Analysis Of The Israeli Characters In Etgar Keret's 'Hebrew'

1. There is no such thing as a perfect Hebrew. As shown in Etgar Keret’s stories, all of the Israeli characters possess some quality of a Hebrew, but they do not have all of them by any means. Keret does this to show that Israelis are just regular people, and with that, the accompanying flaws. To start with “Siren,” In the beginning of the story Mikey, one of the kids in the school, is described by Shelly to be the model Israeli and fits the bill of “the Hebrew.” Shelly says, “He’s doing naval commando tests.” and “He’s going to get the Outstanding Student Award” (Keret 57), Moreover, Mikey is admired by Josh, a random kid, which definitely correlates with the “Admired by all” (Grover 28) line in Jabotinsky’s text. Mikey is also an “athlete,”
To run down the list, Mickey Goodman shoots and kills two people randomly. I do not see that anywhere in Jabotinsky’s quote. The narrator says it is “far out” that an Israeli paratrooper would kill someone randomly (Keret 5). It is as if the characters believe that since he was Israeli is automatically means they are a good person. I disagree, everyone serves in the army, being a paratrooper doesn't really make Goodman special. The main character of the short story wrote terrible terrible things on a dead woman's house saying, “Your mother goes down” (Keret 6). Even an Israeli general, who is supposed to be the embodiment of what it means to be Israeli leader is an awful person and not similar to “the Hebrew.” The narrator describes him as ”Fat” (Keret 8) and a defining feature of “a Hebrew” is their physical stature. He does not fit the description at all. Since all of the characters are Israeli, it could be said that they possess some element of “a Hebrew,” but I think that is a little obtuse. The characters literally have no redeeming qualities mentioned in the story. It may seem a little cliché, but in essence, nobody is perfect. Jabotinsky’s point puts Israelis at a much higher standard than what they actually are,
While it may seem that Etgar Keret’s leftist view on Israel does not match up with the characters in “Cocked and Locked,” it actually does. His negative portrayal of Israelis and Palestinians is to show that the conflict is not one-sided. In a letter exchange with Sayed Kashua, it is revealed that Keret is on the left in terms of Israel. Kashua is distraught over the state of the conflict and needs some motivation. Sayed asks the famed short story writer to compose “a short story with a happy ending, please”(Kashua 5). Sayed did not ask specifically for a political story, but Etgar jumped into a story with many political references. He alluded to Obama, the two-state solution, and the conflict in general. This unsolicited political story shows Keret’s instinct to talk politically means that he most likely inserts his political opinion in all of his short stories. Etgar, in his happy story, offers his take on the two-state solution saying that there should be the “State of Israel, the state of Palestine...” (Keret 10). The remainder of the quote will be revealed later on. Keret wants peace and the fact that offers the idea of a two-state solution means that he believes that there are enough good people on both sides to make peace. Etgar is shown to think very highly of Palestinians, but why, then, does he make the Palestinian so objectively terrible in “Cocked and Locked”? There are so many instances in this very short story that blatantly paints Palestinians in an