In the wonderful film "How Good to Live" (Bertrand Tavernier, 1989), the villagers approach the officer in charge of burying the soldiers after World War I, and ask him to move the border separating them from the neighboring village, so that even one casualty of the war will be recognized in their village.
In the contemporary discourse in the country, as in the film, there is a great deal of preoccupation with the geography of bereavement and of various groups participating in the war effort. In the eyes of those involved in bereavement, the existence of bereavement in the population constitutes legitimacy for their opinions, perceptions, and perhaps even the advancement of their interests.
The passions on this issue are so great that last Monday a member of the audience on a Channel 14 program shouted that none of the fallen were from Tel Aviv. Host Yinon Magal, who took care to remove the disruptor from the audience, returned to the broadcast and condemned the screamer for his mistake.
From the establishment of the state until the 80s, bereavement in Israel was perceived as political. Prof. Udi Lebel described this well in his book "The Road to the Pantheon" (2007), which deals with shaping memory consciousness and the links of national bereavement to political and social legitimacy. In the book, Lebel describes that various groups were excluded from the sphere of state and national memory, in order (according to him) for the national consciousness to identify a single party (Mapai) and a single leader (David Ben-Gurion) with the enterprise of rebellion.
In the 1980s, an effort was made to correct the boundaries of memory, and to bring different groups into the consciousness of memory and national discourse, and then, as now, alongside the slogan "together we will win," there are those who raise issues regarding the degree of contribution and sacrifice of different groups and regions to the fighting. Some sectors tend to attribute to themselves great complicity in fighting and sacrifice at the expense of others, and they do so because of diverse interests.
Three arguments arise against the misleading and divisive discourse between the groups: one practical, the second quantitative, and the third substantive.
On the practical issue, each group may know its members well, and cohesive groups tend to resonate and convey the information about loss and contribution more strongly, and therefore feel that their contribution is greater.
Some sectors tend to attribute to themselves great complicity in fighting and sacrifice at the expense of others, and they do so because of diverse interests
On the quantitative question, this war proves that the contribution of all the country's residents is great and equal. Whoever compares the extent of the contribution and the terrible price tries to glorify the rights of certain groups and diminish others, and perhaps most of all to cause division between sections of the people.
The question of substance is the most interesting and broad, and concerns the very equation according to which contribution, especially sacrifice, is the basis for rights in the state. If the answer to this question is yes, we must question our conduct and examine our basic assumptions and values, which will challenge the legitimacy of other groups in Israeli society.
The fall on the same day of Elisha Jonathan Luber of Yitzhar and Yosef Gittertz of Tel Aviv is a symbol for all of us. May their memory be blessed.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us