As part of the turbulent political wave sweeping us in the run-up to the presidential race, according to publications, Shas Chairman Aryeh Deri has thrown into the air the name of a new-old candidate for the position - former Foreign Minister David Levy.
In justifying this proposal, Deri noted, again at least according to publications, that David Levy "is a warm Mizrahi," and therefore the Shas movement will stand behind him if he nominates his candidacy.
Only that in this step, Deri is demonstrating pure racism, even if he did not intend it. In his proposal, the Shas chairman is guilty of the worst kind of segregation – the one who does not understand that he is like that.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
Let us imagine that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had announced that his presidential candidate was the late former Shinui chairman, Mr. Tommy Lapid. Netanyahu would justify the proposal by arguing that Lapid was the most suitable candidate for the position because he was a "refined Ashkenazi gentleman." It turns out that next to the political storm that would have befallen the country due to the racist tone implied by such a formulation, the recent floods in Bosnia would have seemed like a puddle after the Malkush. .
Why, then, should the mention of Mr. Levy in the context of the high position include the fact that he was born 77 years ago in a town called Rabat? How in the name of God does this fact relate to the senior appointment?
This Shia policy reveals the prevailing mindset among groups that have suffered discrimination in the past and have now reached positions of power and influence. The leadership of these groups continues the racist discourse only now that it serves them and their political needs. The hidden message in these racist messages is - we were discriminated against in the past, now we are being discriminated against again.
Aryeh Deri, who in my opinion [or at least I would like to believe so] sinned by mistake, would do well to withdraw his proposal, or at least the poor reasoning behind it, and propose the candidate who is appropriate on an ethical, moral, and, of course, religious level.
