In terms of the national zeitgeist, this decade is ending on a pessimistic note. There is a sense of gloominess. If we were to judge by the discourse in the media and in politics, Israeli society and values are in one of their worst crises in history.
We have never been so divided, so angry, so hateful. We have been fractured and set against each other. The bonds, the unity, our famous "togetherness" – which kept our heads above the stormy waters is wearing thin and fading away.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
One might think so, on the condition that they understood it to be a subjective feeling. Social media, particularly Facebook and Twitter, encourage extremism and provide social payoffs to whoever shouts loudest.
The various trolls secure status through their success in offending others or leading an internet lynch on their rivals. But the streets are restive, too – Israelis of Ethiopian descent, Israeli Arabs, the disabled, the LGBTQ community, opponents and supporters of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – everyone is out blocking traffic arteries, clashing with the police, and sometimes with each other. The atmosphere is tense, the conversation is adversarial, and the daily friction is starting to hurt.
But in spite of the levels of hatred and violence, a booming industry on their own, a "mood" isn't something objective that can be measured imperially. We need to look at this story with a degree of skepticism. First of all because crises of values, as any political strategist can tell you, are very profitable for those who trade in morality. Sometimes, you need to look for the people who benefit from creating an atmosphere of crisis in order to put themselves forth as the solution. That doesn't mean the crisis is invented, but it's a hint that it might be exaggerated.
Think about it seriously for a moment: When, for example, was the Jewish-Arab divide worse: Now, at the end of a decade of unprecedented integration of Israeli Arabs in the Israeli economy and culture (despite the hateful discourse from the Right); or the decade that began with the events of October 2000 and … in the Second Intifada? When was there a bigger rift between right-wingers and hawks – in the decades of the Oslo Accords and the disengagement from Gaza, or this past decade, when neither side had a reason to threaten a "war between brothers?" It seems as if we've known decades much more rife with debate and unrest, in which Israeli society was under a burden that truly threatened to break it apart.
Is it possible we've gotten addicted to the myth of societal rifts? Maybe it pleases us, and gives us a little certainty in a time when the old doctrines are becoming irrelevant? For example, this myth of "splits" allows us to perceive time in terms of the perfect, idyllic "yesterday" and the catastrophic, depressing "today." It also explains who the bad guys are (the ones responsible for the factionalization and rights) and who the good guys are (the ones who pursue unity, but if possible, only with those that resemble themselves). And mostly, the myth explains what the biggest problem facing us at the end of this decade is – around which national goal we should come together. Paradoxically, the myth of "schism" is actually a kind of tie that binds. The deeper meaning of that insight is a surprising one. First of all, it signals that the external threats to which we have become accustomed, especially pertaining to the Israeli-Arab conflict – have become less relevant. They haven't disappeared, but there has been a relative sense of security that has made domestic issues – like relations between different sectors – seem more important to the functioning of society. That is an encouraging development of historic importance – it could be that this decade, we emerged from the bunker even though most of us still can't stray too far from safe rooms.
But the deeper truth is that the rifts between us, the ones that Israeli sociologists have been pointing out for decades, are more exposed than ever. They always existed – the ethnic divide, the national divide, the religious divide – we just talk about them more, dig into them, and fight about them. That isn't necessarily a negative process. The opposite – is says that our society has matured or is now able to focus seriously on divisive issues like ethnic or socioeconomic gaps, religion and state, methods of government and law – matters we were always forced to shove to the side because "life" always took precedence over "quality of life."
Naturally, these issues cannot be confronted over a cup of tea. The process is vocal, from the gut, and sometimes aggressive. Maybe, the "divides" and the "rifts" are how certain social forces are trying to steer us away from the debate. If that's true, we need to ask for whom it's so urgent to put these cats back in the bag and cover the sack with an imaginary blanket of warm unity?
If you reject that theory out of hand, we can also take comfort in the other possibility – if the divide is real and the panic about it is justified, at least something good will come out of it. We will start the new decade united in our hatred of being divided! Our rifts unite us.
