Report: Visiting Site Of Attack Not Cynical If Left Does It

“This research demonstrates what certain public figures have been claiming for some time,” said lead author Shelly Yechimovich.

Tel Aviv, June 9 – A new study published today in a scientific journal indicates that when right-wing politicians visit the site of a terrorist attack and make pronouncements, that involves a cynical exploitation of emotions for political purposes, but when the same activity is performed by politicians toward the other end of the spectrum, it is an act of noble solidarity and resolve.

The latest issue of the journal Politics features research that study authors say proves different motivations behind otherwise identical behaviors by Israeli political figures, as manifest in whether the figure in question expresses left-wing or right-wing views.

According to the study, if, for example, a terrorist shooting attack takes place on Dizengoff Street in Tel Aviv,  and a right-wing politician such as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu then pays a visit to the site of the incident, the visit constitutes unacceptable exploitation of a tragedy for political gain, and might also be racist if the attack was perpetrated by an Arab. Conversely, if a left-wing politician visits the site of, for example, an upscale market where two terrorists shot up a chocolate shop cafe, the move takes on the character of a welcome condolence call and a show of determination and encouragement for the neighborhood, city, and country.

“This research demonstrates what certain public figures have been claiming for some time,” said lead author Shelly Yechimovich. “Now we know that the cynical exploitation is a function of someone being on the wrong part of the political spectrum, but if one agrees with, for example, the center-left, then one’s visit to the site of a tragedy is an act of support and warmth.”

Tzipi Livni, who was not involved in the study, praised the results. “This research also opens the way to other explorations, and hints at some tantalizing ideas,” she said. “I have a hunch that a similar mechanism is at work in explaining the difference between a left-wing politician who moves from party to party and one who does so on the right. I think we would find that if someone on the left does so it must be an expression of resourcefulness, drive to serve the public, and an active conscience. On the other hand, if a politician on the right repeatedly changes party loyalties, that indicates a fundamental character flaw, lack of commitment, lack of respect for the voters, rank opportunism, and naked pursuit of power.”