John Donvan:

Hi, everybody, and welcome to Open To Debate. I’m John Donvan, with a debate that revolves around a political furor that is currently unfolding in Israel. You know, I spent a fair amount of time in Israel having lived there and covered the country as a journalist, and- and one thing that was true back during my day, and pretty much any time during Israel’s 75 year history, there always seems to be some sort of crisis going on, military or economic or social. The current crisis however is arguably unprecedented. It’s one that has brought week after week of truly massive protests, they’ve been unprecedented in passion and size, measured in the hundreds of thousands of Israelis taking to the street, usually at night. A crisis seen by many to mark a true crossroads moment for Israel, and whose resolution will stamp Israel as one kind of a country or the other for a long time to come.

Now, just a little bit of background to this moment. Israel’s current government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, represents an alliance of several parties from the right to the far right of Israel’s political spectrum. They have a slim majority in the parliament, the Knesset, 64 seats out of 120, and back in January, the government proposed a set of reforms that will give whoever controls the Knesset, which namely would be themselves right now, the power to overrule decisions made by Israel’s Supreme Court, and much more influence in appointing justices to the court. So, that sounds narrow and technical, and in a certain sense it is, but that is what has brought people to the streets, most in opposition, but there have also been rallies in support as well.

Because it’s far more than a technical matter. Something a lot bigger is at stake for Israel, and it’s why we’re asking the question, is Netanyahu’s government headed in the wrong direction? Let’s meet the debaters who come to us with opposing answers to that question, here to answer yes, president of J Street and executive director of JStreetPAC, Jeremy Ben-Ami. Welcome, Jeremy, to Open To Debate.

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

Thanks so much, John, really looking forward to this.

John Donvan:

And answering no to the question is Netanyahu’s government headed in the wrong direction, the senior editor for Jewish News Syndicate, a columnist for Newsweek, and host of The Caroline Glick Show, Caroline Glick. Thanks so much for joining us, Caroline.

Caroline Glick:

Oh, it’s great to be on your program.

John Donvan:

So, um, we want to get to your opening arguments in just a moment, but first we wanted to understand from each of you where your passion for this argument comes from, what are the stakes for you? Jeremy, why don’t you go first.

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

For me, my passion comes from the fact that my great grandparents were in the First Aliyah in the 1880s, they helped found [inaudible

], my grandparents founded Tel Aviv, my father was in the Irgun fighting for independence, and I have an extended family of hundreds of cousins. And I’ve lived in Israel, it’s a- a deeply personal, uh, and historic and familial connection, and I think that’s the case for the overwhelming majority of Jews all around the world, even those who don’t live there.

John Donvan:

Thanks very much, Jeremy. Um, and Caroline, what about you, where is your passion fr- from, and what are the stakes for you in this debate?

Caroline Glick:

Uh, I think the- the, uh, the stakes for me and for my fellow Israelis are, uh, you know, wh- what, uh- what the future is going to hold for our country, for our children, for our people, for the Jewish people throughout the world. So, obviously, you know, our stake here is existential, it’s our lives, so while everything seems like it’s a fateful moment in Israeli history, and to a degree, it really is, I think that we have to understand that, uh, the wiser we are, the stronger we are, the more committed we are to our country, to our people, to our destiny as Jews here in the land of Israel and throughout the world, uh, the more certain and confident we can be that, uh, we’re going to be moving both cautiously and boldly, uh, at this juncture in our- in our lives and- and into the future.

John Donvan:

Uh, let’s get onto our opening statements. We want to give each of you three to four minutes to explain your position. Jeremy, again, you’re up first, and, again, your answer is yes in answer to the question is Netanyahu’s government headed in the wrong direction? Tell us why.

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

This government of Netanyahu is leading what I will call two revolutions, uh, that I see as deeply harmful to the State of Israel and to its future, and setting the course, uh, for the next phase of the country’s history. The first revolution is this effort that you’ve already introduced to remake the very foundations of Israel’s forms of government, how its laws our made, how its judges are picked, the independence of its judiciary, the rule of law, uh, checks and balances between branches of government, how minority populations are protected.

None of this, uh, is enshrined, uh, in any constitutional framework, and now we’ve reached this, uh- this fork in the road, and- and this revolution, uh, that the government is leading, uh, is to take a country that was founded as a liberal democracy, uh, and one that has prided itself on being the only democracy in the Middle East, and to take that country and make it far more illiberal, far more autocratic, and- and far more ethnonationalist. So, that’s one revolution.

The other revolution is around the borders of the country, which actually, at this point in time, don’t exist. Uh, the- the goal of this government, which is enshrined in the very first paragraph of the coalition agreement forming the government, uh, is to extend exclusive Jewish sovereignty over the whole of the land of Israel. Uh, ’til now, uh, the international understanding, uh, has been, and it’s been shared by most governments of Israel, uh, that Israel occupied land, uh, in 1967 over what had been an armistice line called The Green Line, uh, after the six day war, uh, and that land was temporarily occupied.

Uh, the thinking has always been, uh, that that land would eventually become, through nev- negotiations, a Palestinian state, uh, where the Palestinian people who also live in this exact same land could build their future, uh, and exercise their right, uh, to self determination. And, uh, the- the government under Netanyahu now wants to extend sovereignty to the entirety of the land and foreclose the possibility of Palestinian statehood. By looking to both change the form of Israel’s government and to extent its borders from the river to the sea, uh, this government is choosing a road after 75 years of Israeli independence that means three things.

Uh, one, uh, Israel will remain in a permanent state of conflict with the Palestinian people. It will never achieve, uh, the dream that I think we all share of fully normalized relations with all the neighbors. Uh, and it will never have borders, uh, that the rest of the world will recognize. Second, by denying the millions of Palestinians who do live in the land under its control equal and full political rights, Israel’s choosing to overlook the moral lessons, uh, the Jewish people learned about how you treat other people, uh, because they themselves, the Jewish people, lived for millennia as oppressed people in the lands of others without rights, and now the State of Israel looks poised to do that to another people.

Third and finally, uh, with, uh, the government, with its judicial overhaul and other proposals, is moving Israel away from the global camp of liberal democracies, precisely when our own President here in the United States, Joe Biden, has made clear we’re in an epic struggle between democracy and autocracy globally, and by choosing the illiberal path, the Netanyahu government is moving Israel away from the values that undergird its alliance, not just with the US, but with the liberal democratic camp more broadly.

There is another path, uh, one that strengthens democracy, ends occupation, allows Palestinians, as well as Jews, freedom and self determination, and it would plant Israel firmly in the camp of global democracy. That’s the right direction for the State of Israel, and unfortunately and instead, uh, Prime Minister Netanyahu and a government that’s made up of some religious zealots and ethonationalists and racists, uh, whose values run counter to all that I have been taught, uh, is best about the Jewish tradition, instead that government is leading the State of Israel in precisely the wrong direction.

John Donvan:

Thank you very much, Jeremy. Um, Caroline Glick, your answer to the question is clearly no, you’re saying that, uh, Netanyahu’s government is not leading Israel in the wrong direction, tell us why.

Caroline Glick:

First of all, we have to assess where we are. Uh, Israel at 75 is a great success by every measure. Um, it’s true that we’re presented with severe challenges. My conviction that the Netanyahu government is the best possible government to face the challenges and to mount the challenges that we face today. The first challenge of course is the challenge that Iran poses to Israel. We’re facing a challenge both conventional and nuclear from Iran, um, and here too this is the best government, uh, that we could possibly have to deal with that.

We face a challenge of rising global antisemitism, the effort to claim that the Jews have no right to national self determination, that Zionism, our national liberation organization and movement, is a form of racism. We heard echos of that in what, uh, Jeremy Ben-Ami said when he referred to ethnonationalism. Um, and our previous government, which was a leftist government, uh, was, uh, i- i- found it impossible to contend with rising antisemitism from the left, and this government on the other hand is fully capable of- of meeting that challenge.

We of course have a challenging environment, uh- economic environment, as everybody else does, as we’re facing a, uh, global recession, uh, because of the Ukraine war and because of supply chain problems that were induced by COVID. Um, and we need somebody who understands markets and is- and, uh, the dangers of excessive regulation and the importance of domestic economic growth, and nobody in Israel has proven, uh, his economic bona fides better than Prime Minister Netanyahu.

And finally, you know, we have the issue of defending and strengthening our democratic institutions, our parliament and our government, and the left in Israel, and their supporters in the- in the progressive left in the United States, um, have been furiously battling the concept that Israel’s democratic institutions should be allowed to work. Uh, the left is working to expand instead the unlimited power of our judges to rule the country from the bench in a form of judicial tyranny that has no equal anywhere in the free world. We elected a government committed to fixing the situation and restoring checks and balances, uh, to our three branches of government. And, yeah, we’re facing unrest in the streets, as you mentioned, John, but, uh, this is the government that can face this problem better than any other.

And finally, and related to the Palestinian conflict over the past 40 years or so, a consensus has been reached among the Israeli public not only on the right but also in the center and the left, uh, there’s a general understanding that there’s only one stable solution to the Palestinian conflict with Israel, um, and that’s the, uh, solution put forth by the late, uh, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in his final address before the Knesset in October, 1995, before- just weeks before he was assassinated. And he talked about the formation of something less than a Pales- a fully sovereign Palestinian state in Judean Sumerian Gaza.

We made a mistake 30 years ago, we agreed to try to work out the conflict with the PLO, but the PLO is an organization, a terrorist organization, that defines itself by the rejection of Israel’s right to exist. But, uh, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, the leader of the PLO, Mahmoud Abbas, is old and he’s sick, and his days, by all counts, are numbered. And we’ll have to see what happens after he passes and what sort of new Palestinian leadership will emerge, and until that happens, Israel is going to continue to be challenged. Um, and so I think in all of these actions, we have the best government for the moment, thank you.

John Donvan:

All right, Jeremy and Caroline, thank you very much. On the question is Netanyahu’s government headed in the wrong direction, we are going to talk. We’ll be back right after this.

Welcome back to Open To Debate, I’m John Donvan.

Caroline Glick:

[foreign language

].

John Donvan:

A speaker at a recent rally in support of the reforms that the Netanyahu government is working to push through speaking in front of a large crowd at night in Jerusalem, and who wrapped up by saying, “As it is written in our declaration of independence, here on the land of our forefathers, the Jewish people will determine its destiny, thank you, thank you and goodnight.” In fact, the speaker at that rally is one of our guests in this debate, Caroline Glick. She and Jeremy Ben-Ami are answering in the opposite our question, is Netanyahu’s Israel headed in the wrong direction? We just heard opening statements from Jeremy and from Caroline, let’s move onto our discussion.

So, I- I heard the thrust of several arguments made there. Jeremy, the thrust of your argument is that Netanyahu’s government is, on the one hand, making Israel less of a small L liberal democratic government, and I think you’re saying kind of condemning Israel to a future that- that would be eternal strife and war and borderlessness, and non-acceptance in the global community. Caroline, you’re making the opposing argument, that Netanyahu is good for Israel’s economy, Netanyahu is good for Israel’s security, and that the issue of democracy has a pushback argument. I- I want to start with that discussion about the State of Israel’s democracy, in part because these rallies are prompted by- by, uh, this- these- these efforts to, uh, change the way that, uh, the- the Supreme Court of Israel, uh, influences decision making there and policy.

Um, and that goes to the issue of democracy, and while it’s quite technical and I don’t want to spend a lot of time in it, I just want to help our audience understand what is going on with that. So, Caroline, what are these judicial reforms about? Why were they proposed?

Caroline Glick:

Why are they… Why are they under discussion? Well, they’ve been under discussion, we have to realize this, for- for many, many years, since the 1990s, when then, uh, S- Supreme Court President, Aharon Barak, enacted what he referred to as a judicial revolution. The Supreme Court arrogated for itself the power to, uh, cancel, abrogate, uh, duly legislated laws and the, uh, duly promulgated laws by the Knesset, and then expanded that, uh, fiat to include overthrowing, uh, government policies there were legally determined, and, uh- and, uh, dictating what has to be written in Knesset laws.

Um, and this is something that doesn’t exist, not in the United States and not in any other Western democracy. We also have a situation where our justices effectively, uh, select themselves because they control the majority of members of the- what we have here, which is a judicial selection committee. And then they, uh, arrogated for the Attorney General the power to overturn government decisions and to deny the government representation, uh, before the court when, uh, the Supreme Court accepts, uh, petitions against the government.

These are situations that don’t exist anywhere else, and there are four proposals that are on the table. The first one is to say that the Attorney General and legal advisers to the various government ministers are just that, they’re legal advisers, they don’t get to, uh, dictate policies or what can and cannot be. And another one is that it regulates and limits the, uh, power that the- of the court to overturn laws. It maintains that power that actually has no basis in Israeli law, it’s something that was arrogated by the justices themselves.

And also the- the court invented a concept called reasonableness, which of course is subjective. The- they get to determine what’s reasonable or unreasonable, whether it’s a military position, a military order, or a Knesset law, or a government decision, and they can say that an appointment is unreasonable and therefore ban somebody from serving in a position that they’re lawfully, uh, allowed to- to fulfill this. Again, something that doesn’t exist anywhere else, and so that would end.

And finally it would give, uh, politicians more power over the selection of judges, it would give them the majority in the judicial selection committee, it would leave, uh, Supreme Courts as members of that committee. So, all this would do would take them from the realm of oligarchy and by placing very tiny limits on their power bring them down into the world of a democracy.

John Donvan:

And so, Caroline, is it your argument that these reforms enhance democracy?

Caroline Glick:

Oh, absolutely, because we have- we have one branch of government, the Supreme Court, that has refused a- rejected all limits on its power. They’re not going to be subject to any political intervention its- in its decisions, but its power to undermine and ar- arrogate the powers of the other two branches of government, the parliament, our Knesset, to promulgate laws, to pass laws and our government to execute laws and enforce them is going to be limited.

John Donvan:

So, Jeremy, your response to the issue of these reforms, whether they enhance or- or harm democracy.

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

So, I think, uh, Caroline and I just have a fundamentally different understanding of what the term democracy means. Uh, one conception of democracy, and I think that’s probably Caroline’s, is that, uh, the majority rules, period, end of story. The system of government in a liberal democracy is rooted in the idea that- that power needs to be checked, uh, by a balance, uh, of power between different branches of government, uh, and that there should be a fundamental set of protections for all in society so that the majority can’t ride roughshod over the minority.

Uh, that unfortunately was not enshrined, uh, for the State of Israel at the foundation of the state in 1948, there was no constitution, there is no Bill of Rights. Uh, a lot of the issues that relate to the protection of minority rights and to this balance of power have been created on the fly, and I do believe, and maybe we would agree actually, Caroline and I, uh, that it would be very useful for Israel to actually have a constitution, uh, that puts a lot of these things into, uh, stone and actually, uh, articulates exactly with the balance of power is between the branches.

Uh, in Israel, uh, the legislature and the executive are essentially one and the same, and if one were to say, uh, that the executive slash legislature, uh, would have the ability to appoint the judges, uh, and have the ability to overrule judicial, uh, decisions by a majority vote, uh, then one if- uh, in effect does away with the third branch of government too, and- and you would really be reduced to having, uh, a single branch of government with all of the power, the ability to do whatever it wanted. Now, that government would be elected by a majority, uh, in an election, and so technically, uh, one could call that a democracy.

But that is not the concept of democracy that has been fashioned over the last couple of centuries in- in the Western world, and their inventing, uh, of these rights, their inventing of the concept of reasonableness, uh, you know, these are the kinds of things that, uh, strong person, strongman leadership, like Viktor Orbán in, uh- in Hungary, and- and you see this system in Poland, and Bolsonaro in Brazil, the very first thing that goes in a democracy, uh, is the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. And that is why hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets, uh, of Israel, because they recognize that, as appealing as it might sound to have majority rule be the law of the land, uh, it is not really the full functioning democracy that Israelis want.

John Donvan:

What are Israelis who are protesting these reforms afraid will happen in terms of actual real world consequences of an Israel where the court is appointed this way?

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

Well, I think that the, uh, substantive agenda, uh, that worries people i- is, it has a lot to do with their rights. It might be, uh, women’s rights, uh, certainly within this coalition government, there are parties and- and forces that would like to reduce the rights of women in Israeli society. Ministers within the government half self-defined themselves as proud homophobes, and, you know, they are folks who do not believe that the LGBT community deserves the full set of rights in the, uh, Israeli society. Uh, it might be as well the rights of secular, uh, Israelis in the face of coercion from more religious parties that might like to impose their way of life, whether it is to not have public transportation on Shabbat, or, you know, questions that might relate to service in the military. There’s just a whole range of social and societal issues that would now be taken out of the realm of law and would be placed simply in the hands of majority rule.

Caroline Glick:

It- it’s- it’s just not true, you know, I mean, the idea that you have a tyranny of a majority because, uh, we have a representative democracy is just, uh… It- it’s just f- it’s just a false claim. It- it’s not true. It’ll be a democracy with a form of government, uh, like Canada’s, and like New Zealand, and like Britain’s. Uh, Britain is a parliamentary democracy and has no judicial oversight, um, and so, you know- and here we’re not even talking about banning judicial oversight, we’re talking about placing minimal limits on- on judicial power to, uh, abrogate laws.

I mean, what we’re really seeing here is a tyranny of a minority, because, you know, the- the judges who select themselves are not representative at all of, uh- of Israeli society, um, in- in its fullness and in its diversity. We’re a multiethnic society, multireligious society, we have secular, we have religious, we have various forms and levels of religious, uh, uh, affiliation. We have Israeli Jews who come from all over the world, and so many of them, in fact the majority, uh, are not represented at all on the court.

S- I mean, the- the judges are lawyers, they don’t have, as- as- as Judge, uh, Richard Posner said in an- a debate with our former, our now retired, uh, Supreme Court President, Aharon Barak, back in 2007, he said, “Judges are just lawyers, and they like to believe that they know a lot more than they actually do.” And when you give them the power to use their subjective positions to- to dictate laws and policies of the government, much less of the IDF, then, you know, they- they- they’re… Thi- this is inherently antidemocratic.

John Donvan:

Jeremy’s making the case though that the aspirations of members of the coalition politically would be very, very threatening to- to certain minority groups, uh, starting with LGBTQ c- c- community. The- there have been proposals, for example, to- to give doctors permission not to have to treat, uh, LGBTQ individuals if there are other doctors available, all of which would suggest that Jeremy has, uh, ha- has… Is bringing evidence that things would get to be not very, very good if the court were not, for this community, if the court were not there standing up to protect them. So, very, very basically, should people who are LGBTQ in Israel be scared about this development?

Caroline Glick:

To the contrary, I mean, you know, uh, there are… This is an extremely diverse coalition. People like Jeremy and J Street like to, uh, de- demonize it and act like this is some sort of a congregation of bigots and religious nut jobs, and it’s anything but. You know, the speaker of the Knesset that was elected by the members of this coalition that include ultra-Orthodox Jews, um, is openly gay. He’s married to a man, and they’re raising their children together, and nobody had any problem with that, and, you know, he was- he was elected to his position by this coalition.

John Donvan:

Jeremy, so Caroline’s saying false alarm on the issue of- of threats to LGBTQ individuals.

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

So, look, uh, you know, that is one example. Uh, there- there are a whole host of communities, and I’ll go straight to, uh, you know, one of the most important issues, which is the protection of the Arab minority within Israel. Uh, you know, the- the Supreme Court, uh, is, uh, and has been the protector of civil and human rights for minority populations within Israel. Uh, this is a coalition that is filled with, uh, individuals and ministers in powerful positions who have made it very clear, uh, that they intend to elevate, uh, the Jewish nature of the state above its democracy.

The- the fundamental question for Israel since its founding has been the balance between being a state of the Jewish people and a democracy that protects and provides equality and justice and freedom for all, which is promised in the Declaration of Independence. And that is a tension that has been, uh, playing out over 75 years. Uh, the demographics of- of Israel are such that, uh, the majority vote today, uh, is for a group of people that, uh, have a set of views that do not respect the rights and equality, uh, of those who are not Jewish and those who do not fit the profile, uh, of- of the majority.

Um, that’s why liberal democracies have courts, that is why there is the rule of law, that is why you have a Bill of Rights, which Israel doesn’t have. Uh, you build these protections for minorities into the very fabric of a democracy. One of the reason why the Jewish people have come to value democracy in the United States, uh, so dearly, is that as a minority that, uh, ha- is 2% of the population, we understand, uh, very much firsthand how important it is to have our rights protected by the court system. Uh, if you were to leave all of the, uh, rules up to a majority vote in the United States, it is very possible that whether it is Jewish Americans or African Americans or immigrants or others, the- the rights, uh, that the Jewish people hold so dear in this country would not be fully protected.

Uh, and- and that’s why I think it is also very hard for Jews around the world, uh, to understand why, uh, the State of Israel, as it heads down the path that this government is leading it, doesn’t see the value, uh, in balancing, uh, the notion that there must be a state that is the national homeland of the Jewish people and that that state must remain, uh, a liberal democracy that provides equality and freedom and justice for all of its citizens, regardless of race and gender, uh, which was promised in the Declaration of Independence.

John Donvan:

So, Caroline, Jeremy making the point, and it’s- it’s been made many times before, that Israel kind of has to choose between being a Jewish state or being a democratic state. I’m sure you disagree with it, but I- I’d like you to disagree in light of the comments that Jeremy just made.

Caroline Glick:

I find it actually is belittling Judaism and the- and Jewish peoplehood and Jewish history to think that there’s any inherent contradiction between, uh, Jewish and democratic. I mean, the Jewish people as a people, our cultural heritage is one of deliberation, I mean, this goes back to our ancient sages in our Talmud. Um, and so, you know, i- if there’s any society that’s more inherently democratic than Jewish society, I- I- I’m sorry, it- it’s my own I guess cultural chauvinism that I’m not aware of it, and I’m aware of many societies. So, I think that the real problem that- that Jeremy Ben-Ami has with, uh- with representative democracy in Israel, the kind that exists in the United States and in every democracy in the world, um, is maybe he doesn’t like the views of the demo- of the majority of Israelis.

You know, we have, uh… We have a situation where we have an elite in Israel, and they- they were the ones who formed the country, maybe like, uh, Jeremy’s, uh, parents and grandparents, but they were very, um… They were very monochromatic in their ethnic background, um, and much more secular than religious. And the majority of Israelis just aren’t that, they’re tradi- we’re traditionalists, and this is one of the reasons why the average age of the protestors on the streets in Tel Aviv, uh, is over 50, um, and that we see a- we- we see an older elite that- that simply doesn’t like the fact that they’re losing the majority. There’s nothing illiberal about Judaism, there’s nothing, uh, inherently or otherwise, uh, antidemocratic about Israel.

And one of the things that I just want to bear in mind with courts in general, and our courts specifically, is that courts are antidemocratic. They come and they dictate a solution to problems, whereas parliaments discuss.

John Donvan:

Jeremy?

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

Yeah, th- I want to first of all say that I am, uh, 100% in agreement with Caroline, that there is no contradiction between being a state that is the national home of the Jewish people and being a democracy. That is not my position and, uh, you know, I think that is the challenge for Israel. I think the choice that the State of Israel is making under this government and- and recently with the passage of the Nation-State Law and efforts to enshrine the idea that the Jewish nature of the state should take precedence over democracy.

Uh, and I think where the majority of Israelis are coming out, and the polling shows this very clearly, uh, is that they would like to see a balance. They would like to see the rule of law protected, they would like to see the independence of the courts maintained. Uh, democracy means more than having enough votes, uh, to do the things that the people who don’t have the votes don’t like, that’s not democracy, that is mob rule. A- a healthy, vibrant, modern, liberal democracy has to have a balance that ensures that there are some standards that protect the rights of minorities, ensure that there is a standard in the rule of law, this idea of reasonableness, the idea of the protection of human rights, of civil rights of minorities, it is not enshrined in the Constitution of Israel because there is no Constitution of Israel, there is no Bill of Rights.

And so the court, the Supreme Court of Israel, has shaped a doctrine that provides that constitutional, quasi-constitutional without a constitution, protection that is key to a healthy and vibrant 21st century democracy. I agree with Caroline that if the majority of Israel wants to vote certain things into place, whether it is discrimination against Arabs, whether it’s discrimination against the LGBT community, against women, whatever it is that the majority wants to do, that’s their democratic right. But to maintain a healthy, true democracy, there has to be a check on that, and that’s what the role of the court is, and the independence of the court, and not being appointed by the government, and not being able to have its decisions overturned by a simple majority vote of the parliament, that is the key to democracy. It isn’t simply you have the votes, you win.

John Donvan:

All right we’re going to come up to a break, but when we come back, we’re going to bring in some other voices and continue the conversation, is Netanyahu’s government headed in the wrong direction? We’ll be right back.

Welcome back to Open To Debate, I’m John Donvan, I’m joined by Jeremy Ben-Ami and Caroline Glick to debate the question, is Netanyahu’s government headed in the wrong direction? In a few minutes we’re going to bring in some other voices, some journalists who cover, uh, Israel and events, uh, to- to- to move the conversation along with some of their own questions. But before that, I want to touch on, um, a- a- a part of Caroline’s opening argument, in which she made the case that Ne- Netanyahu’s government is the government that is going to keep Israel safe, secure. You made the case, Caroline, already, so I want to let Jeremy respond to it first and then we’ll go back and forth. So, Jeremy, you want to take on that question?

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

It is absolutely the first role of government at any level, uh, to provide the citizens of, whether it’s local, state, national government, uh, to provide safety and security, uh, and- and often the provision of security, uh, becomes an excuse to trample on and limit, uh, the rights of the citizenry. Uh, and it is the classic first line, uh, of those who look to undercut, uh, meaningful democracy and meaningful protection, uh, for the rights of individuals, the rights to protest, the rights to disagree, the rights of the minority, uh, all in the name of security.

So, I get very, very concerned when, uh, that is the lead argument, uh, that is made in behalf of a supposed reform that is going to lead the country towards more democracy. What’s interesting is that the core of Israel’s security sector, they are at the forefront of the opposition because they understand that the security of the State of Israel is intimately tied to the strength of its democratic system.

Caroline Glick:

There are generals who are arguing vociferously on behalf of the reforms and generals who are vociferously arguing, uh, oppo- in- in opposition to them. There are reservists who are threatening not to, uh, come to reserve duties, and then you look the the actual numbers of reservists coming, and they’re over 100%, so they’re also voting with their feet. You have a very small minority that’s very vocal, that has the support of our media, making all of these claims, but, you know, I mean, you have a very significant majority of Israelis. We had the largest demonstration in Israeli history just a week and a half ago in favor of judicial reform that I spoke at as- as John Donvan played the- the tape from my speech.

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

I- I don’t think that some of the things you’re saying are factually true, Caroline, uh, you know, they- the-

Caroline Glick:

But they are, I mean, I’m sorry, you can’t… You’re not entitled to your own fact here.

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

Well, when you say the largest… We- we- we have, uh, you know, actual, uh, demonstrated numbers of people in the streets in opposition which far exceed the size of the one demonstration-

Caroline Glick:

No, no, they don’t. Again, you know, you’re- you’re entitled to your interpretation of the facts but not to different facts, so, I mean, at any rate, even if you want to-

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

Well, I invite- I invite the listeners to check the, uh- the media coverage.

Caroline Glick:

… even if you want to argue over numbers, the fact of the matter is that you’re right, you have a lot of outspoken, very politically active former generals, some of them are former Prime Ministers, who are arguing a- in opposition to this v- right wing government’s proposal, just as they voted against that government and ran against that government in successive elections. So, to say that is the- it is the, uh, communal wisdom of, uh, Israel’s generals that this is- this is terrible for Israel’s national security is simply not true. Just like everybody else in Israel, generals have political position.

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

I’d like to go back to the second revolution that I mentioned in my opening, which is this question of what the are borders of State of Israel, and the intention of this government as its first and foremost principle, uh, to extend exclusive Jewish sovereignty over all of the land, from the river to the sea, the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.

John Donvan:

From the Jordan River to the sea.

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

These… The- the entirety of the land of Israel, it- it is the mission of this government, that’s the way it is phrased in the coalition agreement, to extend exclusive Jewish sovereignty. So, the minimal municipal authority that the Palestinian Authority has been given over about 10% of the land to collect the trash and issue pa- parking tickets and try to maintain some kind of law and order-

Caroline Glick:

40- 40%.

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

… and, you know, I just going to keep talking, as you suggested, John-

Caroline Glick:

They would take issue with you calling them police or trash collectors.

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

… because I’m trying to be polite.

John Donvan:

Okay.

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

Um, the- the question is whether or not the permanent control of millions of Palestinians with less than equal rights under a state that is exclusively Jewish sovereignty is in the best longterm interests of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. Uh, the retired generals and leaders of the Mossad, Shin Bet, mil- military intelligence, IDF, will tell you, and it’s all, you know, in every report they’ve ever written, that the greatest threat to Israel’s longterm security is the failure to end this occupation and to provide Palestinians with a legitimate self government in a state of their own. That is what is in Israel’s best security interest.

John Donvan:

And very simply, in two sentences, what’s the logic of that argument for them? What a- what is the case that they’re making.

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

That the lack of that equality, that lack of self determination, will lead to perpetual conflict for Israel, will lead to the dedication of security resources to maintaining the occupation, will undercut Israel’s ability to normalize relations. I agree with Caroline, the Abraham Accords are a step in the right direction, but there isn’t going to be full normalization with the entirety of the region if there isn’t independence for Palestinians in a state of their own, and Israel’s borders and the state will never be recognized by the international community if this conflict is not settled, and all of those things undercut Israel’s security over the long run.

John Donvan:

All right, I’d like to bring in some other voices now, some journalists, to this conversation. First up is Natan Guttman, who is, uh, US correspondent for the Israel Public Broadcasting Corporation. Natan, thanks so much for joining us.

Natan Guttman:

Thanks. They love talking, the Biden administration, about, uh, their concern of losing what they called the shared values, uh, that bind, uh, Israel and America, and basically their point is that if we lose these shared values, if Americans don’t see their values reflected in Israel, it will be harder to, uh, provide Israel with all the support and the backing that it is getting from the United States. So, I was just wondering if the- the debaters feel that this is a concern for Netanyahu and for his government?

John Donvan:

Thanks, Natan. Uh, Caroline, why don’t you take that question first please?

Caroline Glick:

I- I think that there- there are cleavages inside of, uh, US society and an American assessment of what American values are, and, uh, just the same way that there are in Israel. We have the same values as we’ve had all along, our dedication to human freedom and to human rights, our dedication to, uh, uh, the perpetuation of- of Jewish statehood. Um, you know, the United States has upheld these values, both the s- the- the u- the universal values of, uh- of human freedom and human rights, and the- the vision and the right of the Jewish people to reestablish our, uh, sovereignty in our ancient homeland.

I also think that Israel is most pro-American country in the world, and even when there’s, uh, a gulf separating us on- on certain issues like Iran and its nuclear weapons program, our cooperation with the United States remains strong and gets stronger on a daily basis. So, I’m not concerned about the future of US-Israel ties-

John Donvan:

Okay.

Caroline Glick:

… or about our shared values and interests.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Caroline. Uh, Jeremy, your answer to the same question?

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

Well, I- I do think Natan’s really hit the nail on the head in asking this question, because I think from the American point of view, one of the, uh, things that is happening, as Caroline said, is that we’re facing our own divide, uh, within, uh, this country, between those who would like to, uh, maintain commitment to equality and to universal values and- and civil and human rights and protection of all, uh, versus those who are looking, uh, in this country to protect, uh, essentially a white, privileged, nationalist view. Uh, the Trump movement, the MAGA movement within the Republican party, um, is definitely looking to undercut, uh, the judiciary in- in this country, uh, it is looking to limit voting rights, uh, it is looking to have a form of democracy that is not full and- and, uh, complete as envisioned by, uh, our constitution and our founders.

Caroline Glick:

No, I- I- I don’t- I don’t want to get involved in a debate about American politics-

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

So, I will just say that I think-

Caroline Glick:

… but I would just say that I think that there are tens and tens of millions of people in the United States-

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

… that what is interesting, since I’m, you know, been very polite the whole time and allowed Caroline to finish, I’d appreciate some help, uh, [inaudible

].

Caroline Glick:

… that would- that would deeply disagree with your characterization of Republicans.

John Donvan:

Okay, Caroline, Caroline, just let Jeremy have his m- his, uh, his… Complete his answer, [inaudible

].

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

Yeah, I think- I think I’ve been, uh, polite in allowing you to finish your thoughts. There is a fundamental divide, uh, in the United States and in Israel about the vision of where the two countries should head. Uh, the Donald Trump MAGA movement and this Benjamin Netanyahu government have in common, uh, in a desire to preference one group over other groups in society and to diminish the protection under law for the rights of all. And I think that the core of the US-Israel relationship over the long run is best protected, in that sense that the two countries are linked by shared values, uh, if they are rooted in the protection of all, a vision of equality, of universal civil and human rights, and a- and the separation of powers and the protection of minorities.

And that is a set of shared values Israel, as- as the only democracy in the Middle East, fundamentally aligned with the United States, is a critical Israeli national security interest, and I believe also critical to the interests of the United States, and that’s being undercut by this government.

John Donvan:

Okay, Natan, thank you very much for joining us and thank you for your question. I want to bring in a second journalist, this is Neil Rogachevsky, he’s a freelance writer, very widely published, um, also associate director and research fellow at the Strauss Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University. Uh, Neil, come on in and, uh, we’d love to have you ask your question.

Neil Rogachevsky:

Okay, so in the wake of the upheaval over, uh, judicial reforms, there have been many calls in Israel for the drafting of a constitution, um, as Jeremy Ben-Ami mentioned, Israel has no single fixed constitution, it’s rather relied on a sort of piecemeal constitution, a system of basic laws which have been drafted over many decades. So, my question is, in light of, uh, you know, the recent upheaval, would you support the drafting of a constitution at this moment? Why or why not?

Caroline Glick:

It’s sort of a default position any time we reach a situation where we can’t agree on things to say, oh, what we need is a constitution. And- and, you know, there’s an ancient tale in Midrash about the Children of Israel crossing the, uh, Red Sea, a moment of- of- of upmost unity, of purpose, of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. And yet, when they cross the Red Sea, uh, they crossed in 12 lanes, because we celebrate our diversity. And I- I don’t know whether trying to reach a constitution that’s going to codify a very dynamic, uh, society is the best thing, but, you know, if we’re able to do so then I would welcome such a- such a thing.

I- I’m just not sure that that’s required. I think what’s most required is that we come to an agreement of tolerance for our differences, uh, that is fully reflected in the heritage of the Jewish people. I think we did it for a long time and we’ve sort of been in an interrupted situation where an elite has seized for itself its power to dictate outcomes without any sort of the deliberation of, uh, process that’s so characterized, uh, the Jewish people over the thousands of years of our history.

John Donvan:

Okay, thank you. And, Jeremy, your answer to the same question about whether it would be time for Israel to draw up a constitution.

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

It’s- it’s far past time, uh, for Israel to have a constitution, it would have been a really good thing to do it at the beginning, uh, but now there’s 75 years of experience to build on. Um, the fundamental tenet of- of the Jewish people is that we shouldn’t treat other people the way we don’t want to be treated ourselves, and I’d imagine that the core of a constitution, uh, would be that, uh, that we have to treat other people the right way and protect those rights, and- and that’s what’s unfortunately at stake right now, uh, in this- in this battle.

So, I would love to see, uh, a constitution, I’d love to see it rooted, uh, in that fundamental principle, and respect for all and a recognition of the rights and the beauty of all parts of Israeli society and perhaps Caroline and I can agree on that.

John Donvan:

All right, and maybe we can make that the subject for another debate, a debate in the future. Uh, but I want to thank you very much for your question, Neil, and now it is time to bring it home with closing remarks by each of you. Uh, Caroline, since Jeremy went first in our opening remarks, you have the floor now. Your answer to the question is Netanyahu’s government headed in the wrong direction is a clear no, one more time, your closing thoughts on why you’re a no.

Caroline Glick:

Like, you know, um, uh, last month, uh, the family of- of my neighbors, the [inaudible

] family here in- in- in Efrat was decimated, uh, when the mother, uh, uh… When- when the mother, um, Lucy, and two of the daughters, Rina and Maya, aged, uh, 16 and 20, were murdered in a terrorist attack as they were driving in their car on the way to a family vacation in Tiberius. Um, and the terrorists, uh, who murdered them, uh, were killed last week by IDF forces. Uh, but the story doesn’t end there, because the Palestinian Authority, uh, is going to continue to pay a- a king’s ransom in pensions to the families of the terrorists who were killed.

Uh, and the United States right now is subsidizing those payments through its, uh, funding of the Palestinian Authority. Um, you- you know, the United States, um, can do a lot of good in the Middle East. It can do a lot of good in its relations with Israel, it can help fight, uh, Palestinian, uh, terrorism by ending the incentivization of terrorism by the Palestinian Authority through the enforcement of Taylor Force Act that was passed by Congress in 2017. Um, but what we’re seeing now is that the United States is trying to intervene in a very domestic political dispute in Israel about the separation of powers, and Americans don’t really understand the entire fight, and they’re ill placed as a result to really wade in.

And, plus, this is a- this is a internal Israeli matter. The Israeli people elected the Netanyahu government to advance its national interests and values on November 1st, and as a fellow democracy, we would expect the United States to, uh- to respect the decision of the Israeli people going forward. I think that the Netanyahu government, for the reasons that I set out earlier, uh, on in this discussion really is the best placed to advance Israel’s national values and our interests as Jews, as people who are committed to democracy and human rights, and the separation of powers, uh, in Israel today, and in ensuring that the next 75 years of, uh, Israel’s, uh, life, uh, are going to be as successful or even more successful than the 75 years that we’ve gone through to date.

So, thank you very much for this discussion, I think it’s very important.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Caroline, and, Jeremy, that gives you the final say here. One more time, uh, and answer the question, Netanyahu’s government, is it headed in the wrong direction? You are saying yes, and please tell us one last time why.

Jeremy Ben-Ami:

Sure, the- the simple answer is- is yes, uh, that, uh, from, uh, my perch, uh, here, which is in the United States, and un- understandably, I do not vote in Israel, and I do not have children who serve in the military, I don’t, uh, pay taxes there. Uh, but I do feel this deep sense of connectivity through having lived there, through having started a business there, having all my family there, uh, generations of my- my family there. Um, I believe what it means to have a state of the Jewish people and for the Jewish people, uh, is a state that’s grounded in the values, uh, of the Jewish people, that is, uh, going to live its, uh, existence in accordance with the Declaration of Independence of country and- and value, uh, the values of the prophets, of equality and justice and freedom for all peoples.

Uh, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu is leading the country in the exact opposite direction. Uh, it’s a direction that is less secure, without, uh, recognized boundaries, uh, it will not be recognized by a larger, uh, swath of the world community. It will continue to have conflict, uh, both internally and with the Palestinian people. Uh, that is the direction that Benjamin Netanyahu is leading, uh, the Israeli government. Israel has a beautiful and vibrant, uh, society that does have a lot of viewpoints and a lot of argumentation, uh, that is one aspect of a vibrant democracy.

But another aspect of a vibrant democracy is the rule of law, is the independence of the judiciary, is the balance of power so that power is not centralized in the hands of one person or one group of people, or in the hands of the mob rule of the majority. Uh, and it is fundamental to a democracy to be able to say that somebody won an election on November 1st, but everything that they are doing, uh, I disagree with, uh, and that is a very important part of a democracy as well, uh, and this government is leading the State of Israel in the exact wrong direction.

John Donvan:

Thank you, Jeremy. And that is a wrap on this debate and conversation. I would like to thank our debaters, Jeremy and Caroline, for taking part, for bringing your passion and your insights and, in short, for being open to debate. I also want to thank our reporters who helped move things along with their questions, Natan and Neil, thanks so much for taking part and being- being there with your contributions. And all of you listening, I want to thank you for tuning in to this episode of Open To Debate. You know, as a nonprofit, our work to combat extreme polarization through civil and respectful debate is generously funded by listeners like you, by the Rosenkranz Foundation, and by supporters of Open To Debate.

Open To Debate is also made possible by a generous grant from the Laura and Gary Lauder Venture Philanthropy Fund. Robert Rosenkranz is our chairman, Clea Conner is Ceo, Lia Matthow is our chief content officer, Julia Melfi is our senior producer, Marlette Sandoval is our editorial producer, Gabriella Mayer is our editorial and research manager, Gabrielle Iannucelli is our social media and digital platforms coordinator, Andrew Lipson is head of production, Max Fulton is our production coordinator, Damon Whittemore, our engineer, Raven Baker is events and operations manager, Rachel Kemp is our chief of staff, our theme music is by Alex Clement. And I’m your host, John Donvan, we’ll see you next time.