Riddle: Who said the following stately things on Sunday? "I will jump at every state opportunity I have to behave in a stately manner. I did not leave the Knesset when the government was sworn in. Did I like it? Absolutely not, so I will embrace this state moment, and even with a sour face I will know how to respect this state moment. (... ) I will choose at all costs to behave in a stately manner, because if I do not present another alternative - sane, speaking, inclusive, accepting, not giving up on its principles but also seeking to understand the needs of the other side - this country will have no future but strife and discord for the rest of its life , and that's what I'm trying to change."
It is clear that the speaker is a statesman, as he mentions the word five times.
It is also clear that he speaks, contains, accepts and is sane.
In short: Benny Gantz.
Less than a week passed, and Gantz's statesmanship changed its face: "The time has come to demonstrate and shake the country. Netanyahu wants to take advantage of a momentary majority and ignite a struggle and hatred between the tribes in Israeli society. It is clear that he and his partners have decided to destroy the balances, burn the brakes, and squeeze the gas pedal Rushing towards the abyss," wrote the former defense minister.
"I call on you to come out and fight (...) against the dismantling of democracy and the predatory and unrestrained movement. For the general public that supports the fight, the time has come to come out and shake the country. Netanyahu, if you continue on the path you are on - the responsibility for the fratricidal war that is raging in Israeli society will be on you."
The Knesset channel
Where did the conversation, inclusion and acceptance - not to mention sanity - disappear in the course of a few days?
Well, there's no point in breaking your head: Gantz's words at the beginning of the week had exactly the same value as his words at the end.
The man shouts slogans in the air, sometimes of hugging and sometimes of launching tanks, flattering himself, presenting a vision of Hollywood horror - and all with the same degree of authenticity.
He wrote a script for a horror movie, then sits in the movie theater and screams in fear with the other viewers.
The head of the opposition, Yair Lapid, did not mince words either: "Like a gang of criminals, the day before the High Court hearing on the Deri law, the government put a loaded gun on the table.
What Levin's opponent presented today is not a legal reform, it is a threatening letter.
They threaten to destroy the entire constitutional structure of the State of Israel.
This is not legal reform.
This is a radical regime change, this is the cancellation of the Declaration of Independence, this will cut off Israel from the family of liberal states.
This is not the correction of democracy, it is the elimination of democracy.
A country where the government is allowed to do everything is not a democracy.
A country that abolishes all the checks and balances on the government one morning is not a democracy."
The words of Gantz and Lapid, which describe an apocalyptic and violent dystopia, join the words of Aharon Barak, who referred to the legal reform of Yariv Levin as a "poison string", "the destruction of a third house", called on the judges to resign and warned against fratricidal war.
In a noble gesture, Barak volunteered to face a firing squad and die to prevent the reform.
The interviewer did not stop the dramatic flow to ask: "Excuse me, but where did you get me a firing squad now?".
The opposition leaders do not believe that anyone's hand will be against his brother because of the reform of the judicial system.
They just believed they would win the election
The harsh words were followed by a chain of former senior officials such as Bogi Ya'alon and Yair Golan who called Mary Tziri, not to mention more organized protests by lawyers, law deans and ordinary citizens, fueled by horrific headlines in newspapers and the Tisha Bab faces of radio and television broadcasters.
Do Gantz, Lapid and Barak believe that a fratricidal war, civil wars and a fratricidal war is imminent?
Does the reform mean "repeal of the Declaration of Independence"?
Well, it depends on how you define "war", "Mary" and "sanity" - these are all words whose meaning was perfectly clear until a new interpretation was poured into the content, which turned them into something completely different.
Just as Aharon Barak changed the meaning of the word "democracy", so that no one mistakenly thinks that it expresses the will of the people, and not his own values.
In my opinion, the opposition leaders do not really believe that anyone's hand will be against his brother because of the reform of the judicial system.
Just as they did not believe in October that the end of democracy would come on November 1st.
They just believed they would win the election.
Or that Balad will pass the blocking percentage. They bombard with seditious slogans simply because they believe that the hysterical rhetoric, when accompanied by an authoritative baritone and a sour face, gives their words additional justice. They do not imagine rivers of blood in the streets, but a government led by them. The meaning of "fratricidal war" and The "elimination of democracy" in Gantz and Lapid's language is: "Why didn't you elect us?". When Morgan Freeman narrates a film about alien abductions, it doesn't mean that there are aliens, but that Freeman needs to make a living. And Lapid and Gantz want to be elected.
Aharon Barak made basic terms in law, democracy and Hebrew according to them, distorted the language of the law and invented a pseudo-legal and pseudo-Hebrew language, which includes terms such as "substantial democracy", "proportional democracy", "the reasonable person", "the reasonable legislator" and more.
He stated that the language of the law is subjective, thereby emptying the law of its content and the citizen's belief in his ability to understand Hebrew.
The volatile language that Barak created confused him as well, because words that have no meaning cannot represent any reality, nor themselves.
When words have no meaning, even a legal genius like Barak can argue, contrary to the basic law, that the Ombudsman is the one who determines whether a prime minister against whom an indictment has been filed can serve as prime minister. A judge who uses words according to his will, values or whims in the first act - will distort democracy In the second act, and in the third he will already invent a firing squad.
The vulgarity of the language is also the property of the opponents of Levin's reform.
That's why senior politicians can talk about "civil war", "loaded gun" and "elimination of democracy" as if they were punctuation marks.
they mean
For "demonstrations", for "blocking roads" and maybe, if they have the power, for a "filibuster".
But they too, like Barak, forgot that even after the flight of "purposive interpretation" - words definitely have meaning.
Maybe they should remember that sometimes there is someone who is convinced, and takes the apocalyptic baritone seriously.
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