Monday, June 03, 2019
Elder of Ziyon
While I have written occasionally on American electoral
politics in the context of BDS and the US-Israel relationship, I don’t think
I’ve ever made any statements – besides the occasional aside – about an Israeli
election.
This is not just because I don’t subscribe to the fantasy
that a lone US blogger can have an impact on international affairs. Rather, this omission is likely the result of
being part of the overwhelming consensus within the pro-Israel community that
appreciates Israelis – and Israelis alone – carry the burden of citizenship and
thus should not be hectored (especially by those who bear no responsibility for
electoral outcomes) over whom they should vote for.
But the latest election tumult in the Jewish state does cry
out for analysis, albeit one that hopefully sheds light versus casts
aspersions.
Especially since the person at the center of the tumult,
long-time Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has not just helmed the Jewish
state for so long, but that his tenure in many political roles makes him an
historic figure, one worthy of being considered Israel’s third founder.
The first founder was Theodor Herzl, the
Austro-Hungarian writer and journalist who initially created an imaginary Jewish
state in his fiction, then worked tirelessly to turn that dream into
reality. While Herzl’s political
organization and advocacy made him a controversial figure in his day, the fact
that he never became the leader of an actual state meant he did not face the
awesome challenge of rule which requires hard choices and trade-offs, some of
them with life-and-death consequences.
Israel’s second founder was Ben-Gurion, Israel’s
first Prime Minister who set in motion nearly all of the policies that define
the Jewish state to this day: ingathering of exiles, standing firm against
enemies while also holding out hope for peace, and creating and building
institutions of statehood. Like all of
the Prime Ministers who succeeded him, Ben Gurion made his share of mistakes
and his ruthless approach to political enemies helped cement political fault
lines that have yet to heal. But like
Herzl, Ben-Gurion had a vision of a strong and independent Israel that served
as his North Star, a vision that helps explain both his good and bad choices.
The leaders who succeeded Ben-Gurion includes impressive
figures like Golda Meir, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin and Arial Sharon, all of
whom shaped Israeli history in their own way.
But, ignoring their successes and blunders (some of them – like the Oslo
fiasco – monumental) each of these leaders played cards they were dealt, rather
than inventing an entirely new game.
Netanyahu’s long-term vision, and his success at achieving
it, pushes him past this pantheon into the tiny category of “founders,” i.e.,
leaders who transformed a nation, rather than just managing its affairs or
navigating it through crises.
While no single person can be credited with turning the Jewish
state into an economic powerhouse whose brain-based industries put it on par
with the oil wealth of Israel’s enemies, Netanyahu’s decades-long commitment to
liberalizing the Israeli economy – freeing it from the shackles of Ben-Gurion’s
state socialism – was one of the prime factors leading to Startup Nation.
Other Israeli leaders have caved in to pressures (internal
and external) or hubris to “do something” vis-à-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict,
leading to fiascos like the Gaza withdrawal and the aforementioned Oslo
disaster. But Netanyahu’s vision of a
Jewish state with enough economic, military and diplomatic strength to stand on
its own – despite its diminutive size and limited resources – served as his North Star, which helps explain Netanyahu’s
ability to shape domestic politics and withstand foreign pressures (especially
during an era when a hostile US administration required extraordinarily deft
navigation) leading to the strong, wealthy, diplomatically successful Israel we
know today.
Yes, Bibi has made his share of blunders, as have all his
predecessors (and everyone else who has ever taken on the responsibility to
lead a nation). But I suspect that the
pathological hatred of him outside of Israel is the result not of his prickly
personality but of his success. For if
you look at what the Israel haters despise most (including Netanyahu, AIPAC and
Israel itself) you see a list of those entities most effective at keeping the
Jewish people safe, free and secure.
With that having been said, the title of this piece will
ring a warning bell to those who know their Roman history. For the “Third Founder of Rome” was an
informal title given to Gaius
Marius, the general who saved the Republic from destruction by foreign enemies
that had threatened the nation for years, in the process reforming Rome’s
military in ways that turned it into the most powerful in the ancient world.
Having saved the state and serving five times in the top
executive position of Consul, Marius’ star faded as a new generation of
military and political leaders rose to power. Bitter at being left out to
pasture, Marius threw in his lot with political radicals, giving him a sixth and
seventh Consulship but leading directly to the first of many civil wars that
would eventually destroy the Republic.
In bringing up Marius’ story, I am in no way suggesting that
any politician hanging in there past their sell date must lead to
catastrophe. But if Marius ended up
being the historic poster child for what happens when a political hero fails to
know when to step back, another Roman – Cincinnatus
– continues to serve as archetype for the democratic leader who knows when to
call it a day.
Legend has it that after Cincinnatus was given supreme power
to defeat Rome’s enemies, and after succeeding in doing so, voluntarily gave up
the heights of leadership to return to his farm. One need only visit our nation’s capital
where a marble
statue of George Washington in toga, handing the sword he was given back to
the people, demonstrates the impact Cincinnatus’ story has had on democracy
ever since.
Given his incomparable skill in outwitting political
enemies, Netanyahu might emerge from the second Israeli election this year more
powerful than ever before. But despite
that spot of bother the Jewish people had with the Roman Empire way back when, Roman
history provides powerful archetypes that can – or should – inform the choices
of even the most powerful men and women today.
Unfortunately, many have forgotten lessons we should have
learned from Roman folly – such as the consequences of trying to prosecute our
political enemies, rather than defeat them democratically (one of the
motivations for Julius Caesar to finally draw down the curtain on the
Republic). But if we want more
Cincinnatuses and fewer Mariuses in our political lives, we must find ways to
give those who dedicate themselves to the nation a way to retire with the honor
they (including their egos) deserve.
