Remembering October 7 Requires Remembering October 6
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Columnist Dana Ron argues that remembering the October 7 massacre requires acknowledging the societal divisions and political maneuvering that preceded and followed it. She criticizes attempts to create alternative remembrance ceremonies, suggesting they are politically motivated and divisive. Ron contends that true remembrance means understanding the context of October 6 and the internal conflicts that Hamas allegedly exploited, rather than falling into politically charged narratives surrounding the tragedy.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Remembering the October 7 massacre necessitates remembering the societal divisions of October 6, according to columnist Dana Ron.
- Alternative remembrance ceremonies for October 7 are criticized as politically motivated and divisive.
- The author argues that most Israelis connect with both official and alternative memorial events.
- Protest groups are accused of cynically using hostage families for political purposes.
- True remembrance involves understanding internal discord that Hamas allegedly exploited for victory.
Three years after the Hamas massacre, there are attempts to turn national remembrance into a political battleground, creating an alternative to the official state ceremony. While most of the public simply wishes to honor the victims, some are pushing divisive narratives. The author argues that truly remembering October 7 means also remembering October 6.
On the foreign remembrance day for the massacre, the author notes that the pain and grief remain fresh daily. However, the establishment of an alternative national remembrance day, separate from the official Israeli date of Cheshvan 24, feels like a division. This is likened to the Yom Kippur War, which is not commemorated on multiple dates. The author suggests this dispute over national memory and pain is fueled by political motivations, particularly the current right-wing government.
Despite the perception that a significant portion of the public rejects official remembrance ceremonies due to political reasons, the author contends that most Israelis connect with both the official state memorial day and alternative events on October 7, regardless of when they are asked to remember the fallen. The article criticizes some individuals and groups for cynically exploiting the tragedy to sow division, arguing that the day of the massacre should have fostered unity.
The movement "Komo," described as politically motivated, is organizing an alternative national ceremony. The author points out that hostage survivor Rom Baraslavsky was reportedly not allowed to speak at this event, implying he did not fit the movement's preferred narrative. The article stresses the importance of remembering not only the massacre but also the societal divisions and hatred that preceded it, which exacerbated the situation.
Furthermore, the article criticizes protest groups for allegedly using the families of hostages for political gain. It suggests these protests, which occurred while Israel was engaged in multiple conflicts and concerned about its hostages, pressured the government internally instead of focusing on Hamas externally. This, the author claims, raised the price for Hamas and gave them hope that the protests would yield a high ransom. The piece concludes by stating that remembering Sinwar's alleged directive to continue sowing internal discord is crucial, as this represents Hamas's true victory. By remembering all these aspects, the article suggests, Israelis can remember the October 7 massacre without falling into the political traps being laid, understanding that remembering October 7 is inseparable from remembering October 6.