On the first day of leaving the quarantine the tension in the streets climbed and rose. Tens of thousands of citizens went out on Saturday earlier to protest the rising tide against Netanyahu and his continued grip on the morals of the government, and what they encountered there was a rising tide of violence, violence by Netanyahu’s zealous supporters.
The population of protesters is diverse. From the abominations of corruption, through the victims of the corona economy, to, yes, the remnants of the crumbling historical left. But on one issue, everyone is united – in imposing blame and responsibility for a violent attack on them – on Netanyahu.
And everyone is wrong.
The population of protesters is diverse. The abominations of corruption, the victims of the corona economy and the remnants of the crumbling historical left. But on one issue, everyone is united – the guilt and responsibility that Netanyahu has in the violent outburst against them. And everyone is wrong
There is no one to blame for the situation more than Gantz and his irresponsible conduct. Also in relation to the will of his constituents, but certainly in relation to the good of the state and the formation of social resilience. We are going to a bad place today.
The formula that leads us there is a multi-factor formula. This formula includes on the one hand data that needs to be addressed but cannot be changed, and on the other hand variables – the same factors that we can change to guide us to a better future. To manage the future we need to understand what the data is and what is changing in that social formula that drags us to the bad place we are going.
To the protesters against Netanyahu, it seems as if Netanyahu is changing his formula. As if if we just show him how much we want him to go, he will understand it and indeed he will vacate. To a large part of the viewers of the rising violence it seems that those zealots are the variable, and if we just act firmly against them we can change the wave. But a closer look will recognize that neither this nor that are variables, but that these two are actually given to us, and the variable is in a completely different place.
Both Netanyahu and the Kanai community are the product of an ongoing global trend of rising nationalism, Resulting from two deep sources that come as a reaction to the consequences of World War II. One is the disappointment inflicted by liberal humanism on securing inclusion and embrace to the outcasts of the world and its moderates. And the second is the oblivion in which the world is attacked about the evil place to which submission to nationalism brings us, and of the dynamics that dragged the world into that terrible war.
The rise of the right, or rather the adoption of American expression – the rise of authoritarian regimes – is a statistic that stems from procedures of submission to social psychology, which envelops us around the false sense of power of an authoritarian leader.
The rise of the right, or rather the rise of authoritarian regimes, is a statistic that stems from procedures of surrender to social psychology, which envelops us around the false sense of power of an authoritarian leader
These procedures are doomed to lead to a crisis, because in practice, in our crowded world where everyone depends on everyone, ignoring all of this, as well as building and cultivating xenophobia, are a surefire way to hell. The crisis will come and force us to keep our eyes open for the demand for balance in our relationship with the stranger. The question is only to what extent we will exacerbate the crisis by deepening and consolidating police authority.
The authoritative wave is a given, and Netanyahu as an amazing surfer – just rides it. His unfortunate statement in the same interview he gave in Davos, about his aspiration to be remembered as Israel’s protector, and moreover, the lack of a public uprising for such an authoritarian statement – testify well to this direction since 2016. But will this wave carry him to an Erdogan, Putin, or perhaps Chavsite rank in fortifying police authority? This is where the group of variables in the crisis formula comes in. Who and what are the opposing forces and how they operate.
As for the forces – they are there. This was reflected in the political draw of the last election campaigns. But when it comes to the ability to act, here the matter is not so simple. The great evening of those who fear the empowerment of authority lacks cohesion of action, and moreover lacks a coherent ideological alternative that will build that cohesion – the vision.
Because of this lack of formation there is an organizational and ideological vacuum for the anti-authoritarian kibbutz, or as they are called the “just not Bibi” group, and into this vacuum such and such factors are sucked in to try and produce the desired alternative. Such was Gantz, too. The Gantz phenomenon is the result of attractive force and pushing force. The attractive force was the same large constituency of normality, and the driving force was the image it built. Image of a decisive executive, a fighter for the correction of the state. Ganz was perceived as a savior saint, but very quickly he became a sinner.
The first and foremost tool against authoritarian rule is to limit the duration of the priesthood. The rationale for this is twofold – both the view of holding the morality of government as a mission and not as a profession, and the recognition that our society is strong enough and government institutions are well established, to function and produce more than one person capable of leading the country.
The authoritative wave is a given, and Netanyahu as a surfer is only riding it. His unfortunate statement in an interview about his desire to be remembered as a protector of Israel, and the lack of public uprising to the authoritarian statement – testify to the direction since 2016
In our political reality, this demand was translated into a demand to replace Netanyahu, and that was the ticket on which Ganz ran. The problem was after the election, after Blue and White received the votes, where he seemed to have Gantz feel as if the Goddess had anointed him to the monarchy and not the public, and under that Goddess he no longer needed the public credit that raised him. Here He sinned for the first time. It was in the exercise he did, which in his eyes was probably brilliant, of throwing the law to the prohibition of tenure under indictments, together with the will of his constituents. A law that was supposed to stop Netanyahu and the state from slipping into authoritarianism.
The cover story was the Corona Crisis, but reality has shown that the management of the dual government did not contribute anything to address the Corona crisis. More – The same extortionate demand for rotation as it is for betrayal of voters is not only a penetrating look at Ganz’s motives, but also at the second sin in which he sinned – the sin of arrogance. Why does a person strive to lead a country when he has no significant support from the people he seeks to control?
Ganz’s blackmail line is not one-time, but is also repeated in writing these lines, using it in the submarine affair as a sword of Democles over Netanyahu’s head. It is difficult to understand the idea that an elected public is considering a subject not subject to the public interest but to its private interest, but that is exactly what Ganz does in the submarine affair.
Netanyahu’s alliance with the ultra-Orthodox is often denounced by Netanyahu’s opponents as an extortionate alliance, in which the ultra-Orthodox demand benefits for their communities that are higher than their electoral weight, just because of their bargaining position. This is while the truth is that within the communities Netanyahu has broad and genuine support, which even imposes itself on the opinion of its leaders, and Netanyahu is aware of it and uses it. So what if we assume that Deri would have used this power and also demanded to be a rotating prime minister? What did Gantz have to say about the legitimacy of this?
Ganz’s third sin, and perhaps the most serious of all, is the sin of the thought that he will succeed in transferring to him the authority of the government by virtue of the power of a signed agreement.. Agreements are considered a bilateral matter, but in fact they are always a matter for three parties. Both subjects and givers and in addition there is this quiet partner – the saddle body.
In politics there is no saddle body and there should not be one. Politics is the realm of the public interest. Politicians are supposed to be just a conduit for their public and not their master, so they cannot leverage the mandate given to them against the will of their constituents, And if the interest of the electorate determines that its good lies in the breach of the agreement then its representatives are obligated to do so. Thus, Gantz’s ugly attempt to produce collateral for a political agreement and turn it into some kind of commercial agreement he himself produces is a bad ramp to raise the authoritarian regime and move it beyond the walls of democracy.
If these are the three sins of Gantz, then what is the fourth to which we will not repent? Well it is the short-sightedness and folly that makes him persevere and continue to cling to the futile hope that he will somehow succeed in realizing his lust for prime minister by helping Netanyahu maintain his seat.
If these are the three sins of Gantz, what is the fourth that we will not answer? It is the shortsightedness and folly that causes him to cling to the futile hope that he will somehow succeed in realizing his lust for prime minister while helping Netanyahu maintain his seat.
The country (probably as part of a global trend) is going to a bad place, a place of deep social rift and crystallization around an ideology of hatred. A rupture that is doomed to lead to a social crisis and that could escalate into civil violence. This process cannot be stopped because the eyes of those haters cannot be forcibly opened, but it could have been softened by Netanyahu’s move. Ganz had to do that, and this omission is registered in his name.