This week, my colleague Odeh Bisharat scolded the organizers of the protest against the judicial overhaul for pouncing on issues they shouldn’t be dealing with.
He wrote: “The word ‘equality’ is almost sacrosanct. It is mentioned with great awe by philosophers, revolutionaries and intellectuals. But the Israeli protest movement is beating it with a brutal cudgel. In the name of equality, the protest is seeking to force an entire community to do something it doesn’t believe in … I don’t understand why the protest has to poke its nose into issues that aren’t central to its goals. The protest is supposed to focus solely on aspects of the legal overhaul. That’s why it was launched and why it swept up the masses.”
Bisharat’s barbs are aimed at the opposition to the conscription law, which, in his opinion, is likely to steal from the protest its original raison d’etre. That really is a weighty argument. According to it, the protest is “only” opposed to the symptoms and not to the essence, as though there’s a difference between the metastasis and the core of the illness. Is the conscription law, for example, a stepchild of the sacred value of equality, and should the government enable multiculturalism to determine the rules of the game, so that anyone whose religious and national values are violated by national service can receive an exemption? Where is the protest allowed to “poke its nose” and where should it remain indifferent?
It's only Bisharat who is making that claim, it’s a dilemma for many of the hundreds of thousands of protesters who make their way to Tel Aviv’s Kaplan Street and other points on a weekly basis. As though from now on they have to ask themselves – what should we demonstrate about this Saturday night?
Is the conscription law worth the effort? Does Minister Yitzhak Wasserlauf’s proposal to affirm that “Zionism” is the guiding value in the government’s activities – thereby granting the nation-state law sharpened fangs that would enable the government to implement an apartheid policy within the State of Israel – require a mass demonstration, or is it preferable to leave it to the “political dialogue”? Is forming a private militia under the command of a convicted felon a matter for a polite political discussion in the coalition, or is it part of the essence of the disease?
The dilemma is understandable, especially when the protest movement is still at the height of its power, and has ostensibly achieved a status where it can relax and ask itself whether it isn’t wasting its tremendous popular muscle, which was meant to thwart the doomsday threat, on secondary battles. From here it’s a short path to the conclusion that it’s better to wait with the protest until we see where the “consensus discussions” are heading.
And maybe we can just forget about it, since the Haredim are willing to postpone discussion of the conscription law to the next session of the Knesset, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is marketing a change in direction and promising that a “reform” as it was first presented won’t take place, in other words it will be amended, and that “with good will and a genuine willingness on the part of both sides we can reach these agreements.” And Wasserlauf’s law hasn’t crossed the starting line either.
But these aren’t signs of victory, and there’s no reason to assume that the coalition will retreat from its intention of completing the coup. It can postpone implementation of certain parts, compromise on marginal issues, give up several nutty initiatives by MKs, but its very survival depends on carrying out the upheaval. The protest cannot permit itself even a momentary letup. Nor does it need advice about whom to include and whom to distance. It’s not running for an election, and doesn’t have to behave like it has to sell subscriptions.
The fact that the Haredim are refraining from joining the right-wing protests is based on ideology, and no candies distributed at the protest demonstrations will cause them to set off for Kaplan Street. The Arabs, most of whom are ignoring the protest, see no point in a show that, even if it succeeds, would leave them in the same sad situation, at best. They want much more, and rightfully so. They want a historic correction. But if equality is a “sacred” value, isn’t it worth fighting for wherever it is being trampled, without worrying about losing customers?
Is Israel's Judicial Overhaul Protest 'Allowed' to Touch on Other Causes?
39
0
05.05.2023
This week, my colleague Odeh Bisharat scolded the organizers of the protest against the judicial overhaul for pouncing on issues they shouldn’t be dealing with.
He wrote: “The word ‘equality’ is almost sacrosanct. It is mentioned with great awe by philosophers, revolutionaries and intellectuals. But the Israeli protest movement is beating it with a brutal cudgel. In the name of equality, the protest is seeking to force an entire community to do something it doesn’t believe in … I don’t understand why the protest has to poke its nose into issues that aren’t central to its goals. The protest is supposed to focus solely on aspects of the legal overhaul. That’s why it was launched and why it swept up the masses.”
Bisharat’s barbs are aimed at the opposition to the conscription law, which, in his opinion, is likely to steal from the protest its original raison d’etre. That really is a weighty argument. According to it, the protest is “only” opposed to the symptoms and not to the essence, as though there’s a difference between the metastasis and the core of the illness. Is........
© Haaretz
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Andrew Mitrovica
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Marwan Bishara
Timotej Milanov
Tafi Mhaka
Grant Arthur Gochin
Ahmadi Ali
