Article is very interesting and talks about the mix of goals in regards to the protests, and how speech negatively and positively helps accomplish those goals.
Article is very interesting and talks about the mix of goals in regards to the protests, and how speech negatively and positively helps accomplish those goals.
It’s clear to me reading this that if people really want to further humanitarian concerns over the Palestinian civilians they should avoid the literal tribalism around the topic and the false dichotomy of ‘sides.’
It would be a lot harder to criticize a protest branded as a “pro-civilian” protest that simultaneously called out the human rights abuses on the Palestinian people and the Israeli hostages.
That asked the university to divest from any investments funding either Hamas or Likud as long as either were carrying out war crimes against civilians. Yes, in one of those two cases it’s a moot request, but by requesting both it furthers the comparison and similarities between the two and their extremist methods.
It would also give no cover to extremist voices calling for the destruction or harm of civilians on the “other side” of the conflict (as sampled in the article). It’s no safe space for pro-Palestinian voices calling for the killing of Israeli citizens nor for pro-Israel voices calling for (or turning a blind eye to) the bombing of the Palestinian civilians. True antisemites or Islamophobes would have no safe harbor there.
It takes the conversation from being about two opposing political sides to the ‘sides’ of “protect civilians” or “kill civilians” which is a position that’s incredibly hard to justify being on the other side of no matter one’s political beliefs.
And as has been discussed in various literature about the importance of reconciliation, it creates the space for victims of violence against civilians and secondary trauma in this conflict to feel their trauma can be heard without facing minimization to justify the trauma of the other political side - something that’s been happening far too much on both of the current sides of this discussion.
Disavowing violence against civilians should not be a political statement, and it being packaged as such is clearly a huge factor in how that message is being subverted and suppressed. Even the way Finkelstein straight up gave a messaging shift that would have improved the success of the core message he’s been supporting for years before this and then immediately had someone lead a chant of the very message he pointed out as undermining the narrative was ridiculous. Polarizing messaging might find solace in either a “pro-Palestinian” or “pro-Israel” protest, but wouldn’t be a good fit for a “pro-civilian” protest.
It would also be nearly impossible to brand a counter-protest to. What the hell do you call yourself if you are protesting against “pro-civilians”? The “pro-authoritarian” protest?
As long as the call for humanitarianism is wrapped up and divided into political sides and literal ethnic tribalism I have a feeling that the call is going to continue to get ignored and suppressed while local tribalistic tensions and conflict becomes more and more center stage instead. It might be smart to rebrand the messaging where the focus on humanitarianism is center stage and the only ‘tribe’ being championed is ‘human.’