(Guest post by Andrew Pessin, professor of philosophy at Connecticut College.)
The One Simple Question
That Determines Everything
Andrew Pessin
apessin@conncoll.edu
1. Yes or No
It’s a simple yes or no
question. Much follows from how one answers the question, but we’ll start with
just the question.
(Q) “Is it acceptable to slit
babies’ throats, rape little girls, chop off of the hands and feet of
teenagers, gouge out eyes, murder children in front of their parents, murder
parents in front of their children then kidnap the children, bind entire
families together then burn them alive, and livestream all the above including
posting videos of their murders to the victims’ own social media accounts—and
worse—on a mass scale—in the pursuit of some political aim?”
I’ve been asking question (Q)
of various faculty members at my institution and elsewhere, people whom I
previously thought to be quite decent with serious commitments to ideals such
as diversity, inclusion, toleration, and anti-racism, in the form of asking
them to publicly name the perpetrators of the October 7 massacre and condemn
the atrocities, full stop.
They have overwhelmingly
refused to respond.
Based on what I have seen,
out of some 200+ faculty members at my institution only four are willing to
publicly condemn the brutal, sadistic, barbaric slaughter by Hamas of some 1200
mostly Jewish civilians, including many babies, children, teenagers, disabled
people, and grandmothers, full stop.
If any other identity group
had experienced a mass slaughter like this, or even a far smaller one, or even
an abstract harm of some sort, does anyone doubt these faculty members would
erupt, loudly and for days? Not a hypothetical, at least here: not only was
there much outraged chatter after (for example) the Pulse nightclub massacre in
2016 or the George Floyd matter in 2020, but this past spring our now former
President scheduled an event at a venue that had had discriminatory policies fifty
years ago, and the faculty here exploded in weeks of outrage, departmental
statements of solidarity with harmed students, with cancelled classes and then
a cancelled President.
But when it’s Jewish babies
and children, raped, tortured, dismembered, decapitated, there is
silence.
And these are the decent people.
Many others across many
campuses clearly think the answer to (Q) is “yes.” Cornell
professor Russell Rickford found the October 7 bloodshed positively “exhilarating”; Columbia professor Joseph Massad was filled with “jubilation and awe,” finding the massacre
“astounding.” And Marc Lamont Hill
of CUNY answered (Q) more or less explicitly when he wrote, “So many university academics who insist upon doing
performative, virtue signaling ‘land acknowledgements’ at every public event
are eerily silent as real liberation struggles are happening. Guess
decolonization really is a metaphor for some folk…” He clearly derides those
who are all talk and no action, so for him, at least, the answer appears to be
“yes,” at least in the pursuit of “decolonization.”
Nor
are these professors alone in their sentiments. Lamont Hill’s remark also came
after ten days of massive campus rallies openly celebrating the
“resistance,” the sanitized word for the mass torture and slaughter of Jewish
civilians. Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the leading campus group
with some 200 chapters, immediately endorsed and defended the massacre by
openly proclaiming that “decolonization is a call to … actions that go
beyond … rhetoric,” including “resistance … in all forms,” including “armed
struggle,” and illustrated their social media with images of homicidal hang
gliders in case we missed the point. Most tellingly, they declared that they
“are PART of this movement, not [merely] in solidarity”—the movement, that is,
that guns down unarmed dancing teenagers.
So Rickford,
Massad, and Lamont Hill have a lot of fellow travelers in the
affirmative camp, faculty and students, people for whom all that gore is
apparently fine if it’s for “decolonization,” at least when the victims are
Jews.
I have
many thoughts about how academics (and then their students) become
so gripped by ideology that they lose sight of basic moral truths, to the point
where they see the mass sadistic murder of children as the moral high ground. The
people just above are at least open about who they are so you know who you are
dealing with, but, frankly, the “decent” ones, the silent ones, are ultimately
no different. October 7 at least brings the benefit of clarity and sharp lines
into matters often featuring obscurity and nuance. In my view any academic who
cannot simply answer “no” to question (Q) above is literally in the same
ideological position as the Nazis, for whom there were no moral limits to their
extermination campaign, just possessed of some marginally different ideology,
as we’ll see below.
For
now maybe a few simple thoughts will do.
Speaking
of land acknowledgements: In the lobby of a central building on my campus there
is an enormous posterboard proclaiming that “You are on Pequot and Mohegan
homeland,” noting that the college “celebrates Indigenous People’s Day.”
By the
decolonization rationale above, our local Native Americans would be within
their rights to invade our campus and mercilessly slaughter every single one of
us. Indeed those who support indigenous rights and decolonization ought to be
the first to offer their throats to avoid that vapid virtue signaling that
Lamont Hill derides and actually live (and die) by what they believe.
Do our
professors really support the Mohegans’ right to come in and gouge our eyes
out, cut off our hands and feet, tie us up and burn us alive, and rape us while
they are at it?
Or do
they only support such when the alleged colonizers are Jews? (One suspects that
when they learn that it’s the Jews who are actually the original
indigenous inhabitants of the land and the Arabs the colonialist
conquerors, they will be less enthusiastic about the slaughter of babies and
children. More on this below.)
In
fact in the very same tract declaring themselves “part of” the “armed struggle”
movement for decolonization, SJP acknowledges that their chapters are on
“occupied Turtle Island,” and further admit that they are themselves
Palestinians “in exile,” i.e. not indigenous here. So by their own logic they
should be the first to offer their throats to their local Native Americans; or
since they’re keen to be a “part of” the violent decolonization movement, they
probably should just eliminate themselves.
Note too
that these same folk see themselves in “exile” and demand the “right of return”
to their homeland in literally the same breath as they reject the Jews’
right to return from their own exile to their own homeland. And when Jews in
fact did just that, these people endorse slaughtering them en masse; so again
by parity of reasoning they should be offering their throats to the local
Native Americans in the name of “decolonization”—not to mention slaughtering
all non-indigenous people everywhere, which would include all immigrants and
refugees in every country around the world.
Of
course all this is absurd, outrageously so.
There’s
actually a word for violence targeting civilians for political aims: it’s terrorism.
And anyone incapable of identifying and condemning October 7 as such is
pro-terror, pure and simple, no matter what the alleged grievances are
that allegedly led to the violence. If you can’t answer “no” to (Q) above, full
stop, then you are pro-terror, period.
This
actually isn’t difficult. You don’t need to know anything about the conflict to
know that that mass terror attack was abominable. Who watches babies having
their throats slit and little girls raped and then dismembered alive (yes) and
says, “Well, I need to learn more before making a judgment”? Who watches a
mother and a father and their three small children tied up together and then
burned alive (yes) and says, “Well I need to hear the other side before I make
up my mind”? It simply doesn’t matter what preceded these events. By my lights,
all decent people everywhere should recognize that there are moral limits to
what people can do even in response to their alleged “oppression,” and that it
is never, under any circumstances, acceptable to target civilians, particularly
in that sadistic, barbaric, inhuman way—even if they are Jews.
This
is not about politics. It doesn’t require you to be “pro-Israel.”
This
is about humanity.
It’s
either yes or an unqualified, full-stop “no”—because the second you add a “but”
or “it’s complicated” or “look at the context,” you are turning your alleged
“no” into a “yes.”
If your ideology endorses the
mass extermination of a people, it’s time to rethink your ideology.
And, perhaps, to be removed
from campus.
2. The True Nature Of
Palestinianism
Let’s
now see what follows from the “no” answer—from acknowledging that October 7 was
a mass terror attack.
First
and foremost, the “no” answer reveals something that was actually never hidden,
except to those who have long chosen not to see it. Since such atrocities are never
justifiable by any recognizable moral norms, the “no” answer reveals that the
people perpetrating them do not respect those norms. And that in turn means
that the movement in question is not what its Western progressive allies like
to pretend it is.
Hamas,
in other words, is not a liberation movement, not a decolonization movement, not about peace, negotiation, Palestinian
self-determination much less “two states,” not concerned about “justice” as
Westerners understand it nor even about the welfare, well-being, or betterment of the lives of its Palestinian civilians
or subjects, all the things that should rightly matter to genuine
campus progressives. It is not responding or objecting to any particular
Israeli policy or practice, or alleged offense, such as an “occupation.”
It is the very existence
of a Jewish state to which Hamas objects—because Hamas is
an openly anti-Jewish genocidal movement that aims to establish its
version of Islam over the entire globe, including murdering every single Jew on
earth, starting with those in Israel. (They also are interested in destroying the United States and global Christianity, but the Jews are the first priority.)
That the animus is not
restricted to Israeli Jews is also clear by the global reaction. Mass rallies
in major cities around the globe celebrated the October 7 slaughter, called to
“Globalize the Intifada!,” and attacked
local Jews and Jewish institutions. Within days of October 7 antisemitic
incidents had skyrocketed across the world, and by early November there had
been hundreds of incidents of harassment of Jews including many incidents of
physical assaults, including at least one murder in Los Angeles and possibly
another in Detroit, and with uncountable incidents of vandalism against
synagogues, Hillel and Chabad Houses, Jewish stores and the like. And on our
campuses: as noted above, SJP openly declared its support for Hamas with social
media celebrating the mass slaughter of Jews (which they call “resistance”),
then launched a campaign to “bring the resistance” to every campus in order to
“dismantle” Zionism everywhere. Lovely words—except when “resistance” openly
means “slaughter Jews,” when “dismantling Zionism” means removing, “by any
means necessary,” anyone on campus who believes that Jews have human rights
too, and when they illustrate their campaign with a celebratory image of the homicidal
hang glider about to gun down every unarmed dancing teenager in his sight.
This is open endorsement of,
and incitement to, mass homicidal violence—occurring on, and directed towards,
not only Israel and Israelis but every Jew everywhere, including on our
campuses.
“We are all Hamas!” one
excited young woman at the University of North Carolina screamed exuberantly, part of a massive crowd of evidently like-minded individuals.
Nor are Hamas and its campus
supporters alone in this platform. Hamas’s main internal rival, the Palestinian
Authority, led by “moderate” dictator Mahmoud Abbas, is entirely on the same
page, as seen from its long-running “pay-to-slay” policy incentivizing
murdering Israeli Jews to its recent proclamation requiring
all its mosques to preach that
exterminating Jews is a Muslim imperative, to openly just announcing that its
main party, Fatah, actually took part
in the massacre. The mosque sermons weren’t about “Israeli” Jews, mind you, but
“Jews,” full stop—like the full stop that should accompany the “no” answer to
question (Q) above.
And it’s not just the
Palestinians. Hezbollah in Lebanon has been actively involved in firing on
Israel from the start, as have the Houthis in Yemen, as have some Syrian
groups, all of whom are backed and directed by Iran. The Algerian parliament declared war
on Israel. The most prestigious Islamic university in the world issued a fatwa
declaring that no Israeli Jews are civilians, including babies and grandmothers,
thus legitimizing violence against them. (This is the same university that
previously issued special fatwas
sanctioning suicide bombing against
Jews, despite the general Islamic prohibition on suicide.) Another Muslim body
issued a fatwa
calling on all Arab states to join
the war against Israel. Both Al-Qaeda and ISIS have called on
their followers to strike Israeli, U.S., and Jewish targets around the world.
Based on the massive rallies in Arab and Muslim countries around the globe
celebrating October 7, it appears that what we are seeing is, in fact, a global
Islamist war against the Jews.
This is what the “no” answer to
(Q) reveals to us.
What Israel, and world Jewry,
have been dealing with for years is in fact a war of global Islam against every Jew on the planet (and ultimately
against Christianity and the West too). Those piles of mutilated Jewish bodies
strewn all over the ground and the internet—that is the Palestinian
movement, now understood as merely the leading front in the Islamist war
against the Jews and the West.
That is what is being celebrated and supported around the
world, including on our campuses.
Once you understand this then
nearly everything about the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” looks different. First,
that name is oversimplified and misleading: it should be called at least the
Israeli-Palestinian-Jewish-Arab-Muslim-Iran Conflict. More importantly, it’s not
in fact about Israelis allegedly oppressing disenfranchised Palestinians but about
Jews defending their lives from a global genocidal Islamist movement. So
understood, you’ll need to reorient yourself about who, exactly, is the
oppressor, and who is the underdog. Opponents of Israel like to show maps of
“big” strong Israel dominating little, fractured, vulnerable “Palestine.” But a
more accurate perspective is given by something like this map,
with that tiny sliver of Israel, 32 of which would fit inside the state of
Texas, dwarfed by the surrounding Arab and Muslim nations who openly seek to
destroy it. Look at that map and sincerely ask yourself: who exactly is the
oppressor and who is the oppressed here? Who in fact is the colonialist, the
imperialist, and who is the one resisting that colonial imperialism? Ask
yourself seriously, which party actually seeks coexistence and which one seeks
the extermination of the other?
The answer to that last one
might be given by answering another question: Where in the Middle East and
North Africa do Jews and Arabs in fact coexist, and where in that same
region are there essentially no Jews?
October 7 reveals the true
nature of the Palestinian movement, now impossible not to see even for those
who have long chosen not to see it. (Q) is a yes or no question; and if
“progressives” truly are opposed to oppression, on the side of the oppressed,
against colonialism, and for coexistence and peace, then the “no” answer to (Q)
dictates which side they should be on here.
Part 2
Part 3
|
 Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Read all about it here!
|
|
Thursday, August 15, 2024
Elder of Ziyon
.jpg)
