I will begin by stating: Israeli tradition is the statehood that everyone longs for.
It is the one that is able to see beyond the sector, ethnic origin and political positions, and choose, time and time again, the good of the kingdom.
It is the one who will never prefer a party leader because of ethnic affiliation, but because of his willingness and ability to protect the people of Israel, the Land of Israel and the Jewish identity of the state.
She is the one who examines answers to essential questions in a broad prism of "the common good."
The problem is that for some people, such a statement can cause a nervous breakdown.
For years we have become accustomed to believing that statehood is the exclusive domain of a particular tribe, the one that "built the country," and without which the jungle would have taken over the villa. Put aside the fact that historically, the construction of the state is the result of a joint effort by Ashkenazis and Mizrahis. The real problem begins when some of the prominent voices in the same tribe are convinced that they have a monopoly on values such as liberalism, democracy, humanity, cosmopolitanism - and are therefore given the exclusive mandate to shape the character and spirit of the state. It is the opposite of stateliness.
In his book Conscience Consciousness, American social psychologist Jonathan Heidt writes that the moral set of liberals relies almost exclusively on two concepts (compassion and liberty), while that of conservatives relies on more diverse values: compassion, liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority and holiness. I tend to think that if Heidt had conducted his research in the country, the results would not have been much different. But when this mirror is placed in front of the "Builders of the State" tribe ("First Israel" / "Hegemony"), the reaction will not be long in coming: abysmal anger and disgust. Ask Dr. Avishai Ben Haim.
What not to do to "kill the messenger" instead of dealing with his arguments? It is stated that the very critical discussion of the power gaps between the first and second Israel sows a rift and division - this is hypocrisy. They will not dare to make similar accusations against any other social sector that points to the perpetuation of social and political inequality; It is claimed that he is an anachronist, that there is no longer a "first and second Israel" - this is ignorance. Look at the social composition of the centers of power; He is accused of being obsessed with Netanyahu - and this is already manipulation. He analyzes the political culture of his constituents, who are unwilling to return to the monochrome-painted state era.
Israel is undergoing a miraculous revolution, and it is taking place in arenas where the media, cultural, legal and political elite cannot bypass the results of democracy.
In this revolution, which began in 1977 and continues to this day, Israel is becoming more Jewish - not in the religious sense, but in the traditional sense - and yes, also more stately, because its core values are more diverse than ever.
This is the message of the statehood of the second Israel, and from it escapes the first Israel.
When the Jews of North Africa arrived in France in the 1960s, they conquered the peaks of economics, politics, science and culture within a few years.
It happened because France craved new blood in its veins, allowing new groups to express their uniqueness and realize their potential.
There are no stalwarts of them in France, and yet a large proportion of them preserve the tradition of their ancestors.
If Greater France has been able to appreciate the added value that Levantine Jewish tradition has been able to give it, perhaps the first Israel would be happy to learn from it, come to terms with its existence and respect it?