Q&A: Dancing on Blood
Dancing on Blood
Question
Have a good week, Rabbi,
I have a question that I hope is not too strange, which has crossed my mind recently. In light of the grim situation in the country, I wondered whether, in the Rabbi’s view, it would be proper for politicians from the liberal camp to dance on the blood spilled in terror attacks. Now, it’s important for me to clarify that on the practical level, this kind of practice disgusts me.
But I wondered whether there might nevertheless be some measure of justice in it. After all, the populist scumbag Ben Gvir danced on the blood spilled in attacks that happened under the “change government,” and as a result he picked up a lot of votes. So under the assumption that, unfortunately, there is electoral benefit in this kind of stupidity, and given the fact that the gang in power behaved this way themselves (incidentally, in my opinion Bibi did this too, though less bluntly), is it proper to do this in order to move voters’ support to the other camp in the future? Or does the fact that those scumbags acted this way not justify our acting this way? This is, of course, a theoretical discussion; I don’t think it will actually happen.
Thank you
Answer
Your question is not phrased correctly. “Dancing on blood” is an expression with a built-in connotation. It’s like asking whether piggish capitalism is a proper policy. Or whether it is proper to murder someone. Murder is not just killing, but wrongful killing. So here the answer is built into the question itself.
To discuss this, you need to define the behavior under discussion in cold, objective terms: 1. Is it proper to rejoice? No. 2. Is it proper to say, “We told you so”? Yes. 3. Is it proper to use the data in order to persuade people to vote for us? Yes.
Beyond that there are tactical questions: when and how to do it, what wording to use. That doesn’t interest me. Tact is something hard to define, and substantively it isn’t really important (though psychologically it could of course be harmful).
Needless to say, my answers are correct for both sides. Ben Gvir, too, is allowed what you are allowed.
Discussion on Answer
Thank you very much, Rabbi.
When I wrote “dancing on blood,” it indeed had a completely negative connotation, but what I mainly meant was Ben Gvir’s practice of literally jumping from one attack site to another (just minutes after the attacks took place), and not merely offering a learned critique with statistical data and the causes of the situation as he sees them. That is conduct that, to me personally, seems extremely repulsive.
I wrote it that way because in principle I think it is repulsive conduct, and I really do have a negative value judgment about it (people are bleeding and there’s some cynical guy trying to make political capital out of it while standing at the attack scene itself). But really my question was more general: the gang in power (in my opinion) came to power in part through conduct and practices that, at the level of principle, I judge very negatively. The Ben Gvir phenomenon I mentioned, the brutal spread of fake news (the 53 billion in Abbas taxes that they are of course continuing to pay, Bennett’s mother isn’t Jewish, and other things of that kind). And I wondered whether one may use such practices against those same scumbags despite their being improper in principle.
Each thing on its own merits. Using terror attacks to argue that the policy is wrong and to implement a better policy is entirely legitimate.
Now you’re bringing in the issue of lies and propaganda. That has nothing to do with dancing on blood, but of course it is improper.
Notice the language and terminology you’re using here. Quite similar to what you describe in Ben Gvir.
True, I used terms with a negative value judgment about them because I definitely do have such a judgment (both about physically jumping from one attack scene to another just minutes after it happens, and about deliberately spreading lies). The question was whether it is permissible to use a practice that is morally wrong (in my view) and that helped that gang come to power (as I see it). That was my intention. In any case, thank you!
In my opinion, tact is the main issue here.
To point out during an election period (or in the appropriate context when this is under discussion) that there were X attacks and Y people were murdered and therefore the government failed—that is of course completely legitimate. Let everyone take the data and vote accordingly.
To do all this hours after an attack, when the murdered victims still haven’t been buried and the wounded are still in intensive care—that is not substantive criticism of the government but the use of cheap psychological tactics (the anger and fear that are present right next to such an event) in order to draw conclusions about the government. That is not data analysis but the inflaming of passions.
Avi, I agree with every word you wrote. The question is whether, when dealing with a corrupt gang that came to power through such methods, it is proper to use those same improper means? Or at least some of them?
It really is a dilemma in my eyes.
My view is that being substantive (while communicating it properly, of course) will usually bring better results in the long run. One should also give some credit to the other side—not all of them are idiots—and if they voted for this government, there is probably a reason for it. If you think they are mistaken, you need to show them reasons why.
I can personally testify that although I am aware of and agree with many of the claims against this government (personal legislation, childish conduct, and more), judicial reform is so important to me that I think if it passes in some form, the benefit of this government will outweigh the harm.
See here an example of substantive criticism (which itself is also open to discussion, but it’s important to read): https://telem.berl.org.il/8027/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=telemonline