Five different people contacted me last week and recommended what to write about.
To be honest, they didn't recommend it, they stated with absolute confidence: I must refer to publicist Dov Halbertal.
""I'm just shocked," a teacher wrote to me after reading Halbertal's article about the three kidnapped boys. "How can something like this be published? How is this article still up on the internet? How did he type such words?""
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
The issue came up again and again in many small talk conversations (in real life and on WhatsApp). In every forum, the feeling was that "something needs to be done." It is impossible for someone to write a disparaging article about the families and their mourning, claim that there is a "festival of mourning," end with the words "how good it is that they were kidnapped and killed" - and the world will act as usual.
Secular and national religious people angrily asked themselves whether he represented the Haredi, Haredi people angrily asked themselves how secular and national religious people could imagine that he represented the Haredi, and in the meantime the article became a recurring event: They repeatedly put the liberal on the air, demanded that he apologize, and debated whether he was just sorry or actually apologizing.
celebration.
""Sorry," I said to everyone who told me to write about the subject (i.e. told me to "get into it," "show it what it is," "denounce it properly"). "Sorry," I also said to the producer who wanted to put me on one of the current affairs programs to talk about the subject.
""Sorry, the most beautiful gift I can give to Halbertal is to talk about him. I know I'm not that important and that there are many who are already dealing with the issue, but I personally don't want to add another thorn to the fire.".
So why am I still writing about it here this week? To say something more principled. Not about him, about us. About the media, and perhaps especially about the religious and ultra-Orthodox media.
We are so used to accusing the secular media of choosing the yellow, the provocative, and the negative – that we don't notice that we may be going through the exact same process.
So, yes, we adhere to the rules of modesty and observe the Sabbath, but isn't Jewish media supposed to be something different, really different, completely different? Have we actually adopted the exact same rules of chasing scoops and ratings, of searching for the shallow and superficial, of cheap slander and provocations that bring in lots of hits, likes and shares?
Let's look at Halbertal as an example: From the Wikipedia entry on him, I learned that he immigrated to Israel from Uruguay, studied at Netiv Meir and Har Etzion and later at the Harry Fishel Institute for Law, served as a tank commander in the Israeli army and as a law lecturer, later became close to Rabbi Elyashiv zt"l and presents himself as a close student of his.
So far, a fairly impressive resume, but this is where his media career begins. It wasn't because of this autobiography that he became a media star, but because of the following lines: In recent years, it was written there, he called for allowing Reform conversion and allowing public transportation on Shabbat and raising pigs, claimed that the Sephardic public that immigrated to Israel should thank the Ashkenazim and be grateful to them, wrote that the Breslav Hasidism is interested in taking over Judaism, and stated that all the wars of the Arab countries and the Palestinians against Israel stem from the occupation and settlements.
During Operation Protective Edge, he called on Israel to surrender to all Hamas demands, and if all that wasn't enough, he wrote that women have no moral right to rule and lead and that Yar Lapid should be murdered by an ultra-Orthodox Jew.
Each such statement is also accompanied by a link, which leads you to countless articles for and against it. A series of polemics, confrontations, responses and responses to the responses. The leading word in all these reports is "storm": "the statement that caused a storm," "the article that caused a storm," and so on.
The Wikipedia entry also states that "Halbertal frequently appears on television and radio programs on matters of religion and state, and expresses his opinions on current affairs.".
Who does he actually represent there, in all the studios and programs and websites? What exactly is this subtext that the media is so keen to convey?
So, he doesn't represent the spirit of Netiv Meir there, nor Mount Etzion, nor Rabbi Elyashiv, nor the Armored Corps.
He faithfully represents the liberal sector, and only that sector.
So why is this commodity so sought after and so popular?
Oh, here we come to another sector, also not particularly large, but very influential: the editors and producers sector. They bring up the liberal again and again solely because of the lust for ratings. And they are the outrageous story, not him.
For my part, let the liberal express his opinions in the kitchen to his family, or shout them on the street all day long. But giving the public microphone is the problem.
Anyone who brings him into the studio or publishes his column knows full well that he doesn't represent any current, but simply can't resist the temptation. He wants to cause the next "storm." That will bring more hits and comments and views, which means more advertising revenue. It's hard to find a radio station or a niche website that hasn't made the rounds on the Habertal in recent years.
And he is not alone.
There are quite a few such extreme figures of stars who fill our public discourse. I'm not talking about those who challenge the discourse and express original opinions, but about those whose extremism is their art. These are always the same names who confront and shout, agitate and excite, insult and insult, and no one thinks of not giving them the microphone.
If you want to change this reality, you will know that it is really easy. Just ignore it. If you think that you are punishing the various liberals when you write a juicy response against them – you are wrong. You are giving them a reward.
If there are hundreds of talkbacks – even against them – the site will immediately invite them to write another article. If the program system is flooded with comments – the radio station will understand that they need to be brought in again. The way to deal with what annoys you is to simply not get annoyed (or at least not express those annoyances).
This is, first of all, a real cleansing of the mind, which will make you feel good, healthy, and have a long life.
But not just for your sanity, this is advice based on commercial logic: in today's media reality, every zip you make is worth money, every entry you make and every click you make is measured and counted. I personally have a private "blacklist" of sites I don't go to, of radio broadcasters who just say "Good morning" and I immediately shake their faces, of writers whose articles I don't click on, no matter what they write about.
Why give power to this writer? Just so his editor sees that he brings in a lot of entries, and decides that he should be given another opening here? Why should I respect and give my time to someone who doesn't respect me and tramples on my values?
As someone who knows a little about the behind-the-scenes of several media systems, I can say with certainty that boycott initiatives can terrify editors and publishers. Every drop in ratings is disturbing. Every organization of the audience that proves that it is not a herd and that it too has red lines and demands – can bring about change.
This is true when it comes to something organized, but, as mentioned, even private and stubborn abstention will be beneficial. In an era where the consumer/surfer/reader is king, he must be aware and critical, and give power to those who do not make a cynical spin on him, to those who do not just stir up disputes and debates about nothing, to those who do not only go for what is most blatant and bloody.
The latest "storm", as you may recall, erupted over a column that defamed the memory of the three boys. I could have ended it here, but then this week I received the following email from Ofir Shaar, the father of Gil-Ad:
""Hello friends. I am passing on to you a letter that arrived to us yesterday morning from an unknown guy, another one of many hundreds and perhaps even thousands of letters that have arrived at our home in the past year. He writes to us as follows:
On the one-year anniversary of that horrific night, I wanted to write my feelings. I am an unknown who did not know any of the families. I am a yeshiva student (since I got married in the year of the Lord), an outsider (from New York), studying in a Haredi yeshiva in Jerusalem.
We all felt the feeling of 'And Israel was established in the name of God – as one man.' The concern, the recitation of the Psalms, the prayer meetings, the sorrow, your faith, the mourning. After I returned from the funeral, I spoke with one of the overseers from one of the yeshivahs I saw there. I asked him why he had come, and he replied: 'I lived with these boys for three weeks, so I won't go to their funeral? It's like the funeral of a relative!''
And that was really how we all felt. But I wanted to add one story that you may not have heard before. My grandfather, who passed away about two weeks ago, suffered from dementia in recent years. He had almost no short-term memory. He didn't know what he ate in the morning, what day of the week it was, what holiday started tomorrow, and other things like that.
He didn't even remember the name of his regular physiotherapist. But when that physiotherapist came in, he would ask him: What's with the boys? What about the boys? He did remember them as he remembered his family. It just went deep into his soul.
"The love and unity in those days simply crossed all boundaries, and I pray that this spirit will only continue and grow stronger and that thanks to this we will see salvation.".
• The column is published in the newspaper 'Bisheva''
