Let me tell you about the subject of the debate that did not go away, even though it seems to you that it did: it did not go down on the fate of Ukrainian refugees.
True, everyone agrees that people who are forced to leave their homes and flee their homeland for fear of the sword are miserable.
Everyone's heartfelt inclination is to help them, and that is indisputable.
And as always in such and such arguments, here too there are three rules that are born in arguments between spouses and apply to almost all cases in the world: the argument is about something else, something else is principled, both parties know it is about something else but one side refuses to admit it.
The other thing, in this case, is twofold: the debate is about the Judaism of the state and the face of the state.
The first debate concerns the definition of a "Jewish state" - whether Israel's essential definition of a Jewish state is still a fundamental and fundamental matter concerning its very existence - and hence derivatives such as demographic balance, way of life, common ground and national ethos are critical terms to fight for, or no longer need .
If in the eighth decade of its existence the state can give up this separatist definition and become a state of all its citizens.
This is a principled and important debate that is completely on the table of Israeli society, and if it stands for a democratic decision, it is likely that those who support the fact that the state must be a Jewish state will win an overwhelming majority.
The second debate, on the face of the country, is almost political.
It revolved around the question: which group would lead and lead the country and determine its character and color.
The group that is prone to conservatism and nationalism (which in our case cannot be detached from religiosity) or the other group, which is prone to liberalism and willing to pay for liberal and progressive values prices for nationalism and identity.
This, too, is a principled and important debate, and in it, too, there seems to be a majority for the Conservative group, but I am no longer sure of that.
Both of these arguments are raging in full throat and media, but above the surface they are hardly mentioned.
For he who sets the tone in this debate is the liberal side, who refuses to admit that he is conducting the debates listed above here, because he knows where his failure is guaranteed, and therefore he paints the debate as a basic, simple conflict between good and evil and between light and darkness.
As if he is the good and the merciful and the conservative voices are opaque and evil.
Stands on the right and shouts: My heart goes out to the refugees from Ukraine, but I think that immigration policy should serve the principle of the Jewish state!
In front of him stands the leftist and does not even bother to answer him for his claim.
He just tells him: such are you.
Ruthless wicked.
Is that what a refugee does?
And this vicious manipulation, which perpetuates the biggest lie in our discourse, the one that managed to create an image of strife and war on the right and an image of peace and mercy on the left - is terrible.
And whoever takes it, automatically puts his hand on the bottom.
And the injustice in it, and the damage it causes to Israeli society, are far more serious than any guarantee of any amount that the family of a refugee waiting at Ben Gurion Airport is required to deposit with the authorities.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us