No one could have imagined the horrors that unfolded on 7 October.
The State of Israel and its citizens, as well as the IDF and security forces, were surprised by Hamas' murderous attack, but also by the cruelty of the vile terrorists. The testimonies are unbearable, and the pictures even more difficult. When describing the intensity of the cruelty, it is customary to note that the terrorists mercilessly slaughtered children, women and the elderly. Designating these populations – based on age and gender – should signal to us and to the world how cruel the terrorists are and how despicable their actions are. After all, it is inconceivable that human beings would murder babies at point-blank range, and that civilized people would kidnap elderly Holocaust survivors.
Those who are usually absent when emphasizing the actions of Hamas members are the men who have become their victims. For some reason, when one wishes to present the monstrous deeds of the terrorists, the various speakers choose to be shocked by the fact that these acts were directed at children, women and the elderly. Obviously, there were men there, and quite a few, so why aren't they mentioned too? After all, no one thinks that kidnapping a 50-year-old man, for example, or brutally murdering him is not cruel.
The manner in which victims are mentioned and the choice to emphasize certain segments among them is not a one-time or occasional decision, but rather terminology that has become common among many, including senior public figures. For example, a senior public figure tweeted about the transfer of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip: "As long as hundreds of women, children, the elderly and other abductees are held by the Nazi entity, no humanitarian aid can be allowed." For him, the men kidnapped to the Gaza Strip are "the rest of the abductees," meaning that they are considered less than the weaker populations against whom Hamas' actions are harsher and crueler than those directed at the supposedly powerful men.
Sociologists would probably argue that the omission of men from the list of weakened victims, those who suffer increased cruelty, stems from the fact that it is culturally customary to claim that men are the strongest.
After all, they are physically larger, and it is customary that they are the ones who fight in the army, and therefore they are more resilient than the other populations that were kidnapped and slaughtered that Shabbat.
Obviously, there were men there, and quite a few, so why aren't they mentioned too? After all, no one thinks that kidnapping a 50-year-old man, for example, or brutally murdering him is not cruel
This would be the justification for the fact that when one wishes to highlight Hamas's cruelty, one chooses to mention the other victims. But we must not cooperate with this, if only because when we do, we are actually playing into the hands of Hamas and implying that such acts, which we condemn when directed at the elderly, women and children, become acceptable as part of the rules of the war game when directed at men.
This very claim, which is implicit in the separation between the types of victims, is an intolerable injustice. Hamas' cruelty is harsh and unacceptable, whether directed at an 85-year-old Holocaust survivor or a 4-year-old boy, or at a 41-year-old man who completed his service in the Golani twenty years ago.
Hamas cruelty is not measured by the nature of its victims, but only by the nature of its murderous acts.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us