How Israel’s selective treatment creates a myth of antisemitism We’ve all heard the baseless claims that criticizing Israel is antisemitic. As simple arguments break down, staunch supporters of Israeli apartheid turn to more nuanced points to try and justify atrocities. Sam Harris is one of the recent voices speaking about “selective outrage” towards Israel. Like More
The post “Selective Outrage” Towards Israel appeared first on CounterPunch.org.
Image by Manny Becerra.
How Israel’s selective treatment creates a myth of antisemitism
We’ve all heard the baseless claims that criticizing Israel is antisemitic. As simple arguments break down, staunch supporters of Israeli apartheid turn to more nuanced points to try and justify atrocities.
Sam Harris is one of the recent voices speaking about “selective outrage” towards Israel. Like the more basic cries of antisemitism, this argument does not hold up under the microscope.
Selective outrage or selective treatment?
One need not look further than the hundreds of billions dollars the US has given Israel in the past century to see selective treatment. But beyond this, the US consistently excuses Israel’s well-documented war crimes and continues to violate US Code 2304 by providing weapons to them.
While Zionist groups cry foul at “selective outrage,” the reality is that Israel receives selective treatment on the international stage.
Selective outrage connotes malintent, the idea that people are critical of Israel because it is a Jewish state. However, the rhetoric of the anti-Zionist movement points more to Israel being given a free pass to conduct itself in whatever cruel manner it pleases.
Other than those simply opposed to ethno-nationalism, the outrage towards Israel has little to do with its Jewish nature, but rather its status of moral impunity.
Hypocrisy does not rest well with those seeking justice.
Whataboutism
Zionists will often ask “where were you when [insert the crisis in Sudan, the Iraq war, the genocide of the Uyghurs, etc].”
I won’t deny that Palestine has inspired the largest anti-war movement since Vietnam. It has brought many people into the fray of politics that weren’t present before. On the other hand, there are a number of possible reasons for this engagement, first and foremost, the aforementioned preferential treatment of Israel.
The near century of oppression and occupation, massive waves of media coverage and the unprecedented damage Israel has done in its war all play a role in people’s dissent. Even more so, frustration grows with the fact that the US could take immediate steps to stop this, but instead actively aids and abets a genocide.
Whataboutism fails in context, but also in substance. Many leftists protested the invasion of Iraq and the genocide of the Uyghurs. Most decry the abhorrent humanitarian conditions in Sudan. In fact, many are critical that more action isn’t taken by powerful countries like the US to mitigate the deterioration of human rights.
So when someone asks “what about…” the answer is often “we were there, but where were you?”
A different reality
To pour gasoline on a raging fire, vehement supporters of Israel’s atrocities live in a different reality. In spite of global consensus and innumerable reports from human rights organizations, they deny that Israel commits war crimes and that it’s an apartheid state. To them, these claims are antisemitic.
I and many others are critical of the US for its colonial history, but at least there is some effort to recognize this. There is more work to be done, but most are not completely divorced from reality.
I’m critical of Japanese nationalists that do not recognize the Nanjing Massacre. Does this make me anti-Japanese? Am I anti-Belgian for thinking they should do a better job of educating about their atrocities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Does it make me antisemitic to think that Israel should teach about the Nakba?
Israel fails wholeheartedly to recognize its own atrocities. Of course, there are members of Hamas that don’t recognize their crimes. And to paraphrase Chomsky, neither has a leg to stand on. But when one party is a state that claims to uphold human rights and democratic values, one can’t help but point it out.
Is there even selective outrage?
All of what I put forth is on the assumption that there is some form of selective outrage towards Israel, which isn’t in itself necessarily true. There are a number of reasons that Israel gets so much negative attention. One could easily argue this is deserved or Israel’s actions have caused this.
I won’t pretend that the pro-Palestine movement is devoid of antisemitism, but to paint all anti-Zionists in this way is frankly absurd.
Am I to believe that all Israelis are racists that see Palestinians as “human animals” because that’s what Yoav Gallant said? I didn’t think so.
It’s time for this ridiculous argument to come to an end.
The post “Selective Outrage” Towards Israel appeared first on CounterPunch.org.
