I wasn't at this week's demonstration outside the attorney general's home in Petah Tikva this week, and I have no idea at what stage the conspiracy theory about the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was raised (Professor Mordechai Kedar claimed that Yigal Amir was not the one who killed Rabin) but I am taking advantage of the privilege I have of writing in a newspaper, especially this newspaper, to call it a disgrace.
It wasn't healthy skepticism, a provocation, or a challenge. What was said about the Rabin murder, which unfortunately force us to break a few rules about collegial courtesy, was nauseating and repulsive. The highly public nature and timing of them – on the eve of the anniversary of the murder – made them insufferable. It's very difficult to stay silent and ignore them.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
I think that the speaker sinned not only against the collective memory and against Israeli-hood itself, but also against the people taking part in the demonstration. Many of the organizers and participants in the demonstration took part in it because they believe that law and democracy are in danger. They are called a "cult" and accused of idol worship, but they are people who read, who are intelligent, and who look at the same facts the rest of the public knows and arrive at different conclusions.
They're allowed to do so, just like they're allowed to demonstrate, and even get excited. It's a shame that they were unwittingly involved in a conspiracy theory that tainted the main demand they had showed up to make. The incident did serious damage to their image. They are now stained – who will want to be associated with them? It's guilt by association.
However, we need to ask how and why the speaker felt comfortable enough to say what he at that place and time. I don't want to cast aspersions on any of the organizers, leaders, speakers, or activists of the demonstration, but in all fairness, we must shed some light on the incident that is now going to stick to the pro-Netanyahu movement. Something bad is happening there, both in terms of thinking and in terms of style. Scraps of raw information are taken as materials for conspiracy theories and sections of texts are stitched into outlandish ideas. Any un-verified report is dragged out as forensic proof of the existence of a plot of historic proportion. It's happening on the margins, but some of that is seeping into the mainstream.
No less serious was the manner of expression. It's gone far beyond criticism of functionaries or casting down on their integrity. It has turned into personal attacks. Demonstrations outside homes, singling out individual office holders and their families, dirty name-calling that sometimes turns violent. Crime and legal reporters are also the targets of disproportionate attacks that passed the bounds of legitimate criticism long ago. The vocabulary is out of control.
We can understand the sentiment, as well as the frustration. As each day passes, more questions arise. We can no longer wave off issues like selective enforcement, biased investigating, overzealous prosecutors, or illegal actions. If any of these are accurate, Netanyahu has indeed been morally wronged, as well as the public, which has been robbed of democracy. And that – even the Left would agree – demands a strong public response.
But precisely because this protest movement has a case – or at least a solid basis for its calls for investigations – it's a shame that it is being running under this unpleasant and harmful cloud, which harms what could become a unique sociological phenomenon. It is the Right, the conservatives, who are demonstrating anti-establishment criticism and questioning authority, acting in response to critical thought. Their opponents on the Left call it "lack of faith" and twist their faces in fear, because this revolutionary outbreak is causing the radical Left to look like an obedient, frightened child. The Right is playing the role of the kids on the barricades, while the Left are the aunts who draw the curtains and say, "tsk tsk." But because the Right is the one casting doubt, it needs to understand that there is a chance it doesn't know everything; it must doubt its own doubts. It must continue to scatter question marks, not exclamation points, throughout the public sphere.
What they say about protests and revolutions is true. Social change is dirty work, and requires dirty tools. But we aren't living under conditions of oppressions, tyranny, or slavery. Israel is still a democracy in which society operate harmoniously. It is stronger than its flaws, including mistakes by the government. This is all a delicate fabric – we mustn't trample it with the boots of a demotion experts. Forgive my official tone, but this time clichés are warranted – we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater in our pursuit of justice; we cannot destroy society to fix it; and under no circumstances can we make widening societal rifts a legitimate target.
Most importantly, we cannot instill more toxicity into these poisonous fumes that are filling the air with pent-up violence. When we pick out enemies of democracy and freedom, we create legitimacy for them to be rooted out at any price. If the narrative is that the law enforcement system is corrupt anyway and the halls of justice are polluted, don't be surprised if someone concludes that they cannot be trusted to save the country. He already knows what the bad guys look like and where they live. Let's not lead him up to the door. You've made your point clear. It's time to move the protests and the criticism out of the city squares and onto the table for debate.
