When listening to the demonstrators, it becomes clear that the common denominator for them is a pathological hatred of one figure. • Why is the right refraining from demonstrating at the moment? The explanation is that there is common sense on the right

• Demonstrators against the Prime Minister

  Photo: 

  Oren Ben Hakon

" Violence is eroding the foundation of Israeli democracy, it must be condemned, condemned, isolated. This is not the way of the State of Israel. In a democracy, there can be disagreements, but the decision will be in democratic elections ." Yitzhak Rabin, November 4, 1995

Year after year, we, and rightly so, grind the undisputed determination of the late Yitzhak Rabin - in a democratic state, decisions are made at the ballot box. We must oppose personal incitement, calls for "traitor", dehumanization of a political opponent, comparisons to past dictators and their fate. Passes but is not absorbed.In practice, recent years prove not only that the Israeli left is inciting, but that it also refuses to condemn incitement.

Photo: Yoni Rickner

Balfour demonstrations are a woodstock of hatred. They are not a rational political event, but an event from the realm of the mind. A religious ceremony of mass catharsis, in which hatred is celebrated in the open air, a ceremony in which it is permissible to compare the Prime Minister to the Romanian dictator Ceausescu and Louis XVI, who we all know how they ended up.

A festival where thousands of people are insulted, attacked, humiliated and hand-washed. The terminology does not belong to the political realm, but to revolutionary radicalism at the corner of Bombamela and the Midburn.

When listening to the protesters, it becomes clear that the common denominator for them is a pathological hatred of one character. This is also implied by the practice of uniting the struggles of the left, a union that is basically a statement with a clear subtext - it is more important to fight the enemy than to advance your ideas (because every struggle has a different ideology, but they all have a common enemy). Liberate the Gaza Ghetto "," uniformed murderers "and the red flags of communist tyranny.

Today (Monday) the demonstrators were terribly offended because Yair Netanyahu said in an interview that they were aliens and told Yotam Zimri and Noam Fathi on Gali Israel radio that he was showing his father, the prime minister, the amusing pictures from the demonstration. Do not buy the insult from those who walked next to a giant inflated male genitalia that read "Sarah Let's Go." Anyone who walked in the midst of this degrading sexual assault lost the right to be offended. Earlier this week, my colleagues in the fringe shared a frenetic article by Akiva Novik in Haaretz, in which an attempt was made to explain why religious Zionism refrained from demonstrating in favor of Netanyahu. Between one scholarly explanation and another, it seems to me that there is a simple explanation for why the right is refraining from demonstrating at the moment - there is common sense on the right.

Common Sense, Blaze. The ability to separate ideology from the rotten reality out there, or rather, to the dangerous and contagious epidemic that has paralyzed our lives and threatens to smash us again; The ability to make the least bad decision, rather than cling to angry examples. With all due respect to religious Zionism, it is not close to being the main story in the Titans' struggle between First Israel and Second Israel. The central question is not why the right is not protesting, but what the hell do the people of Balfour want other than the almost messianic aspiration "just not Bibi".

Read more : 

• Is Ehud Barak the engine behind the black flag protest? 

• Olmert: "Sharon wanted to include 17 localities in the West Bank in the disengagement" 

• Commentary: The account between the IDF and Hezbollah remains open

The Israeli media incites the protest for two main reasons. First, they identify with the protesters, with the political notion of "just not Bibi." Not a deep ideology, but again a basic abhorrence of man and right. The second reason for the inflated coverage is prose, cucumber and corona season and the media is looking for summer action.

In response to allegations of excessive coverage, my colleagues wanted to say that the disengagement protests also had 24/7 coverage. so? Obviously. No one claimed that there was no coverage, but that the essential and emotional position of the media was completely different.

The hypocrisy of the media

In the 2011 and 2020 protests, the media treats the protest as a sacred cosmic event of paramount importance. The media accompanies the demonstrators with empathy and goes out in a rage against the police, who allow the demonstrations until the wee hours of the night with selective enforcement that we have not seen before. The media treats violence (lynching with a detective), threats ("We will drag you with a pickup truck ... son of death" shouted Avishai Ben Haim), blatant insults against the prime minister and his family. But in the summer of 2005, the media treated the protest as a direct threat to democracy, a threat to a government decision and an elected Knesset.

Every roadblock, every orange rally was seen as a challenge to statehood and the existence of the state. The media mobilized to defend the kingdom, responding to the violation of basic principles of law in a democratic state. When Attorney General Mazuz threatened 20 years in prison for roadblocks, no one stood up and shouted for the right to protest. I would not buy a used car from the Israeli media.