For all those who join the fashion of whining about the fate of the country, it is worth mentioning the epidemiological lessons from the two previous outbreaks of the same epidemic, about half a century ago: during the recession on the eve of the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. In both cases, in extremely severe distress, it became clear in retrospect that the rate of terminal cases was lower than fears, that the "respirators" among those crying out for the fracture came mainly from the "upper cliché" and that Israeli society recovered from the crisis. According to the testimonies of its residents, at the top of the "Happiness Index", ahead of the United States, Britain, France and Germany.

It will be said immediately: the current crisis is real. The violation of the state's resilience is proven; The erosion of trust in leadership is largely understandable; The economic anxiety of millions of earners and their families is justified; Many of the failures in the economic and health fields could have been avoided; Governments that were considered stable became controversial; The public discourse is violent and demagogic; The political system failed even before the onset of the plague, and did not recover from its effective treatment; The recovery will take years.

But hysterical fractures and puzzling apocalyptic predictions are not the answer. Some express a false despair in the style of "Halacha Hamedina" or "the end of democracy" from people who would have behaved completely differently if they really meant the fashionable clichés they uttered. Some glide into superficial comparisons with dark regimes, horrific phenomena, and appalling events, from the mouths of educated people, who subordinated their discretion and public responsibility to their desire to attract attention.  

Thus, for example, those who have failed to win the public's trust at the ballot box, led by an Israel Prize winner who specializes in studying the phenomenon, claim that Israel is degenerating into fascism, even though none of the salient features of such a regime exist. Opponents of Israel's presence in the territories and the application of its sovereignty in part speak of "apartheid," even when it is emphasized that their residents will be offered citizenship if and when it materializes. Opponents of the government are waving black flags, originating from anarchists in the late 19th century, although they do not, of course, call for the abandonment of the basic social and political "rules of the game." 

The mainstream demonstrates for democracy and invites Ayman Odeh, a serial excuse for the Assad regime, to contribute to thwarting the threat to it. The chairman of the university heads' committee states that "Turkey is here" and hopes to "ignite the fire of rebellion" among academic staff and students. . Amir Hashakel describes the forcible removal of the objects of protesters in Balfour as a "pogrom." The prime minister himself describes a "dinner meal" as a "shameful crucifixion threat" against him. The ultra-Orthodox contribute in their education to screaming "Nazis" at police officers who came to prevent the spread of the plague among them.

In the face of all this, two things are needed - sedation and warning. Sedation siren: At the core of Israeli society and the system is no fascism, no apartheid, no Erdogan, no pogroms, no Nazis, no crucifixion, and not even a danger to the foundations of the democratic regime. Repulsive revelations on the fringing fringes do not threaten to occupy the mainstream of the public or the institutions of government. The extreme exaggerations are intended to mobilize support for a political camp by delegitimizing the opponent. Anyone who honestly examines the idyll attributed to the past will soon learn that even nostalgia is not what it once was: Israel in every decade is more democratic, open and pluralistic than its predecessor.

And finally, a warning light: the fact that all of these do not exist at its core does not rule out dangerous trends. To warn against them, it is important to isolate and describe them without unfounded voyages, which undermine their credibility and push them out of the majority consciousness. Here is the paradox: the more extreme the statement, the more short-term attention it receives from the media, and the less credibility and willingness to mobilize for the distorted correction from the general public. It is not only morally wrong, it is also politically ineffective.