated dispute – is reforming or reversing Israel’s diplomatic horizon with regard to “the territories.”
Until now, the default diplomatic option for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the two-state solution. That doesn’t mean we made progress toward it in practice, and certainly not during the years when Benjamin Netanyahu has been prime minister. But that was the only solution we argued about. The pros and antis were for or against the two-state solution.
Netanyahu separated this vision from actual policy. He maintained the two-state vision, but didn’t lift a finger to achieve it, “because of the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize the Jewish state.”
Nevertheless, during all Netanyahu’s years in power, the default diplomatic option remained the two-state solution. “I haven’t changed my views, we want two states living in peace with suitable security arrangements,” he said repeatedly.
Most Israelis identified with the following position: Israel wants peace, and isn’t to blame for the continuance of the occupation, and so the occupation continues because the Palestinians don’t want peace.
Most of the public rejected all the bad intentions ascribed to Israel – colonialism, imperialism, racism and apartheid – as lies and defamation. We’re willing, but the Arabs don’t want to, Israelis said. From the start, they rejected the Partition Plan. If it depended solely on us, there would be peace.
That’s also what enabled most Israelis to continue identifying with the state and enlisting in the military and maintaining an ethos of sacrifice, despite the decades of occupation. We’re the good guys, we’re willing to compromise. And that’s what explains the bizarre phenomenon of generals of the occupation opposing the occupation.
Public discourse never devotes even one word to the occupation, but the occupation is at the heart of the dispute. The true reform sought by this “fully right-wing” government is reversing the diplomatic horizon.
There will be no more two-state solution, and there will be no territorial compromises. The new diplomatic horizon will be a single state, with the Palestinians as subjects deprived of citizenship. One state with two legal systems. Apartheid. Jewish supremacy.
If the argument were solely about the system of appointing judges or a law enabling the Knesset to override Supreme Court rulings, it wouldn’t have torn the country apart, dragged the public into the streets and shattered the taboo on refusing to do military service. It would have been just like when we switched to directly electing the prime minister and then returned to the old system, just like when we raised or lowered the electoral threshold, just like the last time we changed the Judicial Appointments Committee’s composition. The opposition is to a change in Israel’s intentions.
The “refuseniks” aren’t refusing to carry out any specific military mission. Rather, they are refusing to serve a country that is turning its back on peace and compromise and walking with head held high toward apartheid – not due to the temporary infeasibility of a diplomatic agreement (as most Israelis believe), but due to a vision of Jewish supremacy.
It’s one thing to serve a country that’s mired in an occupation from which it hasn’t managed to free itself and therefore maintains a de facto apartheid situation. It’s quite another thing to serve a country that has apartheid as its vision.
Enshrining Jewish Supremacy Is the Real Reform of This Israeli Government
24
2
31.03.2023
At first glance, the protests against the government’s judicial overhaul plan had nothing to do with the occupation. Anyone who dared to criticize the protests for ignoring the occupation was told, “Not now!”
Nevertheless, the unspoken motivation driving the architects and supporters of the “reform,” as well as the protest leaders, is umbilically connected to the occupation, and above all to the diplomatic horizon that each side envisions. Question: Are there any supporters of a two-state solution among the people pushing the legal overhaul?
Whenever the country’s two political blocs have met in the streets, it has always been about a diplomatic issue (the Oslo Accords, the disengagement from the Gaza Strip). Even though today, we’re ostensibly talking about changes to the judicial system and the correct balance between the different branches of government, what the government is actually doing – and this is the ideological battle that’s taking place beneath the stated dispute – is reforming or reversing Israel’s diplomatic horizon with regard to “the........
© Haaretz
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Andrew Mitrovica
Grant Arthur Gochin
Mort Laitner
Gideon Levy
Priyamvada Gopal
Poonam Muttreja
Patrick Gathara
Obaid Mir
Zaher Sahloul
