What Makes Israeli Protests Different From Other Protests? | Opinion

Israel is embroiled in the largest and most contentious protests in its 75-year history. Nearly every weekend for several months now, tens of thousands of strident opponents of the current government's proposals for so-called judicial reform have gathered in squares in major cities. There have been smaller counter-protests as well from supporters of the reforms. Speeches by respected personalities have ranged from scholarly to strident, from credible to exaggerated, from constructively critical to outrageously mendacious, from optimistic to angrily pessimistic, from loving of Israel to hatred of the nation-state of the Jewish people.

Equally important to what has been said and done at these demonstrations is what has not been said and done. There has been little or no call for unlawful violence, there have been no deaths or serious injuries, there have been few arrests, and most important there have been no efforts by the government to stop the anti-government protests. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is the target of most of these protesters, has merely called on them to "behave responsibly" while protesting. And most have, largely in the non-violent spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. There is no guarantee that as anger percolates there will not be some violence, but up to now most of the demonstrations have been conducted peacefully.

Contrast these relatively peaceful protests with demonstrations in other countries. The Arab Spring was rife with violence, including deaths, serious injuries, molestation of women and many arrests and beatings by government agents. In Iran, protesters were executed and beaten to death. Even in America, Black Lives Matter protests included shootings, massive property destruction and arrests.

Israeli protests have been models of civility, with few exceptions. Israel is teaching the world how to conduct loud, belligerent and angry demonstrations against and in favor of controversial government proposals and actions within the rules of law and the constraints of democracy. And these non-violent protests have not been ineffective. They have resulted in the postponement of some of the protested governmental actions and encouraged ongoing efforts to seek compromises. Government officials are listening and responding.

The leaders and participants in these massive protests are to be commended for the manner in which they are expressing their deeply felt anger. And government officials should be commended as well for their non-provocative responses. These protests demonstrate democracy at work. They also demonstrate that democracy will never be in danger of turning to autocracy in a nation like Israel, that encourages dissent and disagreement. As the great jurist Learned Hand taught in the midst of World War II: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."

The spirit of liberty is alive and well throughout Israel. Reasonable Israelis believe that Israeli democracy will be undercut if the proposed reforms are allowed to weaken the Supreme Court. Other reasonable Israelis believe that the extensive power of the unelected justices compromises liberty and democracy. Most Israelis agree with President Isaac Herzog that extremists on both sides are exaggerating the stakes and that compromises are possible and would be beneficial. I am in that camp. But I also believe that even if all the government proposals were to be adopted, democracy and liberty would continue to thrive among the opinionated and contentious citizens of Israel. I oppose some of the proposed reforms because I believe they endanger minority rights and some civil liberties that are now enforced by the Supreme Court. But the impact of these reforms—ill-advised as some may be—are considerably exaggerated by many of their opponents. They would make Israel more like Great Britain, Canada and even the United States, and not at all like Hungary, Poland and Turkey.

The current Supreme Court, absent any of the reforms, is the most powerful and influential Supreme Court among current democracies. It is also somewhat self-perpetuating, because the commission that appoints new justices allocates an effective veto to current justices. It is the only court, of which I am aware, that has no requirement that petitioners have "standing" to bring the case - that is that they are uniquely affected by the laws or procedures they challenge. This means that non-government organizations and even external groups can bring lawsuits challenging israeli laws. It is also the only court I know of that strikes down political and economic rules on the ground that they are extremely unreasonable. American courts used to do something similar during the new deal under the rubric of substantive due process, which was roundly criticized, especially by liberals. But despite these controversial attributes, the Supreme Court of Israel has done much good for the country and is among the most respected high courts in the world.

These peaceful protests have garnered support throughout Europe and the United States, even among Jewish supporters of Israel, despite the reality that the proposed judicial reform is largely a domestic issue with little impact outside the borders of Israel. Whatever Israel does seems to receive disproportionate attention from the international community. Little attention has been devoted to the praiseworthy nature of Israeli protests and the government's non-provocative reaction to them.

Democracy is too deeply embattled in the hearts of most Israelis for autocracy ever to take root in that young nation.