From time to time it is allowed to take off the hat and code to the left.
The demonstrations on Motzash, and this one in Jerusalem, should and should arouse a little jealousy. They know how to bring out the troops when necessary. We can debate until tomorrow whether this is an authentic protest, a staged media event or mass hysteria blown out of proportion. But the fact is that the left and the opponents of the government are in the streets. With media backing That the right can dream of, with an institutional push, with a class advantage - everything is known, everything is true. And yet. The people are outside. And it is astonishing precisely because they have the media and the establishment - who know how to shake the top even without demonstrations.
A demonstration against the coup d'état in front of the Prime Minister's residence in Jerusalem // Photo: Yoni Rikner
But more than the ability to recruit, the ability of the left, and its hotbeds of hegemony, to shape the national mood is enviable.
When the left is happy with the government of change - then we have a great country.
They say that there is harmony, they talk about brotherhood and prosperity like no other.
The feelings of insult, disappointment and alienation of almost half of the public are not counted.
They are treated as loud pockets of dissent who spoil the party for everyone.
So they are called "poison machine" and "barn burners".
I shut down joys.
In the last line - when the left is happy, the country is happy.
This is almost a fact.
To this day, people remember the Oslo years there with an expression of euphoria on their faces.
Herzl said to be sad
And when the left is sad - then you are sad too.
or you
For example, if the left opposes legal reform, and is angry, and furious, and frightened, and afraid - then probably the whole country experiences a similar shock.
64 mandates formed a government that leads a legitimate reform, but the "national mood" is one of shock.
fear.
terror.
collapse
And when the left is anxious about legal reform and opposes the policy with all its might, then it is automatically clear that if the government continues - the rope will break.
The nation will crumble.
We need to take a step back soon.
Let us not break up into tribes.
Why, actually?
How does it happen that the particular experience of one party gets the volume of a national state of accumulation?
It's a question of controlling the flow of information and the systems that shape consciousness.
But it is also a question of state recognition.
From here comes the criticism from the right of the President's speech, which burst into our lives at eight in the evening as an unusual media event that testifies to the intensity of the drama.
And what is the drama?
that the country is on the brink of an abyss and Israeli society is on the brink of an explosion.
A right-wing voter, a government supporter, who may not be very opposed to the reform, sits and wonders: Why is the president of the country, his president, standing and legitimizing such a perception of reality?
Why give presidential validity to the left's threats of retirement, collapse, withdrawal of investments, disobedience and the declaration of a social-national crisis?
Go to the media already.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
It's just that many of the president's critics from the right - and I am one of them - may miss something more fundamental: the president also recognized, perhaps for the first time in such a position, almost all of the fundamental assumptions of the right regarding the judicial system.
The president stands and explains that the justice system needs a shake-up.
which should be adapted to reality.
that for too many years she was impervious to criticism.
that many in the public feel that they are not adequately represented, and even excluded, in the institution that shapes the world of values of their country.
that the composition of the Supreme Court suffers from class and ethnic homogeneity, to put it mildly.
And above all, it is necessary to talk about the limits of the court's power, to regulate the procedure for electing judges, to deal radically with aspects that until this week it was not possible to challenge them in public without being considered a fascist made in Hungary.
The flowers for Herzog.
From the Ecclesiastical Forum
I dare say the president may have made the most generous public move toward reform yet.
He detailed, without filters, the value background - and even the emotional - that drives the wheels of the reform.
He gave historical volume and explained that it was not created out of nothing.
He crushed many of the countercharges.
All that remains is to argue about nuances.
Radical reform - necessary.
This move now has presidential recognition.
And to a large extent, the president did what the government itself failed to do: prepare public opinion.
Achieve and constructive dialogue with the public as a whole.
Presenting the reasons, dealing with claims, managing a debate - we hardly see government representatives doing this.
It should be said honestly: Minister Yariv Levin and MK Simcha Rotman stand almost alone at the forefront of advocacy. With supreme bravery, but alone. It is not enough. The fact is that it is not enough.
Alone at the front.
Levin and Rothman in the Constitution Committee (archive), photo: Oren Ben Hakon
A reform does not need to pass with broad national agreement and consensus.
It is allowed for a policy to be decided even in spite of opposition.
But a minimal effort to appeal to undecided audiences, and perhaps even change the minds of opponents, is necessary.
It indicates not only self-confidence;
It indicates a total lack of reciprocity.
But when the prime minister hardly goes out to the mainstream media, is content with messages and videos from the workroom, keeps his feet away from TV studios on the main channels - unless they are American - the feeling is of a move in the opposite direction.
Say: the media is mobilized against him, the interviewers won't let him finish a sentence anyway and the reporters will only troll him.
This is true, but the Prime Minister and the other Likud ministers - who have already won the elections - have considerable rhetorical ability to say the least, and it has already been proven that the public is not particularly impressed by hostile interviewers.
vice versa.
The more hostile they are, the more empathy for the representatives of the right in the studios increases.
The unfortunate fact is that the left took out its troops to fight against the government that began to roll out reform without troops.
Without prior preparation of public opinion, without building a battery of professional and academic support, and without adequate preparation for the expected wave of opposition.
The result is that the right-wing public looks helplessly and with veiled eyes at the impressive mobilization of the left.
Like Rothman and Levin, the right-wing voters are also somewhat alone on this front.
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
