"The trial will be held in the streets, in government-sponsored demonstrations," warned Nahum Barnea in an article in Yedioth Ahronoth, "They will protest in front of the courthouse and other places, they'll swamp the social networks and fan the flames in interviews in the mainstream media and televised appearances dictated by the ruler and his entourage," he asserted in his usual knowledgeable tone, concluding: "We saw the trailer at the military trial of Elor Azaria. Balfour Street also took note and understood the potential."
At first glance these are the same time-worn clichés that the Israeli intelligentsia is accustomed to hurling at the right in general and Netanyahu supporters in particular. This time, however, Barnea's words should be examined in their pragmatic context. Barnea is not the sharpest or most eloquent representative of the genre – he's just one of the more transparent bolts in the machine used to delegitimize critical thinking in Israel. Or rather, he is an effective agent in the mechanism of the mental oppression of freedom of thought.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
Unfortunately for him, Barnea's flimsy argument is easily broken under the weight of the very first fact. Barnea's horror, like that of his companions, of "mob justice," as he calls it, surfaces in charmingly perfect timing. Not, of course, after years of demonstrations on "Saturday night at the Attorney General's," with slogans such as "guilty until proven innocent" and "Crime Minister." There, mob justice bothered no one; on the contrary, it was a model of sublime civic engagement, just as to this day any aerial photograph of a Black Flag demonstration makes the left shiver with narcissistic delight. Rightist protests, on the other hand, are always dubbed demonstrations of inferior populism. Amateur anthropologists are sure to be soon dispatched by the media to cover those loud, brainwashed masses with derisive condescension.
Selective memory regarding "mob justice" is, however, a marginal issue. What is worrying is the ease with which a loyal advocate of democracy allows himself to call the political engagement of citizens a "Balfour Street" puppet show, where all the participants will be "government-sponsored" and controlled by "the ruler and his entourage."
This weekend's editorials and posts on social networks were filled to overflowing with opinions purporting that distrust of the State Attorney and support for Netanyahu are signs of lowly ignorance. In the same article you could read about Amsalem's fawning, Miki Zohar's prattle, and Miri Regev's vulgar applause – all of them "LiIlliputian emissaries," dwarves that should be "restored to their original size." The entire repertoire of leftist orientalism was shifted into high gear.
In response to a tweet supporting Netanyahu by Druze MK Patin Mulla, the left described him as a "branded slave." A clip of a Netanyahu supporter wearing a tallit and tefillin excited quite a few taste buds yearning for ridicule, with another journalist explaining that "there are ignorant, brainwashed citizens who are victims of a horrible education system." Who shall redeem us, oh wretched refuse of the Levant, of our ignorance? If you ask nicely, they might give you private lessons in creative writing.
A large part of the preemptive rhetoric in anticipation of the first day of Netanyahu's trial was devoted to marking the opposition to the establishment as vulgar, ignorant, and loud, in stark contrast with the extensive knowledge, reason, and common sense in which the left takes false pride. An amazing number of recent op-eds and tweets have been conspicuously obsessing over the language and forms of expression of the right, as an indication of its speakers' cognitive and developmental inferiority and a criterion of the worth of the author's arguments.
It is tempting to read this paternalism as a kind of empowering discourse intended to strengthen the self-image of a declining social stratum. For some psycho-political reason, its most eloquent representatives are unable to overcome their compulsive need to preen themselves before the mirror of their great perspicacity. This time, however, we cannot ignore the instrumental denigration of "the others" and the glorification of "ourselves."
This is the practice of an oppressive discursive regime intended to deter, to the best of its ability, the expression of support for Netanyahu or criticism of the State Attorney. In this preemptive strike on protest and criticism, the most pressing objective is to ensure that in the public debate surrounding the Netanyahu trial there is no place for more than one opinion; and that anyone who thinks otherwise is unworthy of being called a sentient being. In this climate, who will dare to be stupid enough to identify with the ignorant vulgarity of the masses, and what wretch could, in his right mind, exclude himself from the company of the wise – when all that is needed to join that company is to hold the right opinion, or simply to shut up?
