The debate about Aviv Gefen’s appearance has gotten out of proportion opinion

The debate about Aviv Gefen’s appearance has gotten out of proportion opinion
The debate about Aviv Gefen’s appearance has gotten out of proportion opinion

In the polarized Israeli reality it was, but it is requested that even during a military operation the issue will somehow be found regarding which it will be possible to divide the country again into “them” and “us”. And who but Aviv Gefen can provide the ammunition for this. And to think that only less than a month ago it was the death of his father, Yonatan Gefen, who served as the bearer of the flag that divided the country into two – those who mourned his death and those who were quick to declare “Who is this anyway?”.

After being criticized for his performance during the promotion: Aviv Gefen suffers another blow
MK from Yesh Atid on Aviv Gefen’s huge performance in Tel Aviv: “a demonstration of national resilience”

The discussion on the question of whether the giant’s appearance should have been held during a military operation and in a place within missile range was absolutely legitimate. It is legitimate to ask, even now that everything is behind us, how the Home Front Command took a risk in holding an event, which under other circumstances could have ended completely differently, and how the production chose to behave opaquely towards the ticket buyers, from the south but also from the rest of the country, who were less comfortable with escapism at this point in time. But apart from these obvious questions, as usual, two arguments came up that serve the chewed-up narrative of “them” and “us”, “the first Israel” and “the second Israel”, “the State of Israel” and “the State of Tel Aviv” – just choose how you are Prefer to define your hatred.

The first argument talked about the lack of solidarity. Once again the “State of Tel Aviv” is cut off and celebrating while missiles are being hijacked in the other parts of the country. Too bad this argument doesn’t hold water. First, because Tel Aviv and the central region in general were also hit by missiles in this round, so there is no real division between those who are shelled and those who are not. Second, because the concert was attended by people from all over the country, not just the “bubbly Tel Avivians” whom they love to hate so much. Thirdly, when there are terrorist attacks in Tel Aviv – are the residents of the south also expected not to hang out? Definately not.

And as evidence, no publication has ever aired an article about those in Be’er Sheva sitting in a pub while a shooting attack took place in Dizengoff, not because it did not happen, but because it is not the accepted narrative. Fourth, what about all the other events that took place on Thursday evening, at the exact same time as the concert in the park, north of Tel Aviv – did anyone talk about the apparent “lack of solidarity” of Idan Amadi in Caesarea? of Amir Banyon in Amphi Shoni?

The second argument raised the tiresome question of whether the Home Front Command would also have approved Eyal Golan or Omar Adam to hold a concert in the park under these circumstances, or alternatively for a revelry with large participation to take place. Surprisingly, this argument doesn’t hold water either, although it certainly keeps the sectarian demon alive and well. It is possible that Gefen received a celebrity discount that a person from the Yishuv would not have received, but as has been proven by cases in the past and these days, also to Eyal Golan and other Mizrahi singers, and in contrast to the ultra-Orthodox, they made and are making quite a few discounts in various circumstances.

As a direct continuation of this question, the no less tiresome question was also asked, how the media would have reacted if it had been an Eyal Golan performance or a Rabbi’s revelry. Only that, contrary to the implicit claim that the media cheered for the event, there was no edition on Thursday, nor during the weekend, in which the representative of the Home Front Command was not asked in the studio what the reasoning behind the puzzling decision was, and there was no edition in which the event itself was not criticized.

There is a place and a reason for criticism of the performance in Yarkon Park during the operation, but why does the discussion once again devolve into ridiculous and unfounded arguments about the “state of Tel Aviv” and “the second Israel”? Want a change? keep dreaming