Frustrated by Israeli society's "uniformity of ideas," Daphne Netanyahu took matters to her own hands.
By RUTHIE BLUM LEIBOWITZdafna 224.88(photo credit: Esteban Alterman)
'The idea behind Maraah [mirror] was to break the monopoly of ideas," says cofounder, editor and contributor Daphne Netanyahu. "And while religious circles in this country have vehicles through which to do this, secular Zionists don't have a shofar."
But, she stresses, "its line is pluralist, not partisan. After all, our goal is to open the debate, not mimic those who wish to keep it closed."
She also assures that the recently established, weekly Hebrew Web magazine (www.maraah-magazine.co.il) - accessible also through investigative journalist Yoav Yitzhak's news site (www.News1.co.il) - is not solely "heavy" reading with articles on politics, culture and social issues, but aims to entertain, as well, through satire, while "maintaining a very high quality of writing."
Netanyahu, 54 - who taught criminal law and also has a degree in biology from the Hebrew University - explains her decision to create an on-line publication, rather than one sold on the newsstands, as being based both on financial concerns and on trends in the reading habits of the younger generation. "We knew that if we had to raise millions of shekels to get started, there's no way we would have been able to do it," she says. "And anyway, the Web is where the public debate in today's world has begun to be conducted."
Asked whether her surname has been a boon or a hindrance to this and other of her life's endeavors (she is married to opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu's brother, Iddo, a physician and the author of books, articles, short stories and a play that was recently staged in Italy), Netanyahu answers candidly: "Politically, it's been a problem, due to people's tendency to make snap judgments about others, including about which party I support." But, she adds, laughing, "I didn't marry Bibi; I married his sibling."
Furthermore, she points out, she herself grew up in a Revisionist household and therefore comes by her own nationalist worldview honestly.
In an hour-long interview at her home in Jerusalem's Abu Tor neighborhood, lined floor-to-ceiling with books, Netanyahu gives an overview of what she considers to be the thought-control threatening Israeli democracy, and how she hopes her magazine will assist in counteracting it.
Why the name "mirror"?
The concept was to put a Zionist mirror in the face of Israeli society, which is under ideological siege. There's a monopoly on ideas in all realms of public debate - the media, academia and the legal system - which toe a uniform line. And not only is this line uniform, but it is based on a set of fixed perceptions that those who toe it refuse to relinquish, even when reality proves the perceptions wrong - such as the perception that if we would only give the Palestinians a state in the heart of western Israel, all of our problems would be solved.
Now, average people know this is not so. But, in an atmosphere of controlled discourse, it is virtually impossible for them to counter the so-called truth of the flock, for whom such truth is their trademark. In such an environment, where members of the flock meet only other members of the flock and hear only echoes of their own ideas, how can there really be openness to any different ones?
To be fair, this is a country filled with sophisticated, educated, cosmopolitan people, who study in and travel to other countries. It is also a country in which practically every citizen is called upon to fight surrounding enemies on a regular basis. How is it possible that they are exposed to only one truth?
Let me make it clear that I do believe people are hungry for other ideas, and that not everybody here is enslaved to the conventional ones. In fact, there's no doubt that there are many people here whose common sense enables them to see things as they are. The problem is that the megaphone is in the hands of those who have a certain intellectual and political agenda. A magazine like Maraah provides an alternative vehicle for others to express and to read about the ideas to which they are not exposed in mainstream publications.
Are you saying that it provides them with the intellectual arguments for views they espouse instinctively, but don't know how to articulate?
Exactly. You see, one of the things that those who determine the public debate do is articulate ideas. Articulation is not everybody's strong point. Not everyone is capable of verbal or written expression of ideas. Yet a large part of rational thought is based on articulation, rather than on gut feelings. Indeed, as soon as thoughts are put in writing, they have to pass the test of thought and logic. Personally, I find that the very process of writing sharpens and elucidates the ideas. This is why we decided to make Maraah a weekly rather than a daily - to give our writers the opportunity to delve into topics with greater depth, and I believe that the people who write for it, such as Dr. Alon Dahan, Dr. Martin Sherman, retired judge Uri Shtruzman, Dr. Udi Lebel, Dr. Iddo Netanyahu and Dr. Dov Kotlerman, to name but a few, are outstanding, original and profound writers. Thus, the readers are exposed to original ideas and arguments.
You list the legal system as among those controlling the debate. How, then, do you explain the heated controversy over Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann's battle to curb the power of the Supreme Court? This would appear to be anything but a uniform voice.
The voice I'm referring to is that of the Supreme Court and the legal elite. There are many individuals in the law profession here who believe that the power of the courts has grown well beyond what it should be. The argument between Friedmann and the courts is fundamental - constitutional - one at the core of how the country does and should conduct itself. When the judicial branch decides on political issues, that can be very dangerous. Luckily, the courts do not initiate the discourse, but only decide on issues that are brought before them. This is one built-in mechanism for curbing their power.
However, the public has begun to feel that every petition submitted to the High Court involving issues like the security fence has an expected outcome. Take the one on disengagement as a shocking example. Virtually every argument and prediction presented by the petitioners against the withdrawal from Gaza was proven correct. But when you read the court's majority decision - of all the justices but one - you see how one-sided it was, not in their favor and certainly not in ours.
Is everything judicable, then, or not? If the answer is yes, there's nothing wrong with bringing political issues before the court. If the answer is no, then petitions against moves such as disengagement shouldn't be brought in the first place. When is it legitimate for the High Court to be brought such issues, and when is it not? Where should the line be drawn?
There are two mechanisms to prevent the court from becoming a political authority. One deems that not everything is judicable. The other stipulates that not just anyone can petition the court, that not every NGO with an agenda can submit a petition against every government policy that isn't to its liking.
The trouble with the first mechanism lies in determining what is or is not judicable, because it is an abstract concept with an imprecise definition.
The law is filled with terms like these, and two different, equally great, legal minds can interpret them very differently. Abstract wide concepts are a good thing, because it is precisely what enables the law to be a living, vibrant entity. It allows for growth, development and flexibility, to accommodate societal changes. For example, it used to take an average of five years to get a telephone line in this country. That doesn't sound reasonable, but at the time, the court would never have defined it as unreasonable. Today, however, if someone were to petition the court because Bezeq - which has a monopoly on phone lines - hadn't hooked him up for five years, the court would define this as very unreasonable.
The problem with the second mechanism is that while the judicial branch has taken more power for itself, there has been a parallel weakening of the democratic process. We are not debating the political issues that we should be debating. Serious issues, such as disengagement, are brought to the government as a fait accompli. The discussion that ensues is whether the evacuated families will receive this or that amount of compensation, or whether their belongings will be stored in this or that place. But a serious debate about the wisdom of the move altogether is absent.
If the public felt that its views received a genuine public, political platform, it would be much more disturbed by the intervention of the High Court. But what happens is that there is silence on the part of the politicians. [Former prime minister] Ariel Sharon hardly gave interviews; the same goes for [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert. They didn't bring their ideas and plans to the public. Certainly not a referendum and no serious discussion about the grave matters which were at stake. And because such a debate was not conducted, in its stead, there were petitions submitted to the High Court, so that at least in some realm or authority, the debate would be held. The High Court, in an attempt to gain power, opened its gates for this. So what you have is a shift from the public sphere, where the debate should be held, to the courts, an arena in which there are a dozen people who are highly educated in the law, but not in politics or statesmanship, let alone in security matters. What's more, it can't be ignored that there is ideological uniformity among those same dozen people that does not represent a majority of the public.
Are you saying, then, that the strengthening of the courts happened naturally, precisely because the debate was not being held where it should be?
No, I'm not saying that the one was the result of the other. The weakening of the democratic process didn't necessarily bring about the strengthening of the courts. Rather, there were two processes happening at the same time. What the two have in common is the purposeful weakening of democracy. This is in no small part due to the increasing number of NGOs, funded to a great extent by foreign organizations, most of which don't have Israel's best interests at heart. They fund organizations here which create the impression that their agenda is that of the public. Take Four Mothers, Machsom Watch, B'Tselem and Yesh Din, for example - and that's just a small selection of the many more NGOs out there. They don't actually conduct a public debate. What they do, with the help of the media, is put immense pressure on our elected officials to surrender to their positions. Then, those same NGOs petition the High Court. And when the court rules in their favor, what you have is a stamp of legitimacy for a line of thinking that the public doesn't necessarily agree with. But a court verdict is something that is and should be respected.
The fear on the part of the public not to harm the judicial branch is justified. Let's not forget that one key element of Judaism is that it is a religion of law. It's no accident that the rabbi is a dayan [judge]. The first thing that Moses did after taking the Jews out of Egypt was to give us laws. There is a basic recognition among the Jewish people that the law and upholding it is the basis for a working society. And therefore, there is a justified tendency to be hesitant about launching too great an assault on our courts. I just don't happen to think that every criticism of the court constitutes an assault. And just as in the academic world there is critical examination of non-political verdicts, so should there be a critical examination in the public and the media about the political ones. But it is precisely because the court knows it is not on solid ground where political issues are concerned that it responds so aggressively and defensively to any criticism. In the early years of the state, the court was far more reserved.
When did that begin to change?
During the 1970s, when the liberal practices of the United States began to waft over here, as more and more Israelis went abroad to do post-doctorates and such. When they returned home, they brought with them certain outlooks and practices from overseas, and began to advocate and implement them here. It's possible that such liberal practices are good for the American system, though I'm not even sure of that, but they're certainly problematic for a country like Israel, in which almost every issue is acute. This country can be likened to a premature baby in intensive care: Turn your head away for an hour, and the baby might be gone. It's a fallacy to think that you can make mistakes here and then have 30 years in which to correct them.
Do you think that a majority of the public has a different idea of the way things should be and believes in a less liberal approach?
There are two contradictory phenomena taking place simultaneously here. One is that the public has become increasingly alienated from its elected officials, which explains the drop in voting rates. At the same time, the public tends to take what its leaders say as gospel, especially where the military is concerned. When someone with a military past says something, many think he must know better.
You say that the media assist in creating the climate you describe. Yet don't most people attack and blame the media on a regular basis, rather than merely accept the press's version of events?
It's true that most of the public feels the media have lost their integrity. At the same time, most people read the newspapers, listen to the radio and watch TV, because they recognize that the situation is acute and want to be informed.
I can illustrate through an anecdote. I recently asked somebody with a long public-service career if he could think of any event or individual with which or with whom he was familiar personally about which or whom he read in the newspaper and saw any resemblance between what he read and what he knew. "No," he said. "But then, when I turned the page and read about something or somebody I didn't know, I believed every word." I think this is an experience we've all had.
Speaking of reading about someone you know personally, are you among those who believe that your brother-in-law has always been targeted unjustly by the media, as he claims?
There is no question that the media have always had a negative agenda where Bibi is concerned. Even left-wing journalists - Shelly Yacimovich, for example, to credit her honesty - admitted that the media were enlisted against him.
But it's not merely opposition to Bibi at work; it is opposition to the Zionist political line. If Bibi were to decide tomorrow that Judea and Samaria belonged to Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas], Acre belonged to Hamas and Tiberias to Hizbullah, he would be handed the proverbial megaphone and given all the airtime in the world, don't you worry. The point is that many members of the media are no longer merely on the Left; they have crossed the line to no longer being Zionists. It's not merely that they are doves. Golda Meir was among the biggest doves of Mapai, but today she would be considered on the extreme Right for saying that there was no such thing as the Palestinian people. Today, if you were to say such a thing, you would be sent to a psychiatric hospital.
As for where Bibi is concerned specifically: In Maraah, we published an article by Moshe Klughaft called "Hayad Hane'elama" [the invisible hand], a takeoff on the term used in relation to economics. He writes that in our media and, as a result, in politics, there is an invisible hand that always hides the ballot box in which one might vote for Bibi.
[Foreign Minister and Kadima head] Tzipi Livni, who sat in Olmert's government and said that he should resign, did this from within the government, because she understood that otherwise his resignation would lead to general elections. And [Defense Minister and Labor Party leader] Ehud Barak, who also wanted to oust Olmert, didn't call for elections and ask the public to vote for him. He called for elections within Kadima. This was everyone's way of blocking Bibi.
Even if this is so, isn't the mark of a true leader someone who takes the reins, rather than reading poll results and requiring the cooperation of columnists?
In the modern world, it is virtually impossible to function without the media. When he was prime minister, Bibi did an uncanny thing. He was able to get things done without the support of the media. Look, even tyrannies need the media. The Soviet Union needed Pravda as its mouthpiece. In democracies, the media steer the public debate. A leader who is above the media simply doesn't exist.
Still, Bibi, unlike many other politicians, is known for being a brilliant public speaker and great on TV. Doesn't that give him any advantage?
It's true that he is all that, but he's not given deserved airtime.
Do you mean to say that if his spokesman called any media outlet in this country and said that Bibi wanted to be interviewed, he would be turned down, rather than immediately put on the air or reported on in print?
It's no secret that when an interview is taped, it can be edited, and when it's live, the local interviewers don't let him speak. This was especially true when he was prime minister. He was hardly allowed to finish a sentence. Even when he does, the media tend to focus on minor and irrelevant matters, in order to prevent a real public discussion about his ideas, analyses and opinions.
This is a country surrounded by enemies bent on its destruction. Do you mean to tell me that a leader like Bibi could confront Iran successfully, but not be able to battle bad press? Are you saying that nuclear weapons are easier to deal with than reporters?
No leader acts in a vacuum. When a prime minister fights his enemies, he doesn't do it alone; he has emissaries and public diplomacy at his disposal.
A neutralized leader cannot function properly. A leader leads, but he's got to lead somebody. A leader is not Don Quixote on a lone quest to chase windmills.
if(catID != 151){
var cont = `Take Israel home with the new Jerusalem Post Store
