Q&A: Political Discourse
Political Discourse
Question
Hi,
Quite a few times even you use expressions like “the coalition of horrors” and the like regarding our leadership. Not to mention the media and opposition politicians who talk about looting public funds / the coalition of draft-dodgers / a state kidnapped by a bunch of lunatics, etc. etc. It sounds as though you really think the people there sneaked in or seized their positions by force, while ignoring the fact that the truth is that the vast majority of the public chose them democratically and gave them control over the state, the army, public funds… Since you specifically are not someone I suspect of that kind of confusion, could you explain to me why such discourse seems legitimate to you?
***Of course, it’s obvious to me that in the opposite political situation I’d hear the same crap. Any government that the Haredim aren’t part of automatically becomes an evil / anti-Semitic / religion-hating government acting against the people, most of whom are traditional or religious and love the Haredim and Torah. Any government not headed by Bibi is a dangerous left-wing government that must be toppled before it brings a flood upon the nation that doesn’t want it. Even October 7 was Rabin’s fault. Good thing he killed himself.
It’s embedded in the discourse… which makes me think that maybe it actually is legitimate discourse and I’m the one missing something
Answer
You’ve never heard me use an expression saying they “kidnapped the state” in the sense that they were elected unlawfully. They were indeed elected lawfully. When I say “a coalition of horrors,” I’m talking about the coalition’s actions, not the way it was elected.
Incidentally, since we’re already dealing in whataboutism, Bibi is the king of people lamenting that they stole the state from him. Just remember his elegies and those of his friends about the “change government,” and the fact that all his party colleagues kept calling him prime minister even when Bennett and Lapid were serving.
The Haredi discourse too is not about the claim that the state was stolen from them, but that they are being disqualified out of anti-Semitism. As if they have some vested right to be in the coalition and rob all of us, and anyone who doesn’t agree to pay them the bribe or doesn’t agree with their platform is a thief or an anti-Semite.
Discussion on Answer
Rabbi, you are very influenced by the media. If you try to look a bit at reality, you’ll see that media reporters are driven by hatred.
I do somewhat agree with drafting Haredim by consent, but the rest of what the coalition is doing, it is doing well.
Ben-Gvir is fighting crime, Smotrich is a man of action, and Bibi is a political and diplomatic magician.
How wonderful. That’s why crime is at an unprecedented low, security is at its peak, the government’s handling of the evacuees and of the situation is at its best, and the magician keeps dazzling. Good thing there are people who preserve objectivity, and not like me, just getting swept up in the current of hatred. More power to you.
Ben-Gvir significantly increased the police budget, and these things take time. Also, from what I know, most crime is in the Arab sector, and I assume that interests Ben-Gvir less.
The media is full of claims that Bibi is a coward, and yet despite American pressure he continues the fighting with full force and doesn’t count Biden, that’s diplomatic magic. (I remember that you too wrote that you didn’t believe the war would continue for so long.) Look how he dismantled the National Unity camp with Sa’ar, that’s political magic. You write that the government’s performance regarding the evacuees is poor, but one has to remember that this is an event on an unforeseen scale, and it’s hard to function in such a situation.
Remember that Bibi didn’t know beforehand; also in the Meron disaster they didn’t give any instructions connected to Bibi because he didn’t know.
And one more note. Assuming a government elected legally does things that ought not be done and harms the structure of government in the state, it can בהחלט be called a hijacking. They were elected legally, but not in order to perpetrate what they wanted. And even if their voters support their deeds, the minority can claim that these are illegitimate acts and argue that there is a hijacking here. I explained in various columns in the past that democracy is built on a social agreement that enables majority rule. In a situation of majority tyranny, the minority can claim that this was not the understanding on which it agreed to the democratic game.