Re-indigenising feminism: gender, genocide and Gaza
Banah Ghadbian
Abstract
In this article, I analyse why the ongoing genocide in Gaza is a feminist issue. I reflect on the term ‘reproductive genocide’ as defined by the Palestinian Feminist Collective and situate how genocidal violence is gendered, while remaining critical of the ways in which gender is deployed to essentialise oppression. I explore how colonial, imperialist feminists use the discursive strategy of purplewashing and deploy notions of gender to justify genocide. I locate my analysis in Third World feminist frameworks which understand how colonial structures use heteropatriarchy and sexual violence as part of their conquest of Indigenous people. I draw from Black, Indigenous, transnational, Third World, Palestinian and inter/national feminisms that insist on remembering decolonisation and re-indigenisation. I conclude by centring calls by Palestinian feminists in Gaza themselves, including Gazan feminists calling for an international strike on Women’s Day, arguing that they embody an intersecting critique of capitalism, colonialism, patriarchy and state violence simultaneously that insists on remembrance and reindigenisation.
Just more anti-Israel propaganda dressed up as feminist studies. It doesn't take much effort to see that anyone can claim anything in an academic paper.
Her first footnote says:
I use the term Zionist entity instead of Israel intentionally, as Israel has violated international law since its inception.
So Third World Quarterly knowingly allows its papers to single out Israel as the only nation that is so heinous that its name must not be mentioned - the Voldemort of nations.
By singling out and denying the Jewish State altogether, the paper is functionally antisemitic.
It is hardly the only one - there are dozens of academic papers in respected journals over the past year that don't debate "Gaza genocide" but use it as an assumed fact to expand it into even more bizarre areas as if "genocide" is an axiom, not a lie and not even disputed. after all, they have footnotes to other papers that accuse Israel of genocide! That's "science!"
What does this have to do with Tucker Carlson?
As bad as Carlson's platforming neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers is, he is still a media personality. His promotion of toxic hate is irresponsible and must be condemned, even if the President supports his right to host whomever he wants. (There is no contradiction there. He can say what he wants and everyone can condemn him.)
But which is worse - an influential podcaster platforming Jew haters, or academic journals mainstreaming antisemitism in the guise of scholarship?
The journals wear the costume of objectivity. They cloak ideological hostility in peer-reviewed legitimacy. And they go unchallenged , not despite the academy’s moral standards, but because of how those standards have collapsed. The very ethical frameworks used to detect bigotry and bias in other cases are suspended when the subject is Jews or Israel.
Even the media has mechanisms for correcting mistakes. these journals are building a pseudo-intellectual infrastructure for antisemitism that remains in the academic ether forever. Newspapers are forgotten but researchers continue to cite these papers as if they are proven theories to build upon decades after they are written.
Where are the Leftists railing against the hijacking of academia by antisemites?
Yes, this article only has a few dozen views and Carlson reaches millions. In that sense there is no comparison. But unlike Carlson, academic journals are supposed to have standards, and social science journals pretend that their papers have the same rigor as scientific papers.
Hate like this lives on forever in the dusty corners of universities, waiting to be resurrected when a new toxic theory emerges. And a hell of a lot of those theories happen to center on Jews.