Shredding It's Usefulness
The problem with actions and language (Genocide, Zionism, and degrading everyone who supports Palestine as pro-Hamas)
On May 10 at the UN building in New York, member states in the General Assembly had to decide whether to urge the Security Council to reconsider its decision on Palestine getting full membership, weeks after the US used its veto power to kill the proposal in the first place.
After the General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to support the state of Palestine, the Israeli ambassador walked up to the podium and gave a speech. During the speech, Ambassador Gilad Erdan brought a small shredder with him and began destroying a copy of the United Nations charter before the Assembly. It was a largely performative piece of action widely ridiculed online, while the Chinese manufacturer of the tiny paper shredder Erdan even used that footage to boost sales online!
This is a story of how language is being overused and misused, that the actual meanings of the terms are diluted and rendered meaningless. Much like the paper shredder in real life, political discourse has effectively shredded anything valuable from three powerful terms and phrases surrounding the Gaza war.
I know, I have written a lot on the Gaza war, including an excruciatingly long piece on how the negative discourse is only pouring gasoline into political discussion surrounding the Gaza war, and undoubtedly some of my points from that article will reverberate back here (If you’re interested you can check it out below). However, the specific use of key phrases deserves some longer analysis.
The first term has been widely discussed before in the political sphere, and on this Substack alone: Genocide. In case anyone needs a refresher, here is the UN and international law’s definition:
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
I have already made my position on whether the current war is a genocide pretty clear: At this stage, I don’t think the war constitutes a genocide over whether the phrase “committed with intent” is accurate to be applied in this scenario. Of course, as the war goes on, the situation might change and the actions could lead more into what international law defines as genocide than in the past. Remember, after South Africa’s case accusing Israel of genocide was brought to the International Court of Justice, the justices ruled the accusations of genocide were “plausible.”
On one hand, this does not mean Israel is absolutely 100% committing genocide as some might think. The Court needs to take years to review evidence from the war (which is ever-evolving right now), and it is the subject of much academic debate among international law scholars. More importantly on the other side, we cannot dismiss the growing number of experts and scholars (including many Jewish and/or Israeli scholars studying the Holocaust and genocide) who are warning Israel’s actions can be described as “a textbook case of genocide.”
Proving Israel is committing genocide is a daunting task, just ask Nicaragua. In early May, the ICJ denied a request by the country to order Germany to halt military aid to Israel, citing the European country is not “preventing genocide.” To be clear, the case is not thrown out altogether, and the court will still hear the merits from Nicaragua’s side which will be decided months or even years into the future.
On social media and punditry, the reaction is much more polarizing than the (if you want to call it) more nuanced debate on Israel committing genocide. For pro-Palestine activists and media figures, their use of the word is frequent, to put it mildly. The G-word, as liberal pundit Mehdi Hasan put it, is a dominant feature of their tweets or commentary. Anyone who is supporting Israel or is not sympathetic to the Palestinians is abetting directly or indirectly to one of the worst crimes in human history, and they deserve to be punished for it. Pro-Israel and Western media figures go the other way, scoffing and casually dismissing the allegations of genocide as if they came from a weird secluded part of the internet. Nothing Israel has ever done during the Gaza war could be equivalent to the real genocides of Rwanda or the Holocaust. As with all discourse, both sides make valid points on how society should interpret genocide under the context of the Israel-Hamas war, but the outright moral superiority or plain dismissal is counterproductive and harmful to any nuanced discussion on the issue.
Just to be clear, none of this is in any way trying to diminish the pain and suffering of Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank before and since the horrific terrorist attack on October 7. But the misuse and generalized term of genocide in the public psyche isn’t a serious and appalling form of war crime that needs to be evaluated by legal scholars and experts but as a catch-all phrase for war crimes and humanitarian disasters. Granted, part of the diminished seriousness of the term comes from how Western pundits and politicians have referred to the war in Ukraine as a “genocide” after witnessing the horrors in Bucha and the indefensible transportation of Ukrainian children into Russia, never to be found again. Nonetheless, the misuse and generalization of genocide can lead people into unfounded territory.
For example, many pro-Palestine activists have used the term “Genocide Joe” as a point of criticism towards Joe Biden’s handling of the war. I don’t need to hash out everything that I have problems with in regards to that term, but if you truly believe Joe Biden is abetting genocide in Gaza, you will naturally choose the following options. A: Biden does not deserve to be re-elected because of this issue; B: Anything Biden does that is compassionate or in consideration of the Palestinian side does not make up for anything because he is supporting Israel; and C: Biden is a monster. That explains why in some protests both pro-Palestine and pro-Trump protestors chanted “F**k Joe Biden” at opposite sides, and why they won’t forgive him despite all of his efforts in securing a ceasefire because it never materialized (Although that did happen once last November with Biden pushing for its support). All of this is built on their interpretation of what constitutes genocide, and the unbridled power they believe Joe Biden has which he simply doesn’t possess.
Zionism is also a word that gets thrown out all too frequently in online discourse. For those who need a clarifier on what Zionism means, here is the definition from Vox:
Zionism is Israel’s national ideology. Zionists believe Judaism is a nationality as well as a religion, and that Jews deserve their own state in their ancestral homeland, Israel, in the same way the French people deserve France or the Chinese people should have China. It’s what brought Jews back to Israel in the first place, and also at the heart of what concerns Arabs and Palestinians about the Israeli state.
There is an entire complicated religious and political history surrounding Zionism and the founding of Israel that I don’t have the time to address here, but one of the main points is that Zionism believes that a Jewish national homeland should be established in what was then land belonging to Palestine.
Zionism is essentially a political ideology. You can advocate for it, and you can disagree with it. For those who disagree, it doesn't mean you are an antisemite by default. Some groups like the ADL will disagree with that statement because it uses anti-Israel and anti-Jewish assertions that can be interpreted as antisemitic, and I don’t fully disagree with that because there is a substantial amount of anti-Zionist discourse that borders on antisemitic rhetoric, either deliberately or not. Suzanne Rutland, a Jewish historian from the University of Sydney wrote compellingly on when anti-Zionism becomes antisemitic.
Certainly, within the academic realm, anti-Zionism does not necessarily conflate with antisemitism. As Michelle Goldberg recently wrote, anti-Zionism can emerge from those who believe in the potential for Israelis and Palestinians to live together in the same state, or from well-intentioned concerns for Palestinian suffering, among other reasons.
However, when the real-life impact of anti-Zionism results in cries advocating for the killing of Jews, then it can only be understood as antisemitism. As is any criticism of Zionism or Israel that crosses the line into blatant racism or discrimination, demands to de-platform or exclude Zionists, the resurfacing of tropes and conspiracy theories about Jewish people, or the questioning of Israel’s right to exist as a state.
Many anti-Zionists today, particularly among the progressive left, however, believe Israel was “born in sin” as a racist, settler-colonial state. In their view, Zionists are pursuing ethnic cleansing, expulsions, theft, apartheid and genocide against the Palestinians.
These beliefs were also propagated by the Soviets from the early 1960s as part of their efforts to win over the Arab world.
It is important to stress that criticising the Israeli government’s actions towards the Palestinians is not inherently anti-Zionist. This includes legitimate criticism of Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza and the government’s failure to set out clear plans for the aftermath of the war.
For people who see themselves as Zionists, you don’t need to abandon your beliefs to see the Gaza war as a humanitarian catastrophe caused by the Israeli government’s reckless and appalling actions that did not minimize civilian deaths in the slightest. The way people throw the terms “Zionist” and “Zionism” as a catch-all for Israel supporters is counterproductive at best, and antisemitic at worst. People can disagree on whether Zionism can play a role in solving the Israel-Palestine conflict or not, but using it as a “slam dunk” to end a political discussion is simply stupid. When pro-Palestine protestors block Jewish students who identify as Zionists from entering school grounds because of their views, sorry not sorry but you are acting in an antisemitic way.
Yes, Zionism is up for a reckoning right now, and rightfully so. Maybe the approach needs to be, as the progressive journalist Naomi Klein put it, “an exodus from Zionism” (I don’t agree with that argument, but it is a position many people, including Jews, sympathize with). Or maybe a reform needs to be put in place that treats Israelis living in Israel and the Palestinians who live alongside them more fairly and equally. None of this is easy, but we have to try to discuss it fairly and constructively. As the historian Yuval Noah Harari wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post:
After 2,000 years, Jews from all over the world returned to Jerusalem, ostensibly to put into practice what they had learned. What great truth, then, did Jews discover in 2,000 years of study? Well, judging by the words and actions of Netanyahu and his allies, the Jews discovered what Vespasian, Titus and their legionnaires knew from the very beginning: They discovered the thirst for power, the joy of feeling superior and the dark pleasure of crushing weaker people under their feet. If that is indeed what Jews discovered, then what a waste of 2,000 years! Instead of asking for Yavneh, Ben Zakkai should have asked Vespasian and Titus to teach him what the Romans already knew.
If Jews have learned anything over the past 2,000 years that Titus didn’t know, now is the time to show it.
Which hence leads to the third phrase that is worth pondering over: “Criticizing Israel is not inherently antisemitic.” In my view, there is nothing wrong with that statement, and many pro-Israel supporters agree with that claim. However, one group that did not get the memo is the Israeli government.
After Joe Biden said he would threaten to suspend arms shipments to Israel if it proceeded with its Rafah invasion, Israel's National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir tweeted “Hamas ♥ Biden” shortly afterward. Remember, Ben-Gvir is the same person who talked of the supremacy of freedom of movement for Jewish West Bank settlers over that same right for Palestinians, now being brought as evidence by South Africa accusing Israel of genocide. Ben-Gvir is not a good person (to put it generously), and he is criticizing the president of the United States, the strongest supporter of Israel the country has ever seen, for being a Hamas sympathizer.
It’s not a one-off inside the Israeli government. Remember Mr. UN Charter Paper Shredder? Israel’s ambassador to the UN actually called the United Nations a “terror group.” Of course, it’s stupid, and of course, it’s emblematic of a far-right government that will stop at no point, calling anyone who brings up any critiques of Israel and its war conduct, as Hamas sympathizers. They put shame on Israel’s standing on the world stage, and an insulting embarrassment to many Israelis who do not agree or sympathize with their leaders’ arguably genocidal talking points that have failed to secure the hostages and bring them back to their loved ones. Remember, thousands have protested since the war began over the government’s failures on and after October 7, calling for a ceasefire and the release of hostages.
Degrading and diminishing everyone who is unsupportive of Israel’s actions as Hamas sympathizers doesn’t just diminish words like antisemitism, it puts Jews in real danger. If everything that is pro-Palestine or Israel-critical can be considered antisemitism, people will take less time and effort to believe and condemn actual antisemitism in society. As political scientist Ian Bremmer put it in a recent tweet, “Misusing words in this way only dilutes their power, Something Israel of all countries should be concerned about.”