A lot of Zionists and the state of Israel just emphasize that it is not their responsibility to feed and sustain Gaza because on the off chance the aid falls into Hamas. Of course, when Israel "administers aid", they end up in Flour massacres.
It's that Sartre quote about anti-Semitism. Zionists know they are lying about Gaza. The point is to obfuscate, misdirect, and downplay atrocities through propaganda of the deed and of the presenter.
The presenter is lying, obviously. But the point is also to present themselves as brainwashed at best, then victims, then reluctant killers.
But the truth is otherwise. It was even blatantly announced in the weeks following October 7th from all over the government, the society, and Israeli media.
What would you actually call this?
I discussed this with a friend, this same question and premise that lies before your question. They responded:
Cognitive dissonance. Zionism is the self-appointed papacy of the Jewish people, and people don't expect the Jewish people - even if it is just Zionists wearing masks of one - to commit these incredible acts of evil.
I think the waning credibility that now falls Israel and Zionism as avatars of Judaism is in part consequence of people successfully understanding and separating the two since genocide and mass murder, especially being livestreamed in 2023/24, is completely anathema to Judaism and the Jewish people.
I think we should discuss that the power dynamics of what makes the toaster possible to build, operate, and distribute itself.
One could argue that the toaster, in its very function, represents a resistance to progress and a reversion to more primitive means of food preparation. For is not the act of slowly browning bread over an open flame a vestige of a bygone era, before the advent of advanced cooking technologies?
Furthermore, the toaster's reliance on simplistic, mechanical controls could be seen as a rejection of the sophisticated, digital interfaces that have come to define modern appliances. This adherence to a more rudimentary design aesthetic may be interpreted as a reactionary stance against the relentless march of technological innovation.
Additionally, the toaster's ubiquity in households across the societal spectrum could be viewed as a symbol of cultural stagnation - a stubborn refusal to embrace novel culinary methods or innovative food preparation appliances. In this light, the toaster becomes a bastion of the status quo, resisting the transformative forces of culinary progress.
Yet, one might also contend that the toaster, in its humble efficiency and widespread acceptance, represents a pragmatic compromise between tradition and modernity. For is it not the role of the toaster to strike a balance, to provide a reliable and accessible means of transforming the humble slice of bread into a delectable, golden-hued delight?
In the end, Toasters are reactionary only in the reactionary's hands.