A left-wing media dictatorship - Dror Eydar

by Dror Eydar

The contemptible obsession with Netanyahu the man, rather than his ideas, represents the left-wing dictatorship of thought toward its political rivals • It is not Netanyahu who needs to be protected, but our independence of thought, which is under threat.

Radio personality Razi Barkai in studio | Photo credit: KOKO

What were you expecting? That the media would not report on it? I get asked this question a lot. But to ask this question is to play dumb. There is reporting and then there is brainwashing. It is impossible to escape the details of the state comptroller's report, which have been cited everywhere with utmost seriousness. We have all become experts on the personal lifestyle of the Netanyahu family. The feeling most people got was that of suffocation. Dozens of cannons were pointed not at our ears but at our brains, threatening to obliterate any trace of independent thought. The task: convincing the public unequivocally that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is corrupt.

One thing stood out: the fact that many of Netanyahu's detractors are corrupt themselves. Corruption is not limited to accepting bribes. It can also be aggressive use of media to promote a one-sided political agenda.

In a situation like this, every man whose spirit is free must resist cooperating with the brainwashers. It does not matter what the report says. What is important is to preserve independent spirit and thought. At moments like these I go back to the verse "Yet will I leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him" (1 Kings 19:18). Do not bow down to the media puppet masters. Do not yield to the occupation of consciousness.

I do not mean to imply that the issues raised in the report are not worth investigating. I am only saying that the timing could be better. After all, the report did not expose cash-filled envelopes or Holyland-level corruption or Greek island stuff. What did we have there? An electrician who may have done some extra work? Spending on food? Housekeeping? Small change. Whatever needs attention will soon be rectified. Everything in the report can certainly wait until after the elections. But the state comptroller capitulated to media pressure (not public pressure, but pressure applied by the media coalition led by Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon Mozes) and outrageously opted to release an unprecedented kind of report, a month before the elections.

And that is not all: The report lacks one key component -- scale. How does the Netanyahu household spending compare to that of previous prime ministers' families? We do not know. When was the food ordered? For whom? Under what circumstances? We do not know. Household staff paid for items out of pocket and were not reimbursed. Sure, that is not right, but is it the prime minister's job to reimburse staff for 30 shekel expenditures? The Prime Minister's Residence has a household manager to deal with such petty matters.

The state comptroller made a grave mistake (not to mention the interference in the election process) when he issued his report one month before the elections and provided the media with material with which to bombard our brains. The constant buzzing of the details of the report isn't meant to correct injustices or right wrongs. I am not convinced that it is outrage over misuse of public funds that motivates our diligent reporters to maintain this buzzing. Some of these same reporters defended former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (convicted of corruption) and called on him to return to politics only two years ago. The hypocrisy quota has been filled several times over. As Labor leader Isaac Herzog once told me at a media event: "They weren't interested in that. They were looking for the prime minister's head." He knew what he was talking about. 

This contemptible obsession with Netanyahu the man, rather than his ideas, represents the left-wing dictatorship of thought toward its political rivals. It is not Netanyahu who needs defending. It is our freedom and independence of thought that we need to protect. We need to preserve the right to decide for ourselves rather than capitulating to a one-sided media, whose views have mostly failed the test of reality. Just look how 95 percent of the media speaks in unison. Does that make sense? Incidentally, when I talk to members of the media behind the scenes, quite a few of them reveal a very different set of personal views. I call these people "social conversos" -- they exist not only in the media but also in literary circles and in the academia. People with a national, right-wing, conservative worldview who pretend to identify with the "correct" views for fear of harm.

He who dismisses cannot judge

The dictatorship of thought also relates to the recent controversy surrounding the Israel Prize. I have already said that Professor Avner Holtzman's dismissal from the judgment panel of the Israel Prize for literature was a mistake. But dismissing Professor Ariel Hirschfeld from the same panel was a necessity. He must not be allowed to serve on that judgment panel. Hirschfeld is a gifted literary critic who is unable to separate his personal political views from his literary criticism. He disqualified the talented poet Hava Pinhas-Cohen because of her "political views," as he did writer Aharon Megged.

Those who opposed the prime minister's intervention in the Israel Prize judgment committees were helping to preserve a well-known left-wing stronghold. By controlling the various prize committees -- not just for literature but for all the humanities -- the Left handed out prizes to similar-minded recipients, thus solidifying the shameful political homogeneity of Israel's intellectual and cultural circles. Any artist who happens to hold national, right-wing, conservative views has to think long and hard before exposing them. That is not the case with even the most extreme left-wing, liberal views. Israeli artists can identify themselves with the extreme Arab party Balad and remain unscathed. But songstress Naomi Shemer paid a price when she identified with the right-wing camp back in the 1970s. That did not stop her from courageously fighting for her beliefs. But what will artists with less influence than Shemer do? Hirschfeld must not return to the judgment panel because he represents the politicization of art. It is not Netanyahu's last-minute intervention that politicized it. 

Until I repeated Hirschfeld's outrageous remarks against the poet Hava Pinhas-Cohen, no one was really bothered by them. Hirschfeld said that her views on "the issue of settlements and other issues are irresponsible and immoral, in my opinion," as well as other arrogant drivel. Did anyone care? After all, it was just Hava Pinhas-Cohen, not Ahinoam Nini or any other of the Left's darlings. On Sunday, radio anchor Razi Barkai finally invited Hava to the studio. She spoke hesitantly. The last thing she needs is to be boycotted for good. Barkai, who likes to boast of his affection for Hebrew poetry, displayed embarrassing ignorance when it came to this important poet, who influenced an entire generation of Israeli poets and whose mastery of the Hebrew language is far better than that of lesser poets with better public relations. 

Barkai asked her whether it was true, "what the Right claims" was done to her. She said that it was not "the Right" but rather one man advocating for her, and she mentioned me. Barkai opted not to mention me, or talk to an "extremist" like me. It is a shame, because I could have brought countless additional examples of the one-way exclusion of excellent artists who don't belong to Barkai's political tribe. Instead, he interviewed two leftists who, together with Barkai, flattered one another. 

Earlier, Barkai talked about a recent video sponsored by the Samaria Resident's Council that compared left-wing organizations with Nazi collaborators. A perfect example of stupidity and failure to understand the media arena. And here, talking about a video that very obviously references the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the first thing that comes to Barkai's mind is ... Israel Hayom. His audacity knows no bounds. Over the last two weeks, he slammed Israel Hayom on a daily basis in his efforts to defend the Left in the controversy surrounding the nongovernmental organizations helping the Israeli Left in the elections. 

I have been told that Barkai opposed a recent bill aiming to shut down Israel Hayom. So what? One does not need to be a saint to oppose this despicable bill, aimed at undermining a key media outlet. But since then, as though to clear his name of the shame, Barkai declares every day that he has not abandoned his faith as he cleaves to his tribe. The only difference is that while Israel Hayom is a private institution, Barkai, like Hirschfeld, is aggrandizing the Left on a public platform -- a public radio station that does not belong to him. Or does it ...

Zoabi and Marzel as a test case

The Supreme Court was right to overturn the Central Elections Committee's decision to disqualify Israeli Arab MK Hanin Zoabi and rightist Baruch Marzel from running in the upcoming election. As long as neither one has incited to violence, the town square needs to be open to every kind of voice. For a long time, the Israeli media offered a single, nearly uniform voice (and still does in certain cases). Not so in Israeli politics. The Knesset is the only place where the wide range of views within Israeli society is accurately represented. 

The habitual practice of disqualifying candidates from running for the Knesset is to deal with the marginal part of the issue. In my opinion, a distinction should be made between Zoabi and Marzel, because Marzel belongs to the Jewish majority while Zoabi belongs to the Arab minority. Therefore, Zoabi's right to represent her constituents and to voice her beliefs should be even more carefully guarded. My fellow right-wingers must avoid silencing any voice. We ourselves know what it is like to be pushed aside and silenced. In the past I have argued that if the media in Israel had been more pluralistic and had given more of a voice to the opponents of the 1993 Oslo Accords back when they were being signed (not just by reporting the existence of dissent but by making room for radio presenters and newscasters who actually identify with the dissent, thereby legitimizing it), we could have spared ourselves much of the ensuing violence. The assassination of late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin may have also been prevented. 

Despite Meretz's liberal facade, its members, along with the Arab parties, voted in favor of disqualifying Baruch Marzel. The Labor party and Yesh Atid voted in favor of disqualifying both Zoabi and Marzel. In short, no one is innocent. Opposing the disqualification of candidates for Knesset is separate from the unrestrained liberalism touted by the Left. The conservative viewpoint revolves around preserving individual rights -- not just the right to property or the right to assemble but the actual freedom to stand up in the town square and, using the most explicit language, defy the majority opinion. Strong language should not scare anyone. The line should only be drawn at incitement to violence. Israeli society is strong enough to contain both Zoabi and Marzel. What did the disqualifiers think, that making these two go away would make their voters disappear along with their opinions? 

It is important that the Arab party Balad, and Zoabi within it, continue to take part in Israel's democratic process. It is through this process that they integrate into state institutions and are presented as members of the Israeli Knesset, in a Jewish and democratic state. 

Freedom of expression as an excuse

Speaking of disqualifying Arabs, it was impossible not to chuckle at the sight of the tiny rabbit that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman pulled out of his political hat for the umpteenth time: Arabs. What would he do without the Arabs? Lieberman wanted to distribute copies of the commemorative issue of the satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine, featuring a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad on the cover, in the name of freedom of expression. Only three months ago, Lieberman compelled the 12 members of his faction to vote in favor of shutting down Israel Hayom. So you see? Lieberman does not maintain a close relationship with freedom of expression. The only thing he has left is a magazine that offends Muslims, and he is hoping to get elected on that. After having made leftist remarks for a long time, he has now resumed sounding like a right-winger. The irony is that the same man who demanded that Israel's Arabs pledge their loyalty, has zigzagged between the Left and the Right countless times. Let us not waste our time.

Who is dividing Jerusalem? 

While everyone was focused on Sara Netanyahu's bottle recycling and the electrician employed at the prime minister's home, we overlooked the main thing. When the two biggest parties are pushed to the wall, the main difference in their approach toward a peace settlement becomes apparent -- Jerusalem. Jerusalem serves as a litmus test distinguishing us from our neighbors. It is not by chance that they reject our ancient link to the city. They know that without Zion there can be no Zionism. Generations upon generations of Jews drew strength from its existence, not only from the hope to return to Israel but from advancing the cause by way of the Zionist movement. The Six-Day War in 1967 faced Israelis with the Old City of Jerusalem. In psycho-historical terms, this was an encounter with the ultimate repressed element of Israeli society. It was a confrontation with what Jerusalem had represented in Jewish consciousness for generations: the religious traditions, the messianic aspirations, and the most repressed element of all -- God. To borrow Jewish philosopher Gershom Scholem's terminology, Israeli society met its apocalyptic poison, and indeed, a portion of Israeli society seeks to detach itself from those elements, precisely because of what they represent. 

The campaign slogan -- "Peres will divide Jerusalem" -- was dismissed and ridiculed at the time, but when it comes down to it, the Labor party is actually the one dividing Jerusalem. It was so with Ehud Barak in Camp David, as it was with Herzog. In an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth in December 2013, just after he was elected Labor chairman, Herzog made some remarks that he would probably be happy to conceal nowadays: "I see Jerusalem as being two political capitals: One in east Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state, and one in the western part of the city, as the capital of the Jewish state. That is how I view the solution. The Palestinian government can be housed in one of the east Jerusalem neighborhoods, I think. That does not scare me." 

Herzog was asked whether all of Jerusalem would remain Israeli territory, and he replied: "I am not discussing details and I am not conducting negotiations here. The Western Wall will remain Israel's. As for the rest, creativity will be required." A Zionist Union, just without Zion.

Dror Eydar

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=23663

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.