When G-d has no Proteksia
On my very first trip to
In an op-ed this morning, the mayor of
This march – if it needed to take place at all – should have been staged in Tel Aviv or
So, it amounts undeniably to a deliberate provocation of orthodox Jews.
In such circumstances, it would have been easy for the government to ban the march. Even the police recommended it should not go ahead. But the attorney general would not budge. Why? Because it would be an infringement of freedom of expression. A right, it would seem, that can only be expressed in
Which brings me back to my early Hebrew vocabulary. I have since come to learn that proteksia is a euphemism for corruption; obtaining unfair advantage by money or official influence.
It is no secret that there is hardly a sector in
Against this ghastly backdrop, it would have been easy for Mazuz to take a more sensitive view on the meaning of freedom of expression. Had he done so, he would have been ostracised for a week by a few hundred sexual libertines and their enlightened supporters in the staffrooms of a few universities. It would have blown over in a week; two at the maximum.
Instead Mazuz deliberately chose the path of greatest resistance. He chose to violate a holy city and infuriate millions of Jews at home and abroad who still regard
How sad that in an establishment so riddled with corruption, this wretched government, with its record number of ministers, could find no proteksia for G-d.
Labels: proteksia
<< Home