A great deal of hatred floods our public space.
Each time, it seems that another public is kidnapped, derogatory, disrespectful and pushed out of the consensus.
But is the hatred on the ground as intense as the volume it receives in public discourse?
Let's go back: the hatred is reflected in our campaigns, and this time we're talking about the ultra-Orthodox. It began with a demonstration that "laid siege" on Bnei Brak, a city and mother in Israel. Although the demonstration received little response, it included personal attacks on passersby, the display of nude photos, and crude insinuations linking haredim to lust for money. On Monday, former MK Abir Kara compared the ultra-Orthodox to a gang of thieves who broke into his home; A few days earlier, journalist Haim Hecht on Kol Moment radio accused the ultra-Orthodox of theft, saying that more money for the ultra-Orthodox would mean collapsing hospitals.
In between, opposition leader Yair Lapid said that the budgets for the ultra-Orthodox are nothing less than robbery "of our children." Such a platform gives rise to a similar atmosphere on social networks, and even on the street. The argument is legitimate. The issue of carrying the burden, distributing the budget pie and providing allowances versus encouraging people to go to work are of critical importance. But there is a way to conduct an argument, and it does not pass by blackening an entire public and turning it into a leech.
Media consumers and social network surfers may think that the public is buying en masse the picture of reality presented in them. But those who venture out into the real world may encounter an alternate reality.
Remember the refusal that began in the Air Force and spread to other elite units in the army? The reality came across as frightening and threatening. But in the operation vis-à-vis Gaza, lo and behold, the response to the reserves did not decrease, not even equal to mobilization throughout the year. It increased by 25 per cent to 95 per cent. On the day of the order, everyone showed up: the pilots and infantrymen, the intelligence personnel and the Home Front Command. What is still sizzling beneath the surface is the decision of more and more citizens not to abandon the public arena only to politicians and the media.
Growing circles choose to turn off the TV. They get up from the couch, cross the street and meet those who think differently from them. The circles of discourse that are the result of private or organizational initiative are multiplying. "We are brotherly people", "Meet", "The Common Story", "Changing Direction", "The Fourth Quarter", and more; It turns out that many are not willing to give up on each other, or on the state.
We are on the eve of Shavuot, the holiday of giving the Torah. Back then, when the people of Israel left Egypt, they stood at the foot of Mount Sinai together. No age, gender or tribe differences, no ideological screening or voting patterns. Do not be confused. The people of Israel knew how to argue even when they were slaves, and also on the long way to the land. Consensus is not one of our strongest characteristics. But in that special moment there was unity. Many years later, I encourage all of us, both those who believe in that revelation and those for whom it is only a cultural myth, to hold on to this starting point, to know that we can learn from each other and teach each other.
The threshold conditions are more basic: abandonment of hatred, mutual respect and honest listening.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us