On video: David Grossman at a demonstration in Tel Aviv (Photo: Satview)
I've written this here a thousand times before, and the past few weeks have made this unfortunate statement more and more relevant.
There is really no press in Israel.
There are a bunch of political activists here who are fighting to promote their agenda and their political camp, and are using their media to do so.
This is true for television, radio and newspapers, it is true for the private press, and it is true for public broadcasting.
All the main media outlets in Israel have put on uniforms in recent weeks - and mobilized to fight the legal reform of Justice Minister Yariv Levin.
In the first stage they still tried to argue with her.
Now - perhaps because they found in front of them a determined coalition, an experienced minister and a public that is fed up with the situation and wants a change - they have moved to concentrate efforts in order to try to create chaos here.
Go through the last week's press in its forms, and you will discover very few facts and a great deal of panic that is sprayed on us from all sides.
This warns that the reform will harm the economy, the other warns that it will harm the academy, the third is frightening that people will leave the country, and the fourth - that we are automatically becoming countries that we do not want to be like.
Commentators who have no real idea of what is happening in these countries, roll their tongues about "Hungary", "Poland", "Turkey", with the same irresponsibility with which they used the "Bastille" during the Balfour demonstrations.
There is a concerted effort here by those who failed to convince the Israeli public of the rightness of their way, to create chaos and inflame the entire world against us, with the hope that they might be able to force the Israeli government to do what they themselves, at the ballot box, failed to do.
They throw more matches and more matches into this fire, then sit in the studios and warn: "The government is playing with fire."
The high-tech protest, the Sharona complex in Tel Aviv, this week (photo: official website, the high-tech protest)
The talks about the reactions to the reform in the world remind me of the days when an explosive device would explode at a bus station in Hadera, and my relatives from the US would call anxiously to ask if I had not been hurt, because on television you see difficult images from Israel. I am satisfied if the entire world of economics is sitting on Knesset channel broadcasts ours and writes down comments following the words of MK Simcha Rothman.
The wider world is alive, certainly at this stage, mainly from what it sees and hears here, and from following the Israeli press.
And when it conveys to him that our democracy is about to collapse, and our judicial system is about to be wiped out and our rule of law is counting down its days, and Ototo Binyamin Netanyahu and Riv Levin cancel the elections for good in order to stay in power forever, one can only be surprised that the Western world has not yet sent aid forces to save us from ourselves.
Karnit Flug and Yaakov Frankel, two former governors of the Bank of Israel, are serious people.
This week they published an article in "Yediot Ahronoth" that warns against the reform and its consequences for the economy.
Their article is based on the premise that the reform will weaken the judicial system.
The initiators of the reform, on the other hand, explain again and again why it will actually strengthen both the legal system and the public's trust in this system.
More in Walla!
Netanyahu and his fears in the face of the ticking clocks that threaten Israel's stability
To the full article
At the core of his plan is the concept that the reform will do the justice system good.
Levin (Photo: Knesset Spokesperson, Dani Shem Tov)
Do Flug and Frankel, like the hundreds of economists who signed a similar petition, argue with this claim?
No.
It's not our field, they admit, and we don't understand it.
Or in their own words: "We do not intend to discuss the details of the legal aspects of the program, as we are not lawyers."
Tell me, is this serious?
At the core of Minister Levin's plan is the concept that this reform will do good for the judicial system, that it will create more certainty and more stability and more ability for the government to promote, among other things, economic initiatives that it believes in.
You can argue with that of course.
But you can't run a campaign that ignores this, assume that the reform is bad, and then explain why a bad reform hurts the economy and drives away investors.
It is impossible to explain that growth and prosperity require a system of laws that respects "respect for property rights, respect for budget laws, respect for the Central Bank Law and preservation of competition laws", without explaining where they see that the reform will abolish all of these.
One sentence of the former governors could be easily connected.
"It is very easy to destroy an economic image, and very difficult to restore."
And in this sense, it seems that the two important authors, irresponsibly, are now contributing to a serious damage to our economic image, when they did not see any clause that justifies it.
And when they explain that "Israel's situation is still far from that of countries like Hungary and Poland, and its situation is immeasurably better than that of Turkey", and despite this, it is important for them to mention Hungary, Poland and Turkey regarding the reform, instead of calling their friends in the world and explaining to them that the comparison absurd and that we are a thousand kilometers away from what is happening in these countries, as they themselves write in the end - they are playing with fire.
Because in the economy, as in other fields, such prophecies may come true.
Today you are scaring the world's investors for no reason and without reasoning.
Tomorrow, when they get scared, you can say "there, I told you so".
I read this week in several media that a large venture capital fund that invests in startups in Israel published a statement, according to which it maintains "a regular and open dialogue with the managements of our Israeli portfolio companies who share their concerns with us".
The foundation emphasized: "We advocate the principles of democracy, equality and equal opportunities, and we condemn any attempt to trample on personal freedoms, or acts of hatred, violence or discrimination."
I don't know what all those Israeli companies who share their concerns told the management of this fund, but how the hell does Levin's reform have to do with "acts of hatred, violence or discrimination"?
Did someone suggest hitting someone?
Someone asked to promote hate projects?
By the way, one of the partners in this fund is the Israeli developer Yaad Agmon.
This week Agmon took a picture of himself participating in a demonstration against the reform, and on his Twitter account also invited the public to take part in it.
"We see a great and immediate danger to high-tech," the CEO of one of the high-tech companies that took part in this week's protest explained to Channel 12. "Imagine what would happen if 40% of the country's exports disappeared." And I wonder if this CEO has any indication that 40 % will disappear?
Why not 32% or 22.5%?
And maybe nothing in our exports will be harmed?
And that's exactly the point.
Because in the current political struggle, which is led with a high hand in the media, there is no need for data, and there is no need for facts.
Anyone who wants to scare, gets a microphone and a magnificent stage.
Just let him come.
Yesterday, Einat Gaz, CEO of the startup Papaya Global, who spoke at a demonstration on Saturday night, tweeted: "We made a business decision to take all the company's money out of Israel." This is not an economic step, since her company has not yet lost a penny from the reform that has yet to come. This is it. A political step. There is of course no problem in a democratic country to take political steps, but it is important to know how to treat them as such. There are those who fail to convince the Israeli public of their views and choose to leave the country. There are those who choose to withdraw their money. Gaz does not warn of the damage that will be caused to Israel by the reform. She wants to be the first to cause this damage herself.
And what is sad is that in this whole group - the fact that it sees the solution differently, does not make it less serious and loves the country less - there is not one responsible adult who will knock on the table and stop this madness, which blackens us in the world and may harm us all.
This week I interviewed on TV the president of the Technion Prof. Uri Sion, a serious man by all accounts.
When Sivan warned that the reform would harm academia and academic freedom, I asked him to direct me to the relevant section of the reform related to this.
"Nothing has happened yet," he replied, "we are just warning that the reform that is about to hit a very important arm, which is the authority that protects the weak, the minorities."
I asked again.
"Did you read in the reform something that conflicts with academic freedom?".
"No", he replied, "so far there is no explicit threat to academic freedom, but it is a derivative of general freedom...".
I tried again.
"Explain to me how this derivative will work. Take me forward to a terrible move that will end with no academic freedom at the Technion."
Prof. Sion told me about Hungary and a move there in which the academy was subordinated to "some kind of society where politicians rule".
"Well", I asked, "and did you see any of this in Levin's reform?"
"Pluralism and the ability to voice opinions are the soul of the academy," he tried again.
And I tried too.
"But this reform harms the ability to voice opinions? Direct me to one section that talks about that."
"
My friend Shaul Amsterdamski explained yesterday in an excellent video why he was upset by the 270 economists who signed a petition against the legal reform on the grounds that it would greatly harm the Israeli economy, even though he agrees with their bottom line.
"Imagine the opposite situation," he suggested.
"Imagine a situation where the credit companies would raise the rating because of the changes in the judicial system that the government is trying to bring about. Let's say they are fans of Levin's opponent. What then? So the economists would support these changes? It doesn't seem to me... if you oppose the changes in the judicial system that the government Trying to bring, so say exactly that and don't hide behind the economy."
And I agree with him.
This reform, which I support and Saul opposes, is important enough for us to debate about it and not look for excuses.
The "headquarters of the struggle" of the media
Let's go back to communication.
If you are decent people, then even if you oppose the reform, you must agree that the fact that in all our media, with the exception of small islands, it is not evident that its leaders represent 64 mandates - is intolerable.
The situation where one can understand from the television screen that Israel only has an opposition is a difficult problem for democracy, which for some reason is of no interest to all those who carry its name in vain in demonstrations and squares.
Masses of journalists have completely lost their shame, and no longer feel the need to pretend.
In "Haaretz" a decision was made to call Levin's plan - not in the opinion pages, but in regular news reports - as "the plan to weaken the judicial system".
Imagine, just to understand, that as part of a news report in 1993, a right-wing newspaper would have reported, referring to the Oslo Accords, that "the plan to increase terrorism will be put to a vote in the Knesset tomorrow."
Does that sound reasonable to you?
But it's not only in Haaretz.
Nadav Eyal, once a journalist and now a protest activist, explained this week that this program should not be called "reform", because it is a positive bias.
In another tweet on Twitter, he made it clear that he was disturbed by the way the organizers of the demonstrations were acting.
"Messages are beginning to be issued on the left in the name of 'struggle headquarters', including instructions for shutdowns (without coordination with labor unions). I hear from other organizations that things are not coordinated. Neither in language nor in message. The opposition, if it starts to conduct itself in a wild and divided manner as usual, will signal a critical struggle for it." .
You got it, buddy.
God?
This is not what these demonstrations are called here.
Maybe you should let Nadav Ill start organizing them, so that there will be order here.
He was followed by Ronan Manelis, once a spokesman for the IDF and now a commentator for "Kan Ha'ods", with "some thoughts for upgrading Mochash. 1. Move the meeting to 19:30 (it starts at 20:00 anyway). 2. Limit the number of speakers to 3 (this is long, ineffective and wastes energy). 3. Limit each speaker to 7 minutes (as above).
4. End by 21:00 with a great 'Hatikva' song (takes great photos and creates a sense of togetherness).
5. Incorporate uplifting music (the beautiful one is great, but...)".
Later he would sit in the studio with his hat on as a commentator, and analyze the same protest.
The reporter for "Haaretz" in the south mocked Beer Sheva Mayor Rubik Danilovich on Twitter this week, the subject of his coverage: "And who didn't come to the demonstration right below his office? 'Labor Party man', who became Almog Cohen's bestie."
As if showing up for a demonstration against the reform is a basic duty of every elected official.
And that's even before we talked about the media awakening in an attempt to publish investigations about the "Ecclesiastical Forum", whose people are pushing for the amendments in the judicial system.
I will not refer to everything that was published this week in a funny investigation on Channel 12, half of which has already been refuted and in the other half the forum is accused, more or less, of trying to promote its positions, as if it were serious corruption.
Oya to the reference to the preoccupation with the fact that the major donors of Kehalat are two American Jews who support very conservative positions in the USA. And this is so ridiculous. Why? Because the left-wing organizations in Israel have been living on donations from abroad for years and none of them have ever brought the entire press to be excited about it so much.
But it did.
We are full here of left-wing organizations that submit petitions to the High Court and try to change Israel's policy in this way - not with the money of private donors overseas, but with the money of foreign countries that are stirring up our politics. When did this scandalous fact interest the mainstream media so much?
There is an agenda, a newspaper less
Let's expand a little on "Haaretz".
We know that this is a newspaper with an agenda.
I knew this when I subscribed to this newspaper.
It is the most legitimate in the world.
And in general, I try not to be afraid of opinions different from my own.
If they have something to challenge thought, I read them with interest.
But even a newspaper that has an agenda should behave like a newspaper.
This week "Haaretz" decided to inform Gadi Taub that he stops writing for them.
Taub was a prominent and unusual voice in the newspaper, certainly in the legal fields.
Does "Haaretz" have to hire him?
of course not.
But pay attention to the reasons.
One of them explained that the source of the decision was in the "recent change of government," literally, "which was accompanied by an aggressive and immediate attack on Israeli democracy, as we at Ha'aretz perceive it. The desire to weaken the judicial system with the help of extreme moves that are made unilaterally and without restraint, Also us as a means of communication to defend ourselves against what is perceived among us as a coup d'état."
For two weeks our minds are confused that Levin's reform will harm freedom of expression, and what is the prominent newspaper on the Israeli left doing in response to this reform?
Throws over its pages the only article writer who thinks otherwise.
And it didn't start today.
A few months ago, even before I contemptuously canceled my subscription to the newspaper, Amos Shokan, like all subscribers, sent me a letter that I read over and over to believe it was real.
Shoken, with great audacity, took advantage of the fact that he had our details to use them for cheap political propaganda.
He explained in his letter why the government of Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid was good, and informed us - as subscribers to the newspaper, yes?
- that "the good of Israel requires that we choose so that Benjamin Netanyahu does not form the next government."
Wait, this is not the end.
Schocken also explained in the same letter that our money, the subscribers, helps him and his newspaper promote this goal.
"I thank you and you for the support through the subscription fees, and hope that we will be able to help achieve a good democratic result in the upcoming elections as well."
And so, without asking me and without asking my permission, I found myself turning from a newspaper subscriber to a party member.
It's over, as mentioned.
"Turkey" and "Hungary" again?
On Sunday evening, after the bulletin board of the main edition of Channel 12 informed us about the schedule of the expected demonstrations this week, divided into foci, and after the economic reporter once again said "Turkey" and once again "Hungary", a long article filmed by Ohad Hamu the night before at the demonstration was broadcast The eldest in Tel Aviv. His father-in-law interviewed one mother who said that she was afraid - it is not clear on what basis, maybe she has been watching too much TV lately - that soon her children will not have the right to vote and the right to an education, "and that really scares me."
He interviewed someone who promised "a war in the streets, and if I sit in prison for this, I'm ready to dedicate my life to that too... We're just before the rope around the neck", a statement that under other circumstances the publication would have labeled the police.
He also interviewed the woman who is sure that "it will come to the point where I won't be able to sit forward on the bus, and my friends from the gay community won't be able to live here."
And you hear them and understand where you can get to when there is no responsible adult around to tell all these friends that they must drink water and give up the nonsense they hear in the media, because it has nothing to do with reality.
Then came a particularly arrogant venture capital investor who said: "I met around here 40% of the GNP.
Everyone is here at the demonstration," and added: "I put over a billion dollars into the state coffers from companies I sold," and warned: "We are 40%-50% of the foreign exchange that enters Israel. If we are not here, we will end up in a bad place, not in Europe, but in Africa in terms of I went to Google to find who the man was. Well, he returned to Israel not long ago after over ten years of living in San Francisco, where he was a partner in an agency that helps Israelis who leave the country to be absorbed in Silicon Valley.
But put that aside.
It's less interesting.
What is interesting is to see what transformation the high-tech people managed to go through in the media.
Until two minutes ago they were the object of scorn and ridicule.
On television they mocked their hedonism, laughed at their detachment from what was happening around them and presented them as a bunch of pigs who eat ice cream in 24 flavors during the lunch break, but do not see real life in the eyes.
and now?
Now, during a small demonstration in front of the Netanyahu government, they have become the ones whose position is very important to listen to in everything related to the reason for reasonableness, because whoever sold a company for a billion dollars must know what kind of legal reform needs to be done here.
Probably better than us, the general public.
This week I read a tweet by Yizhar Shai, a high-tech person, a former minister on behalf of Blue and White, and today the chairman of the Derchno movement, regarding the protest of the high-tech people in Herzliya. 25% of the income tax paid here," he wrote. Yesterday, by the way, it became clear that the fund Shizhar Shai is a partner in decided to stop bringing its investors' money to Israel, in response to the reform. And you look at these people, and at the media that is now lifting them up to the sky - all in the background of a demonstration where they are shouting Everyone is "democracy, democracy" - and ask yourself if these friends understand what this democracy means.
Excuse me, why do you think that the opinion of the hi-techist from Herzliya is more important than that of the worker at the Or Yehuda aluminum plant?
Because he has more money?
Because his company brings in more taxes?
Are we back to this class discourse?
And maybe in the next elections we will give the proletariat the opportunity to chain one ballot to the ballot box, and the one who sold a company in Silicon Valley two ballots?
After all, this is the whole story of the reform on one leg.
People like me, who want this reform, are tired of the reality where we go to the polls to promote what we believe in, and then a group arrives that has not earned anyone's trust but is convinced that it knows better than the rest of us what is reasonable and what is not, and changes everything.
In a democracy, Esther Hayut from Al-Aliyon and Heitkist from Herzliya and Masouda from Sderot have the same weight on the ballot.
And if there are more people in Israel who think like Masauda, then the country will go where Masauda wants to go, even if Esther Hayut is the president of the Supreme Court and Heitkist owns a cyber company.
Rape of high-tech workers
If there was a press here, we would see it beating the managers of the companies that trampled on the rights of their employees this week and forcing them to come out and express their political positions, and not carry them on their hands.
One such manager, Shai Datika, was interviewed by Yotam Zamri and Little Shemesh in Gali Israel, after he explained to his employees that it was important to go out and demonstrate in the middle of the workday, because "we decided that the line we crossed was dangerous."
Zamri asked him what an employee of his should do who thinks differently than him, that is, who supports the reform and thinks it is important.
"We are not forcing anyone to go to the demonstration," Datika replied.
"And maybe you have a right-wing employee who is afraid to express his position in front of the CEO, certainly now that there are layoffs in high-tech," Zamri continued. "We didn't oblige anyone," replied the CEO, "We just allowed those who wanted to identify themselves." Zamri sharpened the point. "You are actually forcing people to identify themselves even if they support the reform," he said. "Perhaps they are not comfortable in the high-tech climate to say, 'I am right-wing, I support the reform,' and you are now telling them, 'If you stay in the office, I can see who you are.'"
Bharv Miara moves to the side
Remember we talked about the terminology earlier?
Well, it is enough to watch the editions every evening to understand how biased, violent and propagandistic the wording of the headlines is against Levin, against Netanyahu and against the reform.
The initiators of the program are always presented as aggressors, and its opponents as defenders.
"Netanyahu against the economists", "Netanyahu's attack", "the attack on the legal adviser to the government".
And to understand how anti-journalistic this is, let's take as an example the case of Legal Adviser to the Government Gali Beharev Miara.
Two journalists in two major media outlets, Amnon Abramovich on Channel 12 and Moti Gilat on Khan 11, announced at the end of last week that the Counselor's Office is looking into the possibility of taking the Prime Minister to Nebtsera.
Three days and one scathing letter from the heads of the coalition passed before Rabbi Miara bothered to deny it.
In these three days, completely insanely, no major shock was recorded anywhere.
Over a million voters directly and over two million indirectly gave Netanyahu their vote, but yesterday, as mentioned, according to the report that was in the air for three days, the consultant is considering moving it aside, as if the voice of the majority of voters in Israel is a marginal matter that can be ignored, and the media heaven does not the fallen.
There is no "consultant's attack".
There is no "Legal Coup of Beharev Miara".
there's nothing.
As if moving an elected prime minister aside is a reasonable and legitimate matter.
And here's another thing that didn't really catch the attention here.
I am referring to Avishai Greenzeig's disclosure in "Globes" regarding the attack by the retired Vice President of the District Court in Tel Aviv, Judge Verda Elsheich, against Judge Oded Modrik, who also previously served as Vice President.
"It's hard to hold back after listening to Oded Modric, a few minutes ago," Alsheich wrote in a forum where retired judges are members, after his interview on Channel 12, "not because of his views, although it was appropriate that, as a fair disclosure, he should reveal to all those to whom he preached morals that he is a 'hard' right-winger. .. As far as I'm concerned, you're a shame for the family of judges."
And what did Modric do to deserve this?
expressed support in principle for part of Levin's reform.
Did you understand?
There is a dialing area where if you are "hard right" (and I don't even know if Modric is), you have to make a full disclosure, because you are probably biased.
And if you are a hard leftist?
Oh, that's probably no problem.
It's OK.
This is the default.
This lady was, as mentioned, the deputy president of the district in Tel Aviv.
In view of her words, can I be sure that she knew how to consider with a clean mind the case of every "hard right" person who came to Ulema?
And in general, when you see what adulation a retired judge receives, a strong man, who dares to express a slightly "different" opinion, perhaps you can understand why in such an atmosphere many are afraid to open their mouths.
Sillman yes, Bossinova no
This week, after we heard from the minds about a fratricidal war and civil uprisings and a willingness to go to the end, and after we heard from Bogey Ya'alon a call to refuse to comply with Levin's plan if it goes through, and after seeing how the media flows in circles with this chaos, I remembered, not for the first time, Hananal Dayan.
The same armorer who was chosen after the disengagement as an outstanding soldier, and at the ceremony at the president's residence, he avoided shaking the hand of Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, who commanded the displacement of his grandfather from his home in Gush Katif. It was a velvet protest. Dayan did not block a road, did not rebel, and did not even make noise between two and four His protest began and ended with him refraining from shaking hands with the Chief of Staff.
I remembered what the person who serves as the chairman of the opposition today, then was a journalist with a popular column in "Yediot Ahronoth". How Yair Lapid ran over that young soldier. How he humiliated him to the ground. How he contemptuously called him "Hannal the Sufferer" in his column. , "the twister", "the rampant", "the disobedient", "the redeemer", "the blasphemer", "the bullied", "the blasphemer", "the blasphemer". Lapid then explained to his readers that Hananal Dayan disgraced the 188th brigade where he serves. And not only that - but also the fighters in the War of Liberation, the Brigadier General who fell in the Yom Kippur War and even Tzvika from "Zvika Force".
Why was Dayan treated like this?
Because he was on the side of the "wrong".
He thought that uprooting settlements was bad, while the entire media thought it was good.
For this very reason, Moshe Silman, who burned himself in the social protest, won huge sympathy, while Yelena Bosinova - who immigrated from Ukraine, and dealt with Jewish identity, and published articles against secession, and went on a hunger strike in front of the Knesset, and set herself on fire in protest of the destruction of a harvest field - no one know
Sillman became a hero because the media thought his protest was justified.
Bosinova was forgotten, because the media thought that her protest was unjustified.
What has changed in our press since then?
The last days show that nothing.
news
opinions and interpretations
Tags
Rival Levin
