Semantic arguments as a last line of defence
Recently I’ve seen people in various online platforms insist that what Israel has been doing in Palestine isn’t apartheid and that what they’re doing now isn’t genocide.
My initial reaction was to think, “how fortunate you are that you can discuss semantics like this from a distance”.
But mostly it reminded me of when the American media refused to name domestic terrorism as ‘terrorism’. Or when they called terrorism that happened in their country ‘terror’ instead.
What they were really saying, of course, is that terrorism is what non-white people do in foreign countries. Stuff like that isn’t done by white people, and it’s certainly not done in our country.
It also reminded me of when people say things like, “Oh he can’t be the one who committed the sexually assault. He’s a victim of sexual assault; he would never do that to anyone else.”
They’re clinging so hard to their beliefs that they have to fall back to semantics to defend their positions.
At no time can they see the reality that:
Some white people can and do commit terrorism.
There is terrorism in countries with predominantly white populations.
Some sexual assault survivors can and do commit sexual assault.
Some Jews can and do commit genocide.
But why?
The reason they dig their heels in is pretty obvious. It’s the same reason people insist on sayings things like “not all men”.
Because if they acknowledge that, yes, all men do benefit from patriarchal set-ups, then they might actually have to do something about it.
Or, more likely, they’ll lose the moral wiggle room to do nothing (or the bare minimum) about it. When they’re one of the good guys – one of the #NotAllMen – then they don’t have to do anything more, right?
Similarly, if these people are forced to acknowledge that Israel is an apartheid state that currently is committing genocide against the Palestinians, then they lose the ability to say things like, “what Israel is doing is horrible, of course, but they do have the right to defend themselves.”
Because right now what they’re really saying is, “I can excuse the mass casualties of civilians, but I draw the line at genocide.”
Two-frame screen grab from the television show ‘Community’ in which a white female character says, “I can excuse racism, but I draw the line at animal cruelty.” To which a black female character replies, “You can excuse racism?!”
An aside about a theory
Which then reminds me of one of the theories about why Hamas attacked Israel in the way that they did.
You know when a child keeps needling their sibling till the sibling overreacts? And how parents often shout at the sibling for the overreaction and not at the first child for the initial provocation? That’s possibly one of the reasons Hamas carried out their most recent attacks.
The theory is that they wanted Israel to overreact to such an extent that the world had no choice but to acknowledge Israel’s ongoing, escalating war crimes (along with their continued crimes against humanity).
Of course Hamas did this without the consent of the people of Gaza and at the cost of thousands of Palestinian civilians, many of them children…but that’s a whole other issue.
On a lighter note…
To leave on a lighter note, because I live on the internet, when I see someone digging their heels in about not using the words ‘apartheid’ or ‘genocide’, this meme is the first thing that comes to mind :)
It’s only apartheid if it’s from the Apartheid region of South Africa, otherwise it’s sparkling institutionalised (racial) segregation.
It’s only genocide if it’s from the Genocide region of Poland, otherwise it’s sparkling intentional destruction of a people (in whole or in part).