As part of an initiative that began a year and a half ago, called "Let's Talk Democracy", volunteers go out into the streets of Haifa and other places around the country, holding flowers and Israeli flags in order to initiate casual conversations with passers-by. The project aims to rebuild trust between the various sectors in Israel and strengthen democracy through honest and respectful conversations. The volunteers believe that an open and attentive dialogue is the key to creating a real dialogue between the citizens.
"It is worrying that there is still a large public that supports the leaders"
"We are all worried and pained by the direction Israel is going: it is going to a place that is not democratic and not good," says Moshe Katznelson, one of the leaders of the "Let's Talk Democracy" organization. "What is even more worrying is that there is still a large public that supports the leaders who take us in this direction. Sometimes it seems that there is no one to talk to, that the democratic camp will never be big enough to have an impact, but we believe that it is possible to change and expand the camp."
Katznelson explains that the project was born out of the understanding that open dialogue must be returned to the public discourse. "For almost a year and a half now, we have been going out every week to dozens of places throughout the country. We set up a booth near shopping centers, hand out a flower to passers-by and invite them to a conversation, not a lecture. A real conversation with a lot of listening, human connection, and talking about the situation in the country and democracy."
The goal is to increase the democratic camp
After hundreds of hours of conversation that took place throughout the country, Katznelson describes that the project has proven itself. "We see that it works, there is someone to talk to. People who start with a loud conversation end with a smile and a hug. There are those who come with suspicion or despair, and end with an in-depth discussion about democracy and how to build a better country here. We believe that change happens in small but sure steps, and that conversations Face-to-face is the most effective way to lead social change. Social networks or demonstrations don't make people change attitudes, but a real conversation brings openness and trust."
Katznelson emphasizes that the project is not content only with a discourse on democracy, but also focuses on restoring trust between people from different backgrounds. "We understand that there is no other way to increase the democratic camp other than to talk, listen and build relationships of trust. Social networks do not really change opinions, and demonstrations exacerbate the differences. Only a personal meeting on the street can build the trust and openness required for a new point of view."
Cross-sector discourse
Pia Rothstein, one of the main activities in the project in Haifa, says that Haifa was among the first cities to start operating as part of the project, which began in February 2023. Academics, teachers, engineers and various professionals, and we all see great importance in these human encounters."
questions of identity
Rothstein describes her experiences from conversations she had on the streets of Haifa, including a significant meeting with Haredim in Hadar. "We went out with flowers to the corner of Arlozorov and Michael streets. We met people from the ultra-Orthodox sector who were reluctant at first, and some of them even scolded the children who came to talk to us. But throughout the conversation we discovered that there was a lot of interest and listening. One of the most significant meetings was with an ultra-Orthodox girl who works in a secular kindergarten, who represented the potential of A shared life. Later I had a long conversation with two American ultra-Orthodox who were open to discussing a variety of issues, from the legal coup to questions of Jewish identity."
"We didn't agree on a lot"
Rothstein says that these conversations allow her to reach new understandings even in situations of deep disagreements. "The long and deep conversations with people from the ultra-Orthodox sector always provide an opportunity to learn and discover new positions. Even when we disagree, there is a desire to listen and learn from each other. Even though the conversation with those ultra-Orthodox ended with us not agreeing on much, it was instructive and respectful. It was clear to me that they see Judaism as Only religion, while I also see it as a nation. The discourse between us reflected these differences, but it also made it possible to maintain mutual respect."
"The project was born out of the protest movement against the government"
One of the active volunteers in the project, Kobi Donner, 35 years old from Haifa, tells why volunteering in "Let's Talk Democracy" is significant for him. "This project was born out of the protest movement against the current government, when we realized that the demonstrations are indeed important, but they do not reach the entire public, especially not those who think differently from us. Therefore, we decided to promote a direct and personal dialogue through open meetings in the street."
Donner, who comes from a Zionist and liberal background, emphasizes that volunteering gives him great hope. "I am the 18th generation in Israel, and I grew up on the values of political activity and volunteering. The last few years, especially since the current government began to act, cause me deep distress. Volunteering gives me hope because I see that even among right-wing voters there are people who are willing to talk and listen, even if they are not Agree with me, this discourse makes it possible to find common points and build bridges."
Democracy and core studies
Doner says that during his activities he met diverse people, including ultra-Orthodox and boys of conscription age. In one of the meetings in the Gaola neighborhood, he spoke with an ultra-Orthodox man, a father of six children, who told him: "Let's first try to define what democracy is." The conversation developed into an in-depth discussion about democratic values such as equality and human rights. "This conversation made me realize how many people are unaware of the basic values of democracy. For some, democracy is just a form of government where the majority rules, but there is much more to it."
Donner adds that these meetings illustrate to him how important it is to educate about democratic values and core studies. "People think of core studies in terms of science and English, but in my eyes education for the values of equality, tolerance and peace is just as important. That's the only way we can build a good and prosperous society here."
There are also harsh reactions, but a lot of optimism
Although the conversations in the field are mostly positive, Donner points out that sometimes the volunteers also encounter harsh reactions, including cursing and swearing. "In one of the conversations, a young man who spoke with me asked if I didn't have a desire for revenge following the difficult events. This was hard to hear, because I believe that the desire for revenge does not lead us anywhere good. Our security will not improve if we act out of revenge, unless we promote human values and moral leadership ."
Despite the difficulties, Donner describes that he derives optimism from the act itself. "Our actions give me hope. When we really listen, we are also listened to. Change is slow, but it is happening - and I believe that in the end we will succeed in improving the situation in the country."
Precisely the emphasis on the project was born out of a protest against the government that was democratically elected by a majority of votes, so what kind of democracy are you talking about? And besides that, I didn't see any Israeli flags, I saw the flag of the pilgrims behind her.
Anyone who claims that the legal reform is a "coup" or harms democracy is out of their mind. Here is a comprehensive, accurate, concise, and 100% objective comparison free of personal opinion, which I prepared during the reform period:
Checks and checks on the government authorities before and after the legal reform:
(1) Balances on the government: before the reform: the High Court of Justice; the ombudsman; the knesset After the reform: the High Court (in a reduced form); the Knesset.
(2) Balances on the Knesset: before the reform: the High Court; coalition (coalition agreements, coalition majority, etc.); ballot elections. After the reform: the High Court (in a reduced form); coalition; Ballot elections.
(3) Balances on the Supreme Court/High Court: Before the reform: (There are no checks and balances.) After the reform: Knesset (on High Court rulings); the coalition (on the appointment of judges through the Committee for the Appointment of Judges).
(4) Canceling the elections at the ballot box is possible by... before the reform: the High Court of Justice. After the reform: the Knesset. (This section also expresses which authority is able to pass final decisions (after the bureaucratic process with checks and balances, of course, if there are any) that no other authority can cancel. Before the reform, it is the Supreme Court that has zero checks on it; after the reform, it will be the Knesset, which can to alternate elections by ballot, which ensures that the people are the ones who have the final say and are able to update the government's decisions, always.)
Additional effects of the reform: There are no direct effects other than those indicated above (the four parts of the reform do not deal with anything other than those related to the government authorities as I mentioned above, that is, if the reform has an effect on the functioning of the state beyond that, it means that the effect is an indirect effect as a result of the changes in balances and brakes and not a result directness of the content of the reform which does not at all deal with the functioning of the state); The economy will be harmed by the blame of the reform only if the reform harms democracy.
My comparison can be verified if you look at the current situation and apply to it the four parts that were supposed to be in the reform (you can check the four parts on Wikipedia)—the ombudsman, the committee for appointing judges, the aggravation clause, and the reason for reasonableness—and then you arrive at the situation I describe in "after The reform".
What is worrying is the brainwashing of a public that does not understand what democracy is, that is washed with hatred and disinformation to the point of making statements against a leadership that was elected by a clear democratic majority and works to separate authorities and strengthen democracy.
The same public supports the leaders of dictatorial parties in which there are no internal elections.
Only certain leaders in his eyes are democratic, or legitimate. It's not democracy, it's fascism of the self-enlightened scoundrel and all the rest are dark and illegitimate
"Worrying that there is still a large public that supports the leaders" ??
And it is not a little ridiculous that an ideological minority whose birth rate is low would determine for the religious and conservative populations in Israel, both Hebrew and Muslim, whose birth rate is naturally many times higher, what regime and leaders are good for it?
Democracy = demography.
You should also internalize that.
ו
dear bird,
The article referred to the fact that democracy is far beyond the criterion of the majority. For example, democracy is also the protection of minorities. Equality before the law, and more. When you say that democracy is equal to demographics, I hear a powerful message that says 'I am currently in the majority group, therefore I have the power to choose the decision makers and my leaders can do whatever they want, including destroying the values of liberalism, minority rights and equality - that is, I can use democracy through the principle of choosing the majority to actually destroy it.
In my opinion, it is appropriate that democracies protect themselves from such situations. The tools that democracies have for this are mainly court and civil protest. These are central institutions for the protection of democracy against those who try to destroy it by being a temporarily elected majority.
I also want to remind you that each of us is sometimes in a minority group or in a group that needs to fight for its rights (on the basis of gender, employment, origin, age, injury of one kind or another, etc.) and without democracy we lose this possibility. Are you ready to give up On this right only because of the characteristics of birth in the country?
How is that for you to hear?