Q&A: Condolence Message to the Terrorists’ Families
Condolence Message to the Terrorists’ Families
Question
The Umm al-Fahm municipality published a condolence message to the families of terrorists (those who carried out the attack in Hadera).
Minister Shaked instructed the mayor to delete the post, and the post was deleted. (You can read about it here: https://www.israelhayom.co.il/news/local/article/9616265)
And I ask, as a right-wing Jew, what exactly was wrong with the post? Did I miss something? According to the translation, it was a condolence message *to the families* over the fact that their sons were killed, along with a prayer that God (whom they believe in) forgive their sons.
Is there anything problematic in their text? Of course, it could be interpreted as their supporting those accursed terrorists, but is that in fact what happened?
Answer
The content in itself could be interpreted as you say. But there are problematic words there, such as “sincere condolences on their death,” and the like. In any case, it is in poor taste. And the addition about forgiving them can be interpreted as something tacked on just to discharge an obligation. It is clearly proper to delete it.
With God’s help, eve of the new month of Nisan, 5782
Whoever drafted the condolence letter (the mayor or the spokesperson) came out losing on both sides. On the one hand, he felt obligated toward the mourning families to say words of consolation without identifying with the circumstances of the death; on the other hand, he implicitly distanced himself by speaking about the dead needing forgiveness and the families needing patience, and in doing so presumably angered the city’s extremists. And on the other side, the very condolence letter “set off” the Jews, especially people on the right.
To be an Arab public figure in a Jewish state is not easy. In any case, he can take comfort in the fact that it is much harder (to put it as an understatement) to be a Jewish public figure in an Arab state 🙂
Best regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner
It is worth noting that he was preceded by Supreme Court Justice Neal Hendel, who heard a petition by the family of an imprisoned terrorist who had meanwhile died, and in the ruling the judge sent his condolences to the family, on the assumption that they were not to blame for their relative’s actions and deserved a bit of “the dignity of the living.” There too there was an uproar, and if I remember correctly, in the end the words of condolence were omitted from the ruling.