I follow with amazement and agitation a marginal but fundamental issue in the discourse of these days, which is the way we call the terrorists Hamas who instigated the pogrom: murderers, barbarians, Nazis, human animals, devils and monsters, and so on.
Every word is correct and accurate, of course (except for "animals", as has already been pointed out, because what did the animals sin, etc.). I will admit that there is one phrase that even manages to embarrass me and that is "murderers", most notably: "multi-murderer" and "multi-murderer".
What is this strange word, from murder? A murderer is a cruel murderer. The source is in the Bible ("the son of this murderer"), and in our contemporary discourse it serves to enlarge and empower the terrorists who perpetrate the murder. They are not just a murderer.
This murderer is Herzl Avitan. A murderer is cruel and one whose profession is to murder. What actually comes out is the use of a word that is too high that does not achieve the effect it wants to achieve, but the opposite: because it is literary it even diminishes it. It would have been better to say these garbage or these lumps of feces, believe me.
But what bothers me is not the linguistic issue, but what lies behind it. Why are we busy with these enlargements and precisely these definitions? Is there even a linguistic term in the world that would express our reference to those who massacred hundreds and thousands of innocents?
Well, our need is political at its core, and it is intended to convince ourselves that we are facing an enemy that is interested in killing for the sake of killing. That he is cruel and inhuman, and therefore there is nothing to talk to him and nothing to meet with him, except through the sight of the rifle.
That's all true, the problem with this speech is that it's appropriate for 1992.
Anyone who is a graduate of the Oslo years is familiar with this set of arguments, which begins with the question of whether or not there is a partner, and immediately moves on to describing Yasser Arafat as a "multi-murderer," in order to differentiate him from "legitimate" enemies, such as the president of Egypt or the king of Jordan.
And because of our problematic tendency to get stuck in old bush stencils, we're stuck in this nonsense to this day. We confuse the need to convince the evil world of our righteousness – for this, of course, we must expose it to cruelty in all its graphic manifestations – and the internal discourse within us that does not need any of these.
Our need is political at its core, and it is intended to convince ourselves that we are facing an enemy that is interested in killing for the sake of killing. That he is cruel and inhuman, and therefore there is nothing to talk to him and nothing to meet with him, except through the sight of the rifle
The urgent need to eliminate Hamas and kill every Hamas member and woman, wherever they may be, is not because of their cruelty and not as retribution for their actions, but because the State of Israel must defend its cities and citizens from the threat of missiles and from an enemy that, as soon as it has the chance, kills us.
He must be eliminated because he is the enemy. Not because he is a "murderer."
He must be eliminated so that he does not eliminate us – not because he is cruel and barbaric.
He should have been eliminated just for the thought of eliminating us, even before he could be a "murderer," but we've already missed that.
At least let's do it now. This is the role of the Israel Defense Forces: to kill our enemies so that they do not kill us.
Less than a year how exactly they plan to do it.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us