Are you ready to tell me the secret?

July 17, 2016   

 On Sunday morning, when I was supposed to open my morning radio show with the headline, I had a hard time repeating myself. It just embarrassed me, this status of Gidi Orsher. Why am I even bothering my listeners with a text like this? Why even repeat it? What's the point of all this nonsense against the Mizrahi and tradition, without logic and without arguments, just a series of insults? I'm used to reading texts on the show. Different and strange opinions, in all kinds of styles. I don't remember such a poor piece of writing, at such a low level, that made the headlines. I was really ashamed that I was dealing with it and was later supposed to respond or reply to it. So why am I going to write here about the Orsher affair? Not because the status itself is important, but because the weekly Torah storm (until Orsher was replaced by the Honorable Rabbi Eyal Karim) revealed some fascinating mechanisms at work here, and that need to be talked about. So, after a week, here's what you need to pay close attention to in this story, and in similar stories.  Everyone talks about being careful about inappropriate content on the Internet. 'Rimon', 'Nativ' and the rest offer different levels of filtering, for the sake of modesty, because you shouldn't follow your heart and your eyes, but no one talks about exposure to stupidity. In the new era, we are flooded with countless lame, immature, idiotic texts. In the past, to read such a text, you had to go to the letters section of some remote newspaper. In fact, I have a feeling that even the editor there would have rejected it. Then all that was left for the crazy writer was perhaps to publish his musings in the stairwell of his building. Do you know those neighbors who hang strange ads in the elevator? There is elevator music, after all, and there is also elevator writing. People who leave handmade Pashkvil in the elevator ("If someone drips with the garbage again, I will put a chicken leg on their head"). And suddenly - all these bad texts arrive in the city square. Suddenly, the Prime Minister (!) responds within a few hours to a few sentences on Facebook. Hello? It's not that the prime minister shouldn't have responded to it - he shouldn't have heard about it. Really? I shouldn't have heard about it either. That's what's so terrible about the New Town Square. All the letters sent to the system, all the signs in a homemade elevator - everything is out in the sun, in front of everyone, loudly. Freedom of speech? Freedom of stupidity.  And here's a question that's been bothering me a lot lately: How, for God's sake, do you get on the politically correct list? Tell me, please. How do you get accepted into the VIP group, when even the prime minister gets yelled at if you just talk about it? After all, Orsher himself, it turns out, has written equally filthy texts over the years about settlers, religious people, ultra-Orthodox people, and right-wingers. That didn't move anyone, and no one dreamed of suspending him. Orsher called the residents of Judea and Samaria "sinisters" and Channel 7 "the sewer of the sinisters." About two months ago, he wrote about Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked as "representatives of settler fascism, money thieves, and robbers of the country's treasury and humanity." Aren't these statements harsh enough on Orsher's scale? Why, if it's a text against Mizrahi, does everyone suddenly go into a coma? Miri Regev, are you willing to tell me the secret? What are the conditions for admission to the club? Yes, I'm jealous. I want to too.  And actually, it wasn't a text about Mizrahi Jews at all. It's not a racist or sectarian text, it's an anti-religious text. Orsher didn't attack Mizrahi Jews, but Judaism. What he sees as Judaism, unfortunately. He perceives the Torah of Moses as something primitive, infantile, but due to all the shouting about the deprivation of sectarianism, no one talked about the thing itself this week. Unfortunately, he represents an entire generation that thinks this way about its heritage and identity. I looked at the entry written about him on Wikipedia. Read what it says there and think about what decisions he made regarding Judaism and heritage in each of the following roles. What films did he choose, what titles did he give, what people did he hire. Well, Orsher, it says there, is the film critic for Gali Tzahal (it's worth noting that he is currently suspended), he is the founder and manager of the station's website, one of the founders of the Israel Film Academy, a member of the academy's board and a representative of its film critics, a lecturer on film, one of the initiators of "Long Film Day" for school students in the national cultural basket, wrote about the values ​​of cinema in the new Encyclopedia Britannica for young people, and in the past presented a film section on the television program "This is It." And this man, in all this series of roles, for decades, thinks that Judaism is 'signals with bonfires' and that tradition is all kinds of rituals with a 'rabbit's foot.'.  And maybe there's nothing to answer to people like that at all? I know this as someone who lectures from time to time. Senior lecturers have already invented the method. At the end of the lecture, sometimes, the audience gets a chance to ask questions. Then, when someone asks an off-topic question, but really off-topic, a question that simply doesn't advance the conversation anywhere, because the questioner is simply, how to say, not the sharpest pencil in the group, excuse me, you understand that it's better not to respond. So what do you do? Ignore? That's not nice. The trick is to simply say, "Okay, we'll answer you right away, let's just gather a few more questions together first and answer everyone at the end..." It's not a waste of time, but a waste of energy, because what's the point of responding, and in general, the whole group will start grumbling in a moment about the fact that you, as a lecturer, are giving so much attention to someone who everyone knows who he is and what he is. That's perhaps what should have been done with Orsher, and that's what should have been done in future cases as well. Don't get upset. Say that we'll respond to everything at the end, and hope that things will simply be forgotten.  The one who actually tried to answer Orsher is Niv Raskin on Galei Tzahal. Before I tell you what was there, I must say a good word about Raskin. He is usually decent, objective, and more than that, he is humane, curious. He replaces the old generation of elites of Reno Tzror and Yael Dan who did not come to ask questions but to answer answers. The rise of generations. But this time I was disappointed. Maybe he was as embarrassed as I was by the text and the level (and he still knows Orsher from the hallway on Galei Tzahal). He brought Orsher on the line and simply started scolding him. Here is a transcript, word for word: “Gidi, what the hell were you thinking when you wrote those words? What were you thinking? Do you really think these things? Shall I remind you of a list of people? You know, starting with Chief of Staff Eisenkot, who is a Mizrahi, and Supreme Court Justices like Meni Mazuz, and former Justice Matza, and film people like Maor Zaguri, and Yossi Banai, and Ronit Elkabetz, these are people who didn’t do, who didn’t get to this point? You don’t appreciate them if you write like that!... There are no Mizrahi cardiologists? There are no Mizrahi Supreme Court Justices? There are no Mizrahi cultural figures? How is it possible to even think such things.“ Excuse me? Are examples of secular Mizrahi who integrated into the elite the answer? After all, Orsher, again, didn’t write against the very existence of Mizrahi. He wrote against the heritage, against a perception that claims that secular European culture is not the only option. To tell him ”Look, there’s also a Mizrahi doctor!“ It's not just insulting, it's simply not understanding the story. The question is faith, spirit, meaning. Is a person who recites Tehillim (he could be a rabbi or a doctor or a shoemaker) sufficiently enlightened or is he primitive? Is someone who disbelieves in Israel's Western and liberal culture and wants a different culture legitimate at all? Erez Tal, for example, was born Erez Ben Tulila. Today he is a symbol of the ratings and commercial entertainment industry. He is a Mizrahi who has fully integrated. He is essentially a leader, a shaper of public opinion. He hosts 'Big Brother' and sweeps hundreds of thousands into adoration of reality culture. I, on the other hand, believe that our culture is to study Torah, observe Shabbat, pray, and eat kosher. Did Orsher write against him because he is the Mizrahi Ben Tulila, or did he actually write against me and against my grandfather, who came from Hungary?  And then came the worst part. The demand to fire Orsher. Why fire? After everything I've said, I oppose the persecution of people based on extremist views. Today it's Orsher, tomorrow it's you. Anyone who deviates from the consensus, anyone who insults anyone, will be immediately summoned for a hearing. And besides, why silence him at all? Now, when everyone knows who and what he is, when his opinions hover over his head like a cloud, let him broadcast. With respect. • The column is published in the newspaper 'Besheva''