Humanity, it seems, has gotten to a place where people must prove, often in the face of vile shouts and intimidation, the validity of their experiences. The right to call one’s own experiences what we perceive them to be is not guaranteed. Arguments of reason have been replaced by arguments of extremes. Not to mention, the backdrop often being public forums that have evolved into gauntlets that too often put people in “gotcha” spaces, not of their creation. Mistrust has filtered into our discourse, pushed by agenda-furthering messages. The manipulation of information, a billion-dollar endgame, infects our embrace of shared values. Polarizing postures morph into realities to be defended and defeated. Critical thought is no longer expected, much less valued, modeled, and demanded.
Tragically, people’s life experiences, their joys as well as their traumas, are being defined by agenda-laden extremes. It’s worse than telling rape victims they asked for it. Worse than telling victims of racial injustice they’re playing the “race card.” As a society, we too often marginalize others without regard for who they are as people. We double down when our assertions are countered instead of listening reflectively. Delivering well-crafted “red meat” sound bites to move audiences towards self-affirming cheers echoed from well-hoed ditches is paramount. Messaging, data manipulation, trolling, fake news, and now AI-generated imaging are employed, eclipsing voices coming authentically from places seeking rational decision-making and adult conversations.
Take the hot-button words antisemitism and genocide, for example. Today, these words push people to take sides in a war where daily loss outdistances any prospect of hope.
Author’s Note: First however, an admission. I’m into fundamental fairness. For me, if the world accepts the decision made in 1948 to give people of Jewish descent lands establishing its own State, Israel, why do we not have benchmarks of fairness and recourse for others who’ve sought just treatment in the face of catastrophic loss? Why not also cause the U.S. to return to Native tribes their lands? What about the Aboriginal peoples of Australia and the loss of their lands? In my opinion, these are questions of karma; fundamental fairness and justice for all.
Bill Maher Says It’s Not Genocide
We’re not in a place where genocide is genocide, no matter the country or the people. It seems a hierarchy exists when it comes to who gets to call the killing of lots of people mass murder, war, or genocide. What was the over ten million Congolese who were murdered and butchered at the hands of Belgium’s King Leopold II? Author Charles Mann estimated the Native population in the Americas before Columbus to be over 300 million (1491 New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, published by Knopf, 2005). A population that had dwindled “At the turn of the twentieth century to 4–4.5 million.” (Counting the Dead: Estimating the Loss of Life in the Indigenous Holocaust, 1492-Present, by David Michael Smith University of Houston, 2017). What was that? And should there not have been conversations about the over four hundred treaties broken? Or reparations to Native tribes in the Americas whose lands and resources were stolen?
It does make one wonder: how loud do Palestinians or their champions need to cry before the world hears their terror? How dissimilar are their experiences from those of Ukrainians? Does not their belief in their own stolen lands deserve resolution? Does not the destruction and death rained upon them deserve relief? Do not the overcrowded conditions that are Gaza, which many call an apartheid state, deserve concern or hearing? How long must they wait for their pleas to be worthy of sympathy when newsreels are already filled with their debasement, deaths of their children, and seemingly unending pain? How much longer must they hear shouts of “Kill them all!” from elected U.S. leaders before the world is convinced that their belief in their annihilation is upon them and not theoretical? All questions that persist while talk show hosts, political pundits, comedic commentators, and everyday people dictate what genocide is and is not
Netanyahu Calls it Antisemitism
These days, criticism of Jews automatically and without recompense earns people an antisemitic label. Criticism of Israel makes people antisemitic. Discourse that does not support pro-Jewish or pro-Israel points of view earns people an antisemitic label. The recent resignations of the University of Pennsylvania’s president and board chair and Harvard University’s president exemplify how missteps can lead to death by politicized opinion. Letters sent to the boards of Harvard, Penn, and MIT from Congressional Republicans, calling for their presidents’ immediate firing, underscore the hyper-partisan landscape in which we all now live. Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, was particularly vilified by plagiarism allegations filled with racist overtones.
Tragically, filling spaces with manipulations of public opinion has also served to marginalize the most horrendous antisemitic occurrence in human history: six million Jews perished in the Holocaust’s genocide with millions more lives affected. “Netanyahu’s decision to rally support with incendiary remarks warning of a high Israeli Arab voter turnout” by using a 28-second video on election day to stoke fears that Israeli Arabs were being bussed to the polls “in droves” is a sad example (“Obama snubs Binyamin Netanyahu and criticises Israel PM’s ‘divisive rhetoric’,” by Paul Lewis and Allan Yulas, The Guardian, March 18, 2015).
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has for years been pushing the United Nations to adopt this same kind of politicization. “More than 100 Israeli and international civil society organizations have asked the United Nations to reject a working definition of antisemitism backed by Netanyahu, the U.S. State Department, and a few other nations. Presented in April 2023, opposing nations, organizations, and groups have put forward that the working definition is being “misused” to protect Israel from legitimate criticism.” Specifically, “The groups say the IHRA definition has been used ‘to muzzle legitimate speech and activism by critics of Israel’s human rights record and advocates for Palestinian rights’.” (“UN Urged To Reject Antisemitism Definition Over ‘Misuse’ To Shield Israel,” The Guardian, by Chris McGreal, April 24, 2023)
Antisemitism, as defined by the Anti-Defamation League, is “The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. It may take the form of religious teachings that proclaim the inferiority of Jews, for instance, or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them. It may also include prejudiced or stereotyped views about Jews.”
Al Fin
If regard for genocide and antisemitism are made out to be no more than manipulations for gain, and engaging in discourse incurs accusations and castigating backlash, who will listen when the wolf stands at the door? When powerful and wealthy CEOs call for blacklisting students, members of Congress demand the immediate firing of university presidents, and congressional leaders are censored in response to a humanitarian crisis, who will listen when threats are real. And what does it mean that more people aren’t rushing to echo a pro-Israel zeal? Instead, the backlash seems to be going the other way.
I cried seeing so many Jews filling Grand Central Station wearing “Not In Our Name” written on their t-shirts. Over four hundred of them were arrested, Pro-Palestinian student protests reminded me of our days protesting Civil Rights abuses and engaging in activism. A growing number of young people are seemingly filtering through the polarizing rhetoric of this long struggle. Perhaps it’s that the starkness of the search for one man as justification for killing hundreds is not resonating. And as horrific as murder, rape, mutilation, and kidnapping are, the response should not be bombs that kill thousands of innocent children.
The diversity of the world’s generations brings values, skills, and interests very different from their predecessors. They align more closely with those boomers who remain active and loyal to the cause of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Both groups coalesce around causes previously marginalized by those in power: The Black Lives Matter movement in the wake of George Floyd’s murder; Greta Thunberg’s environmental activism and high-profile arrests; historic labor strikes of the U.S.’s big three automakers and Hollywood writers. Quality of life issues are replacing reliance upon traditional political affiliations. Institutions built to protect political doctrines, as deliverers or promises made, are increasingly under siege.
Therefore, it must come as a surprise that Israel is coming off as an oppressor. The belief that striking at the “chosen people” means death and retribution for “evil others” may not be held as highly regarded as previously thought. In fact, the misstep may be that the definitions of who the evil others are might be changing.
Stay tuned! As brother Gil Scott-Heron advised, this “revolution will not be televised!” More likely than not, however, it’s being streamed as you read.