From a personal perspective, there are some conditions which need to be met, and which can be called "social courtesy," or the recognition that respect for the rights of others must be a consideration those who wish to protest give to others who may be affected by some aspect of their protest, other than simply being offended by the content. As an educator, while I respect the right of students to protest on a school campus, I also believe that the protest should not interfere with the rights of other students, those who choose either not to protest, or who disagree with the content of the protest, to continue to pursue their education without interruption. That's a simple display of respect and recognition for the rights of others that goes a long way toward legitimizing the protesters and validating their cause.
A second condition that I believe must be met is that a protest must not resort to violence to get its way. That zaps the legitimacy of the cause, especially if the protest is against a war. Usually, violence in a protest is precipitated by an incident which causes feelings to run high, or because there are infiltrators in the protest with a different agenda, desiring a different outcome. In the past, law enforcement sometimes precipitated violence in protests, especially during the Vietnam War era, and though there has been considerable training in showing restraint and avoiding conflict when involved in protests, that still does happen on occasion.
Respect for the diversity and differences among the human community is a third condition I believe must be met to legitimize protest as a means of free expression. Those against whom the protest is being directed may be guilty of crimes, or discrimination, or bigotry. But their race and ethnicity, not something over which they've had control, are off limits, as is their religion, their sexual preference or any other aspect of their personal lifestyle and the culture from which they come. There's a distinct difference between protest, insult and insurrection.
Perception of Protesters Distracts From the Message of the Protest
There have been arrests, clashes with school security and law enforcement, and some ugly racial incidents, that have marred the image of "peaceful protests." In some cases, pro-Israeli protesters are present, and that increases the possibility of violent clashes. The protests at Columbia, and at UCLA, which got a lot of media attention because they are in New York and Los Angeles, cities that are the focus of negative attention from conservative media sources, were criticized for damage to the building that was occupied, and for a massive amount of trash that was left behind. Reports of some protesters expecting food to be delivered to them helps create an image of the protest that distracts from its intentions.
The far right wing media is just looking for ways to discredit the protesters as a bunch of violent, spoiled liberal children, and to split the Democratic party on this particular issue. That's laughable in light of their defense of the Capitol building's attackers on January 6th, but it's not an excuse to be careless. A lot of the rhetoric starts out with accusations of violence and racism against protesters, so it is vitally important for protests to defy those accusations by keeping order and not letting their protests get to the point where they can be accused of violence or racism.
There have been multiple accusations of anti-Semitism associated with the protests. That comes largely from the influence of right wing Evangelicals who focus on a gross misinterpretation and misapplication of Genesis 12:3 by claiming that anyone who utters a critical word against the modern state of Israel, regardless of what they are doing, is subject to being cursed by God. Criticizing and protesting against a war being carried on by the modern state of Israel does not meet the definition of the term "curse" in Hebrew, written in Genesis, nor do those verses apply at all in any context to the modern political state known as Israel.
No doubt there are those among the protesters who are anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism is, by definition, hostility toward and discrimination against persons of the Jewish race, though Arabs are also Semitic, by racial definition, and many of them are also descendants of Abraham. Some protests have individuals who do express anti-Semitism by definition, but the vast majority of them are protesting what they see as a military over-reaction, extending into vengeance, of the IDF at the orders of the Israeli prime minister and its far right wing Likud party's majority government. I do not see protesting a violent war that has an inordinate number of civilian casualties and this large of a field of destruction of civilian property being waged by Israel as anti-Semitic.
Yes, There's a Lot of Violence in the World
Claiming that other violence and genocide in the world goes either unnoticed by these protesters, or that they unfairly target Israel and don't care about the others because they are anti-Semitic is not a legitimate criticism. There is a lot of other violence, and genocide, happening in the world, and that's probably an accurate description of humanity on this planet at any time in history. This one, however, is getting protests, not because Israel is a Jewish state, or really having anything to do with Jewish nationality or identity, but because it is violence which the United States has the leverage to moderate, or control, and perhaps stop it from happening.
The manner in which the military operation is being carried out is causing too many civilian casualties. And that's a problem. Though the right wants to put this, as they do everything else, in a political and ideological "us vs them" basket, always defining Israel as "the good guys" and putting all Palestinians in with the Islamic militants and terrorists, because they are Islamic, that's not necessarily what's causing the protesters to raise their voices. There are plenty of Israelis who are opposed to the manner in which their military force is conducting this war.
Of course, the situation is one which has been causing violence ever since the British Empire made the territory of Palestine a protectorate instead of an independent state as was the rest of the middle eastern territory ceded by the Ottoman Empire after World War 1. The intention to set it aside and open the territory up to Jewish immigration, which increased faster than realized as a result of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis, naturally caused controversy that has let to several wars, the displacement and impoverishment of millions of people, and to the current situation into which terrorist organizations developed out of a sense of powerlessness.
It's not hypocritical, or anti-Semitic, to protest against this particular war and the excessive civilian casualties it is producing, as opposed to not protesting the Sudan civil war that is also responsible for a large number of civilian deaths, because those who hear and see these protests have a lot more influence over the Israeli-Hamas war than they do over the others. It's not difficult for a news source looking to prove their point to find anti-Semitic protesters, including radical Muslims for whom the destruction of the Israeli state is a political and religious goal. But it's less difficult to find Islamophobic, racist, hateful agitators and bigots among the far right wing protesters who are taking Israel's side. I'm sure that those who take this seriously wouldn't appreciate being classified or characterized that way.
Some Closing Thoughts
Any discussion or protest that leaves out the horror and the brutal, inhumane, violent, vicious terrorism of the October 7th attack, the taking and holding of hostages, the sexual violation and torment of women and children, the brutal murders, torture and total lack of humanity of the Hamas attack is subject to questions about its anti-Semitic nature. If there's righteous anger over the attacks on Gaza and over the civilian deaths there, then there must be the same righteous anger over the October 7th attack. And I think that's where the line on defining a protest as anti-Semitic or not can be drawn. If those protesting are one-sidedly condeming Israel while letting Hamas off the hook or leaving them completely out of the discussion, then they're anti-Semitic by complete definition of the term.
I'm also noticing a tendency in the right-leaning media in this country to pull this in and try and make a political issue out of it to raise doubts over Biden's leadership capability in order to try and suppress his potential vote total in the fall. Finding fault lines among differences in race, ethnicity, culture and religion to create the image that the Democratic party is "fracturing" over this particular issue is a big part of what we're seeing in the media right now. I would not be surprised if there's some Russian interference happening as well.
However, it's pretty clear that issues in middle eastern conflict are not high on the voters list, and it seems to be even more clear that while younger voters are found on both sides of the issue, it's not causing the lack of enthusiasm for voting that some pollsters and news commentators want to make us think is happening. It's certainly not doom and gloom, and, thanks to the commentators and reporters who work for MSNBC for digging it out, it does not seem to be the kind of issue that spells disaster for Democrats in November. In fact, it looks like it might actually be something that brings voters in. Biden, while not setting aside long standing American policy regarding Israel, is also doing more than anyone else to work for a permanent cease fire, increase the humanitarian aid to Gaza's residents and use the influence and power of the United States to resolve this particular conflict at the negotiating table.
He's steered clear of accusations of anti-Semitism, and has affirmed the decades-old commitment to a two state solution in Palestine. His opponent wants to bulldoze Gaza and build beach resorts. So when it comes down to it, staying home or voting for Trump is not going to help this cause that Democrats want to pursue.
No comments:
Post a Comment