Normally, I would fisk Belen Fernandez' arguments, noting how the entire article is a huge exercise in whataboutism, with provably false claims that Israel is worse than Hamas in every possible aspect and therefore Zionists have no right to say a word against Palestinian child abuse.
But facts are irrelevant. Fernandez doesn't care about facts - which is why she doesn't address them. She wants to play to readers' emotions, accusing Israel of raising its own children with the singleminded goal of blowing up Arab babies. She wants to change the subject. This is the modus operandi of Israel's critics - since the facts aren't on their side, they ignore the facts and make up others, or engage in character assassination or other diversions, all to avoid actually addressing the issue.
So this time, instead of pointing out facts, I will take a page out of the socialist, leftist playbook.
My foray into writing an article that ignores actual issues, makes up facts based on the flimsiest of evidence, and adopts the methods of the anti-Israel crowd begins here.
______________________
Belén Fernández is a sexist.
She writes in Al Jazeera:
Recently, Lawrence J Haas of the American Foreign Policy Council took to the pages of Newsweek to publicise a dangerous phenomenon: “Western Silence as Gaza Summer Camps Train Future Terrorists”.According to Haas – whose panties have been propelled into a massive bunch by the (hallucinated) idea that Western media and academia are obsessed with a “narrative of Israeli oppression and Palestinian victimisation” – Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are teaching teenage boys in the Gaza Strip how to “shoot guns, launch anti-tank missiles and protect themselves while peering around walls”.
The expression "panties in a bunch" comes from the British expression "don't get your knickers in a twist." As Eric Partridge writes in A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, eighth edition (1984):
knickers in a twist. Don't get your ..., don't become cantankerous or contentiously touchy: both among men (implying femininity) and from men to women: since ca. 1950. (L[aurie] A[tkinson] 1976)—2. Get (one's) knickers in a twist, to get flustered, to panic: coll[oquial]: since 1960 at latest.Using that expression against women says that women are over-emotional and not to be taken seriously. Using it against a man says that the man is as bad as a woman is in not being able to look at an issue with a clear head. To use that expression against a man is to agree with its premise that women are unable to think clearly and logically and men who get upset over something are acting in an inferior "female" way.
Fernandez' use of this expression also betrays her transphobia, as she is clearly denigrating men who choose to wear women's undergarments.
Ignorance is no excuse. The phrase has been recognized as offensive for years.
This is a sexism, and by using that highly offensive phrase, Belen Fernandez proves that she feels that women are inferior to men. Consciously or not, Fernandez hates women.
She's not even embarrassed to use this phrase. Maybe because she is a privileged, white-passing person who could afford to spend six years of her life hitchhiking across Europe with no idea of what the word "responsibility" means.
Perhaps she chose Al Jazeera as her media outlet to engage in explicit sexism because she looks down at Arabs and feels that they aren't as sensitive as Westerners towards misogyny, and she feels more comfortable using a highly offensive sexist phrase in an environment where she thinks it would be more welcomed. That attitude is condescending and racist.
Such a shocking phrase from an alleged leftist and nominal feminist should raise alarms about the systemic sexism, transphobia and hypocrisy that permeates socialist circles.
Anyone who truly cares about feminism, trans rights and human values must demand that Balen Fernandez apologize to Lawrence J. Haas - and keep apologizing until he and everyone else she has attacked in this article accepts her apology.
Obviously, Fernandez must be fired from her position for her offensive, sexist and racist behavior, and all of her articles must be scrubbed from existence, so no one can be exposed to her offensive hate of women. Jacobin surely does not want to be associated with someone like that, and anyone who cares to fight for equity for women must insist that her employer does the right thing.
_______________________________
Does this type of argument look familiar?
People who support Israel see this sort of thing every single day.
