Israeli Ministers Evade Responsibility for October 7th
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Ministers use "on our watch" to avoid responsibility for October 7th.
- This phrase implies randomness and lack of accountability for leadership.
- The author contrasts this with past Israeli political behavior.
- Officials have reportedly misremembered or downplayed the date of the attacks.
- The strategy aims to avoid investigations and reforms.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other ministers are reportedly using the phrase "it happened on our watch" to distance themselves from responsibility for the October 7th attacks, according to an opinion piece by Dror Rafael. This phrasing, the author argues, implies a sense of randomness and lack of personal accountability for their roles, suggesting their presence in government was coincidental rather than a result of public trust and a mandate to govern effectively. Rafael contends that this approach aims to obscure the significance of their positions and decisions, thereby avoiding the need for investigations, apologies, or reforms.
The article uses Miki Zohar as an example of this phenomenon. It contrasts his earlier, more aggressive political style with a current, more "statesmanlike" approach that still seeks personal gain ("power, money, and honor") but through quieter means. The author suggests that Zohar and his colleagues are now manipulating reality to avoid taking responsibility, framing the October 7th events as unfortunate occurrences rather than failures of leadership. This is presented as a departure from past Israeli political norms, where ministers might have admitted fault, apologized, or resigned, citing the case of former Minister of Housing Avraham Ofer who committed suicide amid a corruption investigation in 1977.
Rafael further criticizes the government's perceived attempt to downplay the severity and distinctiveness of October 7th. He notes that some officials, including the Prime Minister and his wife, have reportedly misremembered or vaguely referred to the date, calling it "the sixth," "the eighth," or "the ninth" of October. The author contrasts this with the public's indelible memory of the horrific events, which involved widespread slaughter, a failure of defense, and a brutal invasion. The piece concludes by lamenting that while the public's trauma from October 7th is permanent, the government's strategy appears to be one of obfuscation and denial, suggesting that such events are treated as random occurrences with no need for deep examination.
Read the original at Maariv
