What are we talking about?

This is the question who is haunting my quiet morning, when I wanted to finish reading some very peaceful books. This "what if?" I've heard and read so many times. For a historian, this is a wrong question, leading to wrong assumptions and constructions. For a journalist, is the first step to stop being a journalist, for entering the world of fiction. And, the remarks about the "working class religious Sephardim" are nothing but repeating old stereotypes from the beginnings of the democratic state of Israel.

The Economist is also worried about democracy in Israel and insist upon the singularity of Tel Aviv, as a cospomolite city, different of Jerusalem (why not mentioning Haifa?) and other parts of the country. But, capital cities are, from various reasons, different of the rest of the country: concentration of money, attractions, affordability, tourists etc.. If the official capital city will be Jerusalem, it will change. What I suspect, in fact, is that the authors of those articles don't have any contact with young Israeli normal people - from Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, New York or Paris -, who are creating start-ups, who are living daily there, after going into the Army - or refusing to do so - and who don't have too much time for philosophy.

The comparisons with America - including in the sense of the warning, as the American Jews will not accept a dilution of democracy in Israel - are not always fitting the reality. The choice to know more than your own immediate neighborhood is very personal, but still you can live without it. Indeed, Judaism included also lots of distinctions and nuances that might be considered as prompting to various separations and isolation. But also, each Jewish community is having its own tradition and the diversity within Judaism is nothing but rich and if you have the occasion to know it directly and feel it, there are many aspects helping you to go beyond the complains about uni dimensional separatism. If some American Jews are thinking different, is the consequence of the pluralism of opinions, intrinsic to Judaism. This is why I am not worried about a "democratic failure" in Israel, but of the "thinking failure" of the fortune tellers from outside, who are taking the part - let's say Israel Beteinu - as the whole picture. Again, if the writers will have the curiosity to talk with people from the street - including the "working class" voters - they will realize - based on some historical information and lectures - that 2011 is a year when more than never before people are open to compromises and solutions. With the condition to have what to offer and with whom to negotiate.

I am sometimes afraid of the following "what if": in most part of the Arab media, talking and writing about Israel in normal terms - without using depreciative terms - is the key for being published. What if in the Western media talking and writing about Israel is acceptable only if they are expressed doubts about the democratic system - in an area when the term don't have any meaning at all - and critics about the settlements and complains about the isolation of the Palestinian population (hold hostage by Hamas, which is not too much present in the critical and harsh articles from the media, but maybe I didn't read too many articles lately). Hope this is the effect of the hope of an early spring.