There's a dynamic that is so pervasive that even when we are looking for it, wee still miss it a lot. What I'm talking about is how only certain groups are expected to exhibit empathy and other groups are always expected to be the benefactors. We're usually aware of it on the left-right spectrum, where latte sipping coastal elites are constantly chided for not considering the feelings of "Real Americans" in the flyover country of the Heartland. Really? The primary feeling of those "Real Americans" is sheer and utter contempt for the coastal elites - and yet we never see admonitions to rural voters to think about how the SJWs might see things.
I want to note an article about the phrase "from the river to the sea". Let me point out that the author, a political science professor at a Canadian university, isn't denying reality. This article is way less pure bullshit than the usual tripe we get fed from major media. Here's a quote - using active voice and attributing actions to those responsible. For example:
The trouble is, in Israel-Palestine it’s Israeli Jews who hold the lion’s share of the power. Between the river and the sea, which is to say to varying degrees in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel within the Green Line, it’s Palestinians, not Jews (Jewish Israelis), who are structurally oppressed, mainly by Israel (I say mainly because Hamas’s and the PA’s authoritarian rule limits Palestinian freedoms to some extent).
Yes, there's an unnecessary qualification there - almost as if any criticism of Israel must come with the requisite condemnation of Hamas. But it's an accurate statement - all of the groups mentioned have treated Palestinians very badly - but it is mainly Israel that does the bulk of it. I dare say that the mandatory Hamas condemning actually reinforces the point - which is almost never allowed to be spoken - that even relative to the autocratic rule of a terrorist group, Israel treatment of Palestinians is still worse.
Anyways - here again is the argument. It's framed as "intent versus impact" but what it actually is - it's a lecture to supporters of a Free Palestine to consider the feelings of Jews.
There's something else I need to get out of the way before getting to my point. The other arguments in support of "From the River to the Sea" are strong ones. Professor Sucharov notes the biggest one in her article - context. The context of the situation in Israel-Palestine really do highlight how bonkers it is. The context is that Palestinians between the river and the sea are in fact not free - and they are being told that asking for basic human dignity is offensive to the people who are denying it to them. This alone should settle the argument handily. It's the "every accusation is a confession" crux of the situation. The people who see "from the River to the Sea" as calling for genocide are projecting - they think it means genocide because Israel is committing genocide from the River to the Sea. It means that to them because they are doing it. And this point is often bolstered by noting that it is not only Hamas that has "from the river to the sea" in its charter, but also Likud, the default ruling party of Israel, does as well (the main difference is that it's of course not calling for Palestinian freedom - but for Israeli sovereignty instead).
Also an important point here is to call out Genocide Joe's pure fucking bullshit "two state solution" talk. Hey Genocide Joe - the government of Israel is adamantly opposed to a Palestinian state. Netanyahu is on record explaining why he funds Hamas - specifically to marginalize the PA and sabotage any attempt to establish a Palestinian state. And he's the moderate in his government - with the other unity government party being an extremist far-right proponent of settler terrorism.
Okay, that out of the way - let me get back to my point. Let's agree that it is worthwhile to consider impacts over intent. I mean, actual real world impacts are important, aren't they? Jewish people are also people and they have feelings that shouldn't be ignored. In the words of a deeply antisemitic play - if you cut them, do they not bleed? Sure, the feelings they have are irrational and in fact actually quite offensive if you consider the context. But that actually is understandable - antisemitism is a very real threat. Jews have good reason to be on constant high alert for threats of genocide. So even though their position now is gross and disgusting, it is also very understandable.
BUT - here we see it again. Empathy is ALWAYS a one way street. Pro-Palestinian activists are being forced to consider the feelings of others, especially the people they are protesting against. The people currently engaged in genocide and their supporters around the world. And it is NEVER the other way around.
Here's a statement that's almost as mandatory as the condemnation of Hamas. "Israel has a right to defend itself." It's a statement that's hard to refute if you ignore context. Self-defense should always be acceptable, shouldn't it? But look at what's going on in Gaza. That is not self-defense. It so clearly isn't that again, we are into the range of offensive statements when people suggest it. A few weeks ago, the IDF bombed a refugee camp, killing a couple hundred people. They knew those people were there. But they suspected that one of those people might have been a Hamas commander. How can anyone call that "self-defense"?
So what is the impact of invoking Israel's right to self-defense? It's being used as an excuse for genocide. It's pretty fucking reasonable for Palestinians and their supporters to see this statement as a call to wipe out all Palestinians. It's way more rational a connection than the spurious claims of "from the River to the Sea" are. So when do we start seeing this? When do people start getting lectured or even fired from their jobs for asserting that Israel has a right to defend itself?
Never. It will never happen. Because having to consider "impact over intent" is something that only one side has to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment