Admittedly, the situation is not alarming. The State of Israel is entering the third year in the history of the global epidemic, and it is more divided than ever. Opposite each other are two camps, supporters of the current government and its opponents, the ranks are crowded and the tones are rising. The question of dealing with the corona is also already a matter of position, and it is difficult to locate a substantive discussion of how the medical crisis (either economic or security) is being managed. In the absence of agreements on pan-Israel goals, each side is trying to fortify its power: one camp is trying to survive and retain leadership at all costs, while the other camp is already planning similar behavior on the day they regain power. The division into blocs seems stable, no significant shift is seen on the horizon, and polls suggest that the people sitting in Zion are conducted in a tribal consciousness that has been ill-remembered on countless occasions in the past.
The situation in the US is no different. Even there, the debate between Democratic Party loyalists and supporters of the Republican faction is turning into what appears to be a low-intensity civil war. One does not speak of justice, and the debilitating fear for the health of the individual is accompanied by a genuine anxiety for the future of the whole.
American society this week has a chance to stop and think. This coming Monday they will celebrate "Martin Luther King Day" and mark his 93rd birthday. Although in recent years the character of King has also become the subject of agenda-laden political debates, it is nevertheless worthwhile for us to try to listen to what the man has said. Without compromising his real achievements in the struggle for black rights in America, King will be remembered as one who sought, perhaps more than any other leader, to base his activities on the foundations of morality and spirit. From the Judeo-Christian spring he drew strength, and the statement that political power is nothing more than a means designed to help instill values and build an egalitarian and just society, he took from the Bible. , "He is immoral because he seeks to humiliate the opponent instead of acquiring his understanding; Destroy instead of change. "
Only ideological arguments can undermine tribal fixation and move supporters from side to side.
In view of the mutual political hand-wringing, both here and abroad, it is difficult not to think of its determination that violent discourse "leaves society in one discourse and not in dialogue."
All that a forceful polemic can achieve is to cultivate cruelty on the one hand and insult, longing for an outburst, on the other.
In an age where we all have our eyes wide open, our foreheads sweaty and the overall look reminiscent of balfourists, the words of the Baptist doctor may give off a slight Don Quixote scent.
There is no greater mistake than this.
This is what his opponents tended to think during his short period of activity.
50 years later, they have forgotten, and his legacy - a testament to the power inherent in political statements driven by the power of value pathos - is alive and well.
His activities remind us that a shared value concern can turn rivals into partners, return the fist to "open hand and fingers" and "help the light," as King puts it, "expel darkness and turn hatred into love."
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us