You can't expect the same people who for years colluded in maintaining a single point of view in the media to understand the Right's objections to the new public broadcasting corporation that is at the center of so much recent controversy. These are the same people who refuse to acknowledge the dangerously one-sided nature of Israeli academia, which touts academic freedom but never willingly welcomes anyone with opposing views. These are people who rush to condemn any change made to the Supreme Court as a "threat to democracy." They prefer that the court continue to represent a small cultural minority, in the name of enlightenment, of course. Even much of the defense establishment, particularly in the highest echelons, shares these sentiments and buys into this unimaginative narrative of "occupation" and "a Palestinian state" and a generally bleak future. This group rewards anyone who clings to its narrow set of ideas and punishes those who don't fall into line and dare to think "outside the box." It is true that it was the right-wing Likud government that established the very public broadcasting corporation it now seeks to shut down. But this has to do with the disgrace of the Right's generations-long inability to govern. Personally, I oppose public broadcasting. I think it is a waste of money. It is not the state's job to ensure that the masses have something to watch on television, nor are commissars necessary to determine what constitutes "quality entertainment." But if we are fated to spend this money, let us at least use it to right this longtime wrong of leftist hegemony in broadcasting. But now, the only time (almost) that the Right has taken it upon itself to establish an entirely new public broadcasting body, it inexplicably appointed a man from the heart of the existing media establishment to oversee the operation -- the same establishment the Right has derided many times. Unbelievable. They tell us he was appointed for professional reasons. Sure. It's always professional reasons. In academia, too. And in the committee that selects recipients for the Israel Prize. And on the Supreme Court bench. The derogatory classification of "political appointment" is reserved mostly for when someone from the Right is appointed. But even before we go into politics, there is the social issue: People tend to stick with people they know and to draw on their close circles to build their professional teams. Too many television and radio programs invite guests from a specific sector of society and ignore (boycott-) guests and participants from other sectors. The litmus test for this argument is the array of morning programs on Israel's popular Army Radio. Is there really any significant difference between the programs hosted by Niv Raskin, Razi Barkai, Rino Zror or Yael Dan? Granted, each host has his or her personality and issues that interest them, but is there any difference in tone among them? Now take Erel Segal's program on the same radio station and note the difference -- the topics of discussion are very different than from the other shows, as are the guests, interviewees and hosts. That is what happens when you control your own show and its content. The public broadcasting corporation is frantically waving around its right-wing fig leaves, but most of them were brought on only after public pressure from the Right. And still, the vast majority of editors, managers and producers in the new corporation are from the old media order. The Right will continue to beg like a poor man for equality and balance. I will admit that in this scenario, the Right bears the bulk of the blame. Instead of complaining, open up the media to all. Just as anyone who wants to establish a new newspaper or website can do so rather easily, there is no shortage of radio frequencies. If the Right wants to break apart the leftist media monopoly, please feel free to hand out broadcast licenses to anyone who asks, and turn local radio stations into national ones. Ultimately, the Israeli Fox News channel will begin broadcasting and set off the necessary revolution. Israel Prize for divisiveness The Israel Prize is the kingdom's way of recognizing its wise men and women, those who contributed to the evolution of thought, culture, society and science. Sadly, however, the prize has never been awarded based solely on merit. There is always an element of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." There is a clear divisiveness -- each guild looks out for its members -- and politics, both external and within the selection committees. That is how it has always been, and will apparently continue to be. This year, artist Yair Garbuz did not get the prize because the vote in his favor was not unanimous. When things calm down and the ethnically offensive remarks he made at an anti-Netanyahu rally in 2015 are forgotten, he will win the prize. It may take a few years, but it will happen. Out of all the humanities fields in Israel, art is oddly the most political. I taught at the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design for three years, and it was only there that I encountered a truly radical Left that, rather than being relegated to the fringes, actually dictates the tone, brutally preventing other views from being heard. There is no real pluralism in the Israeli art world. Not in teaching, not in critique, not in research, and not in museums. When I was there, I worked on a historical study of Israeli art, which I later published in the Bezalel academic publication. I found that the Israeli art establishment created two mechanisms to perpetuate the old order: exclusion and glorification. On the one hand, accomplished artists are excluded for failing to conform to the political and cultural standard -- for being too Jewish, too Zionist, too rightist, too religious, etc. On the other hand, mediocre and bad artists are aggrandized and rewarded because they comply with the tribe's political criteria. These artists enjoy more coverage, receive more prizes, and have more of their work put on display in exhibits. On second thought, this two-pronged mechanism is not exclusive to the art world -- it is also enacted in other fields, like the Israeli media for example. Incidentally, when I submitted my article for publication, it sparked a mini-scandal that is remarkably representative of the situation as a whole. A radical (and rather incoherent) response to my article was attached in which a Bezalel teacher compared my arguments to a "proto-fascist critic" and a "Nazi professor." Earlier, at a teachers' conference, one of the more radical lecturers asked the head of the department, referring to me, "Would you invite an SS officer to teach poetry on planet Auschwitz-" The other teachers in the room made no protest. They are used to this sort of thing. Don't cooperate Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman sent a written ultimatum to the heads of the pre-military preparatory academy in Eli, demanding the immediate dismissal of academy founder Rabbi Yigal Levinstein over his recent remarks against women in combat. The minister warned that if the academy fails to comply, he would strip the school that houses it of its accreditation as a recognized IDF-affiliated hesder yeshiva. The "responsible adult" (as Lieberman is often called in the leftist media) is trying to fan the flames, setting his sights on the flagship of religious pre-military academies over some unfortunate remarks made by one of the teachers there. Lieberman, whose career includes far worse and far more inflammatory remarks than Levinstein's, is trying to undermine freedom of speech and train educators to determine who will study where. He would never take this kind of action against an institution like Bezalel, for example, but he has no problem bullying a pioneering, Zionist pre-military academy that has produced thousands of fighters and many fine officers. The heads of that important institution must not cooperate with this disgrace.
