The entire country is anxious for the safety of three boys, unknown until three days ago, and the collective heart skips a beat for every scrap of information or new update from the last moments they were seen alive.
But the lives of the three hostages are not the last concern of the people of Israel, certainly not when the issue at hand is the fear for the fate of six million prisoners held by a group of impersonalists who treat the enemy with silk gloves.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
Why are the impersonalists? Why is the expression so harsh? What do the impersonalists do:
• Two thousand soldiers are being brought in from all over the country.
• Start looking for a house.
• Make statements and warn warnings.
• Activate Shin Bet agents who will try to obtain information from the assistants.
And what are we supposed to do?
Herein lies the problem, which is even difficult to explain after we have become so accustomed to a defeatist way of life. We are stuck within a whole concept of Western perceptions that we are trying to apply to the Arab people.
Is it possible to talk about executing prisoners every hour?
After all, the instinctive reaction is: "What are we, barbarians?""
Look what's between us and them.
It is possible to analyze several aspects and errors in the government's conduct.
What a Western government does:
• It shifts responsibility from the government (Abu Mazen).
• Opposes collective punishment and harming the "innocent" (going from house to house with tweezers).
• You are sick of the death penalty (there are prisoners whose release can be appealed).
• Honors signed agreements (supplying water and electricity to enemies).
And what does the enemy do? Exactly the opposite:
• Shifts responsibility onto citizens and harms them.
• Punishes collectively, and harms innocent people.
• Favors the death penalty.
• Does not honor agreements.
The conflict in this small space called Israel/Palestine is much more than territory/religion/power. It is a conflict between two sides with completely opposite values, in which the Western side is destined to fail miserably.
The Death Series
In 1986 there was a kidnapping, in 1989, 1993, 1994, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2013, 2014.
Who wants to continue the series?
Let us analyze Western perceptions for a moment.
The first is Abrogation of responsibility on the government. In a Western country, the government represents the citizens, and they, in turn, are 'Arabs' and bear responsibility for each other.
Spraying "price tags" creates a stir of anger among all citizens, which in turn reaches the government that deals with criminals with a heavy hand. In a nation where these values do not exist, like the Palestinian Authority, can responsibility be placed on Abu Mazen?
The second perception is the opposition to collective punishment: the enemy does not hesitate to harm an innocent and innocent citizen, while the Western country does not respond in kind, something along the lines of "Within an hour without the hostages, we will start bombing houses." Why? Again, differences in values: recognition of the value of the person. And the granting of "human rights.".
If every person is a complete world with rights and personal freedom, it is impossible to harm a person who has done nothing. However, if a person is a piece of meat, part of the meat clan, then it is natural to blow up and harm anyone who belongs to the clan.
Death penalty
Most kidnappings are for the purpose of bargaining and releasing prisoners. If the captured murderers were killed, then the kidnappings would be unnecessary. But the death penalty does not apply in a Western country.
In the Western arena, human life is sacred, and therefore this sacred thing is not touched.
In the Arab arena - human life is despised to the point of sanctifying the death of the "martyr.".
And finally, honoring agreements. The entire Western world is agreements, between a man and his wife, between a man and his neighbor, between a man and his city and his government. Arab rule, on the other hand, is based on force, the strongest wins. And agreements can be thrown in the trash.
For example, the Oslo Accords were signed by two parties. One side provided and continues to provide weapons, water, electricity, sovereignty, territory, and more. The second side, on the other hand, used all of these against the first side.
So what are we supposed to do? Is there even a solution?
To our horror, we must respond simply: to get ahead of the enemy and treat them according to their culture and values, despite their low status in the global cultural field, otherwise we will not be left to tell anyone that we behaved in a Western manner.
