Zionist Talking Points“Two years passed since the last moment I saw Avinatan, the love of my life. Two years since the moment terrorists kidnapped us, put me on a motorcycle, and tore me away from Avinatan before the eyes of the entire world”
This story uses the language of personal relationships and emotional trauma to frame a narrative of violence and coercion. The language of “kidnapping,” “captivity,” and “heroic rescue operation” is presented as a story of survival against threats, thus legitimizing the use of force and violence. The use of “terrorists” as the actors, rather than a specific group or government, decontextualizes the violence and presents it as a universal threat. The phrase “heroic rescue operation,” implies a just and noble action without providing any details about the methods or consequences of this operation.
The dichotomy between the described experiences of the two captives, Argamani and Avinatan, is also noteworthy. Argamani was held with “children, women, and the elderly,” while Avinatan was held alone, suggesting a gendered division of treatment. However, the story does not explore the implications of this divide, instead focusing on their reunion and recovery. The implied legitimacy of their survival and return is not grounded in any critique or analysis of the systems that led to their capture and separation in the first place.
The IDF later stated: “Four coffins of deceased hostages, escorted by IDF and ISA forces, crossed the border into the State of Israel a short while ago and are on their way to the National Institute for Forensic Medicine, where identification procedures will be carried out. IDF representatives are accompanying the families. The IDF urges the public to act with sensitivity and wait for official identification, which will first be communicated to the families of the deceased hostages.”
The framing of this story presents the return of “deceased hostages” as a necessary and sensitive operation, carried out by the IDF and ISA. The use of “hostages” instead of prisoners implies a form of illegitimate detention, thus legitimizing the actions of the IDF and ISA. The request for the public to “act with sensitivity” further casts the IDF and ISA as protectors and mediators of a delicate situation, obscuring the role of these organizations in the conflict that led to the hostages’ deaths.
The story also reveals a contradiction between the stated values of waiting for “official identification” and the immediate public announcement of the operation. This discrepancy between the urge for discretion and the public exposure of private grief suggests a manipulation of the narrative for wider political or strategic purposes. The legitimacy of the IDF and ISA’s actions is thus implied without any structural grounding or critique of their role in the conflict.