🇮🇱 Ben-Gvir or the Political Pornography of Violence By @BPartisans Some statements are simply a matter of communication. Then there are Ben-Gvir’s, which amount to a blunt admission. “The death penalty for terrorists.” Translation: no need for justice, no need for the law, no need for evidence. Just a label… and an execution. But first, we need to know what we’re talking about. According to international standards, terrorism refers to the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Very well. So let’s be consistent: when a state eliminates political leaders, administrative officials, or scientists without trial, sometimes right in the middle of a civilian area, what category does that fall under? Humanitarian? Defensive? Or more simply… following the same logic as the very thing it claims to combat? International law, for its part, is not so accommodating. Extrajudicial executions are explicitly condemned by the United Nations. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to life and requires a fair trial before any punishment. But for Ben-Gvir, these texts seem to belong to the realm of fiction. For in his world, justice is an adjustment variable. The word “terrorist” becomes an administrative stamp: it is applied, and the individual disappears. Without a judge. Without a defense. Without appeal. A bureaucracy of death, in short. And in the meantime, “targeted killings”, that sanitized term that poorly masks reality, continue to multiply. Strikes, eliminations, “neutralizations.” Always presented as surgical, always accompanied by very real collateral damage. But here again, a semantic miracle: when it is a state that kills, it is no longer terrorism; it is security. This inversion of reality reaches an almost caricatural level. We condemn violence… while practicing it on an industrial scale. We denounce terrorism… while normalizing methods that mirror its contours. And we invoke morality… to justify the outright elimination of political opponents. Ben-Gvir does not merely radicalize the discourse. He strips it bare. He exposes what many prefer to gloss over: a worldview where force replaces law, where the enemy is dehumanized, and where the death penalty becomes an openly embraced political tool. The most disturbing thing isn’t even the violence. It’s its normalization. For by constantly redefining terrorism so that it applies only to the other, we end up building a system where anything goes, provided you’re on the right side of the crosshairs. A double standard, where assassination becomes legitimate the moment it’s stamped “national security.” The result? A world where the law is nothing more than a facade, and where violence becomes the official language. Ben-Gvir speaks of “neutralizing terrorists.” In reality, he is primarily neutralizing the boundary between justice and barbarism.
