Opinion The Bolshevik practices of the left Israel today

Dana, a close friend, told me the following story this week: at her place of work, where "everyone" opposes the legal reform, one of the employees explained to her that when she speaks out in favor of the reform or in favor of the government's policy - these dark positions of hers harm the good name of the institution where they work .

And if she does, despite his pleas, not to mention what professional background she comes from and where she works.

In the last few weeks since the announcement of the legal reform, we hear more and more about various protest petitions.

Sometimes these are lawyers, sometimes hightists, sometimes veterans of a certain military unit and even musicians.

Using protest petitions is certainly a legitimate way to oppose government policy.

The problem begins when a random list of dozens or even hundreds of people pretends to speak for the general public in their field.

And worse, that in a short time this pretended homogeneous collectivism begins to believe in its own presentation - that is, that there are really no people among it who think differently from it.

This is what senior Knesset member Naama Lazimi wrote this week: "If the media is on the left, the jurists on the left, academia on the left, women on the left, students on the left, industry on the left, economists on the left, young families on the left, educators on the left, security personnel on the left, the gay community on the left , the medical staff on the left, the workers on the left, the demonstrators on the left - who for God's sake is left for them?"

It is not clear what is the meaning of the rhetorical question to which it is directed.

Does MK Lazimi also think that there are no people from the right-wing camp in these professions? More than half of those who have the right to vote, the supporters of the current government - all of them - chop trees and draw water? Or is she referring to another statement, according to which this camp has representatives in those places, only they are silent? She doesn't think of the third possibility - that they are silenced?

Let's replace right-hand men with women for a moment.

Imagine if it had been written that in the senior positions in the economy, in culture, in the academy - there are mainly men in a clear way.

Was the accompanying question about the capabilities of the women in that society, or about the nature of the society in which this happens?

A claim about the lack of representation should lead to a discourse of change and equal opportunities.

And a claim about the lack of voice should lead to the insight that this is silencing and the demand for freedom of expression - for everyone.

But that's not the whole story.

If the first step in the delegitimization campaign towards the right-wing voters was to present a false representation of unanimity.

And if in the second stage that crippling rapacity turned into "proof" that this is apparently the real distribution of the population, here comes the third stage: on Thursday we learned of the dismissal of Dr. Gadi Taub from writing opinion columns in the Haaretz newspaper. In other words, they moved to the deliberate silencing of the few who themselves from this pseudo-homogeneous camp and dare to identify with their voice and create an alternative discourse in the same force field.

But that's not the whole story either.

We need to go back to Dana's case and understand how far the persecution went.

With such a haughty and dangerous statement that was said to her, that employee demanded from her, in fact, to shed her professional achievements and the social-class position she had reached, so that even if she presents her positions outside the boundaries of the particular field (not in the "Haaretz" newspaper or in the high-tech company), even there , if you decide to express opinions - then at least they will think that she is "just discussing".

Because the high-tech, the economy, the media and the education are "theirs".

Not hers and hers.

This very powerful and terrifying journey has an ironic ending.

It is actually another, clear proof of the importance of the current government's policy.

The new Lenin clothes worn by her opponents reveal their democratic nakedness and reinforce the fact that we need change.

A change that will be based on the introduction of democratization and liberalization processes that will lead to the liberation of the centers of power from Bolshevik practices and that will enable unconditional social leadership, while maintaining true freedom of expression.

This is the time.

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