Feb 18, 2005 – It's been about a year since Ariel Sharon first floated his plan to move 8,000 Israelis out of the communities in and around the Gaza Strip. Since then, the positions on both sides of the issue have hardened, and the loudest participants in the debate come naturally from the most adamant proponents of each side. Meanwhile, the majority of Israelis who vote, serve and bear the burden of the state's decisions remain in the middle and will probably in some fashion decide the issue.
It is the nature of groups on the fringe though, to try and manipulate the process: the strongest proponents of a point of view always claim that their position and only their position is the right one. When an issue becomes overriding for a specific constituency, there is a tendency in Israel and elsewhere to subvert the democratic process to gain any advantage for that point of view. We saw this when Oslo was presented to the voters as a fait accompli in 1993 and we see this playing out today in tactics being used in the debate over Gaza.
On the right, the insistence to not give an inch of land has taken precedence over all strategic and tactical considerations for the State. On the left, the permanent obsession with "settlers" and "settlements" clouds all other judgment. Both orthodoxies have never earned a clear or enduring electoral majority from Israeli voters and if an election were held today, they wouldn't win over the middle either. In the absence of a majority, factions consumed by this issue are subordinating the well being of Israel's democracy to their point of view and putting the country at risk. They do this when they emphasize the importance of their perspective and the imperfections of Israel's democracy.
Yes, Israel's democracy isn't perfect, but there is no such thing as a perfect democracy. Ideally, it is a living and breathing organism that constantly strives to be better. It is clear though, that no matter how perfect or imperfect her democracy is, Israel would be better off if her factions worked within the context of the democracy they have rather than trying to go around it. A reasonable civil discourse is the first step to making this happen.
The insistent demonization of one side by the other has to stop. The constant maligning by the left of "settlers" and "settlements" and by the right of Ariel Sharon and his perceived motives clouds and confuses this issue. A reasonable right would do better using its electoral muscle on things like support for Israel's population centers beyond the green line and populating the Golan rather than defining government policy as criminal. A constructive left would better serve the country and its cause by solidifying public opinion for its two-state solution inside Israel instead of spending much time demeaning Israel on the international stage.
Both sides in this controversy claim that they are in the right, but holding the country together isn't as much about right or wrong as it is about maintaining policies that the polity will fully support. It is more important for a country's survival to have the support of its people than to always choose the best policy from the options available. There often aren't good choices and much that is perfect only makes itself known in hindsight. States that thrive do so because they retain the allegiance of their citizens. They don't when their people lose faith in them.
We still favor a referendum on this issue, but even without it, a way has to be found for the middle to speak and for both the left and right to rein in their passions and temper their stridency for the sake of the country's survival.
–nrg