Stop the Fake Calls for Unity
Maariv, Israel, August 31
Let’s reflect on the experiences our society has endured in recent months, where the Iron Swords War has rippled through our lives, and the northern front fluctuates in intensity with regional developments. The Israeli government is pushing for a national memorial ceremony on October 7. This idea, however, is met with mixed reactions: The kibbutzim are boycotting it, while communities in Ofakim and Sderot are participating. The kibbutzim have requested that the names of their loved ones not be read at this ceremony, with some working toward an alternative event. Artists are similarly divided; some will perform at the official ceremony and others at an alternative one. On the political front, Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has made headlines by voicing his views on Jews’ right to pray at the Temple Mount; actions that drew criticism from his ultra-Orthodox coalition partners. A known journalist sparked controversy by criticizing bereaved mother Leli Deri, suggesting she derives some grim satisfaction from her son’s death. An IDF officer came to the fore when she described religious Zionists as a “cult of death eaters.” Minister Amichai Eliyahu was greeted with chants of “shame” when he attempted to speak at an event on behalf of the Ministry of Heritage. Meanwhile, a heated debate erupted on social media over whether Noa Argamani, the freed hostage, should be allowed to dance and enjoy herself at a pool party. And this is merely the surface of our societal discord. I won’t assign blame here or determine who is most responsible for deepening these divides. Instead, I propose we cease the calls for unity and abandon the pursuit of a homogeneous national identity. Israeli society is inherently tribal, and some might argue it’s subdivided even further. Each tribe has its own leaders and cultural heroes, and its youth attend different educational institutions. We often see distinct living environments, and inter-tribal marriages are relatively rare. Members of these groups vote for different political parties and consume media from varied sources. Consider this: If an individual who reads Yedioth Ahronoth and watches Channel 12 meets someone who reads Makor Rishon and listens to Radio Galey Israel, and they sit down with someone who reads Yated Ne’eman and listens to Radio Kol Chai, each would likely describe Israel in remarkably different ways. The efforts made before and after the establishment of the state to forge a “new Jew” and then a “new Israeli” inadvertently sharpened religious, political, sectarian, class, national, and social divides. Since those early days, these rifts have only grown deeper. The notion of tribal unity that David Ben-Gurion spoke of in Israel’s early years was truly an honest aspiration. But it failed. Our political leaders for the past 7 decades have been unable to bridge these tribal chasms. So, what’s the solution? First, let go of the desire for uniformity and unity. Over the past year, reminiscent of the dramatic days of the War of Independence, we’ve faced existential threats. In these times, tribes turn inward, making bridge-building nearly impossible. We need to establish rules for managing disputes from a holistic perspective rather than through a tribal lens. As Professor Rabbi Jonathan Sacks put it, we must consider “the house we build together.” Managing our disputes is preferable to maintaining a veneer of fake unity. If the Israeli government wants to hold a state ceremony for the October 7 disaster and some communities prefer an alternative event, the government should support their wishes. In the era of diverse media channels and social networks, no single ceremony will dictate the narrative of this disaster’s memory. The days of the IDF parade on Independence Day to showcase our collective strength are behind us. Supporting community ceremonies would significantly mitigate the negative discourse that is far from the ideals of statehood. Recently, I attended a performance by Elai Botner and Roy Bar-Natan at Mikveh Israel, where opponents of the government heckled Minister Amichay Eliyahu. The event was hosted by the Ministry of Heritage, and it’s customary for the minister to say a few words. This led to uproar, but Eliyahu remained on stage until he finished. The protesters’ stance is legitimate, as is Eliyahu’s. What would have happened if the protesters had listened to his speech? If Eliyahu had used the platform for political messages, their opposition would have been justified. If not, a few chants or signs would have sufficed until the show began. This approach is more in line with the heritage worth preserving. —Roei Lachmanovich (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
