This is a skewed, false message formulated by those seeking to task Israeli diplomats with whitewashing what is essentially a regime coup championed by an extremist government that is leading Israel to the brink of dictatorship. In other words, the Foreign Ministry is demanding that Israel’s official representatives around the world portray Israel as a “strong democracy” even as the government is removing the checks and balances of the democratic system and severely undermining the independence of the judiciary. This is a genuine Orwellian attempt to portray a campaign to crush the judiciary as “preserving the independence of the courts.”

These messages make it incumbent on all diplomats to ask themselves whether this was the reason they joined the foreign service and whether they really want to describe a coup d’état as a measure to “strengthen democracy.” Our representatives abroad who are anxious about what amounts to a regime coup should refrain from defending a policy that endangers themselves, their families, and their country. This is not a call for their resignation; it is a call for soul-searching and for establishing boundaries.

After all, the diplomats are not being asked to ignore a policy disagreement on a specific issue. They are being told to soft-pedal a fundamental contradiction between the foreign service of a country that purports to be based on democratic values that are articulated in our Declaration of Independence – and the direction in which the government of Yariv Levin, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, and Benjamin Netanyahu is leading us.

These extremists are aiming to eliminate the separation of powers that is the underpinning of the democratic system, destroy judicial review, promote discrimination and misogyny, divert state budgets to serve ultra-Orthodox and nationalist constituencies and shatter the Zionist ethos on the basis of which the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people was established.

The role of diplomats is to represent their country, including the government and its policies, but also the cultural, economic, and political totality of the society and country they serve, in all its diversity. As long as the government adheres to its basic contract with the public, diplomats can do both, despite the challenges involved. Such is the case in all democratic countries, and the same is true in Israel.

The role of diplomats, like all other civil servants, is not only to broadcast the government’s messages to the world but also to clarify to the government in a professional and courageous manner the implications of the policies it adopts for its interests in the international arena.

Those applying for foreign service training know that they will be called upon at some point in their career to represent policies with which they disagree. Diplomats are civil servants serving democratically elected governments that come and go. Therefore, the ability to serve different governments is a prerequisite for anyone who wishes to represent the State of Israel. Such service involves a willingness to represent and promote the policies of any government, not necessarily the one for which they voted as long as the basis of our democracy is maintained

This challenge faces anyone sent to represent Israel abroad. I myself faced it when I served as Israel’s consul general to the states of New England (at the consulate in Boston). When I disagreed with the Israeli government’s handling of its relations with the US administration, I voiced my criticism behind closed doors in internal forums (although they turned out to be more porous than I thought and my criticism was leaked to the media).

However, I always knew that I would draw the line when I felt that my views were no longer just a policy disagreement, but a fundamental rejection of the messages I was told to convey and of the policies I was required to promote. I did take early retirement from the Foreign Ministry, partly because I felt I could promote my country’s interests better from outside the system. My decision was right for me personally, but may not necessarily be the right choice for all of my many friends at the Foreign Ministry who have achieved wonderful accomplishments for many years from within the system.

Deepening tensions between government policy and civil servants’ personal beliefs can pose a heartbreaking dilemma. They require difficult personal decisions that involve complicated implications for lives and livelihoods, and therefore no one has a right to judge them. Moreover, when a government undermines democratic values, it makes no sense for those who seek to promote such values from within the system to resign, since they will clearly be replaced by officials willing to help the government crush our democracy.

Notwithstanding this argument, civil servants have both the right and the duty to voice their opinions forcefully and describe the implications of government policy on the matters under their purview. Those who can influence from within should do so and make their voices heard.

A large liberal democratic camp has emerged in Israel in recent months under the current government, a citizenry unwilling to sacrifice its future and that of its children and grandchildren for a dictatorship in the making. Right now, the role of democracy lovers is to help preserve the basic values of democracy, if possible, from within the government and if not, from the outside

The current government’s policy cannot and must not be justified or “explained,” not even in diplomatic language.

The article was published on “The Jerusalem Post“, on August 8th.

הפוסט Diplomats should represent the country, not the government הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.

The Israeli government’s obsessive focus on promoting the judicial overhaul has led to a loss of overall control: failures in preventing security escalation, rockets in the North and South, the cooling of the normalization process, economic uncertainty, fear of credit rating downgrade, and a crisis with the United States. These are just the tip of the iceberg of a series of frustrating, confusing and fearful moves.

Amid all of this, there is only one success worthy of Benjamin Netanyahu’s credit – the tightening of the ranks in Israel’s liberal camp, its expansion. One can just look at the weekly protests to understand that this is a pivotal and historic moment for democracy, liberalism and equality.

While the protests have successfully led to the suspension of the government’s oppressive actions, the road to achieving their goals is still long. Against this backdrop, the Mitvim Institute has launched “The Liberal Partnership” initiative, with the aim of promoting learning processes and mutual influence between liberal civil society organizations in Israel and around the world.

As part of this, Mitvim and IIR conducted an experts panel, focused on the determined and successful campaign of Czech civil society against democratic backsliding. The analysis of the Czech case highlights a number of lessons that every liberal camp should take into account.

Democratic roots: Prior to the notorious billionaire Andrej Babis’s rise as prime minister in December 2017, the Czech Republic enjoyed a stable and inspiring democratic tradition for a country that until the early 1990s was part of the Communist bloc. Unlike its neighbors in Eastern Europe, the democratic tradition is an inseparable part of the Czech identity historically, due to the creation of a wide secular and working middle class.

According to Karel Kouba, an associate professor of political science at Hradec Kralove University, this tradition prevented the Czech Republic from a fate similar to that of Poland and Hungary. In fact, since 1993, there has not been a significant political camp in the Czech Republic based on nationalist and religious forces.

However, in 2017 the winds changed, and Andrej Babis was elected after leading a divisive populist, anti-establishment campaign. He began to promote his economic interests while attempting to weaken the guardians of democracy and faced widespread opposition.

Civil society and the media even encouraged a criminal investigation against him on suspicion of embezzling European Union funds. His attempts to suppress democracy were hesitant in relation to the activism shown by his opponents, and after just one term, his government was replaced.

From protest to political power

Petra Guasti, an associate professor of democratic theory at Charles University, argues that the liberal camp must not disconnect the center from the periphery, and that there is crucial importance to the presence of the struggle outside of major cities. To that end, the consensus for democracy needs to be as broad as possible.

However, protests on their own are not enough. Guasti argues that they must be translated into political power through the creation of a broad coalition of different parties that agree on one singular goal: to defend liberal democracy at any cost. Ultimately, the success of the struggle must be reflected in changes to voting patterns in the ballot boxes.

Unified and focused messaging: According to Gusti, the most effective way to defeat populism is to put aside disagreements on other issues, unite around a unified message, and sharpen it. Without liberal democracy, the government cannot create effective policies on various issues for the benefit of its citizens.

Since populism feeds on the division between “us” and “them,” it is up to liberal forces to create the widest possible political tent, even at the cost of difficult compromises. Many forget that compromises are part of the democratic game, and when we reject them, there is a chance of pushing different communities toward a populist leader.

The ability of the liberal camp to accommodate a wide range of opinions and political positions, while being willing to come together under a joint effort to preserve liberal democracy, is a necessary, albeit not sufficient, condition for success in the struggle.

Moral power: the successes of Czech civil society did not stem from nothing. Another significant ingredient was the establishment of connections and influence with partners in other countries, notably Hungary and Poland. Through these relationships, the mistakes and difficulties in the struggles of Hungary and Poland were shared and understood. Alongside the construction of an international liberal-civil alliance, every liberal camp should look inward and examine the essence of its actions.

Jaromír Mazák, a sociologist and research director at the STEM Institute for Czech Society Research, believes that another significant component of success is understanding the moral power of civil society. For example, the Czech public was able to distinguish between honoring their court’s ruling to acquit Babis, and the moral arguments surrounding his conduct and the reason for his prosecution. Despite his acquittal, Babis continued to be perceived as unethical, which ultimately led to the end of his rule.

Local victories: The Million Moments for Democracy movement managed to create protest infrastructures in central cities and in peripheral regions, translating them into political power through close collaboration with opposition parties. These parties were divided into two coalitions – one more conservative and the other progressive – but their goal was the same: to establish liberal democracy. This collaboration gave hope that the two sides could jointly form a government that would ensure the protection of liberal democracy.

The challenge in Israel is greater

If we learn lessons from the Czech case, it becomes clear that Israeli civil society must emphasize the righteousness of its cause beyond the borders of Tel Aviv, and assertively create a meaningful political force that can compete with the oppressive strength of populism and nationalism.

To do so, Israeli civil society must learn to build a broad political coalition that regards liberal democracy as its guiding principle. Compromises are part of the democratic game, and if one wants to win the ballot box, one must take them into account.

Despite Israel’s rich democratic tradition, the current state of affairs for the liberal camp is darker than that in the Czech Republic. The issues of occupation and Jewish supremacy impede the wheels of the legal revolution. Kouba notes that the mere fact that the Netanyahu government has begun to reduce democratic space indicates deeper steps toward authoritarian rule than those taken by Babis. In addition, Israeli society’s heterogeneity is rife with other important issues and topics that could lead to divisions.

In the face of Netanyahu’s government’s divisiveness, a positive and unifying campaign must be launched around the importance of liberal democracy for all citizens of the country. In addition to domestic political activity, Israeli civil society must strive to establish relationships of influence, support and shared knowledge with its counterparts around the world. Democratic regression is not unique to Israel alone, and there is much to learn from our global partners.

This article is from “The Jerusalem Post“, from March 8th, 2023.

הפוסט 5 lessons for Israel from the Czech struggle for democracy הופיע לראשונה ב-Mitvim.