Channels
Photo: Gil Yohanan
Election ballot
Photo: Gil Yohanan
Photo: Itzik Biran
Hanoch Daum
Photo: Itzik Biran

Two states for one people

Op-ed: The members of the Israeli media, which represents only the left, would do well to get out of Tel Aviv and see how the rest of Israel thinks.

The recent elections, according to final results, divided the country into two parts: the Zionist Union won Tel Aviv, Ra'anana and Haifa, and the Likud won the periphery and the West Bank. There are two nations, and the problem of the Israeli media is that it belongs to only one of them: the overwhelming majority of people in the media come from those areas where the Zionist Union was victorious.

 

 

An overwhelming majority of Israel's leading media people have a Tel Aviv area post code, which is probably why they did not even entertain the possibility that someone would vote for Netanyahu. They really did not meet anyone like this, not in their neighborhood, not in the supermarket and not in the circles in which they work. In their entire daily routine, everyone they met told them that they despised Netanyahu. With its wall-to-wall Netanyahu haters, this world gave fuel to the fire and guided the unprofessional and tasteless coverage.

 

Consider, for example, the coverage of the spending at Balfour Street (the prime minister's official residence). Personally, I was careful not to defend Netanyahu on these issues. I think that public money is something sacred, and if the state comptroller believes that public money is treated as such, he should be listened to. My problem was not with publication of these reports, but with the scandalous timing and the coverage of the Netanyahu housekeeping affair in general.

 

Any criticism, legitimate as it is, becomes empty the moment it is made the be all and end all. And somehow, when it comes to Benjamin Netanyahu, this is what happens. When it comes to Netanyahu, the media is incapable of distinguishing between the major and the minor. Every vulnerability - and no one is without weaknesses – was attacked with such frenzy that it became meaningless and without credibility.

 

The Zionist Union headquarters. Painting an unrealistically grim picture of Israel (Photo: Ido Erez)
The Zionist Union headquarters. Painting an unrealistically grim picture of Israel (Photo: Ido Erez)

 

I am returning to the subject of the media not because I have previously warned of the hunt against Netanyahu, but because I feel that there is now room for change. (It should perhaps be noted, in all fairness, that in the decade I have been writing for this publication, not even one sentence has been censored.)

 

Take, for example, the media discourse on Netanyahu's statement that was worthy of criticism, but the accompanying purism and self-righteousness made all criticism ineffective. On Election Day, Netanyahu warned potential voters that "the Arabs were flocking to the polls". Could that sentence have been better formulated? Yes. Is good that Netanyahu apologized? Not just good, but perhaps even excellent.

 

But is it not clear that this statement was made - based on a justified fear of a better organized (and funded) left - in order to get people to the polls? Did anyone not stop to think that Netanyahu is not actually racist? After all, of all things leveled at him by his critics, this is a claim that is simply not heard. Many things have been said about Netanyahu in these mournful days for the left, but this has never been one of them. Why? Because Netanyahu is not a racist.

 

He is a liberal man, and his attitude toward minorities is respectful and fair. Why, then, have people leapt on this one sentence uttered on Election Day, in the context of encouraging voters to vote, and inflated it to monstrous proportions? Are people aware of how many things were said about the settlers by Livni and Lapid during this campaign? Everything was thrown at us, short of actually accusing us of hiding money earmarked for the periphery in our vaults in the Gush Etzion settlement bloc.

 

Did anyone come out against those statements? Did anyone complain? Does anyone criticize the vilification to which the Haredi public is subject, incessantly and from all sides? Why should media fiercely condemn this one (failed) comment about the Arabs, while the public flaying of others is permitted?

 

The Israeli media represents liberalism. It represents the left. For this reason it attacked Eli Yishai's party with bared teeth, as it explained why Baruch Marzel is not legitimate. Hanin Zoabi, however, a woman who refuses to brand the murderers of three boys as terrorists, gets a warm welcome. Naftali Bennett was asked in every interview about civil marriage, but none dared shatter Ayman Odeh's equilibrium.

 

The media prefers to ignore the fact that the man is not willing to say that he accepts homosexuality, is not willing to accept the marriage of an Arab and a Jew, does not think that Hamas is to blame for what happened here last summer and has polygamous men in his own party. And no one has actually asked how this worldview tallies with the status of women in 2015.

 

The slack given to the Arabs, so as not to foul the air, compared to the onslaught against right-wingers is not only insulting, but is also rude and lacking in basic decency.

 

Since the election, the Zionist Union has been asking itself why Israelis voted for people who they claim have caused a deterioration in their situation. Why those affected by a shocking economic situation voted for Netanyahu. How is it possible that the people in the periphery, where the high cost of living hits them harder than it does those who live in Tel Aviv, did not see this issue as a reason to vote for the Zionist Union?

 

This question has a simple answer: it's not that bad here. There is much room for improvement, but ultimately life in Israel, by all indications, is not as miserable as Netanyahu's opponents made out.

 

But there is one more thing, because of which the Israel of the periphery has difficulty in connecting with the Israel of Tel Aviv, and this is the point that deeply connects the religious Zionists with the periphery: Jewish identity.

 

For as long as this identity is alien in Tel Aviv, for as long as those in the Zionist Union seek to hide the word "Jewish" in the national anthem, the million people who voted Likud will never consider voting for them. Shabbat candles, the mezuzah, Yom Kippur, kiddush, the tombs of the righteous - these things are a deeply ingrained part of Israeli identity, even for those who are not religious.

 

Journalist Yaron London recently explained to me on television that as long as the IDF chief of staff goes to the Western Wall upon being appointed, the left has no chance, as there is a direct line between religion and conservatism. I love London, but he is wrong. It's just the opposite.

 

The only chance the Zionist Union has is the Western Wall. Only if, along with their liberal values and the important value of acceptance of others, they adopt the values of Jewish heritage, are not ashamed of tradition and certainly do not despise it, will they be able to connect to new audiences.

 


פרסום ראשון: 03.29.15, 00:11
 new comment
Warning:
This will delete your current comment