Well, then Itzik Zarka said something, and the earth shook. I'll admit, I didn't rattle. I don't care what Itzik Zarka, or his wife, or Ronit the Bibist, or Ofer Kassif or anyone else whose violence and art he says or does. I don't take it personally.
In my view, Mr. Zarka is a man in need of great compassion, his terrible words are a cry for help, and the fact that the flow of sewage coming out of his mouth receives publicity and resonance is the problem, not the things themselves. I would add that the very fact that I know who Itzik Zarka is, this is where the whole problem lies.
On the fringes of every ideological camp, there is always a lot of gathering. These are people with problems at home, with a yearning for belonging that finds no other way than to take loyalty to the edge and turn it into a criminal disorder. It's true for the fringes of the left, it's true for the fringes of the right, for every extreme. Always has been, always will be.
In this age of social networks and institutionalized media that eats the garbage served on the networks, these people, who actually need treatment, a hug, and sometimes medication, are becoming the spokespeople of the generation. And that's very bad for us too, and especially for them. Because a person who has some kind of disorder and instead of receiving condemnation and treatment receives a platform, respect, amplification and support from both Knesset members and people similar to him, such a person becomes more extreme until he glorifies the horrors of the Holocaust as a wish.
To me, a person who needs great compassion. Itzik Zarka, Photo: Gideon Markowitz
For years, the Likud has been using Itzik Zarka. The parade of Knesset members who congratulated him on his birthday and told him to "stay exactly as you are" is amazing and frightening, including Knesset Speaker Ohana and Economy Minister Nir Barkat. I wish as a child I would have gotten the hugs they gave him when he was still usable. Now they disavow him as if they didn't raise him like you raise a crocodile in a bathtub, and one day, he goes out and devours someone and everyone is very surprised.
Whoever backed up and reinforced petty criminal behaviors in the prime minister's home is also responsible for Zarqa and his disgusting words. When you don't limit behavior from the start, monsters grow. And now what? Is it possible to put the breast back in the bottle? You can always do it. As with children. If you take boundaries and add love and melt with a big fire, you can pour a bottle that will close the genie back.
protest
This week as well, the protest continues, roads are blocked in Disham, disruptions are disrupted, the animosity between the camps has deepened only a little more, because there is no depth left to dig into. And I think, not like that, brothers, that's not how you protest.
This protest, which I share in its desire to stop government moves that not only do not benefit democracy, but ignore the central problems of our existence here, works in my view wrong. It does not bring results and disintegrates society at a level where it is not certain that there is enough strength left to deal with the threats coming to us from all sides. It assumes that if it weakens the state sufficiently from within, in the end someone responsible will stand up and say: We can't pay this price, stop. But that doesn't happen, and we both pay all the prices and carry on.
Working incorrectly. Protest demonstration, today, photo: None
Therefore, the protest must change. And I propose - nonviolent protest, MLA. This kind of non-protest has already been successfully tried in several places around the world, in Gandhi-era India, in Martin Luther King-era America, Pinochet's Chile, Marcos' Philippines. The principle is simple. No matter what, the main principle of the NSC is one – no one should be hurt by the protest. There is no such thing as blocking, using violence of any kind, harassing, disturbing, it is forbidden to do anything that causes the other side to react forcefully, there is no need for police at all. True, it is more complex, it requires thinking and self-control, but the results are a hundred times better, without creating any damage that future generations will have to repair.
One of the tools of the NSC is the hunger strike. Declaring a day of fasting for hundreds of thousands of people is no less effective than another march in Kaplan. And if a day does not help, then a long strike. Water is allowed of course. Rolfas too. Citizens who gather in public parks for collective strikes without any confrontation but only through self-starvation - this is power. Also marches. Not of two hundred meters from Habima Square to Azrieli. From Kiryat Shmona to Beersheba. Tens of thousands, on foot, on the side of the roads without disrupting traffic. The distribution of flowers also worked in other countries, for the security forces, for civilians on the other side, for members of the government.
When others are not harmed, the protest does not generate hatred, it emphasizes the morality and goodwill of the protesters, and it is irresistible. Along the way, you also lose weight. MLA, nonviolent protest, is the only way to the hearts of government supporters. This will be the latest version of the right on the MLA.
kidney
Everyone has been discussing this issue indefinitely, but I also have something to say. If you're fed up, skip. Not a selfish kidney examiner and yet - Arnon Segal's request to donate a kidney only to a Jew left no one indifferent. Each and every one of them brushed their morals on Mr. Segal's back, and I also came to take a spin on him.
First, the willingness to donate a kidney while you are still alive is a high degree of giving, especially when it is to a stranger, not from family, not from friends. There are many questions that arise from this act. For example, is the recipient even worthy of such a gift of life? Maybe he's an evil villain? Or maybe all his days he was oppressed and robbed? Or maybe he is already an elderly and unhealthy person in general, and all this giving will last his life only a few years but will endanger the giver significantly? In such cases, is it still reasonable to leave the body with only one kidney, without a significant spare part in case of failure?
Arnon Segal, Photo: Arik Sultan
There is no one answer I guess. Everyone will answer what he understands. Personally, if I could donate a kidney while I was still alive, I wouldn't be willing to go for an anonymous giving model. I would demand to know and confirm who is receiving from me the most precious thing I can give.
Was it necessarily related to nationality or religion? In my case, no. For me, the only variable that would raise or lower for me is whether the person whose life I am saving is a person who contributes to society, contributes to others, whose existence is an existence of giving. An Arab doctor? Absolutely. The head of a Jewish crime family? Not at all. Just examples. If I were faced with this question, I would make sure that the person who receives a kidney from me is a person of values. The immoral ones have enough, and they multiply without my help. And yes, there is a situation in which a bad person who receives such a gift will undergo a profound change, but chances are that he will see in the new kidney something he deserves and continue on his crooked path. Not at my expense. Thank you.
In my view, a person who donates a body part can prefer whoever he wants without being accountable to anyone. These are his values and I do not interfere with them. But what? The publicity of the matter created a wave of racism and counter-racism, and instead of warming hearts a lot of controversy and hatred. And here's the problem. It would even be better if he did not give than all the unnecessary bickering created by his generous giving. And best of all, he would give in secret, to whomever he chose, and didn't make a fuss. And most importantly - after my death, my organs are allowed to every person. Be respectful.
avrigilad@gmail.com
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us