Prime minister: My government colleagues, I asked to hold this urgent session regarding the question of goodwill gestures. Two days have passed since we made the last gesture to our Palestinian friends. I certainly believe that if we are not quick to undertake additional gestures, the moderate factions on the other side would find it difficult to convince their people of the need for peaceful coexistence. I ask that the next list of prisoners to be released be prepared.
Respondent A: Mr. prime minister. The next list includes terrorists with blood on their hands!
Prime minister: I want to clarify this issue of “blood on their hands” once and for all. I’m starting to get sick and tired of those repeated chants of “blood on their hands”. They are all about demagoguery and hypocrisy. The precise definition of “blood” in my dictionary is “a red fluid containing tiny particles and providing oxygen and other nutrients to body cells, while removing waste.” And I ask you, my fellow government members, have you seen with your own eyes those tiny particles on the terrorists’ hands? Moreover, I checked in the dictionary the exact meaning of the word “hand”. The definition is very precise on the one hand, but certainly leaves room for interpretation on the other hand. According to the dictionary, “hand” means “any one of the two upper limbs of a person.” And I ask, what does “upper” mean exactly? Upper compared to what? What is this arrogance? And on top of that, you keep on challenging me with that slogan: Blood on their hands – and I ask: what do you mean by “on”? And what if the blood is only found on the fingertips? Or at the side of the arm?
Respondent B: Mr. prime minister. It will be difficult to face the public and explain to it morally and legally why we intend to release murders who did not even express remorse!
Prime minister: I’m surprised at you, my fellow ministers, over your basic lack of understanding in matters of Hebrew and morality. After all, “remorse” in Hebrew refers to a “feeling of regret over an act that was committed or decision that was taken.” Friends, we are talking about feelings here. And how can we demand freedom fighters to have any feelings? What is this arrogance? Are we prophets who can know when the feeling of regret will emerge, and when it will die down? And what is this talk about “difficult” and “public”? Who is this “public”? A bunch on stubborn teachers? A handful of greedy professors? Students facing strike? They are the ones who will determine what “blood” and what “hands” means?
Respondent C: With all due respect, sir. In the framework of the government culture we committed ourselves to, you pledged not to release despicable murderers.
Prime minister: Come on, dear friends. I regret to see that the nuances of our language are not clear to you. After all, a pledge is defined as a “promise to do something. A certainty”. And I ask you, is there anything certain around here? I have no intention to take back the words I said, and I have nothing to say about my original intentions. I ask that the list be brought to me.
Respondent D: Sir, how would we be able to direct our stare into the eyes of bereaved families whose loved ones were murdered by those killers?
Prime minister: My colleagues, what’s a stare exactly? After all, a stare is a “gaze, an intent look.” And if so, why do we need to direct anything here? Is there anyone lost here who needs directions? Friends, this session is over.
The statement to the press shall be as follows: “The government of Israel has decided to free from prison innocent human beings who as a result of their difficult childhood and realities of occupation saw tiny particles appear at the side of their upper limbs. We shall do so as a goodwill gesture aimed at boosting peace, tolerance, and humanism.”