With the recent surprise attack on Israel by Hamas, I’d like to clarify what I think on what’s transpiring and why I think what I do.
Before I get to that, however, I’d like to say that most people I have met, due to the awareness of the conflict over many years, tend to view themselves an expert. Certainly, I’m not even an expert. I have never been to Israel, but I have met those who have. As a Jewish person, I am much more likely to know of someone impacted by this, or who might have been impacted by a previous attack.
With reports coming out of massacres of entire villages and savagery against women, children, and the elderly, and also including that several Americans have either been captured or killed, I am supportive of Israel in its response. Here, in the United States, we haven’t really had a severe conflict on our soil since the 1800s, but for Israel, attacks happen on a fairly regular frequency. There have been ceasefires before, but the militant groups frequently break them.
I will repeat myself if I haven’t made myself clear enough for you, I am supportive of Israel in its response.
On a Potential Ceasefire
There has been increasing calls for an Israel-Hamas ceasefire. I’d like to make my position clear.
I do not support a ceasefire that doesn’t include the immediate safe release of hostages by Hamas. I do not think it is in the best interests of Israel to engage in a ceasefire without this. Hamas says outright that they are holding hostages, and this should not be ignored, especially by Israel. I firmly believe that as long as hostages are being held, Israel has a right to make counter military decisions on this basis.
Simply doing a ceasefire, without any arrangements behind it, I find unacceptable. I neither find it strategically intelligent or particularly safe for Israel, in the best interests of its people, to engage in a ceasefire without set arrangements. But the immediate safe release of hostages by Hamas must come first before that conversation should even begin.
Straight Up Antisemitism!
I have come to the inevitable conclusion that much of the ‘Pro-Palestinian’ ‘ceasefire’ ‘movement’ is really just straight up antisemitism in seemingly nice clothing. A hatred towards Jews because the atrocity of October 7th took place on Israeli soil. A distrust towards Jews on just about everything about what happened that day, and before. A ‘movement’ that doesn’t care about the Palestinians, Israelis, or the hostages and their families, but wants to specifically undermine Israel. It’s a moral outrage clothed in deep Jew-hatred. Let me explain.
The canard of suggesting October 7th not happening at all evokes the same antisemitic ideology that the Holocaust never happened at all. Famous actor Mel Gibson’s father, Hutton Gibson, once said the following in an interview in 2004:
“These people [World War II Nazis] are efficient. They know how to do things, and if they had set out to kill six million Jews, they would have done it. But all we hear about is Holocaust survivors. ‘Oh, we knew it happened. Here is a survivor, there is a survivor. My father and mother were survivors.’ They weren’t that efficient. There were too many survivors. And they claim there were six million in Poland. After the war, there were 200,000, it is said. Therefore, he must have killed six million of them. They simply got up and left. They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney, Australia, and Los Angeles. They have to have some place to go where there is money. No, they don’t work anywhere where they can get out of it. They are great pencil pushers and they are the superior people, and therefore they are entitled to the top jobs, supervisory stuff and so on.”
Antisemites will reason tragedies as non-existent so that they may have permission to continue on their path of dehumanizing, demeaning, and attacking those who are Jewish or affiliated with them.
Here’s a tweet from a fellow Democrat back in 2019 arguing that Israel *is* occupying Gaza. In 2019.
Here’s the same tweeter in 2023, arguing that Israel is now “reoccupying” Gaza.
This leads into another aspect I don’t care to hear, the “my tax dollars are supporting an occupation/genocide/killing Palestinian children/innocent civilians” angle. It’s so tone deaf. Let’s go back into our own history.
Post-9/11 we went to war in the Middle East. In doing so, we had an armed conflict, which means it’s possible those sorts of things occurred during it, between 2001 and 2021, in Afghanistan. We occupied Iraq with a conflict that lasted from 2001 to 2011, with an estimated 100,000 civilian casualties. According to a UN report, the Taliban was responsible for 76% of civilian causalities by 2009, but there is that 24% not of their responsibility. But I get it, after two years of no longer having such a presence and the utter failure of that endeavor, we now know what is best for the Middle East as a region. Are we going to call for troops to be sent over to retrieve the American hostages instead? Or are we just going to say f*ck you to the hostages and their families entirely? Pick a lane here, making no sense.
What I’m saying is, if you paid your taxes between 2001 and 2021, your tax dollars very likely went to all the things you are saying Israel of doing. I don’t remember hearing that noise about this back then. It’s like it never happened. My only conclusion on this message is that it’s about Israel responding to an attack on their soil, and that obviously offends some people, so they try to cloak their antisemitism in “my government’s tax dollars” when what they really want to do is hurt or hinder Israel, and its people. Yes, the tax dollars being claimed is specifically used to protect Israelis, so now they obviously don’t actually want to protect them anymore. They try to make it sound smart, but in reality, it’s more dead Jews.
It’s also worth addressing the constant barrage of Israeli apartheid that I have heard – manly from non-Jews – which definitely speaks for itself. I grew up being told how special Israel was from family, but sure, perfect strangers arguing with me about this is bound to be effective.
As an American, I have had leaders I do not agree with. The previous Presidential Administration is a great example, but so was Dubya. I also didn’t care for some leaders of my state, former Governor Mitt Romney (the first elected official I also ever met). So, when I see people equate Netanyahu’s decisions with those of all of Israel, that poses a problem not because I am Jewish, but because I’m an American. It’s inherently wrong. People who have known my politics over the past decade know I’m not “far-right,” they know I don’t find that appealing. The issue between Netanyahu and Israelis is really between them, not me. As an American, I speak in disagreement of my own leaders because that’s how my government works. My government doesn’t work less by not being able to personally dictate my own views on other world leaders who have their own constituency, their own people, to answer to. Clearly, these individuals don’t trust Israelis.
Israel is home to several Jewish populations from across the world, not just Ashkenazi Jews. There are Mizrahi Jews who originated from Middle Eastern Muslim countries and North Africa. Many of them were expelled from their countries when Israel was founded and emigrated there. The families that did this never left the Middle East. How are Mizrahi Jews considered “white colonizers” when they were forced to leave their homes in Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq and Libya? Then there is also Sephardic Jews from Spain and Portugal. There are also Israeli Arabs as well. Israel does have similar problems as the United States does, such as racism, etc, so suggesting Israel is apartheid might as well be saying the United States is. I’m way more inclined to believe that there is a Jewish apartheid across the Middle East. On that, I hear crickets.
Finally, some of the places being protested aren’t even related to Israel. They are protesting their fellow Americans, specifically American Jews.
Now, I have also seen tokenizing of Jews in related to these protests, so let me be clear for you: Jews are not a monolith. It may completely shock you to think about it, but thoughts and ideas within the Jewish community differ. We’re not all the same: One Jewish person’s opinion doesn’t actually cancel another Jewish person’s opinion; it just doesn’t work that way.
Think about it in regard to other populations: Has every woman you ever met been exactly the same? How about every black person? Every person with brown eyes? Can honestly say that any person with similar qualities were inherently all the same? If you’re answer “no,” then using the actions/decisions of some Jews against others who express a disagreement with that view, you are being ignorant. That type of ignorance promotes antisemitism. I know many of the people doing this know better, you don’t need to be smart to know.
Similarly, even if every Amercian Jew from coast to coast came out against Israel’s actions, which I already indicated isn’t in the cards, we’re not a monolith, Israel wouldn’t necessarily be our government. Certainly, for me, my government is the United States and always has been. I support Israel’s existence, including defending itself, based on things involving my upbringing and culture. I’m also aware I don’t have to justify my upbringing and culture to anyone else – it’s not theirs, it’s mine.
I hope you feel better after reading what I have written because I feel better having written it.
“Israel is committing genocide!”
Well, no, it isn’t. The attack by Hamas on Israeli citizens was actually about genocide. In fact, the attack coincided with a significant normalization of Israel within the region. How is the normalization of Israel important? It helps create peace. Those who critique Israel’s actions instead of hammering Hamas sound inexplicably more invested in continuing the conflict that has plagued the region since Israel was first founded.
The problem with conflating Israel (and its supporters) with their enemies is how much of that is a patently false equivalency. I remember when 9/11 happened and the rise of Islamophobia afterwards. Applying the same mentality to the United States in that context would essentially make all Americans terrorists. It’s too ridiculous for words.
Think about how often individual people get to choose their critics? Must happen all the time. JUST KIDDING! You can’t reason to me that Israel somehow has magically more control over things than any other nation, I don’t buy it. With that in mind, I can only conclude that either their security measures are something important to its people or to its government. Israel, due to having enemies frequently at their doorstep, has much more experience with military responses than most Americans even experience.
So, in another forum, when I questioned as to whether a genocide was, I got the response “Are you stupid? Do you know what genocide is?” Whether I know or not, I was not making the accusation as such, so I’m certainly not required to provide speculation, or even more so, evidence, of it. In normal conversations with others, those who argue something is taking place are required to provide evidence of it happening. I provide the definition above, as a general curtesy.
I simply put into my browser a question of how many people live in Gaza and got this result.
So, I rounded up the number from the tweet above (from Ashik) in my browser to get a calculated amount in terms of percentage. So, Israel is intending to commit genocide but within a month has only managed to murder 0.7% of the entire population of Gaza? Not even 1%?
Proximity certainly isn’t an issue! And they have invaded as well, with tanks? If I understand it correctly, that number is actually given by Hamas. It looks like to me there is evidence of conflict, but none of these other things that have been happening without October 7th occurring first. Before October 7th, there was a ceasefire, which if I am not mistaken, Israel (and its current Parliament) was taking part of. So, the moment Israel acts in self-defense, its committing genocide? Huh? What?
“…Hamas is where Palestinians are…”
While there is a lot of stuff here, but I’d like to pay attention to when Noura Erakat states (between 7:09-7:42) that “…Hamas is not an exogenous force in Palestinian society. Hamas emerged, is part of it, is wherever Palestinians are, is a concept in people’s minds, and will, even if you decimate it either go underground or it will be reproduced in another political party with a military wing that insists on using military force that must be used in line with international law but will insist in using military armed force to ensure the end of the occupation.” Okay, say what now? Did she just argue that all Palestinians are Hamas on MSNBC? It sounds like to me she was outright justifying Hamas, which did not follow international law on October 7th and hasn’t done every single day since by holding hostages.
So, I checked out her X account since I never heard this angle before, well except from Israeli officials who have been severely criticized for it. I happen to find this:
I decided to peer deeper into this thread, knowing that she did in fact read it. I came across this:
So, Israel is managing an occupation under an apartheid regime even though their “military and intelligence capabilities” are “mediocre”? That sounds ridiculous and impossible. Checking the definition:
Yeah, still sounds like doublespeak nonsense. If they’re “not very good” in terms of their military and intelligence, then why should I believe there is an occupation and apartheid that is “very good”? Make it make sense.
“…Hamas is where Palestinians are…,” Part 2
If you’re wondering if the last update was out of a silo, or merely from my own view, you’d be wrong. I simply have been paying attention, something I’m very, very good at doing.
You know how it when someone says something to agree with you, and then goes “…but…” essentially disregarding the first part of what they actually said. This happens above in this interview with Diana Buttu on October 7th, when the attack on Israel occurred. So, what she really says about the attack is, “…I don’t think that we should underestimate the desire of people to actually be free, and the fact that Palestinians have been going through this for 56 years, so the fact that we just this year alone we’ve seen…[..]…we actually shouldn’t really be surprised by what’s happening now [Hamas’ violent attack on Israeli soil]. This is the natural consequence of, unfortunately, 56 years of military occupation, and the denial of freedom.” Essentially, she is equating the attack as something in solidarity with all Palestinians, a ‘natural consequence’ towards Israelis based on their government’s actions/decisions.
The following day she is interviewed on PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton, stating the following when asked how Muslims are reacting to the attack (see 19:40 through 28:27), “…they are reacting in the way that they should, that this is entirely the result of decades of Israel’s military occupation and the denial of freedom. You know, history didn’t begin yesterday for Palestinians,…[…]…so to somehow make this into history beginning yesterday is to dehumanize Palestinians. It’s to dehumanize our experience, and to deny 56 years of military occupation.” When Al Sharpton says, “There’s no occupation in Gaza,” she responds “Oh, yes there is! Absolutely, there is!” She then proceeds to lie, stating that the only way to get into Gaza is with Israeli permission. Gaza borders Egypt, and Gazans, including those with family there can get such permission from the Egyptian government – but I can see how that fact might be inconvenient for her. When Al Sharpton presses her further, she argues again that there is an occupation. She then makes a strange analogy that it’s like a prison, and that the prison guards control the perimeter of the prison, but don’t control anything going on inside of the prison. False again. I was quite glad then when Al Sharpton asked if some of the events related to the October 7th attack by Hamas was ‘justified,’ which clearly makes her feel cornered, and repeats from the previous day interview that it’s the ‘natural consequence’: Basically, because she doesn’t say it isn’t so means that it is. When she gets into the notion about Israel being built on the idea of “Jewish ideology of superiority,” that “has to be broken down and gotten rid of.” Yikes! That basically means wiping Israel off the map along with every Israeli.
Movements of hate often function with an ideology that their perceived enemies’ function or operate exclusively above everyone else, especially when it comes to the population producing hate. In Charlestown, the white supremacists marched chanting “Jews will not replace us!” There is no evidence in the United States that Jews have ‘replaced’ anyone. In fact, Jews have existed in the United States since the early 1800s. But these same movements seldom take responsibility for their hate, their own actions. So, they deflect it onto the very population they are targeting!
I found this Al Jazeera English panel that featured Diana dated from 2014, which she introduces the same ‘Israeli occupation’ stuff as from above. Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, presses on her on the discovery of 20 rockets by UNRWA in a vacant school, the second time of such an incident. He continues saying that the UN Secretary General said that those rockets have also gone missing. When she is given a chance to respond, she says “Is this going to be a discussion or is this going to be the floor for Hillel?” I have gotten the idea she doesn’t like to be contradicted. She actually goes on to say about the rockets, “The rockets that were found in the schools of UNRWA were schools that were not being used by anybody. School is out, I’ll have you know!” Excuse me, what?
Furthermore, Buttu continues to evoke rhetoric found within the 2017 Hamas Charter:
The Zionist project
14. The Zionist project is a racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist project based on seizing the properties of others; it is hostile to the Palestinian people and to their aspiration for freedom, liberation, return and self-determination. The Israeli entity is the plaything of the Zionist project and its base of aggression.
15. The Zionist project does not target the Palestinian people alone; it is the enemy of the Arab and Islamic Ummah posing a grave threat to its security and interests. It is also hostile to the Ummah’s aspirations for unity, renaissance and liberation and has been the major source of its troubles. The Zionist project also poses a danger to international security and peace and to mankind and its interests and stability.
Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion
16. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine.
The position toward Occupation and political solutions
18. The following are considered null and void: the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate Document, the UN Palestine Partition Resolution, and whatever resolutions and measures that derive from them or are similar to them. The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah; it is also in violation of human rights that are guaranteed by international conventions, foremost among them is the right to self-determination.
19. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, judaisation or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.
20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity
21. Hamas affirms that the Oslo Accords and their addenda contravene the governing rules of international law in that they generate commitments that violate the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Therefore, the Movement rejects these agreements and all that flows from them, such as the obligations that are detrimental to the interests of our people, especially security coordination (collaboration).
22. Hamas rejects all the agreements, initiatives and settlement projects that are aimed at undermining the Palestinian cause and the rights of our Palestinian people. In this regard, any stance, initiative or political programme must not in any way violate these rights and should not contravene them or contradict them.
23. Hamas stresses that transgression against the Palestinian people, usurping their land and banishing them from their homeland cannot be called peace. Any settlements reached on this basis will not lead to peace. Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right, a duty and an honour for all the sons and daughters of our people and our Ummah.
Resistance and Liberation
24. The liberation of Palestine is the duty of the Palestinian people in particular and the duty of the Arab and Islamic Ummah in general. It is also a humanitarian obligation as necessitated by the dictates of truth and justice. The agencies working for Palestine, whether national, Arab, Islamic or humanitarian, complement each other and are harmonious and not in conflict with each other.
25. Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance, which is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people.
26. Hamas rejects any attempt to undermine the resistance and its arms. It also affirms the right of our people to develop the means and mechanisms of resistance. Managing resistance, in terms of escalation or de-escalation, or in terms of diversifying the means and methods, is an integral part of the process of managing the conflict and should not be at the expense of the principle of resistance.
So, it’s worth pointing out that Hamas refers to Israel as the “Zionist project/entity,” (14-16, 19-20) but Israel has had international recognition for many years. It also “affirms” its conflict with Israel (16), but as you can see, individuals like Buttu argue the opposite is occurring. Furthermore, they also “reject” the Oslo Accords (21). Finally, they resist Israel with “all means and methods” as “a legitimate right guaranteed by divine law” and “by international norms and law” (25). Sympathizing with Hamas fundamentally doesn’t support a two-state solution because Hamas doesn’t support a two-state solution, it supports a one-state solution – wiping Israel off the map along with every Israeli.
If anyone is wondering why I wouldn’t just jump on the ceasefire bandwagon, that has become a huge joke at this point, it’s because I pay attention and I listen. Do I think the outcomes of war is in any way good? No. War becomes inevitable when peace is not attainable, and I don’t think there will be peace until Hamas is disabled. What I’ve heard from their sympathizers on TV recently isn’t peaceful, and that has informed my decision to not support a (permanent) ceasefire.
Allow me to be abundantly clear about this, I do not think Israel should acquiesce to anything and everything that knocks on their door. I support Israel’s existence at all times. Israel’s security and the safety of its citizens requires difficult decisions, so it’s beyond reasoning to argue with me that any of this is “simple.” Utter nonsense!
Nina Turner’s Criticism of Israel & AIPAC is Hypocrisy
When I first saw tweet above, I choked up. In some way, it appears to paint AIPAC, and its supporters, as outsiders, under foreign influence if you will. The strange thing is, it obviously isn’t a secret because there are pictures. She even called it “corruption.”
But here’s the thing. Would you believe me if I told you she worked for an organization that didn’t reveal its donors? She did, at Our Revolution. In 2020, it was hit with FEC complaints for failing to follow campaign finance laws. As an article states about the organization:
Our Revolution is not a super PAC. But the tax-exempt political nonprofit functions much like one — but without having to reveal its donors. Like super PACs, these nonprofits were similarly empowered to raise and spend unlimited sums after the Citizens United decision.
This means that the general public doesn’t get know where their money is coming from, including whether or not it has foreign influence. But why fret over the details, right?
Israel, bad. Palestine, good. Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
She’s probably still bitter she lost to another black woman for a congressional seat though, as this article states:
After she lost last year, Turner decried the influx of what she called “evil money” into the race — a reference to spending by outside organizations and pro-Israel groups that saw Brown as a more reliable ally. Some Jewish leaders found the remark to play into antisemitic stereotypes.
In the rematch, Turner again had support from Sanders, I-Vt., and other allies of his movement. But the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which endorsed Turner last year, switched its allegiance to Brown for this year’s primary. And whereas Turner tapped her robust national fundraising network in the first race, Brown had the fundraising edge this time.
The Silence on the October 7th Rapes
After October 7th, I continued to hear that rapes, sexual assaults, and worse took place. I’ve known from organizing in support of women how sensitive, and important, it is to believe women. My own congressperson has, in particular, made herself a champion on this very issue, so I half expected that when these allegations became more apparent, that she’d actually speak up about it.
Not so. And yet she’s not the only one! When asked by Dana Bash about the silence internationally on this (staring at 6:45), Representative Japayal responds, “I mean, I don’t know that that’s true. We always talk about the impact of war on women, in particular…[…]…I’ve condemned what Hamas has done, I’ve condemned all of the actions…absolutely, the rape, of course, but I think we have to remember that Israel is a democracy, that is why they are a strong ally of ours, and if they do not comply with international humanitarian law, they’re bringing themselves to a place that makes it much more difficult strategically for them to be able to build the kinds of allies that keep public opinion with them, and frankly, morally, we cannot say one war crime deserves another.”
I’m not willing to say whether the rapes and assaults was solely directed at Israeli women. Even if it was, the nature of those acts in the presence of non-Israeli women would still have an impact on everyone around them. That should not be minimized. So, what’s the problem with Japayal’s response? She appears to be equating the judgement on women’s testimony with the actions of a government.
This is a peculiar blind spot in progressive circles. It’s something I have had to contend with myself, such as my time with Occupy Boston. While most could work with me on numerous issues, the one sin I committed was support for Israel. As such, because they could never convince me otherwise, and they tried, to disavow that support based on… their mere statements… they sought to disengage my participation in the movement. I was accused of “being sent” there by the elites, I was specifically questioned about that. I was insulted and ridiculed over it. They couldn’t even reason how someone in my economic bracket could support Israel, but I was never responsible for the narrative of Israel being in league “with the elites,” or whatever, because that’s just antisemitic garbage.
To end, I’d like to share this, “Whatever your view of the Israel-Hamas war, rape is rape. To trivialise it is to diminish ourselves” by Gaby Hinsliff (bolded paragraphs for emphasis):
There is no such thing as a perfect victim, but a million ways to be an imperfect one. She was drinking. Her skirt was too short. She went willingly back to the footballer’s mansion, or up to Harvey Weinstein’s hotel suite, so what did she think was going to happen? Maybe she was a teenage runaway, or a sex worker; he was a good boy, or a much-loved celebrity. There is a long list of reasons rapists get away with it, but it all too often starts with a jury’s refusal to listen to a woman they have already decided for some stubborn reason not to like. Remember that, as we come to the distressing picture now emerging of alleged multiple rapes and sexual assaults by Hamas fighters amid the atrocities of 7 October.
This week, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, finally called for what he described as “numerous accounts of sexual violence during the abhorrent acts of terror by Hamas” to be “vigorously investigated.”
Harrowing stories had begun emerging within days from the desert rave where traumatised young women, who survived only by hiding from the gunmen, described watching in silent horror as other women were gang raped, mutilated and shot. Israeli women’s rights groups, worried that chances to collect forensic evidence were missed in the initial chaos of a country under attack, swiftly mobilised – and last week, Dr Cochav Elkayam-Levy, the lawyer chairing a civil commission hastily created to document crimes against women and children during the massacre, flew to meet UN officials to discuss the testimony collated. Look away now if you would rather not read about women and young girls found dead with their pants pulled down, and telltale evidence of bleeding, bruises and scratches; about smashed pelvises, semen samples, and graphic details I wouldn’t normally go into on these pages except that otherwise it seems people don’t believe it. Though some won’t, even then.
Rape is a war crime as old as war itself, and yet still often invisible thanks to the stigma surrounding survivors, the practical challenges of gathering evidence under fire, and bleakly, sometimes also the lack of survivors. But in recent years we have at least got better at recognising a pattern deserving of investigation. So when tales of Islamic State fighters raping and enslaving Yazidi women began to surface, or when horrific stories started filtering out from women in occupied Ukraine last year, I don’t remember too many sceptics demanding to see video proof. Nor do I recall many victim support workers responding as the director of the Sexual Assault Centre at the University of Alberta in Canada did after 7 October, by signing an open letter condemning genocide in Gaza that criticised a Canadian politician for repeating “the unverified accusation that Palestinians were guilty of sexual violence”. Only in this conflict have some normally proud progressives seemingly gone out of their way to show they don’t always #BelieveWomen, after all.
The response to Jews posting about the issue on X this week has ranged from casual whataboutery to a gruesome variant of the “pics or it didn’t happen” school of online scepticism, questioning why there aren’t any actual live rapes visible on that grisly compilation of atrocities the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are currently screening to select opinion formers. (The film, compiled from security camera footage and terrorists’ GoPros, includes only material that survivors’ families have expressly consented to publishing – not everyone wants their child’s last moments made public – and the IDF says some scenes judged too distressing or intrusive were excluded.) Evidently the stomach-turning images millions have already seen online – a dead woman, lying with her skirt pulled above her waist and no underwear on; the young woman bundled out of a truck in the Gaza Strip, the crotch of her jogging bottoms soaked in blood – aren’t enough for some.
Why do people who would probably happily judge an allegedly predatory actor or MP based on little more than hearsay seemingly struggle to entertain doubts about the sexual conduct of a terrorist, as if to do so would somehow be a betrayal of the Palestinian cause? For those who still conceive of Hamas gunmen as freedom fighters engaged in glorious resistance, it’s perhaps easier to rationalise away dead women than raped ones. It’s a war, they might tell themselves, and people die in war; anyway, look how many thousands more innocent women and children have died in Gaza. But a crime so obviously born of misogyny, revenge and exploitative power is not so easily explained away. For those who can’t deal with the troubling cognitive dissonance, the easiest thing is to decide that it just didn’t happen. The survivors must be liars, along with the first responders who reported finding half-naked bodies with injuries I won’t describe here, and the pathologists and women’s rights activists and news agencies claiming to have been shown supporting photographs and ambassadors saying they believe what they’ve heard from morgue workers; liars, the lot of them. Because if they aren’t, what are you?
Almost two months have now elapsed since 7 October, and in that short time, the Hamas-controlled Gaza health ministry says that more than 15,000 Palestinians have died in Gaza. The current truce may not hold much longer, and the consequences if the fighting spreads to the impossibly overcrowded south don’t bear thinking about. The war crimes allegedly committed by Israel against Palestinians during this conflict obviously require investigation every bit as urgently as the ones that triggered it, and the UN’s ability to investigate rape claims has doubtless not been helped by the Netanyahu government’s reluctance to engage with a body that has been repeatedly and justifiably critical of Israel’s past actions in the occupied territories.
But all that said, this isn’t some ghoulish competition, nor a zero-sum game where any empathy shown to dead Israelis somehow leaves less available for Palestinians. Collectively, our international institutions must be capable of keeping more than one wrong in mind at once. And individually, we should expect of ourselves what we ask of juries, judges and police every time they hear a rape case, which is not to unquestioningly believe every word, but to listen with compassion and an open mind. A war crime is a war crime, regardless of who committed it. And rape is rape, even when perpetrated against someone you secretly don’t want to think of as a victim.
Varying Ways I Have Seen October 7th Diminished in Discourse
For the past month, I have noticed a continual diminishing of the October 7th attack on Israel by Palestinians sympathizers. I say ‘Palestinian sympathizers’ very specifically because they argue themselves, they aren’t for Hamas, who committed the October 7th attack. And yet…
I have seen this time and time again where supporters of Israel are dismissed by some other detail post-10/7. Above, the rapes of women by Hamas on 10/7 are being equated to Palestinian prisoners. What message is this really sending though? Either Hasan is either suggesting all Palestinian prisoners were as innocent as the women who were raped/assaulted on 10/7, or that all the women who were raped/assaulted on 10/7 are as guilty as Palestinian prisoners. There is zero reason to equate these two things unless you are intending to make that assertion.
Extremely black or white thinking going on here. The lack of nuance permitted in these conversations by ‘Pro-Palestinian’ sympathizers is disgusting.
This deflection is repeated over and over again. For example, they know we will mention Hamas (and others) firing rockets at Israel fairly constantly that can result in civilians’ deaths, including of women and children, but will quickly deflect to Israel bombing Gaza now. Of course, Israel is bombing Gaza now, Israel was attacked. No shit sherlock! But that alone isn’t enough to dislodge the argument they are facing in real time, so they spout the only other thing that could possibly help them gain the upper hand: Hamas accusations and talking points.
- The insistence that Israel is apartheid. It’s not and has never been;
- The “occupation” that doesn’t exist;
- The accusation that a single bomb by Israel is considered a war crime. Hamas has already sent thousands of rockets into Israel, some of which have misfired killing Palestinians in the process;
- The criticism that Israel has bombed schools, mosques, and hospitals. The Geneva Conventions explicitly states that if military equipment or militants are hiding in those locations, they do not have the protection of being “civilian.”
But when all these different talking points don’t work, when evidence has shown all of those things are just untrue, then you see them say they “hope” Israel doesn’t violate international humanitarian law or would commit war crimes. Basically, they are dreaming it so it might be it.
What does this all really mean? It means that every single time that this is done in discourse, they are equating Palestinians with Hamas. But also, by actively countering 10/7 as a reason for this response, they are dismissing it as a significant atrocity. Why would they do that? Because they know that if it’s real, if it’s absolutely true, they will lose ground in discourse and have no means to attain the high ground. There’s only one type of social ideology that I could see driving someone to actively dismiss an atrocity against a certain group of people in this way: antisemitism. No other explanation exists.
To Condemn Hamas, or Not To Condemn Hamas, that is the Question?
I have seen a lot online regarding the US vote against calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza as an explicitly bad move. You might think the US is effectively supporting the Israeli governments’ actions, despite reports stating otherwise. This is what carte blanche looks like, apparently. But you’d be wrong.
The Resolution in question does not condemn Hamas for its attack on October 7th on Israeli soil. This is not the first time in the last month this has happened at the UN.
This begs the question: Why support a Resolution that doesn’t condemn an attack that you claim to condemn? If you condemn Hamas’ attack on Israel, which these Resolutions evidently do not do, why are complaining that the US isn’t voting in favor of them?
The Progressive Democrat 