Revenge in the Style of Havat Gilad
Matan Kahana, like Naftali Bennett, enlisted for Havat Gilad not only out of human identification with a community that went through turmoil, but to prove to the deep right that he is still flesh of their flesh despite sitting in the coalition with Ra'am. This, of course, will not bring even a quarter of a vote from there, nor will it ease the aggressive campaign against the 'left-wing government' (which will be composed mostly of right-wing people, even if not according to the definition of the pundits from Channel 14), but at least it clarifies to all who pin hopes on the upcoming elections, whether from within Israel or outside: an alternative government could make positive changes in various fields, but it is doubtful whether it can truly deal courageously and without compromise with the powder keg of the West Bank and the rapid deterioration of the region toward apartheid. In fact, a real 'upheaval' can only occur when the Israeli public decides that public calls for genocide are not just a hasbara problem.
Einav Schiff's column deals with the reaction of Israeli politicians to the fire at Havat Gilad and the broader context of political discourse. It opens with a mention of a BBC report in which Yehuda Shimon, a resident of Havat Gilad, justified acts of revenge against Palestinians, saying 'we need to kill all the people in (the villages of) Tel al-Sara, even Jit and Far'ata' and that 'the life of one Jew – that's ten million (Palestinians)'. Schiff notes that Shimon's words caused an uproar in the international media, and that Shimon received a visit from MK Matan Kahana, who came to Havat Gilad following the fire. Schiff claims that Kahana, like Naftali Bennett, tried to prove to the deep right that he is still connected to it despite sitting in the coalition with Ra'am. He adds that this move will not bring votes, but clarifies that an alternative government will not be able to deal with the deterioration in the West Bank. Schiff concludes with a call for the Israeli public to decide that public calls for genocide are a substantive problem.