Before we ask ourselves “Who is right?”, We must ask ourselves a more basic question: “What is right?”.
The political right is a dichotomous creature that exists in a space between two central values: liberalism (in the classical sense of individual liberty) and nationalism.
Liberalism is a concept that sanctifies human freedom. To allow citizens to be as free as possible within the state, liberalism has brought into the world several principles that have become standard, at least in the West: individual liberties, economic freedom, equality before the law and several other ideas designed to limit the state’s power over its citizens.
Nationalism, on the other hand, is based on the freedom of individuals to unite, unite and live according to the dictates of their conscience and will. A community becomes a people and a people naturally strives for as wide an autonomy as possible. The people want to make decisions independently and not be subject to the decisions of other peoples or external bodies, similar to the individual’s desire for freedom. It is no coincidence that for most of history national patriotism has gone hand in hand with democracy and freedom.
Netanyahu to Bennett: “Commit to the government without Yair Lapid and without rotation”
Life in a liberal nation-state is supposed to exist on this tension between liberalism and nationalism. There are places where the freedoms of the individual are violated because of the needs of the nation and vice versa – places where the needs of the nation clash with the freedoms of the individual. The balance between these two poles is supposed to preserve constitutional democracy. Therefore, for a liberal nation-state to continue to exist optimally, it must have a constitutional democracy that will determine the limits of the state’s power. This is, by and large, the “right” – or more precisely Republican – model of state.
It now remains to examine Israel’s situation. Well – we may be a democracy, but we do not have a constitution. The few that exist – the Basic Laws – are a loose collection, depending on the interpretation of judges who hold an oligarchic ethos. The result is that both values are under attack: Israeli liberalism suffers from constant attrition on the part of bureaucrats and the arbitrariness of the “essential” interpretation. And nationalism is constantly attacked under the intervention of foreign countries and supranational organizations, which exploit fissures in Israeli society and access to bureaucracy to reap achievements.
In all the years of right-wing rule since 1977 has any significant step been taken by anyone to rectify this situation? The unfortunate answer is no. vice versa. The situation only got worse. One exceptional step, which is also in fact only declaratory, was the enactment of the Basic Law of Nationality. It can be said that today it is the line that separates right and left in Israel much more than the question of control over the territories of Judea and Samaria for example.
Ganz: “I will do everything I can to amend the Nationality Law” // Archive photo: Shmuel Buharis
But while the discourse on nationality is relatively present in the Israeli public, the discourse on the liberal aspect is almost non-existent. The vast majority of “right” representatives in the Knesset are completely ignorant of the theoretical foundations of their own political camp and adopt the ideology of the other side in everything related to the relationship between the individual and the state. In this they are quite similar to their voters, who are mostly familiar with socialism by default.
But elected officials also have a leadership role, and the fact that since 1977 right-wing leaders have failed to convey liberal messages to the general public and instill the values of freedom in the public is unbearable.
Strengthening social and economic liberalism can solve many of the problems in Israel. Economic liberalism has proven itself, including in Israel whenever it has been tried, as a promoter of prosperity for society as a whole. Social liberalism that will reduce state involvement in the private life of the citizen can neutralize much of our internal conflicts, especially in struggles between religious and secular.
The government should have as little foothold as possible when it comes to what we eat or smoke and with whom we choose to share our lives. A “right-wing” MK or minister must always ask himself where the government can intervene less, what law can be repealed, what tax can be reduced, what office or authority can be closed or privatized and what pressure group can be weakened for the benefit of all citizens.
Unfortunately, we have too few representatives who think this way in the Knesset and in the government. The right may be in power, but there are almost no right-wingers in power. There are mostly more national and less national socialists – but socialists. The right and the state deserve more than that.
Roi Idan is a screenwriter and media person