The Real Threat to Israeli Democracy

Last week the Israeli government took an extraordinary step. It announced that henceforth, "right-wing extremists" would be denied their rights under Israeli democracy to free speech, travel and other activities that might contribute to incitement of violence and cause damage to the Mideast "peace process." These measures have been justified by Prime Minister Shimon Peres as a necessary response to the assassination of his predecessor, Yitzhak Rabin — an act said to have been encouraged by descriptions of Mr. Rabin as a traitor and portrayals of him in a Nazi uniform.

Most modern democracies — including the United States — have had to wrestle in recent years with the delicate balance between respect for fundamental civil liberties and restraint of behavior inimical to a free society. In the wake of the Rabin murder, however, this always difficult task has been greatly complicated by the apparent intent of some influential figures in the government to secure partisan advantage by associating the mainstream opposition party, Likud, with odious extremist groups.

Following Mr. Rabin’s murder, a small fringe organization known as Eyal — with which the assassin, Yigal Amir, was affiliated — has become the most notorious of these groups. The founder and driving force behind Eyal is an individual named Avishai Raviv. Mr. Raviv was reportedly seen at a Likud demonstration brandishing the widely publicized picture of Mr. Rabin wearing an SS arm band. After the assassination, the police arrested Mr. Raviv, but released him a short time later. It turned out that he had been working for the Israeli intelligence service, Shin Bet.

In other words, a secret agent of the Israeli government was responsible for activities at an opposition rally that have subsequently been cited by Mr. Rabin’s widow and others to impugn its organizers. Could it be that Raviv’s heinous extremist provocations were actually part of an official but covert campaign of political dirty tricks, calculated to turn public sentiment against critics of the government’s peace policies?

It certainly fits the pattern of demonization practiced by Israeli government spokesmen since the murder. For example, in the course of an ABC News "Nightline" town meeting moderated by Ted Koppel and broadcast last week from Jerusalem, Haim Ramon — who has just been appointed Minister of the Interior — declared: "Maybe we can reach a consensus on some issues. But at the end of the dialogue, if we will not reach an agreement, we must agree on the one most important principle — that the majority will decide, a democratic majority, and everybody, everybody, will respect it. And that those that are not going to respect it, from now on, will be crushed."

Mr. Ramon suggested elsewhere in the program that, "We are talking about crushing, crushing unjust forces" — forces which evidently were not necessarily synonymous with the parliamentary opposition. Still, it is far from clear what the precise distinction would be between activities deemed disrespectful of the will of the majority — and therefore subject to "crushing" — and the legitimate dissent of elected members of the Knesset and other participants in a democratic debate. As a practical matter, the effect of the Israeli government’s new policy will probably be to discourage both.

This possibility is thoughtfully addressed in a column by Irving Moskowitz that appeared last week in the American Jewish press. To illustrate the problem, he cites several statements made by Yitzhak Rabin prior to his election as Israeli Prime Minister in 1992:

 

• On June 10, 1992, Mr. Rabin said, "Whoever considers going down from the Golan Heights jeopardizes and abandons the security of Israel." Would such a statement today be considered to constitute a prohibited incitement to violence?

 

• On the same day, Mr. Rabin declared, "Regarding the Golan Heights and regarding the Jordan Valley: These areas must be developed and given priority in terms of building and employment by Israelis over other areas in the state of Israel." Would these remarks be viewed as an effort to sabotage the peace process by promoting the development of areas beyond the 1967 borders?

 

• In 1985, Mr. Rabin responded to a proposal that a Mideast "peace" conference be convened under an "international umbrella" co-sponsored by the U.S. and the Soviet Union, by saying, "Whenever anyone mentions `umbrella’ it reminds me of Chamberlain and Munich." The Israeli government today considers references to past appeasement to be particularly inflammatory. Would a member of the Knesset be enjoined from paraphrasing Mr. Rabin in today’s context?

Such concerns are only intensified by Prime Minister Peres’s expressed determination to press for the most risky peace agreement of all — one achieved with Syria involving Israel’s surrender of the strategic Golan Heights. Prior to Mr. Rabin’s assassination, most Israelis shared his 1992 view that such a deal could "jeopardize and abandon the security of Israel." Indeed, so intense was the opposition that the late prime minister reportedly had given up trying to complete a deal with Syrian dictator Hafez Assad at least until after next year’s elections.

Mr. Peres, who has long attached the utmost importance to reaching a deal with Syria, apparently believes that the Rabin martyrdom affords him the political opportunity and capital needed to proceed. His government clearly understands, however, that to the extent legitimate opposition to and debate over his Golan initiative can be attenuated by portraying critics as "anti-democratic" and "extremists," the political risks associated with making major, controversial concessions of strategic territory can be minimized.

Mr. Rabin’s successor must resist the evident temptation to stifle informed, responsible debate — and to demean those whose opposing positions give rise to such debate. This point was eloquently made in a recent article in the New York Times by Israeli opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu: "The debate is between two mainstreams, not between the center and the fringes. It must be treated seriously and with full respect for the desire for peace of the adversaries. Democracy in Israel can survive the wrenching trauma of a horrible assassination; other democracies have. But it may not be able to survive the delegitimization of honest debate."

The decision to give up the strategic Golan Heights is Israel’s to make. It can only be hoped that such a momentous decision — if it is made — will be addressed and acted upon in a truly democratic fashion.

In that regard, both Israelis and friends of Israel abroad would be well advised to bear in mind a comment made in the course of the "Nightline" town meeting by an Israeli, Esther Wachsman, who lost a son to Hamas terrorists a year ago: "At this point, I think peace with our brothers is a mockery when there is no peace within our people. Democracy, as I studied it, means protecting minorities. It means listening with tolerance, with respect, to different and opposing views. It means not alienating and certainly not delegitimizing any member of the population."

Mr. Gaffney, who held senior positions in the Reagan Defense Department, is now director of the Center for Security Policy in Washington.