Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tower of Babble's avatar

It seems to me that most pro Palestine folks aren’t pro Palestine *because it’s an Islamic state* or some such, it’s because they principally reject the aggression of Israel towards the Palestinian people. I mean, just speaking from personal experience, but when religion is brought up in relation to Israel Palestine by my more leftist friends, it tends to be in a historical context (an analysis of who aggressed first and why and so forth) with the purpose of determining that Israel was the aggressor and thus, at fault for the death of the Palestinian people. Now, none of that is to say those are the correct interpretations of the facts, just that the motivation behind the Israel-Palestine protest seems more humanitarian to me, then some attack against Islamophobia.

None of the above undermines the fact that the phenomena you’re talking about does occur (leftists defending Islam) I just think Israel-Palestine is a strange choice because that doesn’t seem to be the primary motivator (at least to me).

Olivia Roberts's avatar

I am a progressive, at least broadly speaking--maybe "liberal" would be better, in that I like market economies and freedom of speech and all that, but in terms of pure tribal sympathies, I am clearly a partisan of the Left. This extends to being sympathetic to Palestine and to complaints of Islamophobia.

Now, I don't particularly like or care for Islam as a religion. I think, like most religions, some of its doctrines and practices are good (it is good, for example, at all Muslims are expected to give to charity), some are morally neutral, and some--like the ones you mention--are just awful. But I care about Islamophobia insofar as it actually does exist, and extends beyond just an antipathy for some of Islam's doctrines. Consider how, under French law, there are rules against wearing face-covering headgear in public, with just enough exceptions to allow for everything an atheist, Christian, Jewish, etc. Frenchman might wear, but to forbid Muslim headwear like burqas.

When this was taken up to the European Court of Human Rights by a Muslim woman, the French government's official defense was--it's been some years since I read the decision, and it's 90 pages I don't want to trawl through right now, so this paraphrase will be rough--"In a Republic you need to be able to look people in the eye, and this kind of headgear prevents that." I think when you have a state which has to torture a loose metaphor about equality into literality just to justify why their ban of headgear which effectively is designed to affect only a specific religion isn't really on religious grounds, you are dealing with a case of discrimination against a specific religion, and a violation of practitioners of that faith's freedom of conscience.

Now, of course, there's a fair debate to be had within the left about whether it's something we should disapprove of, wearing the burqa--as it's pretty clearly a symbol of male ownership and oppression of women. But if you're actually committed to liberalism in any way, it's hard to argue you need to *ban* women from wearing it because it comes out of some vaguely oppressive social norm. That itself constitutes a form of marginalization for these women, insofar as their conscience (in error, sure, but error is the price of liberalism) does not allow them to participate in civil society without it, and the law does not allow them to participate in civil society with it.

I bring this up as an example of what I object to when I object to "Islamophobia:" policy effectively designed to marginalize and limit the freedoms of Muslims on the basis of their religion, and attitudes supportive of such policy.

Importantly, I'm not opposed to, e.g., being able to draw pictures of Muhammad and make fun of him without fear of reprisal. I think doing so is classless and rude, and "Islamophobic" in the extended sense--at the very least, I wouldn't do it and I'd recommend other people not do it--but I don't think it's something social policy should aim at eliminating, and people should be protected in their right to do so. And I definitely don't object, even from a "classless and rude" perspective, to a New Atheist going on about the issues and evils of Muslim doctrine (I'd probably agree with many of their criticisms, after all).

I agree, for what it's worth, that there seems to be a faction of the Left that has turned Israel-Palestine especially into a completely polarized debate, where Palestine can do no wrong, and October 7th was a just act of liberation--and we also agree this faction is disgusting. I think the correct psychological analysis of this faction isn't "they hate America, Muslims hate America, Palestine is Muslim, therefore they love Palestine." I think this (sorry) reflects a basic incuriosity about what is driving pro-Palestinian sentiment, since you can see what their complaints *are*: that they believe that Israel is an illegitimately occupying colonial force limiting the freedom and rights of, and ethnically cleansing, Arabs in Palestine, and its stated war goals are largely just a pretext.

And there's two natural follow-ups that I often hear. First, people ask "Why are American leftists focusing specifically on Israel, and not other countries which are much more unambiguously committing genocide?"--well, because the US is a major ally of and funder of Israel, and many companies based in the US invest in the Israeli military and provide material aid to them. Americans have the potential to pressure the US government and US military, and thereby pressure Israel, in a way they don't have the power to pressure Myanmar to stop genociding the Rohingya (also Muslim!) or China the Uighurs (also Muslim! The "it's because they're Muslim" theory fails to predict the different treatment).

The second question is---"why did they support 10/7?" And the first answer to that is that, of course, they shouldn't have, and that was very awful of the American Left. The second answer to that is that not even all pro-Palestinian groups and individuals did, and I think if surveyed most wouldn't. Students for Justice in Palestine is loud, but doesn't claim a monopoly over pro-Palestinian activism. I remember discussing it with progressive friends when it happened, and the general reaction was extremely negative. The third answer is that polarization can take you crazy places, and evil places. If your "opponents" complain about an evil thing "your side" did, and you think in terms of "your side"--a dangerous thing to do, but frequent in politics--it's easy to start reaching for justifications. And so, when pro-Israeli people talk about the evils of 10/7, pro-Palestinians start reaching for justifications. It's a very, very toxic social dynamic, and one that you need to remember actually exists before you start psychoanalyzing people's true motivations. Sometimes it really is as simple as "they dig in their heels when someone brings up a good point against them." (As for those who celebrated 10/7 as it was happening, their process of polarization started well before Hamas actually attacked, but I think worked by a similar process that gradually casts Israel as a singularly monolithic Enemy and Palestinians as monolithic Friends, in a Schmittian sense. At this point, they might be beyond redemption, I don't know.)

10 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?