Each and every one of us is deeply etched in our consciousness by the times we blurted out embarrassing statements that we would rather forget. And more than we'd rather forget ourselves, most of us were willing to pay our best money for others to forget our unflattering moments. Even the smartest and most sophisticated among us are prone to such stumbles from time to time, and if I were to ask each of you to tell about a particularly embarrassing statement, I am sure that there is no one who can boast that they have never embarrassed themselves.
This is especially true in the media age, when we all like to celebrate celebrities who sin with foolish statements. Unsuccessful statements of mine have also been celebrated several times, sometimes quite rightly. The reason for the public's fondness for dealing with embarrassing celebrity mistakes probably has to do with the contrast between the polished façade and the understanding that celebrities and politicians are human, after all. And also because people just need some kind of comic relief these days, and there's a funny element to those statements, if you can lighten up.
If you're like me, who is having trouble lightening right now and whose every "Wonderful Country" skit makes her cry instead of laugh, the embarrassing and detached statements may be funny for a moment, but then hurt and hurt and make you want to scream.
Detachment from pain
This week, the media was outraged by MK Kati Shitrit's statement to the families of the abductees, when she compared the difficulty after surgery when she could not take a shower to their situation. "I was rushed into surgery. The recovery is very long, I can't get dressed and shower. Why am I telling you this? Because I understand so much how your world has suddenly been turned upside down," she said.
This unfortunate statement didn't make me pull out my hair. Yes, it reflects a detachment from the severity of the pain and from the intolerable and unique situation of mothers and fathers, spouses, boys and girls, and grandparents whose loved ones have been held captive by Hamas for 100 days. It is clear to any reasonable person that recovery from surgery, while challenging, does not compare to the deep and prolonged suffering of the families of abductees, and that such a comparison minimizes the severe trauma they experience. To me, this is mostly a statement that indicates a lack of emotional intelligence and high self-concentration. This is not surprising at all, in the era of the "me and me and me" government. Why do we expect anything different from our elected officials?
But to MK Shitrit's credit, she apologized afterwards, when she understood or when she was made to understand that the statement was out of place. She admitted that "the wording was not successful." True, this is not the most sincere and beautiful apology I have seen, and as I have written before - there are clear rules for a complete and genuine apology. Still, this is much more than other Knesset members have done, who have made even more miserable statements about the families of the abductees. For example, MK Almog Cohen, who said: "You have no mandate for the pain," or MK Tali Gottlieb, who pointed an accusing finger and scolded: "Don't degrade the cabinet."
And then there was the prime minister, telling the families of the abductees, "I respect you too much," whatever that means; Or his wife, who urged them to stop being interviewed and enraged the families, to the point where the prime minister himself intervened to stop the allegations against them.
Laughter aside
There is a dark side to such statements, especially when it comes to politicians. Not to an insensitive statement like MK Sheetrit's - I'm talking about dangerous statements like MK Cohen's or Gottlieb's, or like the prime minister's and his wife's. Let us not be confused, these are a completely different type of statements, even if the degree of embarrassment inherent in them is quite similar.
Shitrit's words indicate an empathic failure. In a clumsy attempt to address the pain of the families of abductees, she fell into the common mistake of comparing the suffering of another to his own, but apparently did so out of an attempt to connect, rather than through strategic manipulation to protect political interests. In contrast, Gottlieb and Cohen's statements are much more than just insensitive—they seem manipulative and strategic, with the calculated purpose of protecting political interests or changing the narrative in favor of the government. Allegedly.
When manipulative statements turn into jokes, the serious consequences behind the words can fizzle out. When turning a Knesset member's statement that disparages the pain of the families of abductees into memes and punches, it is important that we do not forget the original intention – not to entertain the people of Israel, but a government policy. Here the joke is already at our expense. Although Shitrit's comment is insensitive, it is substantially different from those made by Gottlieb and Cohen, which are intended to divert public attention from the government's responsibility to return the abductees.
It is important to distinguish between intrinsically harmless but insulting mistakes and offensive rhetoric that is apparently a planned distraction. The focus on the legitimacy of the criticism voiced by the families diverts attention from the government's obligation to report on the actual progress, or lack thereof, in releasing the hostages from the horrors of captivity.
MK Cohen's remarks attempt to divert attention from the unique and acute suffering of the families of the abductees to a general perception of pain, thereby reducing the specific trauma that these families suffer. Gottlieb's statement conveys the message that the families of the abductees have no right to criticize the government's conduct, and this statement pulls the rug out from under the right to freedom of expression reserved for every citizen, especially on issues that directly affect him.
This is an attempt to forget from the public the fact that criticism of government actions is part of democratic discourse, and that it is essential for the government to accept responsibility for the fate of civilians who were taken into enemy territory from their bed, and are currently living the worst hell imaginable. The voices of the families of abductees are crucial in emphasizing the human aspect of political and security issues. We must not laugh at statements that attempt to delegitimize the government's demand for transparency by the families of abductees regarding efforts to bring their loved ones home.
For families, a strengthening word can provide relief, and a foolish statement can deepen the already deep pain. Politicians must be cautious about them, and thoughtless comments can not only cause personal harm, but also lead to a broader sense of public alienation from the pain of families. A purely humorous attitude, which does not take seriously statements that minimize the distress of the families of the abductees, plays into the hands of those who try to divert public attention from the most important thing - without which there will be no victory picture.
Talk less
If you think about it, there is nothing funny about an attempt by public officials to dismiss the outcry of the families of the abductees. It's an attempt to control the narrative around the government's efforts by discrediting family criticism. By asserting that they have no right to criticize the government, there is an attempt to neutralize the ability to point out omissions and shortcomings, or to the government's insufficient action to return the hostages.
I'm afraid of elected officials who are currently preoccupied with their public image, because if they have time to take care of their image, it means that they are not making every effort to bring the abductees home, deal with the evacuees, or end the fighting in the most successful and rapid manner. The last thing they're supposed to do now is defend their image by vilifying opponents' voices. This is not the time to put political loyalty before concern for the public.
Get an idea – with all the inflated budgets and unnecessary ministries, perhaps it is possible to separate from them a sum that would be considered ridiculous in terms of the billions that have been poured into the coalition agreements, in order to give the dear elected officials an active listening workshop, so that they can learn the difference between empathy and sympathy and finally be able to truly listen to the citizens. Then detached statements such as those mentioned will be spared.
If the budget for the workshop can't be found, here's the first free lesson: Talk less, listen more. Give expression without judgment when you meet bereaved families, abducted families, families whose loved ones are risking their lives. Put aside for a moment the rapprochement and the urge to flaunt achievements or calculate the next mandates. Or at least, don't give them advice on how to behave and what they're supposed to do, if you've never been to the shocking place they're in.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us