Israel is on a perilous path that, if it does not wake up, will lead to the collapse of its democracy and civil war. Thus spake Aharon Barak, the dean of jurists, the godfather of the judicial revolution and judicial activism that the current reform seeks to undo, a man universally recognized as a brilliant legal mind.
“We have passed many red lines, and now there is a new red line: we must make all efforts to prevent a civil war,” the 88-year-old Barak said in an interview with Channel 12 on Thursday evening. “We are very close to a civil war.”
No sooner were these words aired than they became news. “Aharon Barak: Israel on verge of civil war.”
Why? Because Barak spoke them. And if he said them, then they must be true, right? His assessment must be correct, no?
After all, this is not Moshe (Bogie) Ya’alon, Ehud Barak, or Ehud Olmert who are voicing these sentiments—men whose contempt for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems to override all esle, making any projection they offer about the country’s trajectory suspect becuase it is colored by their deep antipathy toward the prime minister.
But Aharon Barak? He is in a different category, no?
Einat Wilf, in an interview on Friday, spoke about how “prestige suspends judgment.” She was referring to anti-Israel arguments abroad and how, when repeated by institutions like the UN or academia, they gain an air of legitimacy and credibility, leading people to suspend their own judgment and accept them without scrutiny.
A similar dynamic is at play here. Barak declared Israel “very close to a civil war,” so it must be true—because Barak said it.
The challenges
But there are three problems with that assumption.
The first is that Barak has a clear agenda. Though not driven by the same deep enmity toward Netanyahu as Ya’alon, Olmert, or Barak, he has a vested interest: preserving the activist judiciary he shaped. The firing of the attorney general threatens that legacy—after all, he expanded the attorney general’s role from being primarily a legal advisor to the government to acting as a de facto watchdog over the executive branch, able to veto government actions deemed unreasonable or illegal.
To defend and protect this edifice, he warns of the most dire consequences if the government continues down its current path. And what is the gravest consequence? Civil war.
This is like those who despise Donald Trump comparing him to Hitler. You might find him detestable, but he is not Hitler. Likewise, you might believe that firing Shin Bet head Ronen Bar is reckless and that attempting (most likely unsuccessfully) to fire the attorney general is even worse, but to claim it will bring the collapse of Israeli democracy or spark a civil war is over the top.
The second reason to take Barak’s words with a grain of salt is that as brilliant a legal mind as he may be, he is not a prophet.
Asked why he thinks the country is on the verge of a civil war, he answered, “Because the rift in the nation is tremendous, and no efforts are being made to mend it. Everyone is trying to make it more extreme. So today there is a protest, a car comes and runs over someone, tomorrow there will be gunfire, and in two days blood will be spilled.”
That’s one way of interpreting reality, but it remains just that—his interpretation. And his guess is as good as anyone else’s.
The third reason to question Barak’s prognosis is becuase it is unclear to what degree he has his finger on the nation’s pulse. On Sunday, one of his defenders, Yuval Elbashan, argued that Barak wasn’t predicting civil war but rather just warning against it.
The issue, Elbashan said, is that Barak doesn’t understand how the media works today and how his words will be spun. He may have understood it in the ’70s, ’80s, ’90s, and early 2000s, but he is no longer a maven in this realm. If that is indeed the case—if he is out of touch with how the media operates today—perhaps he is also out of touch with how the public actually feels.
Does he really think that soldiers who lived, fought, and died side by side in Gaza and Lebanon over the last year will suddenly turn their weapons—not on Hamas or Hezbollah —but on each other over the firing of the Shin Bet chief or even the attorney general, something unlikely to happen in the first place? He may think so, but some could argue that if he does, he is too caught up in the shrill noise of the moment to recognize the broader reality.
Two days earlier, singer-songwriter Idan Raichel released a new song, Eretz (The Land). His take in this uplifting song was completely different.
Yes, this country—a land “flowing with milk and honey and news” —is made up of contrasts: a hipster and a rabbi, a city and a village, a mosque and a monastery, Left and Right, jachnun and hamin—and endless drama and war.
But unlike Barak, he comes to a starkly different conclusion.
After all the bad days
We will still soften after all the hardships
In the desert, even if it takes 40 years,
There will still be life
We’ll again mend the rifts
Time will heal our wounds
In the desert, even if it takes 40 years
And then comes his powerful final line, echoing how the media prefaces reports of fallen soldiers with the words: cleared for publication.
A land, cleared for publication, a minute of silence, we will fall and rise.
Raichel’s take is fundamentally different from Barak’s.
Barak is pessimistic—he slams extremists tearing the nation apart yet joins them with his apocalyptic prognosis. Raichel, who some might argue is in closer contact and has a better “feel” for the country, is hopeful and trusts in the people’s resilience.
Is it difficult? Yes. But, as Raichel sings, the rifts will be mended.
For that to happen, voices like Raichel’s must be raised. And the voices of those stoking division—on both sides—must be put in perspective.
The country has no shortage of doomsayers and those in politics, on the street, and in the media eager—because of their own interests—to widen the rifts. But it also has people who want to turn the page on these tired battles, find common ground, and move forward.
The question: which voices should we listen to and amplify?
