Heads up Bibi: An American Object Lesson for Israel

The day after President Donald Trump was inaugurated, the Pink Hat movement was formally born. Some three hundred thousand demonstrators showed up on streets in the United States and around the world signaling their fears and anticipation of changes in affirmative abortion legislation, general fears of an assault on democracy, and proposed American isolationism over the next four years of a Donald Trump presidency. Similarly, the day after Prime Minister Netanyahu’s coalition was sworn in last month, tens of thousands of Israelis and others around the world took to the streets demonstrating against the incoming government’s attitudes toward LGBTQ rights and fears of a further erosion of democratic values within Israeli government and society during his term.

Culture Wars

While it took the United States some time to fully understand the nature of the Trump administration’s extreme intentions; in Israel, the country has been moving toward a more clerical and authoritarian state for many successive governing coalitions. When Donald Trump was elected president, but even more pointedly, by the time he left office, opposition leaders, legal scholars, and citizens were alarmed at the tenuous and fragile state of American democracy. Abortion rights in the United States and LGBTQ rights, in Israel, are being attacked on moral and religious grounds. In both countries, culture war issues and changes to the Supreme Court are the greatest threats to an open society. Weaponizing cultural and personal issues and conflicts regarding judicial independence might never occur in a truly open liberal society, where appropriate checks and balances and healthy separation of powers exist. Even with on-gong political strife concerning minority issues, voting access as well as the Palestinian issue in Israel; challenges to the democratic status quo were never a major factor in either country. This appears to have changed dramatically in recent years.

High office

There are still other commonalities between Former President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Both are facing serious electoral, tax evasion, and corruption allegations. As a result, both face indictment and trial on these allegations. (Netanyahu has already been indicted and is being tried on at least two of these counts) We can see from the deliberate manipulation of judicial institutions by both men; their desperation to stay in power in the hope of avoiding conviction while holding the highest office in the land. In each case then, the charges against them may even have been an incentive for them to run for high office again in order to avoid possible consequences for their actions. Netanyahu is actively supporting a bill that would allow anyone convicted of a crime to be considered for a cabinet post as well as proposing other changes to the court that diminish its independence by increasing legislative and executive appointment powers over the court. Trump also clearly assumes that if he is in “high office,” he may not be held accountable for some of his actions, as has been the pattern. In addition, there are some charges for which a “sitting president”or prime minister may not be tried. Another term as President for Trump and Netanyahu may allow them to wait out the specific statutes of limitation on some charges and hope that the urgency with which people regard their falsehoods and actions will dissipate the more time passes. In both countries, the independence of the Judiciary and separation of powers is at stake.

The Judiciary

In the United States, the Trump administration did manage to appoint to the Supreme Court a majority of judges who came from the ranks of the “Federalist Society” and regardless of confirmation-hearing assurances of the importance of stare decisis in judicial decision-making; this majority appears to be dead set against any federal regulation of abortion whatsoever, regardless of precedent. The concrete result of this is the Dobbs Decision, (July 2022) upending Roe v. Wade, thereby making it virtually illegal in a huge swath of the country for women to obtain abortions or for doctors to perform them. The independence of the judiciary in Israel is also threatened under the latest Netanyahu coalition. One of the first specific challenges put to the Israeli court and legislature is to decide whether a convicted felon, former Minister Aryeh Deri, may become a cabinet official once again in spite of his conviction. This ruling is important for Prime Minister Netanyahu since he has been indicted on numerous tax, bribery, and corruption charges and is hoping that Deris’s reappoint will pave the way for his own should he be convicted. The Deri case was decided in the negative angering the Prime Minister who is still promising to get Deri back into parliament. Prime Minister Netanyahu has also proposed that the legislature and executive have a greater role in court appointments allowing coalition partners to appoint judges to sit on the high court. In both the United States and Israel, these challenges to the country’s Supreme Court put their. independence in jeopardy. To even the casual observer of international affairs, attempts to alter legal and governmental institutional norms, especially those of the courts, are too similar for comfort to the actions of the “illiberal” administration of Hungarian President Victor Orban.

The Base

In both the United States and Israel, the “base” of their respective supporters are extreme by traditional standards and often include violent aspirants for change. The unfortunate impression perpetuated by both leaders is that they are the only leaders capable of bringing the disparate groups of their base together in order to make a legitimate government, making it appear as if their election is imperative. This is unfortunate in another way in that they both appeal to voters as the “liberal” alternative when contrasted with their base or other members of their coalition, especially in the Netanyahu case. The extent to which either Trump or Netanyahu, as individuals, share the principles of their “base,” is questionable and begs the question of whether their positions aren’t merely an opportunistic route to power. Both leaders tend to focus on the short-term interests of the members of their respective governments. In the United States during the Trump administration, the interests of the Trump adherents became anti-abortion, anti vax, isolationism, and efforts to erode trust in “big government.” In Israel, the issues tend to be “who is a Jew and the right of return,” school curricula, service in the military by the religious, and gay pride. In both cases, the focus on “cultural” issues often makes for tense, unstable and at least in Israel, short lived governments. This is Netanyahu’s 6th government and Israel’s fourth election in the last two years. Netanyahu faces the danger of no confidence and new elections over his administration’s positions almost every day. Cultural, religious, and racial issues crowd out unresolved substantive issues. Important issues such as the secular and religious divide, settlements on the West Bank, and the two-state solution are left on the table and marginalized. Both countries need to focus and concentrate on very basic (and similar) issues such as housing, the increasing gap between the haves and have-nots, poverty, inflation, housing, and the challenge of ensuring steady economic growth. International issues such as Ukraine may disrupt day-to-day leadership in both countries, and in Israel, the constant threat of the Palestinian issue bubbling up to take center stage is a daily possibility.

The Globe

While the United States and Israel are certainly not alone in their drift toward illiberal and semi-authoritarian governance in the western world; the similarities between these two allies and their recent reckless leadership styles , have resulted in heightened international scrutiny, animosity, and distrust. Both countries’ actions have had serious foreign policy consequences. The United States under President Trump and his America First agenda eroded trust that Europe and NATO members had in the United States security umbrella, resulting in a severely fractured alliance. It took considerable effort for the incoming President to recreate goodwill enough among NATO and European nations to put together a united bloc to adequately counter Russian advances into Ukraine. In addition, President Biden inherited the previous Presidents’ policies and withdrawal schedule for Afghanistan. As a result, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan was clumsy and more difficult and deadly than it needed to be.

Israel’s actions toward the Palestinian status quo and the Occupation, are not likely to change anytime soon under the current leadership. In fact, the status quo may worsen. These positions have made Israel a pariah state in the eyes of many and alienated potential allies, even Jewish ones. Israel is increasingly isolated and powerless in the United Nations and other international organizations over these issues. There is yet another very real global consequence of Israeli positions on the Palestinian question and occupation settlements. Israel’s position has led to considerable confusion between anti-Israeli positions (anti- Zionism) and anti-Jewish sentiment leading to an unfortunate confluence of both, even as antisemitic activity increases. In addition, Israel is even further the, “odd man out” due to its reluctance to get fully on board with European and western opposition to Putin in support of the democratic goals of Ukraine. This only distances an already isolated Israel from the rest of the west. Add to this, Israel’s reluctance to assist the Ukrainian military by sharing its Iron Dome anti-missile technology which has been noted by many. The Israeli stance on Ukraine is especially irritating given that there is already a large Ukrainian population settled in Israel and the country has welcomed Ukrainian and Russian refugees into the country since the War began.

Illiberalism

The United States example may be an object lesson for Israel’s future and perhaps even prophetic. Although he suggests that he will run again; Donald Trump has watched his popularity sink. Even his support among his “maga” base is waning. He has largely left the Republican Party in disarray without ideology or a coherent platform. Many party members continue to support the “stop the steal,” position of the last election; even though there is the sense that many would like to move on from this position for pragmatic political reasons. The extreme appointees to the Supreme Court that were responsible for the Dobbs Decision, managed to galvanize into action one of the largest voter turnouts in American history. New, independent, young, African American, and anti-Dobbs women (even those registered Republican), turned out in droves to vote. What should have been a “red” wave in an off-year election, therefore, was actually a gain for the democrats. Applying the Donald Trump example, the longer an extreme Netanyahu coalition remains in power, the larger the opposition will become. Perhaps its actions, like Trump’s policies, will even breathe new life into Israeli opposition parties. The more extreme the coalition and its policies, the more the risk of bringing back to life a moribund labor party and a coalition of left-leaning and Arab parties. The behavior of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his coalition may indeed result in a complete shift of power. Netanyahu’s partners and their actions therefore, will determine how long the growing anti-government sentiment and demonstrations continue as well as the degree to which voter dismay may finally draw new names and even apathetic voters back into the election cycle. In Israel, like the United States, The more fragile democracy becomes; the more alarmed the populace will become, resulting in new elections and ultimately change in the make up of the Knesset.

In neither case did the hundreds of thousands of demonstrators appear to derail the objectives of either the American or israeli respective administrations. Based on the US example, however, it does appear that those same protestors who showed up after President Trump’s inauguration, showed up to vote him out of office four years later. If Netanyahu is not careful, he will experience the same fate .

Democracy

Regardless of Trump’s defeat in 2020; his presidency has permanently rocked the establishment. Scholars and others never predicted the damage one misguided administration could have after so short a period. Institutional changes to the judiciary, civic rights, and personal freedoms, not to mention the norms and institutions of governing, may have been changed forever. Even now the “long tail” of the Donald Trump wing of the GOP is alive and obstructionist in the 117th Congressional session. Israel too, must be on guard for permanent institutional, social and religious changes as a result of years of challenges to democratic norms and policies along more restrictive and often theocratic lines. Ironically, Israel risks resembling other countries in its neighborhood, especially those that are theocracies, viz., Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. This puts the Arab détente with Israel in a new light, especially since the most notable Arab embassy in post-Trump Israel is the Saudi Arabian. Democracies in both the United States and Israel are fragile. This is especially true in terms of the rights and privileges of ordinary citizens and their civil liberties. The future of the rule of law, privacy, and separation of powers is being challenged. in both countries. As noted, repair work on American democracy continues in the wake of the Trump administration. During these early months of the Netanyahu administration, demonstrations continue weekly while judicial, civic representatives, and even economic and military leaders become increasingly concerned about the erosion of democratic norms in the country. The stability and duration of the Netanyahu coalition is yet to be tested, but perhaps Bibi can learn something of his own future from his United States ally.