There's A Difference Between "Viral" and "Virus"

You would think that an intelligent man would know not to stir up debates but to win them.

I'm referring to Moshe Ya'alon's remark about Peace Now.

First of all, Peace Now feeds on this stuff.

Twenty-five years ago at least, someone (Ronni Milo?) referred to them as a "cancer" although their supporters, of course, refer to Jewish communities as "cancerous". The Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are regularly called "mitnachablim" by the Left which translates as "settler terrorists" and the opponents of the 2005 disengagement could be threatened with an Altalena response, which means firing a canon at them.

{UPDATE: Tadmit informs me that on August 4th, MK Ahmed Tibi described the Jewish residential communities in Judea and Samaria on Galei Tzahal Radio as "cancer".}

On the Internet you can use "viral" to describe a wildfire spread of a vid. In politics, it's being dumb to use "virus", especially as it has been done before.

Instead of "In order to save the country, we must deal with the issue of the virus that is Peace Now and, if you will, the elites, their damage is very great...", he could have just as easily said:

"In order to save the country from a debilitating political orientation that weakens our ability to withstand our enemies' onslaught, we must deal with the issue of that harmful phenomenon that is represented by Peace Now and, if you will, the elites, for their damage is very great."

Great men should be great with language.