A debate at the crossroads between high-tech modernity and a catastrophic slide backwards: should nations divide into two when political splits become too much?
As Israel marks 75 years of independence, its 10 million citizens are in a seriously foul mood. So it was telling that on the I24 news station the debate I was invited to examined whether the country should be split in two along political and cultural lines.
The bitter divisions are on stark display this week, with Memorial day on Tuesday shifting to Independence Day at night, amid continuing mass protests against the rightist-religious government. The discourse was dominated by calls (largely ignored) from bereaved families that government politicians – from a coalition heavy with draft-dodging rabbis – absent themselves from the ceremonies at military graveyards.
Secular liberals are overwhelmed by the horror over everything the government stands for and the damage it is causing — beyond the machinating prime minister who is on trial for bribery, fraud and breach of trust. Many nationalist and religious Israelis are starting to suspect that the liberals are sore losers who don’t truly respect their Nov. 2022 election victory or even their way of life – and they certainly have a point.
This chasm relates to a broader phenomenon across the democratic world pitting the educated, urban and secular against the working-class, rural and traditional. Longstanding disagreements everywhere have turned radioactive because of social media echo-chambers, culture-warrior politicians and (in my view) growing inequality.
The idea that enough is enough and a split would not be so terrible will be familiar to anyone who has read the musings about a divorce between Red and Blue America. But Israel’s case is special. Israel is always somehow special.
In a way, the angst gripping the country may seem odd, considering that Israel at 75 is amazingly successful. Last year it posted a higher per capita GDP ($55,000) than Britain, France and Germany; it has world-beating tech innovation, a premier military, a vibrant culture, tourist sites aplenty and delectable cuisine.
But … there’s a very big but.
What theoretically has sparked the latest uproar was the so-called “judicial reform” announced in January by PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition, which is dependent on far-right nationalists and parties representing the Ultra-Orthodox religious sector. The plan would have refashioned Israel into an authoritarian state with an omnipotent government essentially unchecked by a judiciary.
At this writing, it looks like the plot may have been scuttled by four months of unprecedented nationwide street protests and clear evidence of the economic damage it would have wrought.
But in truth the issues run far deeper. At the core, they have to do with the fantastical birthrate of the ultra-Orthodox Jews – almost seven children per family. That unique situation moves the goalposts all the time — and a horrifying endzone is coming into view. As the group refuses to teach its children a core curriculum, sanctifies lifelong religious study by men and is overwhelmingly subsidized by the secular, it’s safe to say that if they grow from a sixth of the country today to a majority in a few generations (and that is the trend line) not much will be left of Start Up Nation. The religious, who are serious about their cult, will set up a theocracy — and the secular will flee.
In the United States, a somehow similar chasm has emerged between the Red and Blue states (meaning automatically Republican and automatically Democratic states). That Red America was not only perfectly capable of electing a character like Donald Trump but appears to be sticking with him even after he tried to overturn the 2020 election is so upsetting Blue America that there, too, there is talk of a divorce.
But in the US this is rendered impractical, inter alia, by the extreme non-contiguous nature of Blue America – which lies mainly in the northeast and on the west coast. That’s visible in the below map of the 2020 election results.
In the case of Israel, a division would be surprisingly more plausible geographically: the coastline from Tel Aviv to Haifa includes about half the 10 million population but accounts for the overwhelming majority of the economy, and is at least 80% secular and liberal. Throw in a few population swaps and you would have a coastal country with a per capita GDP at the level of countries that are essentially banks (like Luxembourg) or oil wells (examples would be impolite).
So increasingly one hears musings about hiving off the liberal and secular coast – call it “Israel” – from the rest of the country where religion and conservatism hold sway, which could be called “Judea.” It is coming from the liberal side where people are starting to conclude that this may be the only way to preserve a modern national home as envisioned by the founders. I actually wrote about it myself in the Times of Israel in December, even before the authoritarian overhaul was announced.
Israel — essentially just over 100 kilometers from north to south and 10 kilometers wide — would not only be vastly richer but also the home of those Israelis determined to find a way to peace with the Palestinians; Judea, far bigger geographically and boasting the eternal city of Jerusalem, is where support for the West Bank settlers is most fierce. Judea will fight with the Palestinians forever (or more likely be overrun).
A few years ago it would have been absurd to contemplate any of this, and it still doesn’t quite seem realistic. But it’s no longer inconceivable, because the default option of doing nothing is starting to emerge as a nightmare to too many people in the country.
The difficulty of defending such a small country as the rump Israel with such big enemies may yet kill off the idea. But moving to a federal system or one with very autonomous cantons is rather likely, if things continue as they are.
It’s actually interesting that so few nations in history have split politically this way (usually the cause is ethnicity or language). Indeed, the US Civil War was one of the only attempts.
Moreover, among the few (temporarily) successful similar attempts was by the biblical Hebrews, in 975 BC: after the rein of King Solomon (whose reputation for wisdom might have been exaggerated) the tribes of the north seceded from the Kingdom of Judea to form a rival kingdom, Israel. The motivation was a tax rebellion — not so unlike modern Israelis’ tiring of subsidizing their own “Judea.” Odd!
There are other options too, and the current agitation in the country is essentially about a realignment meant to bring them about.
For example, there is no law that says that the one quarter of Israel that is the secular right – whose concerns are, for example, being tough on defense – has to forever be in alliance with the religious and a far right which does not recoil from enacting a version of apartheid in the West Bank. That’s basically their goal.
Were the secular right to join forces, as a result of the current shock, with the liberal side, deep reforms are imaginable that could move the needle. For one thing, they would stop the subsidies that are a function of number of children, the funding of schools that deny students math, science and English, and the lifelong salaries to seminary students. They could fund a massive National Salvation Retraining. Such moves could lower the religious birthrate and increase integration.
Salvation may one day come. But my sense is that for one day, Israelis would like to worry about it less and be a nation like any other, enjoying barbecue and beer on their national day. That too – normality – was a goal of the Zionist founders. Despite breathtaking successes, it is a goal that proves elusive.
