by Dror Eydar
1. The choice between
freezing settlement construction and agreeing to 1967 borders or freeing
terrorists is like King David choosing between famine, defeat and
pestilence ("'Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? Or
wilt thou flee three months before thy foes while they pursue thee? Or
shall there be three days' pestilence in thy land?" 2 Samuel 24:13).
The choice then, and
the choice today of releasing prisoners, was aimed at minimizing the
damage, but nevertheless, the government needs the vehement public
opposition to the use of prisoners as a political bargaining chip to be
heard loud and clear. The public outcry against this move guarantees
that the Americans and the Palestinians are well aware that we consider
this an extremely high price to pay.
And another point that
has gone nearly unsaid: Israel is asking the U.S. not to ease the
sanctions on Iran, despite Tehran's willingness to negotiate. That is
legitimate demand. Why, therefore, do we need to relax our security belt
and undermine the principles of justice and law just so the other side
will be willing to negotiate? Doesn't that weaken our position on Iran?
2. On Monday, Army
Radio personality Razi Barkai invited two wildly diverse commentators to
be guests on his popular talk show: Channel 2 commentator Amnon
Abramovich and Channel 10 commentator Raviv Drucker. Together they
created a triangle with amazing geometrical properties: a total of 0
degree angles. All three men view reality from exactly the same
political and ideological perspective. All three despise Habayit
Hayehudi and think that the party's alliance with Yesh Atid Chairman
Yair Lapid is a disaster and must be undone. Not, heaven forbid, because
they want to help Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu get the
ultra-Orthodox parties into the coalition, but rather to ensure the
removal of the so-called "extreme Right" and "nationalists" from said
coalition.
Incidentally, it is
safe to assume that if Netanyahu had declined to release prisoners, the
same three commentators (along with the entire Israeli Left) would have
attacked him for missing the opportunity.
Abramovich boasted his
extensive knowledge in "political science": The members of the coalition
bear the responsibility for the decision to release prisoners and
therefore they are forbidden from protesting against the release of
prisoners. Indeed, that is why the bill proposed by coalition party
Habayit Hayehudi (aiming to legally limit the government's freedom to
release prisoners) was unnecessary. But as for the vocal protest of the
release? Jewish tradition teaches us that sometimes, if a decision is
made because there was no other choice, there is an obligation to
protest against it. This can be an educational and moral thing to do.
Abramovich continued
showing off when he said that Housing Minister Uri Ariel (Habayit
Hayehudi) and Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennett, do not do
anything in their respective ministries except for helping the settlers.
And what has Abarmovich
himself done? He serves as the unofficial representative of Peace Now
on Channel 2. His enemies are not Hamas or Fatah but the pioneers of
Israel, the "settlers." He has never missed an opportunity to slander
the Jewish pioneers who, alas, did not ask for his stamp of approval to
make this good land bloom. In fact, the man is still stuck in the 1980s.
His obsolete and tiresome language cannot disguise his loathing for
anything and anyone to his right (which includes the majority of the
public).
The second commentator
on the show was Drucker, who, as we all know, often features Barkai on
his own television show, "The Source." As far as he is concerned (based
solely on wishful thinking), the alliance between Bennett and Lapid is
long over, and once it is severed for good, Lapid will (finally) be free
to pressure Netanyahu on diplomatic issues (code for destroying Jewish
communities).
This scenario has
repeated itself too many times. We all still remember the notorious
forum of "our commentators" featured on Rafi Reshef's daily program on
the same radio station several years ago. They were referred to as
nothing other than "our commentators." Two days ago, on the Knesset
channel, I watched Shalom Kital interview Razi Barkai. He invited Aviv
Boshinsky, once Netanyahu's spokesman, to the studio, as though he
represented the "other side" of the spectrum. But I have never heard
Boshinsky voice any conservative views. Together with MK Hilik Bar
(Labor) it was a case of four against one, Likud MK Danny Danon.
Routine...
So did Abramovich or
Drucker contribute anything to our knowledge of the situation? Did they
illuminate any dark mysteries? Perhaps they illuminated Peace Now
Secretary-General Yariv Oppenheimer's point of view. But what about
other perspectives? Don't Barkai and his colleagues have a
responsibility to provide additional points of view to their audiences?
3. What is stopping
them from inviting commentators with different worldviews, who perhaps
see the settlement enterprise in a positive light and view it as a
cornerstone of our continued existence in this good land? Why not invite
commentators who hold different positions on the legal status of Judea
and Samaria? Who do not view Israel as an occupier?
Barkai, much like the
rest of his colleagues, would dismiss these claims. To him, he and his
colleagues can present all the perspectives on our reality just fine,
even if all these perspectives are very similar to one another. Thus,
the airwaves provide a stage for a very small caste, which, much to our
disgrace, has a chokehold on our country's information channels. They
were not chosen by God. This is merely a conceptual paradigm that has us
brainwashed: There are journalists on one side and right-wingers on the
other.
The way to liberate public
consciousness begins with marking this group, pointing out their clear
leftist position, and then questioning their exclusive right to relay
reality to the public. A strong enough public protest could make this
Berlin Wall fall too. It is not a dream.
Dror Eydar
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6131
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment