A radio discussion I had this week suddenly got into a strange place, which made me think very sad thoughts.
It all started with a eulogy for Rabbi Druckman z'al. I talked about his personal virtues, and my colleague Shalom Yerushalmi shared an old memory of his, about a confrontation on the stage of the Knesset between the late Rabbi and the late Moshe Dayan, regarding the issue of the peace agreement with Egypt and its consequences for the conflict Israeli-Palestinian.
Dayan raised from the pulpit questions concerning the status of the Palestinians in the case of the application of sovereignty, Rabbi Druckman argued with him and explained his doctrine on the matter, and so on.
Yerushalmi concluded his words by announcing that Rabbi Druckman's way had won, and that the settlements are a fait accompli, etc., and I, who did not want to get into the subject at all, could not help myself and wondered if the fact that in 2022 the constitutional and sovereign status of Judea and Samaria is as it is - not in the least debatable this victory.
Then suddenly we found ourselves talking about annexation and the application of sovereignty and two states and bi-nationalism, and names like Hanan Porat were mentioned, and the word "disengagement" was also mentioned, and bilateral and Madrid and the Herzliya speech and Trump.
And suddenly everything became a distant and irrelevant discussion.
As if we are talking about another place, and what about all this and the line-up we prepared, which includes a weighty reference to the really important issues, such as Yair Netanyahu's tweet and his father's reservation, such as that section that was discovered and such as the one that popped up.
Of course, we very quickly returned to the matters for which we gathered, so that we would not lose listeners, God forbid, and I was struck by a strong longing for the distant days when it was possible to have a practical discussion on basic questions such as these.
I too, and certainly my colleague who is older than me, grew up in a media that was mostly concerned with the "big" questions.
And today?
Today, even when such a discussion takes place - it takes place only indirectly.
That is, to learn through him about positions and through them about political affiliation.
Today there is no room where the question of what the future of an isolated settlement will be in a future settlement, and what will be the legal status of Palestinians in an annexed territory, is put on the table.
Perhaps in Rabbi Druckman's room, during a visit by Bezalel Smotrich (even then they probably talked more about Ben Gabir than Abu Mazen).
So what is really the reason?
It is true that internal issues and the company's image push aside pressing security questions that those have the power to address, but it is really not only that.
Definately not.
The serious engagement with the strategic questions was not pushed aside for the right reasons and gave way to another agenda.
He just gassed up and disappeared, because we had more important things to deal with in recent years - not including the corona virus.
We dealt with sweets and ice creams, recordings and wines, and even laundry in a freezer.
I'm not going into the content of the matter at all now, I'm just trying to wake up from the dream of expressions that passed over this country during the five years of Israel, and ended with the same prime minister and more or less the same coalition. This era, had it not been for the boycott, could have been a paradise of development and of a real engagement with the issues Realism - nationalism, policy, whatever you want. Instead, we woke up every morning to another day three quarters of which is dedicated to angry reactions to things said yesterday, to demonstrations and riots.
And beyond the romantic longing and the bitter analysis, the big question is: what will happen now?
Where is this all going now?
In a moment the storm of these unnecessary clauses in the coalition agreements (none of them will be implemented) will end and a somewhat complicated government, divided into ministries, will be sworn in, which is not acceptable to many good people.
The choice will be up to her opponents whether to swallow her, criticize her matter-of-factly and allow her to work or continue with the previous approach, or drive us all crazy and impose on her an agenda that is busy with punching and misses after misses.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us