What is the 'relevance' of this article by Uri Elitzer according to Ayelet Shaked?

-8

Ayelat Shaked, is currently the Justice Minister in Netanyahus government; in June 2014 she published the following on her personal facebook page:

This is an article by the late Uri Elitzur, which was written 12 years ago, but remained unpublished. It is as relevant today as it was at the time.

"The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.

And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

  • Is it official or semi-official Israeli policy that the "entire Palestinian people" is the enemy, "including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure"?

  • Did Ayelat Shaked apologise for, or retract the published article?

Mozibur Ullah

Posted 2017-10-14T20:42:24.040

Reputation: 3 678

Question was closed 2019-04-18T23:17:08.817

I don't see what's wrong with any of these questions. They seem totally objective, though the former is about intent and intent has been determined to be on topic here if it can be informed. – Evan Carroll – 2018-08-15T02:21:49.440

7I'm sorry, but I don't see any question here, just an attempt to spread propaganda and start an opinionated discussion about the israel/palestine conflict. – Philipp – 2017-10-14T21:08:58.987

@Phillipp: there are three questions here...take your pick. – Mozibur Ullah – 2017-10-14T21:30:39.190

@Phillipp: Didn't we once have an exchange where, I can't recall it the exact words you used but the suggestion was not to bring up the Palestine-Israel conflict; may I be so brash as to ask where you happen to stand on this conflict and how does it affect your moderating policy? – Mozibur Ullah – 2017-10-14T22:02:33.660

@Phillip: or is this not also a question but an attempt to 'spread propaganda'? – Mozibur Ullah – 2017-10-14T22:03:34.210

@Phillip: as the question is 'cited' I fail to understand your charge that the question 'is opinionated' or unjustified; can you please clarify? – Mozibur Ullah – 2017-10-15T05:24:15.950

2The problem here is that it is very obvious that you come to this website with an agenda. We generally expect questions to come from a neutral point of view. You are nut-picking statements made years ago and ask rhetorical questions about them to bring them to attention. It is obvious you are just interested in making one specific state look bad. Which state that is and if it is justified is irrelevant. We simply don't want such content on this website. There are plenty of platforms for political activism on the internet, but this one isn't one of them. – Philipp – 2017-10-15T10:26:41.447

@Phillipp: the statement was written fourteen years ago and unpublished, yet the Minister of Justice no less calls it 'of continued relevance'; I fail to see why that isn't of political interest; the questions that I asked of said article, you might note, are written neutrally; the strong language was used by Uri Elitzer. – Mozibur Ullah – 2017-10-15T15:28:11.810

Answers

2

If the article was relevant when it was written 12 years ago, it must be relevant today. Not much has changed.

  • Uri Elitzur was not a government official. Ayelet Shaked is a minister, but this is her own opinion, not government policy. Both represent the Israeli right wing (some would say extreme right).
  • He claims that Israel is at war, and should behave thus. Unless war is always genocide, this doesn't call for genocide. It does call for actions, which he doesn't specify, that may lead to innocent casualties as part of the war.
  • I know of no apology or retraction, despite very bad reactions, including (she says) death threats, being called a Nazi and more.

ugoren

Posted 2017-10-14T20:42:24.040

Reputation: 2 495