An Untenable Tinderbox
The conversation over the war in Gaza is becoming more toxic, and it is not helping anyone
As a mental rule of law when evaluating content on the Israel-Hamas war, whenever someone claims they know everything about the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, they are lying. For those proclaiming they represent the moral authority and speak the absolute truth that “the others” don’t want to or are scared to talk about, take their words with a heavy grain of salt.
When it comes to what’s going on in the Middle East, there is no black or white, there are only infinite shades of grey. Understandably, this is an issue that contains more emotions than logical facts and realism. For some, this is a personal issue that affects them directly, whether they are Jews who are experiencing a rise in hate towards their communities, or Muslims who have family members or relatives killed in Gaza due to worsening conditions and Israeli airstrikes. But what is frustrating and irritating about the situation is the level of maximalist political stances many have taken during the war.
On the pro-Palestinian side, I sympathize with their arguments that it is an immoral and unjust war that demands a ceasefire to stop human suffering, and the lack of response over the tragedy by so many is disgusting at best and disgraceful at worst. However, for a side that positions itself as the compassionate position, they are not winning hearts and minds based on that.
The language based on condescension and a pretense of moral superiority by many activists is repelling many moderates and those who are seeing this tragedy through a nuanced lens. Calling Israel’s actions a “genocide” is a controversial and hotly debated term that is now going through the process of international law. As I have stated on this platform before, based on the context at the time of writing, I do not believe Israel is committing genocide. The language surrounding the international law definition, of “proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy” is still murky when examining Israel’s actions. There is no denying that Israel is committing war crimes that are targeting civilians, but I am still not sure whether the proven intent is in a genocidal context.
We can debate for as long as we want over whether the words from Israel’s leaders are directly translated into policies against Gazans in the warzone, but it does not dilute the fact that many of Israel’s actions constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. The maximalism adopted by many pro-Palestine supporters and activists in shaming people who are appalled by Israel’s conduct of war but are not willing to call it a genocide is not moving anyone to support their side. Furthermore, it is repelling many politically neutral and soft-Israel supporters from fully joining the pro-Palestine argument given the portrayal of the movement are angry young activists shouting and promoting action that seems extreme to many.
The vitriol towards anyone who disagrees with their position is quite astonishing. On social media, people who were once sympathetic to Israel directly after the events of October 7 but did not comment since were barraged on Twitter, while the street chants of “Genocide Joe” have become more prevalent in US streets. Setting aside the political dissection of why calling Biden “Genocide Joe” is a ridiculous statement, calling people nicknames and harassing others simply based on their political stance, and in some cases without context, is simply counterproductive to the cause of gaining sympathy for the movement writ large.
In addition, repeatedly using the phrase “From the River to the Sea” is rich coming from the same category of progressives who are fiercely against microaggressions on college campuses. Many in society widely agree that “From the River to the Sea” is antisemitic, but the insistence on using it inside such circles, and deliberately saying it isn’t bigoted, is not helping the pro-Palestine side in any way.
The toxic rhetoric in the pro-Palestine movement gives reminders of the “Defund the Police” movement during the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. There are points raised in the process that deserve some attention and discussion, but the way of conducting the conversation leaves a lot to be desired from moderates, and plenty of political ammo for opponents.
Which leads me to the pro-Israel side. People are pro-Israel for a wide variety of reasons, some might be sympathetic due to the October 7 terrorist attack, and some might be Jews themselves who were reminded of the inhumanity towards Jews during the Holocaust. I am not going to quibble with whether the intentions expressed by the pro-Israel or the pro-Palestinian side are genuine or performative, or delve deep into the well-funded political lobbying that has been promoting Israeli causes (whether they are good or bad is reserved for future discussions) for decades, there are still issues I have with this side of the argument.
On one hand, as many pro-Israel supporters will argue, criticizing Israel’s policy is not antisemitic. Israel is a nation-state, and it does not represent the Jewish people as a whole. But in online discourse, legitimate arguments on Israel’s conduct of war and criticism for those who support Israel as antisemitic is simly counterproductive, and it is more dangerous for Jews. Suppose everyone begins labeling any criticism of Israel as antisemitic. In that case, it cheapens the term and brings more danger for those who experience actual antisemitism as people will treat it less severely as the weight the term carries.
What is more alarming is how the pro-Israel side deals with cancel culture. Sure, there are some instances where people from the pro-Palestinian side who espoused openly pro-Hamas views or October 7 denialism deserve to be canceled because of their antisemitic views. But the recent news, including universities cracking down on pro-Palestinian protestors who are peacefully demonstrating, USC canceling a Muslim student valedictorian from giving a speech because she openly supports Palestine, or Columbia University suspending and letting police arrest more than 100 students, do not bold well for academic freedom and the expression of alternate views. I understand and share some frustration that many have on campus leftist students, but the side that always brings up free speech as their main priority is silent when the other side’s speech is suppressed. It’s almost like they are disingenuous about free speech in the first place!
That suppression even goes outside of college campuses. Some CEOs have openly proclaimed they will blacklist graduates from Harvard because they signed a pro-Palestinian letter that criticized Israel. As businesses, they don’t share the same responsibilities as the government under the First Amendment, but it sure does not help the freedom of speech when you are punishing others for what they might have done in the past. You do not know whether these students regret what they did in the past when faced with their actions years later, and on a larger societal scale, it is unhealthy for people to quell debate when it should be fostered. Not to mention tech companies like Google, which sacked 28 members of their staff after they protested the company’s cloud contract with Israel, is fostering a worsening climate of illiberalism and unfree speech when even opposition to company support can end up in termination of employment.
On both sides of the argument, similar features seem to emerge, They believe their side is morally superior, they believe the groups of people they are supporting are in a vulnerable position that is ignored by too many, and they see ideologies like Western feminism are betraying their side, they believe the media is not covering their side of the story as much as they want, they believe the other side is having an unfair advantage in the information war, and they believe that the vast majority on the other side is positioning with extremists when the truth is more nuanced and critical.
Another shared commonality is how they exchange with people who disagree with each other. Many on the pro-Palestine side often “insult” pro-Israel supporters as “Zionists.” For context, Zionists are people who believe in the development and protection of a Jewish nation and homeland in what is now Israel, which at the time of Israel’s founding was built on the land of Palestine. It is not a fancy throw-away gotcha code for “Israel supporter,” it just makes you sound petulant.
In the same dimension, Anti-Zionism, like Zionism, is a political ideology. Yes, certain justifications of anti-zionism veer to the dangerous territory of antisemitism, but identifying everyone anti-zionist as antisemitic is a counterproductive position to take. Both Zionism and Anti-Zionism are political ideologies that will attract supporters and critics, they are not fancy insults to be easily thrown around.
Also, I find the “newly discovered” outrage towards Western hypocrisy fascinating. When the West does something, people will attack them for going back to their imperialist roots, and when Western countries don’t do anything they are blamed for being complicit. There are valid points made from these views, but many people are acting like this is the first time the West has been hypocritical on any issue, let alone Israel. Those who behave as such are either shocked while experiencing their first major global political event, or they are acting disingenuously and self-aggrandizing to gain more attention.
The debate and conversation of Palestine and Israel is not leaving anytime soon, the cat is already out of the bag, and so is the toxicity. For many young people, there is a generation gap in support towards Palestine and Israel. For many others, it is the Iraq war of this generation, and they would argue the repercussions will be felt decades later in the same way people blame the Iraq war for the election victory of Donald Trump.
It is not wrong to think about the Israel-Hamas in that manner, which makes it imperative that we make this conversation go right. Rhetoric on social media, and new digital media that are openly pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, is driving the debate even further. Most dangerously, it will push out the worst perceptions of either side of the argument to the max, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy of only seeing each other in a negative light.
To bring the conversation back on a productive track, people from all sides of the argument need to hear each other out, accept what points are valid and which ones are not, call out hate and misinformation when there is such, and understand where people’s support is coming from. Maybe, people should practice a common exercise in debate classes. Pretend to debate, but from the mindset and position of the opposing side, maybe that might cause many to rethink!
If you want to read an alternative perspective on this issue, please check out this article below.
"On the pro-Palestinian side, I sympathize with their arguments that it is an immoral and unjust war that demands a ceasefire to stop human suffering, and the lack of response over the tragedy by so many is disgusting at best and disgraceful at worst. However, for a side that positions itself as the compassionate position, they are not winning hearts and minds based on that." That's your opinion and it is not borne out by polls.