“Can words kill?” With prophetic timing, Channel 12 political correspondent Amit Segal asked this question in his Friday column in Yediot Aharonot.
The column was printed a day before the assassination attempt on former president and presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee Donald Trump. It dealt with the wild incitement in recent weeks against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the forgiving attitude of this country’s elites when the incitement is against the Right, rather than coming from the Right.
In the eyes of the attorney-general, state prosecutor, opposition, and most of the press in Israel, Segal asserted, “the story is not who is inciting, rather who is being incited against.” In their eyes, he argued, “opponents to Netanyahu are much more independent and intelligent than his supporters, and there is no danger that they will translate these words into physical harm.”
For that reason, it doesn’t cause an uproar when protesters at anti-Netanyahu rallies routinely call the prime minister a traitor – a word ostensibly removed from the public lexicon after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and the conventional wisdom that Yigal Amir killed Rabin as a result of the incitement against him, including labeling him a traitor.
Nor do people get that worked up when a reserve general calls Netanyahu a tyrant or the daughter-in-law of one of the murdered hostages says that if the hostages are not freed, “a noose” awaits Netanyahu and his “cursed family.”
But, as the stunning events near Pittsburgh on Saturday indicated, people should get worked up – very much so.
What happened in Pennsylvania should be a cautionary tale for Israel: not only for Israel – indeed for democracies all over the world where the public is polarized and social media amplifies extreme rhetoric – but most definitely also for Israel.
A polarized political environment where heated words and wildly irresponsible comments are the norm is an environment that breeds political violence.
Thomas Matthew Crooks, the 20-year-old man who shot Trump, is responsible for his action, but the present atmosphere in the US – where one’s political opponents are not merely opponents but enemies of democracy, liberty, and “the people” – is an inflammable one.
Because if an elected leader or someone who is aspiring for leadership is an enemy of the people, then what should his fate be? What should be done to enemies of the people?
In Israel, this type of language is now regularly employed. At one of the recent anti-Netanyahu protests, Guy Tzur, a major-general in the reserves, said this: “Netanyahu is a traitor, he has turned into an enemy of the people and needs to be ousted as soon as possible.”
There are other ways to register opposition to the prime minister than through the use of this type of language.
Or, as Yolanda Yavor said at one of the protests, “If he [Netanyahu] is not a traitor, then who is? Then what is treachery? Traitor!”
Then she added, “I want to calm down those who will try to incite against us – no one from among us will harm that traitor or his cursed family.”
Really? What makes her so sure?
Demonization and delegitimization create an atmosphere where political violence is nourished and can flourish: the attempt on Trump’s life is just more proof of that.
Trump, who himself employs extreme polarizing rhetoric to delegitimize others, has been called a tyrant and dictator. If so, then wouldn’t the world be a better place if he would be taken out? Words themselves do not kill, yet they create an environment that can be misconstrued as a justification for political murder.
The images of Trump being shot were stark and stunning. There is no possible context to justify it – though there will be some who hate him so much that they will try to do so: try to say this did not happen in a vacuum, and that he brought this on with his own polarizing, divisive, and bullying rhetoric and style.
Condemnations of the attempted attack
World leaders of all political stripes quickly condemned the attempt on Trump’s life, including UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who “unequivocally condemned” this act of political violence.
Why does Guterres’ statement stand out? Because this is the same UN secretary-general who, following Hamas’s October 7 massacre, condemned it but then said, “It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum.” Guterres “contextualized” Hamas’s act. Thankfully, he did not apply the same approach to the attempt on Trump’s life.
The attempted assassination of a once and possibly future US president is an evil act. Full stop. So, too, the murder of 1,200 people and the taking of 250 more hostages is an evil act. Full stop. The contextualization of evil, by trying to understand its roots or claiming it does not happen in a vacuum, is a dangerous feature of discourse today that can breed even more evil.
What happened in the US on Saturday needs to trigger flashing red lights here as well.
Segal quoted Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid suggesting that incitement against Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara – and there is incitement against her – is worse than that against Netanyahu because she is not the most protected person in the country. This implies that incitement becomes more acceptable the better protected the target is – an absurd and dangerous notion.
Saturday’s events expose the absurdity of this equation. Despite being amply guarded by a Secret Service detail, Trump was shot in broad daylight. In an Israeli context, this incident underscores a crucial point: incitement can be deadly, regardless of the level of protection surrounding the intended target.
Saturday’s assassination attempt will undoubtedly prompt countries worldwide to re-evaluate their security measures and prevention strategies, drawing the necessary conclusions to prevent a similar incident in their own lands. Israel must be among them, especially given that the same “my political opponent is an enemy” toxicity that exists in the US, exists here as well.