Avirma Golan published an article in Haaretz today entitled “Not really for all of us.”

Through the slit opened by the artists’ video for Hanin , Golan breaks into a show of shaky press, using facts-non-facts to explain why “City for All of Us” is a sectoral phenomenon at best, and delusional at worst.

Among other things, Golan writes that “A City for All of Us” focuses on the “urgent needs of one group while turning its back on the general public in Tel Aviv” (really? Is public transportation only for young people? Housing problems do not apply to people in south Tel Aviv and the elderly in key apartments ?), Or that “after twenty years of negative immigration, positive immigration is recorded, especially of families” (literally. In reality, positive immigration is of twenty-year-olds who are willing to live in huts as long as it is close to the university, and of 55-year-olds who come from Herzliya to spend their days . among those aged 30-45 enrolled continuous negative migration in the city. the young families are fleeing from Tel Aviv. or rather, she smuggles them), or “the mayor was able to at least open routes, encourage the allocation of bike paths (definitely just a shame that despite pleas Ministry of transport, Huldai has not opened any lane for public transportation during his current term .And it’s a shame his bike lanes areClearly non-components ).

Golan also enters the platform of “A City for All of Us”. In fact, the “platform” of a city should be written for all of us, because there is no connection between what it attributes to the movement and Dov Hanin and what the movement says. Golan writes, “But ‘A City for All of Us’ wants more, and in fact wants everything: that there will be no towers [ incorrect – ZB] but that there will be lots of apartments, that there will be public transportation but that they will not be fined for parking [ incorrect ], and especially L. We will all ‘have beautiful apartments, like the rich [only if the rich now live in two-and-a-half or three-room apartments ] “.

And it does not end here, and there is plenty of other nonsense (or maybe say lies, I’m not sure anymore) but I will stop the specific slap, because Golan is not alone. It is part of such a strange wave, of prominent leftists, entering “A City for All of Us” and Dov Hanin. And there is a lot in common in their critique, and from my point of view, there is a lot in common in the place that led them to voice the critique.

By and large, Golan’s criticism, as well as Nissim Calderon’s article in a week ago on Ynet , is that the whole “city for all of us” issue is not a serious buzz. This is the new “retirees”, something that young people go for simply out of fatigue from the current political game. Something that smells of populism, superficiality, false messianism. The desperate youngsters have found them some icon to worship, some empty mantra to mumble, and now it’s becoming a serious matter, so let’s get really serious, disperse the demonstration, and come home, let the big ones run things.

For Calderon, this fear of the movement that was born for her as if out of nowhere raises the demand to connect with the current left. “A serious left-wing list should be a continuation and development of many parties and youth movements and organizations […] the left is a tradition.” For Golan, this appears as a statement (again, clearly false ) that “‘A City for All of Us’ emphasizes that it is an apolitical movement. Instead of acting within politics, it prefers to express a heartbeat.” Golan goes on to claim that heart murmurs are well-known appellants of democratic proceedings.

When I read these articles I was furious. Not because I thought they could really hurt our chances of changing the way urban politics is conducted, but because of the terrible opacity of the two writers. Neither Calderon nor Golan bothered, who as a journalist and who as a leftist and an academic, to enter the “City for All of Us” website and check what the movement really says . After all, they would find there mountains of letters and words, program upon program, detailed at a level that any political media consultant would seek to cut to one-tenth. Everything is so intelligent, responsible, that it rejects any statement of populism immediately. Any more questions? Both Calderon and Golan could easily have reached a phone call or a meeting with Dov Hanin, or with any of the movement’s representatives and spokesmen.

But they did not bother. both. They closed their eyes, imagined something in their hearts, and then slammed it in their articles. If there is anything new, and he declares himself to be different from the old, then he must be delusional. You have to wait, the two veteran leftists tell us. Calderon asks that no movement be built that also contains Likud members, have mercy on Tzelen. Golan suggests that no change be made in Tel Aviv so that it will not be really attractive to young people from Sderot or Kiryat Shmona and these will leave en masse.

What are they talking about? After all, “A City for All of Us” and Dov Hanin’s candidacy come against the background of a huge rift in the Zionist left. Meretz has not been able to define itself for more than a decade. The Labor Party is going to shrink to the size of a Rabin-era Meretz. The stuttering, the loss of the road, the loss of public trust, these did not happen because the public was disgusted, but because of severe ideological problems of these parties.

And all this is happening against the background of a global mental-political renaissance. It has been almost ten years since Seattle , which first grouped the social with the environmental with the gender. Ten years of global political thought, which with the help of the internet has become a flood of information and knowledge exchange. Today, a political movement in Israel can come and present successful examples from around the world for correcting social, environmental, and economic problems. One can say “ curitiba ” and prove the efficiency of a cheap mass transportation system and its economic impact on the city. One can talk about healthy metropolitan areas as a real option for population prosperity. One can ask what the future of Israeli cities looks like, given the fact that about 90% of the Israeli population lives in cities. In the United States, a candidate with such advanced thinking came to almost a presidency ( tap-tap-tap ).

Everything is possible, but no one really does. The left that Calderon and Golan want to visit is a lost, paralyzed left. And we will not wait for him. We know what we want for ourselves and for our fellow residents (and also our fellow citizens, but these are municipal elections), and we’re pretty sure we know how to get it. We are not interested in Mapainiks with a general past who will lead us towards a depreciating path while you try to understand who is against whom. We insist on pointing out the problems we see in front of us and insist on working to solve them. We have no real need for your approval, “Or on the label of the ‘serious bunch’ you are issuing. We will be content with making the talented legislator in Israel mayor, so that he and his movement can improve life in this city.