Part 3: The debate over genocidal language.
The legal definition of genocide under international
law, rightfully includes the use of language. Language is a necessary tool when
perpetrating a genocide. It dehumanizes the intended victims in a way that
denies their humanity and makes the act of killing them justified. Therefore,
if someone wants to make a serious accusation of genocide, they must include the
subject of the use of language. When it comes to Israel this argument employs a
known propaganda trick, taking words out of context. The accusers say that when
Israeli leaders call Palestinians human animals, or compare them to Amalek,
that language is genocidal.
Israeli leaders did make this kind of comparisons. But
not of the entire Palestinian population. Only those that perpetrated the
atrocities of October 7th. The biblical Amalek were indeed condemned
for annihilation. But that is not why the comparison was made. It was made
because Amalek killed women and children, and the elderly. And that is exactly what
Hamas did. Hamas are also compared to the Nazis, because that is what the Nazis
did. Both have killed women and children, and everyone they could,
deliberately. Hamas is also compared to ISIS, because this is what ISIS did.
Like Hamas they killed everyone they wanted, women, children, man, elderly.
Every person they said had the wrong faith. Extremists’ statements had been
made by public figures and some government officials. And the membership of
Betzalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir in this government is indeed an
abomination. But none of them is a member of the war cabinet. The members of
this cabinet come from the ruling Likud party, and the Mahane Mammlachti party
of Beni Gantz. This was the lead opposition party prior to October the 7th
2023. Genocide is an inhumane act. And false accusations of genocide dehumanize
those been falsely accused. As do false accusations of ethnic cleansing,
apartheid, and colonialism.
As international law acknowledges, the act of genocide
requires dehumanizing language, organization, such as gathering the weapons
needed for the genocide. And killing countless of people with the intention to
inflict harm. Israel has done none-of those. Its actions saved the lives of
hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and the harsh language used by its
decision makers is against the perpetrators of the atrocities of the 7th
of October, not all the Palestinians. The one that fills all the check boxes
defining genocide is Hamas. They, as well as the PA, have been indoctrinating their population to hate the Jews for years. Hamas has been gathering weapons
for the purpose of killing as many jews as possible. It tried to do so mostly with
missiles and rockets. But was more successful on October the 7th
2023, when its elite forces gained control over several Jewish communities.
There, with the help of civilians from the Gaza Strip, they killed, tortured,
and abducted everyone they could. Causing some of these communities to be
severely depopulated. This is a genocide. And for years Israeli and pro-Israel
activists have been warning against that. The reactions to these warnings were outrageous.
Those warning were ignored in most cases, dismissed as demonizing the Palestinians
in other cases. And when they did receive some attention by world media it was treated
as background noise, and never received the same importance as the issue of the
settlements. The
examples they brought were either over stretched or form marginal groups. The
purpose of those comparisons was to dismiss the accusations under the attitude that
said, since both sides are doing it, there is no point in dealing with it.
These attitudes, knowingly and unknowingly, made their contributions to the
atrocities of October 7th. This
ignored fact of recent history demonstrate the hypocrisy behind the accusation
of genocide. Those that were the most silent about Hamas genocidal behavior
prior to October 7th; are now making the loudest noises, falsely
accusing Israel of genocide. The 2 sides of this hypocrisy show indifference to
Jewish lives. And that is the most obvious form of antisemitism.
Part 4: policing the victim.
Another age long antisemitic behavior, a tradition of sort, comes to play here. When a wave of pogroms swept through the Jewish communities of the Russian Empire in the 1880’s, local comities of Christians and Jews were formed for the purpose of investigating the causes of those pogroms. The Christian members in some of those comities decided to change focus. Instead of investigating the causes of the pogroms in the Russian Christian side, where the perpetrators came from, they wanted to investigate the Jews. (On this topic find the Mina Goldberg doctoral work, Berlin 1934.) This was an act of blaming the victims. But it is also an act of policing the victims. It came from people that decided among themselves, and without consulting with their Jewish co members. They decided that the idea of looking for the causes of the pogroms in the Christian side, where the pogromists came from, is wrong, without even exploring it. And they forced their decision on the Jewish members of those committees while ignoring the Jewish protest. Passing critical judgment on other people’s actions and behavior is the act of policing, conducted to make sure they follow the accepted code of conduct. When a crime is committed it is the victimizer that is supposed to be policed, not the victims. Clearly, there was something very twisted in Czarist Russia.
This practice, of passing critical judgment on Jews
trying to change the conditions that brought upon them horrific calamities, continues
to these very days. The best and most obscene example came from the late Hellen
Thomas. The senior and longest serving White House corresponded that chose to
end her remarkable carrier with a despicable bang. Following her call for
Israeli Jews to return to Germany and Poland, she gave an interview to Joy Behar, then on CNN. There she “clarified.” One of the things she said was “The Jews
did not have to leave Germany and Poland following the holocaust since they
were not persecuted anymore.” Putting aside the fact that there was nothing much
for Jews to return to in those countries, and most of Europe at that time; her
statement shows immense ignorance of what suffering is. The idea that after a
genocide or a pogrom, survivors can return to their previous lives as if nothing
happened is patronizing and grossly insensitive. And when it is aimed against
Jews it is clearly antisemitic. And this was a major argument in her critic of
Jews trying to change the conditions that made the holocaust possible. The best
way seen by many jews at the time was by forming a nation state where they can
defend themselves and flourish as a culture. A clear-cut antisemitic attitude was
used as an argument to pass judgment on Jews as a whole and forbid them from
changing their lives for the better. The antisemitic attitude of indifference
to Jewish suffering and concerns, was used as an argument against the very
existence of Israel. Not a critique of its policies but denying its right to
exist. Since a nation state is the legitimate right of every nation the idea
itself is discriminatory towards Jews. The justification for this
discrimination is the accusation of ‘taking someone else’s land’. That someone
been the Palestinians. This accusation is historically inaccurate. Most of the land owned by Jews prior to 1948,
was purchased from wealthy Arab landlords. After 1948, when Israel was formed,
its government gained control of more land. Most of it was state land. Land
that was owned by the British government. This was a land one governing
authority inherited from its predecessor. The Arab lands that Israel did gain,
were gained because of a war of survival. A war Israel did not start. The
debate about Israel’s creation is about that part. Was it justified or not. This
debate is harsh and painful for both sides. And extremely politicized. But
Hellen Thomas earlier statement, about Israeli Jews going back to Germany and
Poland, shows that her problem was not with Israel’s conduct during its war of
independence, but with its very existence. She used an antisemitic assumption, to justify
an anti-Zionist position. In doing so she demonstrated how little the space is
between antisemitism and Anti-Zionism.
Next antisemitic police action against the Jews came courtesy
of congresswoman Ilhan Omar, one of the 3 stars of the earlier mentioned squad.
The other 2 are of course Rashida Talib, and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. This one
was a part of a package of antisemitic concepts and attitudes. It starts with
her infamous “it’s all about the Benjamines” remark regarding AIPAC. This was
criticized and denounced as an antisemitic trope because it raised the age-old
antisemitic motive associating Jews with money and control. It suggested that a
group of people, whose common denominators are been Jewish, and wishing to have
good relation between the USA and the Jewish state, are motivated by greed and
manipulating politicians by greed. In doing so it denied the existence of common
values, common interest, and the legitimacy of other opinions in politics. It
is also a double standard. Because it is taken for granted that all immigrant
communities in the USA are allowed to desire good relations between their home
country, and their countries of origin. But when it comes to Jews, not only it
is not okay, but is solely associated with the worse stereotypes of Jews, greed
and power. But it is more than just a trope and a double standard. Describing
people as so greedy that they refer to their money bills on a first name basis
is cartoonish. And describing Jewish “greed” with cartoons is a known tradition
of the worse forms of antisemitism. It is a dehumanizing language.
For those who remember this affair from 5 years ago,
she did apologize. But that was not the end of it. Afterwards, in a town hall
meeting available on youtube, she introduced a problematic world view. She
stated that mentioning the suffering of Jews, prevents mentioning the suffering
of Palestinians. This is nonsense, because there is no reason that the mentioning
of the suffering of one community will come at expense of mentioning the
suffering of another community. It also false since descriptions and discussions
of Palestinian suffering existed in Jewish spaces in both Israel, USA, and
Europe for many decades. It was so effective it founded and motivated political
movements that championed the two-state solution, in both Israel and the USA.
These movements argued that it will provide security for Israel and will end
Palestinian suffering. She was erasing the peace camp.
Next, she said, “What I am fearful is that, because
Rashida and I are Muslim, that a lot of our Jewish colleague, a lot of our constituents
(she mentioned her Jewish constituency earlier, b.t.), a lot of our allies
go to thinking that everything we say about Israel, to be antisemitic because
we are Muslim. And so, to me it is something becomes designed to end the debate.”
This is a variation of a recognized form of left-wing antisemitism called ‘The Livingstone formulation.’ Named after former mayor of London Ken Livingstone, 2000-2008.
It was identified and defined by British sociologist Dr. David Hirsh of Goldsmith
University of London, in 2010. It described an institutionalized behavior,
especially in the British Labor party under Jeremy Corbin. In this behavior,
whenever Jews complained about antisemitism, they were immediately accused of
been a part of a conspiracy to remove Jeremy Corbin from his leadership
position. This is done without even trying to listen before passing judgement. It
was a form of police action. Here, in this quote, Ilhan Omar gives ill
intention motives for those accusing her and Rashida Talib of antisemitism. Those
alleged motives are racism towards Muslims and attempting to shut down the
debate. In doing so, she, like any other practitioner of the Livingstone formulation,
ostracizes the complainer through this false labeling. And that is a punishment.
This is policing. If antisemitism and racism are factors in the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and they are, exposing them and clearing them away,
will help solving it. Ilhan Omar and the rest of the squad are doing the opposite,
denying a discussion about it.
If you think this tradition of policing Jewish responses
to antisemitism is limited only to Israel related matters, David Chappelle and Jon
Stewart are here to demonstrate that it is not the case. Chappelle piece on
SNL, following the Kanye West affair, was criticized for been antisemitic. And
it was. It was a nasty police action. He mocked the concerns of Jews over
antisemitism with 2 contradicting lines. The first one, served as an advice to
Kanye West, suggested that American Jews are easily manipulated. Once you formalistically
condemn antisemitism, you can throw everything you want at them. The other line
introduced the Jews as oversensitive drama queens, because “you cannot say ‘the
Jews’ in Hollywood”. This is obviously made up. I guess he can always say
it was just a joke. Except his jokes are social commentaries. And this
commentary included a defense of Kanye West, as if he confused the large number
of Jews in the film industry with control.
In the highlight of this commentary, he forbade Jews from
criticizing and taking action against the Antisemitic tweet of NFL player Kyrie
Irving. “The NBA told him he should apologize and he was slow to apologize
and the list of demands to get back in their good graces got longer and longer,
but, this, where you know I draw the line. I know Jewish people have
through some terrible s—t all over the world but you cannot blame that on black
Americans.” How is criticizing one black celebrity over an antisemitic
tweet is blaming black Americans for the troubles Jews had elsewhere? He fabricated
something that did not exist and used it as an excuse to monitor, police, “draw
the line,” on Jewish reactions to the antisemitism that harms them.
When Jon Stewart commented on the affair in ‘The late show with Stephen Colbert,’ he may have tried to do some damage control. He may have
tried to find a POV that both Jews and Black folks can agree with. Whether or
not that was the case, the end-result was bad, very bad.
Jon Stewart, been Jewish, has every right to be as
harsh as he feels necessary on Jewish issues. Internal criticism is not
policing, even when it is harsher. It is also not beyond scrutiny. He argued
that penalizing for a thought is wrong. That is a legitimate POV. But that has been
the standard operating procedure when other minority groups in the USA were
offended by tweets and remarks made by other people. If he is against that mode
of activity why he hasn’t said anything about that before? Or since?
He said that the best way to deal with foul ideas is
by exposing them to the fresh air. Agreed. But that contradicts his claim that calling
them antisemitic shuts down the debate. How can we expose something to the
fresh air, and the cleansing sun, without calling it for what it is? The fact
that it is Ilhan Omar’s line and not his original thought does not help the image
of this argument.
He found one thing Chappelle said to be constructive.
“That it shouldn’t be this difficult to talk about it.” That is not
exactly what Chapelle had said but that is beside the point. He literally appointed
an outsider to measure how Jews response to their own abuse. How can he even
suggest monitoring the response of parents when they hear that their kids are
called “oven doggers” in the college they sent them to? Or the responses of members of a community
visiting the recent vandalization of their community center or their synagogue?
Or seeing and hearing a public figure with millions of followers echoing some
of the many tropes that brought so many calamities on the Jewish people? Abuse is a terrifying experience. Because of
that it is always difficult for the victims and those related to them to talk
about it. The reason it is hard to talk
about it is because it is an abuse. Because of that the custom in present day
society is to allow those affected by the abuse to express their fears, anger, and
frustrations, through every means available, except violence, and racial
language. Those forms of accepted expression can be silence, tears, or rage. The
idea that there should be someone with a barometer measuring these modes of
expression is in complete contradiction with this approach.
He argued that conversation and explanations are a better
way. He is wrong because the two are not mutually exclusive. There should be a
room for conversations between communities, a wide one. For such a conversation
to be effective it must not be under the supervision of any barometer of sensitivity.
All sides must be willing to listen to each other no matter how difficult it
gets. For the conversation to be effective, it cannot avoid the difficult
staff. This is also the most likely way to win over the haters. Since it takes
on their convictions. But even than I wouldn’t get my hopes up. Such difficult
conversations are more likely to prevent the haters from spreading their hate.
Because what Jon Stewart had said was too much of a
mess of self-contradictory arguments his remarks cannot be considered an approval
of antisemitic behavior. But in adopting Ilhan Omar’s concept that accusations
of antisemitism shut down the debate, he does demonstrate how an antisemitic attitude
that rises in the conversation about Israel can migrate into the discussion of
other Jewish issues that have nothing to do with Israel.
No comments:
Post a Comment