In an Aug. 2 column penned by Nahum Barnea, he reflected on the consequences of the Hezbollah strike on the Druze village of Majdal Shams and the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, hoping that Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would take advantage of these recent events and use the opportunity to save the hostages in Gaza. He expressed his disappointment when it became obvious that Netanyahu decided that the positions Barnea—an Israel Prize awardee for journalism—has been promoting in his Yediot Achronot newspaper and website were not to his liking.

Barnea expressed concern for, after all, that “the Iranians learn from their failures,” he wrote. He noted that back in April, Iran launched about 130 ballistic missiles, 36 cruise missiles and 130 drones at Israel and, obviously, “if Iran wants to impress the world, it must launch more and hit more,” he added. He could have moved on from there, but Barnea—formerly of the Histadrut’s Davar daily and an opponent of the Likud for decades—came up with a “better” idea.

Admitting that he is inadequate in advising the Iranians “on what to do with their missiles,” he recalled that the Nevatim Airbase was slightly damaged last April and that “it turns out that the Iranians know the address.” One can only assume, with a feverish mind out of gear, Barnea then decided to provide the Iranians with some advice and added:

“If they want to hurt Israel without being drawn into a war, they can aim one missile at one unmanned aircraft parked at this base. They will receive damage to a state symbol, expensive for the country and expensive for the users. In two words: ‘Wing of Zion.’ A small injury to the wing and Tehran will be able to celebrate a victory.”

“Wing of Zion” is Israel’s principal government transport aircraft intended to fly the president and prime minister overseas on international trips. A modified Boeing 767-338ER wide-body, twin-jet airliner, it is the property of Israel’s Air Force.

We can be thankful that Barnea did not suggest that Iran fire a missile at the plane while in flight. Of course, his supporters all pointed out that, obviously he was engaged in hyperbole, with some satire and a bit of tongue-in-the-cheek. He was just being cavalier.

And yet, it is that characteristic that highlights the haughty nature of Israel’s left-wing opposition groups.

For them, permission to insult, threaten and despise members of the other camps is a given since they possess values, wisdom and intelligence. They do so because they also possess position.

On Saturday night, Aug. 3, Hagit Telem—a member of the Petach Tikvah municipal council and a religious married woman—was in Goren Square sharply criticizing left-wing demonstrators for protesting during the ongoing war with Hamas in Gaza. A secular leftist, Sarit Lazerovitch of Beersheva seemingly could not likewise respond verbally but ran up behind her and instead ripped off her head covering.

More than a year ago, similar instances took place when secular women protesting judicial reform thought that raising their blouses to reveal their bras and more, FEMEN-style, in front of religious men would be a good tactic. But beyond that, it’s simply not good manners to assault someone with the intention of demeaning their religious customs.

That same evening, disturbed by seemingly Likud supporters who were sitting in a car in Beersheva and loudly playing music that interfered with an anti-government protest, a female demonstrator calmly walked over and flicked her lighted cigarette into the vehicle. Physical injury to either those in the car or to the car itself was the furthest thing from her mind, it appeared.

These incidents are under-reported in the mainstream media and then—when highlighted by pro-government social-media platforms—are denounced as “over-reacting” by the anti-government spokespersons.

Haim Shedmi of the Crime Minister protest group had an idea about how to end the judicial reform talking with former Maariv journalist Tuvi Pollack in a March 15 podcast. Explaining that Netanyahu is “a sadistic tyrant,” he then said: “He must be related to as was done with demonstrations against Ceaușescu and Milošević.”

Back in January this year, Yair Golan, now the head of a new political party called the Democrats, suggested that “we should go to the Netanyahu residence, drag them outside, roll them in tar and feathers, and kick them out of town.” His interviewer felt the need to intervene and hurriedly commented, “You mean that metaphorically, correct?”

You may remember Golan and the speech he made in 2016.

Then-Israel’s IDF deputy chief of staff had linked the political climate to 1930s Germany. As a major general, Golan spoke at the closing of Holocaust Remembrance Day at Kibbutz Tel Yitzhak on May 4 and announced, “It’s scary to see horrifying developments that took place in Europe begin to unfold here.”

He added: “If there is one thing that is scary in remembering the Holocaust, it is noticing horrific processes which developed in Europe—particularly, in Germany—70, 80 and 90 years ago, and finding remnants of that here among us in the year 2016.”

On June 27, 2023, however, he got caught up in his own process of sorts. Interviewed by Esti Perez on Kan News Reshet Bet radio diary, Golan declared that in his opinion, “this government is trying to eliminate Israel’s democracy,” and what is required is “unequivocal and clear civil resistance … a large-scale and non-violent protest.” He then called for “within the reasonable framework and without resorting to violence, to do illegal things as well … to do non-violent things that are on the fringes of the law.”

Another left-wing activist, Ilan Sheinfeld, who worked as an editor in the defunct Mapam daily Al HaMishmar, was a bit less shy on March 18 this year. “Netanyahu,” he was recorded as saying, “is no less dangerous than our enemies. He is a traitor. … When the regime attacks its own citizens I do not think the protest campaign can remain non-violent … it needs to yank Netanyahu out of the Knesset with its own hands.”

Israel’s camp of neo-liberal radicals—nurturing a 90-year-old, anti-Revisionist rivalry from the days of the Mapai hegemony of social, economic and political dominance in the pre-state Yishuv now lost demographically and ideologically—is frustrated, stymied and caught up with a false resistance vision. They claim to be democratic, moral, and above all, correct.

Can we hope that this week before Tisha B’Av they realize the errors of their ways?