Not long after the Black Lives Matter movement started in 2013, there was hope that the tragedies that sparked it might lead to real reflection and dialogue about how to address systemic racism in the United States. That hope didn’t last long for those of us who found ourselves almost immediately drawn into another conversation, one that was maddeningly irritating: All Lives Matter. All Lives Matter advocates suggested that Black Lives Matter was akin to racism. The position was pull-your-hair-out frustrating because it was so profoundly inaccurate. Rather than productively discussing critical race theory, we were now drawn into a debate over a misrepresentation of what we were advocating.
As I put it in a piece for Salon on why it is so hard to argue with the right, these conflicts are not real discussions or debates. Instead, more and more often, on issues of major social and political significance, we are confronted with an inaccurate manipulation of our views created by our critics, that is followed by their outrage over their own misrepresentation of us.
The same thing is happening with conversations about Gaza. Only, now, it’s worse.
Anyone even suggesting that there is a human rights crisis in Gaza faces potential repercussions, from calls of antisemitism to doxing to arrests to threats to their safety.
It feels like any effort to discuss the crisis in Gaza is like arguing with a dumpster fire: either you say something, like bombing a hospital seems like a human rights violation, and are barraged by flames, or you just have to shut up and walk away.
The pattern, by now, is both familiar and profoundly frustrating. But there’s a cost to not having reasonable conversations. There’s an even higher cost that comes with either self-censorship or being forced to defend yourself for advocating for the people of Gaza. In order for us to begin to address why these conversations aren’t happening productively, we need to understand the deliberate ways dialogue is being shut down.
1. They misrepresent you.
Let’s start with the elephant in the room. There is a real fear that speaking up about the crisis in Gaza will lead one to be immediately branded as antisemitic. For those of us who aren’t antisemitic, this fear often leads us to self-censor our concerns over the crisis in Gaza. We want to speak up in defense of the Palestinian people and the extraordinary suffering we are witnessing in Gaza, but we don’t want to get drawn into a long and twisted argument about why that does not mean we hate the Jewish people.
Those worries are real because they happen each and every time. Even more, this is not just a fringe reaction, it is happening in U.S. government, on college campuses, in the mainstream media and online.
Abraham Gutman explains that the argument that supporting Palestinian rights is antisemitic exists because that’s the way Israel wants it to be: “This tautology allows accusations of antisemitism to be weaponized, particularly against people who speak up about Palestinian rights — sometimes in ridiculous ways.”
2. They control the framing narratives.
Once pro-Netanyahu supporters have framed the story that any criticism of his policies is antisemitic, you are now no longer having the conversation you wanted to have. Instead, you are operating inside a set of framing narratives that confine and contain the conversation and shut down the possibility of a reasonable discussion. Just as with All Lives Matter, you are stuck in an argument that not only misrepresents you, it makes no sense.
We need your help to stay independent
These highly constricting and nonsensical framing narratives go beyond the argument that any criticism of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinian people is tantamount to antisemitism. They also include such exasperatingly limited arguments as the notion that in order to defend itself Israel has no other choice than to bomb civilians, hospitals, refugee camps and schools. Or the idea that in order to defend itself, Israel cannot be held to any of the ethical limits for conflict codified by international humanitarian law. Or, even more frustrating, that deliberately blocking medicine, food and water from a civilian population has nothing to do with genocide.
3. They fail to use nuance.
It isn’t just the fact that Israeli apologists control the framing narratives and that these create deliberate diversions from the conversations we’d like to have, it is also that these framing narratives have no nuance. They offer stark black-and-white options where one side is right and the other is evil.
Setting aside the details of the very real and complex history of the region, we have to notice that we are not even having a reasonable debate about that history and how to interpret it. What are the roles of colonialism, Islamophobia, antisemitism, far-right autocracy, militarization, extremism, geopolitical dynamics and terrorism in creating the current conflict? Does the start of the conflict date back to the late 19th century, 1917, 1936, 1948, the mid 1990s or is there another date we should discuss? And why does choosing the start date of the conflict matter so much? These would be valuable conversations to have, but they aren’t happening.
Norman Solomon points out that part of the reason they aren’t happening is due to the atrocious media coverage we have of the conflict, which focuses almost entirely on superficial images of destruction and makes the real causes and extent of the suffering in Gaza invisible to the general public.
4. They bully, threaten and attack.
You have to hand it to the pro-Netanyahu camp, they make the attacks on Black Lives Matter supporters look like pillow fights. If you thought it was a bit stressful speaking out in support of critical race theory, that anxiety pales in comparison with the real threats that supporters of Palestine suffer. Any of you reading this who has dared to speak out about the human rights violations in Gaza knows what I am talking about. People are being fired, threatened, harassed and attacked. They are being accused of views they don’t actually hold.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
It’s interesting to note that despite those very real fears, we are still seeing an uptick in support for Palestinians, which only serves to underscore the reality that not even wanting to discuss the human suffering in Gaza is increasingly untenable for those of us paying attention. Human rights scholars know that when the public builds support for a threatened population despite the personal risks that entails, it has become impossible to turn away from the extent of the atrocities.
5. They cause you to question yourself.
Probably the most sinister habit that the pro-Netanyahu camp has in common with All Lives Matter is the way that they take a core position you hold and twist it so artfully that you even start to question yourself. In this case they accuse you of being biased, bigoted and discriminatory — the very problem you suggest is afflicting the communities under siege. If you do actually care about all human beings, this is an extremely unsettling argument to have. As you claim that caring about all lives means looking out for those most vulnerable, you are attacked for being racist or antisemitic or, possibly, even a terrorist. Before you know it, you aren’t sure what you are arguing for. You definitely have a headache.
It’s an extremely clever form of gaslighting and one that is hard to recover from, especially when combined with all of the other tactics I outlined above.
One place to look for guidance on how to handle this problem is therapists who coach people in relationships with narcissists, since, as Egyptian satirist Bassem Youssef has pointed out, “dealing with Israel is so difficult, it’s like being in a relationship with a narcissistic psychopath. He f*cks you up and then he makes you think it’s your fault.” This means refusing to allow their narratives to frame the conversation and not letting their accusations define you.
The first step to pushing back on the silencing of reasonable discussion of the crisis in Gaza is understanding how and why that silencing is happening. Gaslighting works as a form of mirage, where a veil is pulled around the reality you are witnessing. We need to start by refusing to be sucked into that framework, then move to call out the manipulative tactics that are being used to hide the truth, and then, finally, we need to start having the conversation we really want to have with those willing to listen. Because if we don’t start speaking out about the people of Gaza soon, there won’t be anyone left there to talk about.
Shares