"There is no such thing," wrote lawyer Prof. Yifat Bitton in a groundbreaking article on the court's treatment of discrimination against Mizrahis. For decades, Bitton has shown that whether the law adopts the melting pot discourse in which "we are all Israelis," or the liberal-meritocratic discourse that "whoever wants - succeeds" - he refuses to recognize Orientalism as a category that can be discriminated against.
There is religion, race and sex.
Even skin color recognition.
But a find?
No.
Orientalism?
Certainly not.
The lack of a category that indicates the "yes" also describes the Israeli media.
The absentees present, this time, are the national-traditional public.
Not only is the largest public in the country almost unrepresented in the media, but the best post-colonial and post-modern forces, willing to recognize everyone, do everything in their power to negate the sociological division for which it can claim inadequate representation.
In this context, it was precisely Yaakov Bardugo's long-standing presence in the GLC, such that it supposedly represented the "there", that was perhaps the most prominent proof of the "nothing".
One explicit voice at the station of the army of (all) the people represented above all the discrimination and absence of all the rest.
And yes, his dismissal is not just a matter of removing the few who managed to penetrate the walls of the exclusive hall, it is in fact a renewed abolition of the entire category.
Because when there is no such group - there is no need to worry about its representation.
And on the side of this absence, and to justify the dismissal, a host of "professional" explanations are raised.
Expression of opinion and lack of objectivity, interpretation and not reporting, and above all, the great sin attributed to Bardugo, is "the style."
That is, not only does the category for which we claim discrimination and dismissal do not exist for them, but a new category is invented for which it is permissible to discriminate, and even obligatory to dismiss: "style."
"Bardugo is outraged, his style is inappropriate," various representatives said.
But "reciting Kaddish" about the prime minister while alive and calling his supporters "blind herd", "vulgar", "inferior demonstrations", "blunt" - all these, and many other expressions, sarcastic and racist - are not presented as a problem of style. Certainly not Reason for dismissal from the "Voice of Truth" channels.
And yes, the domestication of power over a national resource, over public channels, and their transformation into a sectoral propaganda center, alongside the casting of media people who knowingly represent only certain sections of the public - is a symbol of objectivity, professionalism and statehood for them.
The removal of Bardugo is a continuation of the distortion of inequality and the exclusion of the same national-traditional public from most of the media.
The one for whom it was never possible to lean on the privilege of the crucible, or to ascend the promised paths paved for others.
On the contrary, he was always extroverted.
"Without liberty" was once claimed.
Once without a mention ("sat next to MK Bader").
And always without category and without positive content.
And thus, ostensibly, neither exists nor discriminated against.
But what did he have?
"style".
Fascist, Beginist, and now - Bibist.
And this style, embodied in a third of the Knesset, with one representative in the establishment media, is too "inciting".
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us