Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

Israelis’ preoccupation with national trauma plays a central role in denying Israel’s war crimes. The prevailing cultural logic that traumatized persons cannot be held accountable for their own aggressions is extended to the state, whose aggressions are framed as mere acts of self-defence.

Paper long abstract

This paper presents a critical reading of Israelis’ preoccupation with national trauma, particularly in the aftermath of October 7th. In keeping with the broader emotional turn in late capitalism, Israeli political discourse has become saturated with emotional overtones, giving precedence to emotions over opinions. I argue that the disproportionate focus on emotions, combined with an overwhelming sense of victimhood, plays a central role in Israelis’ avoidance of confronting and taking a moral stand on Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians. The prevailing cultural logic suggests that emotions cannot be argued with, and traumatized persons cannot be held accountable for their own aggressions. Traumatized people are seen as fragile victims who must be cared for rather than confronted or judged. By extension, a traumatized state cannot, and should not, be held accountable for its aggressions, which are consistently framed as acts of self-defence. Further reinforcing this perspective is the broader framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a zero-sum game, whereby recognizing Israeli aggressions is perceived as denying its vulnerability and thus as an act bordering on treason.