Cynical Use of Heroes. A Mirror Before Our Eyes.

The Rabbi’s Opening Post

Cynical Use of Heroes. A Mirror Before Our Eyes.

Sent on 23/4/2014

| |

Cynical use of heroes. A mirror before our eyes.

Read here (before continuing to read the post):

I actually come away with feelings quite opposite to what the writer is trying to push. 1. It seems that Tillman was indeed a person worthy of great admiration, for his dedication and willingness to pay a personal and financial price (to shoulder part of the burden by virtue of which, in his view, he himself also exists). 2. I see no difference between a case in which he was killed by the Taliban or by friendly fire (except for the question of how much bravery he displayed in the battle itself, as opposed to in volunteering for the army). 3. The cynical use made of him is characteristic of every administration, and overall it is fairly natural (even if not always justified). One can even understand it if it is meant to ease matters for the family and give them a good feeling. Propaganda is part of war, and concealing information is an accepted and perhaps legitimate propaganda tool (at least in certain cases), including domestically. Of course, one must not “get caught.” 4. In any event, the question whether the war is justified or not is independent of whether or not cynical use is made of its heroes. 5. When it is decided that the war is justified, use is made of the fallen to advance it. And when the opposite is decided (that it is not justified), then use is made of that same fallen soldier for the opposite purpose. Both sides excel in cynical and demagogic use of the facts and their interpretation. 6. Therefore, my view is that the reporter, no less than the American administration, is making cynical use of the figure of a genuine hero and of the administration’s actions in order to come out against a war he opposes. He could have criticized the administration’s actions irrespective of the question of the war’s justice. Thus the situation is completely symmetrical, and perhaps even tilts to the reporter’s disadvantage. 7. Beyond all this, the matter brings me back once again to the cynical use made in our own circles of religion in order to find consolation over soldiers, or victims of terror, or victims of the Holocaust, who in every eulogy are regarded as “sanctifiers of God’s name” (some of them atheists) because they “were killed for being Jews.” This is a ridiculous invention with neither root nor branch, with no source whatsoever, and it has no logic. A person sanctifies God’s name only if he intended to do so, not when he dies against his will. Certainly victims of terror or victims of the Holocaust have nothing whatever to do with sanctifying God’s name (except for those who took deliberate action for that purpose, and did so out of faith in God and in the value of sanctifying His name). This cynical use of religion is made for two reasons: a. to comfort the victims’ survivors and encourage those who remain. b. to generate support for the war (whether justified or not), by turning it into a war over our being Jews (just like Muslim rhetoric, which sees all the dead as martyrs, and not only those who truly gave their lives, but also those who were harmed against their will).

Source (forum “Stop—People Think Here”): http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=3047072&forum_id=1364