How the Loss of a Broad Religious Center Damaged Israeli Democracy
The Price of Polarity
The weakness of Israel’s political system is its binary polarity in terms of political alignments. While it is perceived that the electorate itself has greater weight in a centrist sphere that can agree on perhaps 70% of issues—even questions of religion and state, the legal system, and so on—this electorate is not being translated well, or at all, into the political debate or confrontation that Israel faces today. The blocs that have coalesced do not relate to true issues and actually harm the functioning of Israel’s democracy.
A significant initial source of this malaise, besides changing generations and perceptions in society as a whole, is the fragmentation and demise of religious Zionism as a broad political force that took place in several stages, but initially more than 30 years ago. This group acted as forerunners: bridging religious belief and Jewish sovereignty, and seeing in the Jewish state the beginning of an ancient dream that was to be fulfilled, in our times- a part of our spiritual heritage; They sought full involvement in state institutions, reached across the right and left, in economic outlook, a perspective on the Land of Israel and Israel’s security; over the urban, rural and communal or kibbutz divide; on Jewish identity and enhancing its meaning and value, that of the individual and that of the state; the role of education, Jewish and general.
In this movement and political framework were absorbed and respected diverse backgrounds, equally: Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Edot HaMizrah- lifestyles, beliefs, culturally and socially; the banner of the Land of Israel was raised as well as the Jewishness of the state; and issues of religion and state were addressed seeking workable compromises and harmonies, that would enhance Jewish cultural values, practices and beliefs, in the eyes of all, drawing together, both religious and non-observant, in appreciation of our spritual and cultural heritage. At the same time, other political religious forces augmented their position: a Judaism divorced from the society’s greatest challenges, that seeks to evade military recruitment en masse, whatever the commitment to study. These groups, comprising 15%-20% of the electorate, can lead to the breakdown of a viable Jewish society that we face today, the more tragic in that only in our parent’s generation the Jewish people suffered such a terrible genocide.
However, the religious Zionists, with their successful integration and high achievements in society—materially, socially, and culturally—they fragmented and dispersed into other, narrower frameworks, ‘right’ aligned, such as Gush Emunim, Hatehiya, or settler-based political groupings, such as remain today in Smotrich’s party, or simply dissipated. Besides dissipation, there was a short period of parallel ‘left’ or ‘centrist’ political involvement in Meimad and in the slivers of remaining Mafdal figures, such as Yahalom and Orlev, till today when figures of religious Zionist education and backround can be found, spread across nearly all Israeli political parties, except for the Arab, ‘Democrats’, and Haredi lists.
This historical fragmentation, and with it the rise for the first time of Haredi ideological parties having a greater overall sway than the religious Zionist party in the general political spectrum, has been not only a disastrous self-destruction of religious Zionism as a coherent political force. It has also been deeply harmful to the political system of the country as a whole. Since this fragmentation, the overall political system has been unable to create or develop a broad, centrist party framework to which others could attach—a specific bridging role that the Mafdal previously carried out, enabling the resolution of divisive issues in religion-state questions and other social and cultural matters.
Thus, the loss of a broadly formed religious Zionism within a political framework, which the large religious Zionist public has suffered from over the last 30 years, has also underscored the overall failing of the political system, its parties, and their alignments altogether, with broad ramifications for all. If the reconstitution of a broad ideological party structure for religious Zionism could occur, somehow, it will not only assist those who ascribe to this outlook—perhaps 15% of the electorate—but it will help Israel’s political system as a whole to develop party political structures that reflect today’s realities more accurately: structures that reject extremist concepts and give greater weight to centrist forces.
Not surprisingly, opposition parties, especially Bennett (BeYahad) and Eizenkot (Yashar), have made efforts to attract the assumed large numbers of undecided, disembodied voters of the religious Zionism that disappeared, and also perhaps disgruntled voters on the religious right dissatisfied with Smotrich’s lack of consideration for the heavy load of combat-reserve duty (miluim) duty borne by his supporters. However, the significant presence of such figures in these parties unfortunately does not crystallize a political direction in itself. These efforts are likely, as in the past, to be a vote-catching ploy rather than the furtherance of a much-needed direction. And like in Ansky’s The Dybbuk, this attempt at resuscitation is of a dead spirit, unsustainable—an unnatural possession where the outer political body speaks in a voice that is not its own, leaving the true soul of moderate religious Zionism ever wandering and unhoused.
If, however, a reconstituted religious Zionism could emerge, this would help to facilitate the finding of solutions for many of the difficult divisive issues in our society, with far less internal civil strife. Despite the major security concerns that Israel faces, the much-needed political framework for a broad government seems to be an inaccessible mirage. Yet, the electorate appears to understand the needs of the country and recognizes that a system that more accurately reflects the broad public consensus on most issues is pressing.
The historical failures of religious Zionism and its inability so far to reconstitute itself are early intimations of a malaise that must be overcome.
