![]() ![]() Hatred toward the state of Israel, toward the Zionist project, toward the option of having a Jewish nation. But it has mainly been derailed to a different place: Hateful dialogue. The discourse of disintegration isn't consistent, and includes disdain for extremism. I'll take a guess and say: If that same poet had dared to proclaim himself a Zionist, he would have stayed deep in the margins. It seems that his entrance into certain progressive circles was given to him because he announced, what else, that he's an anti-Zionist. Would he have received a prize? Would he have been given a prize? Would he have been invited to teach? Would he have been considered "authentic"? Now let's assume, just for a moment, that instead of Nathan Zach, the poet in question was Mahmoud Darwish. Second, he was respectfully invited to teach at Tel Aviv University. He became authentic, original, remarkable.Ī short time passed, and two things happened. One of the radical conversation's spokespeople wrote in a poem that he burned the books of an Ashkenazi poet, and that was the signal for a groveling fest. But sometimes they aren't challenging and enriching voices, but false and inciting ones. The rhetoric of disintegration succeeds because some of its proponents, radicals, are often educated, fascinating, and challenging.Ī democratic society, which recognizes the importance of free speech, listens eagerly to these voices. Newspapers and journalists are caught up in this conversation, and editorial pages, especially at a certain paper, sometimes resemble anti-Israel pashkvils (traditional posters, displayed in orthodox Jewish communities) – all in the guise of self-criticism and national reflection. The social networks supply plenty of evidence to subscribers of the discourge of disintegration. From the extreme, sometimes anti-Semitic, left, to the terrorist Jewish jihad.įrom Knesset members like Jamal Zhalka to internet commenters who encourage the murder of Arabs, the feeling is that of extremism and disintegration. From "Ars Poetica" to the soccer hooligans of "La Familia" (the extremist fan club of Beitar Jerusalem supporters). Truth? As far as media discussions are concerned, it is the truth. No more "our nation," "our land." Israel's president himself gave a huge boost to the discourse of disintegration when he gave his "tribe speech." At the end of it he was applauded for his "courage to tell the truth." A dialogue whose main spokespeople claim that Israel's society is turning into a more tribal, extremist, racist, and divided one. ![]() You can call it a "discourse of disintegration." A dialogue that imposes a grim atmosphere on us, one that to purports to be self-reflective, but in fact becomes self-flagellating. ![]() ![]() It started before Operation Protective Edge, but since the end of the conflict, it's been increasing. Since last Yom Kippur, it has been a year in which "Hatanu, avinu, pashanu, bagadnu" (A Yom Kipppur confession prayer, meaning "We have sinned, wronged, committed crimes, betrayed") has gradually overcome us. Yom Kippur is upon us, a time of self-reflection. But it's the media which give extremist voices outsize attention, concealing the fact that social gaps are actually decreasing. There are indeed negative phenomena, such as racism and extremism, in Israel. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |