In one of his recent columns, journalist Amit Segal argued there are currently two active religions in Israel: the religion of "only Bibi" and the religion of "anyone but Bibi," referring to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His diehard supporters, like his diehard detractors, are infected – according to this equation – with an emotion-based religious fervor; irrational and bereft of practical logic.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
This comparison reminded me of one of Segal's other peak moments at Channel 12 News: When former Labor MK Eitan Cabel's investigation transcripts first surfaced, everyone compared them to Case 2000 against Netanyahu – because in both cases the person who negotiated positive coverage in Yedioth Ahronoth with them was the paper's publisher, Arnon "Noni" Mozes. However, Segal's extrapolation from that was that all Israelis who fear for the rule of law should actually be troubled by the parallel between Cabel and Case 4,000 against Netanyahu.
In Case 4,000, the police and state prosecutor were forced to recruit state's witnesses, shake them down, undermine their credibility, extract testimonies through dubious methods, and forcibly connect the dots between witness A and witness B to circumstantially and weakly point to some unprecedented bribe that never took place. In Cabel's case, however, the suspect himself sat opposite his investigators and was allowed to practically recount from memory the deal he concocted with Mozes – with no need for state's witnesses and independent of the attorney general's (reasonable or otherwise; proportionate or otherwise) circumstantial stretches of the imagination.
Segal pondered, as a result, how it could be that in Cabel's easy case, in which he clearly and patently received positive coverage, the police closed the file; while in Netanyahu's case, with no investigation transcript directly implicating him and zero tangible positive coverage of which to speak – the prosecutor decided to put him on trial.
This wonderment on Segal's part leads us directly to what is becoming, in the eyes of many, a clinic on selective and political enforcement of the law against a right-wing leader. If this impression is accurate then support for Netanyahu is nothing resembling a religious cult, rather it is a logical imperative, not to mention a civic duty for any Israeli who wants to continue living in a democratic state.
So why then is it still referred to as a "religion?" According to Segal's explanation, if Netanyahu cannot form the next government, other alternatives must be explored and prepared for in advance. The difference between the "cultish approach" of Netanyahu's supporters and the "practical approach" that Segal is suggesting, is essentially a utilitarian difference at its core.
But what kind of right-wing governance can grow in Netanyahu's aftermath, assuming the coup succeeds? And why are non-members of the church of "only Bibi" – such as Prof. Ruth Gavizon or Prof. Daniel Friedmann – decrying this coup attempt as if they were the most zealous of his supporters? And most importantly – what would be the use of another right-wing government, assuming the national camp ignores the fact that the current prime minister was forcibly removed from office just because of his political views?
The most practical, logical and moral thing to do is fight this coup attempt we all know is taking place, and the most effective way of doing so is at the voting stations. This is the only ritual ceremony in this religion, which holds the sovereignty of the people as a fundamental tenet. This religion is called democracy.
