There are horrible things happened at the Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria, which is currently under attack from ISIS forces. Prior to ISIS, Yarmouk had suffered attacks from the current Syrian government headed by Bashar Assad.
As these brutal atrocities unfold, a few folks have argued that the relative silence when Palestinians die this way, as oppose to at Israel's hand, exposes a double-standard. Now we should be clear that, as the above links demonstrate, there are plenty of folks paying attention to what's going on in Yarmouk -- particularly among organs of the Palestinian government itself. But it is fair to say that Yarmouk does not seem to be drawing the eye of the external "solidarity" sorts here in the West. Aren't they hypocritical? Against that view, Batya Ungar-Sargon trots out the familiar chestnut that supposedly explains away the problem: Israel is a democratic state. Of course it is held to a higher standard than ISIS. Do we really want it not to be?
There clearly is something to this, and so I don't want this to be read as a full-throated dissent. But there are several problems with this analysis, and a lot of it has to do with who the supposedly hypocritical critics are.
First of all, it is not the case that there are not other democratic states that do wrong towards local ethnic others or minorities. Even in the Middle East one has Turkey, and after the Arab Spring there are other states in the Middle East that have at least something of a democratic character who do not come in for the same sorts of criticism.
Second of all, it is worth asking why being a "democratic state" should matter at all? At the extremes, this risks a sticky slope problem, whereby precisely because Israel is relatively good on issues of human and minority rights (compared to, say, ISIS, or Iran, or Syria), it gets treated worse among some sectors. But putting that aside, the argument alleges that we justly expect more from Israel, as a democratic state, than we do of roving thug gangs like ISIS. "People don’t get outraged at terrorists because that's what terrorists do: commit terror," as Ungar-Sargon puts it. And those of us with a particular stake in Israel's behavior -- because we are Jewish, or Zionist, for example -- have a particular and specific interest in having a country we care about conform its conduct to standards we can be proud of.
What's notable about this argument is who it is focused on. It is perpetrator-perspective logic -- it focuses on the alleged wrongdoer, not the victims. And there is a place for that, certainly, particularly where we very much care about the supposed perpetrator and want it to reform. This explains why I write a lot more about Israel's wrongs (and rights) than those of, say, Gabon or Bulgaria. I have a personal connection to Israel that is relatively unique, and so it makes perfect sense for me to talk about it more. It's the old caring equally problem.
But not everyone has that relation to the Palestinian situation. Some folks are concerned about this not because Israel is the alleged perpetrator, but because Palestinians are the victims. For them, it shouldn't much matter whether the victimizers are folks we should "hold to a higher standard" or not. It's the "Palestine Solidarity Committee", for example, not the "Make Israel Live Up To Its Values Committee". In short, if you care about Palestinians qua Palestinians; not as a vector for being critical of Israel, then the "it's a democracy" excuse falls by the wayside.
Finally, the other reason why this apologia sometimes rankles, though, is because it feels very disingenuous. After all, many of those being accused of hypocrisy do not really believe that Israel is a democracy, or even a valid state at all. They do not speak or act as if they are trying to get a basically liberal state to live up to its stated commitments. They think the liberal commitments are an outright lie and the entire endeavor is fundamentally brutal. In short, while I see a very substantial difference between Israel and ISIS, they don't share that perspective -- hence the popularity of the #JSIL hashtag which explicitly draws the equivalence. For people who have long spoken about Israel as thought it were an ISIS-type organization -- engaged in the rhetoric of demonization and apocalyptic violence -- silence when an actual ISIS comes along can't be chalked up to understanding of the distinction.
All of this goes back to a point I've stressed for a long time, which is that the trouble is not and never has been with people "critical of Israel" in some generic sense. It has always been particular criticisms made in particular ways in particular contexts. The complaint here isn't being leveled at persons who criticize Israel in the context of it being a liberal democracy. It's being leveled at those who have sought to portray Israel as the Fourth Reich. Those people genuinely have something to answer for -- but then, for those people it has always been less about "Palestinian solidarity" and more about beating up on the Jews.
What do you make of the brouhaha over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)? This law has prompted many people and organizations to boycott the state -- even though there are plenty of states with worse LGBT policies than Indiana. Heck, plenty of states still don't recognize same-sex marriage.
ReplyDeleteYou could look on the public outcry as hypocrisy. Or you could look at the outcry as people cannily recognizing where their complaints might have leverage.
Do you think it is wrong and hypocritical for people and organizations to focus so much opprobrium on this far-from-the-worst state actor?
I wasn't wild about the Indiana boycott -- especially if it was completely indiscriminate (e.g., people who wouldn't give a talk at Indiana University -- which obviously was not in favor of these anti-gay politics). I also worried that it didn't have a stopping point (my usual "train has no brakes" concern).
ReplyDeleteThere was an Amanda Marcotte post years ago that made some good points about when boycotts are and are not a good idea. Key among the criteria were that the boycott had to focus on a very discrete and particular wrong and would be credibly removed when that wrong was redressed. The Indiana boycott did seem to meet that criteria. But I admit I'm somewhat soured on boycotting as a tactic.
That was an entirely responsive answer, except that it dodges the metaphorical question about criticism of Israel.
ReplyDeleteSo, to rephrase: Is it an irrational strategy to focus criticism on Israel but not worse actors -- if you believe that Israel might actually modify its behavior in response to criticism, whereas the worse actors would not?
Is this strategy hypocritical?
Is it anti-Semitic?
It depends, it depends, and it depends.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it is important to note the "sticky slope" problem this argument raises (being treated worse because one does better). I agree that's not an insurmountable objection, but it is worth flagging.
Second, this argument is only available to those who concede the premise: That Israel is not a "worse actor". Not every critic buys the premise, and those sorts of critics were the main target of the post. So part of my answer is "it depends on whether the critics affirmatively demonstrate that they believe that Israel is "better" in important and significant respects from the entities they are declining to criticize on grounds of futility."
Is it hypocritical? That depends too, on what function the criticism is meant to serve. As I have argued, "criticism" in the context we're talking about shares important commonalities with punishment, including having both utilitarian and retributive justifications. That is, part of the reason we criticize is to make the world tangible better (utilitarian), and part of the reason we criticize is to identify and sanction bad guys proportionate to their wrong (retributive). The rationale you give is a utilitarian one, and that's fine -- but many of its deployments also register sharp retributive notes along side it. The more one relies on retributive tropes, the more hypocritical it is to rely on purely utilitarian reasoning for selecting one's targets.
Finally, is it anti-Semitic? That, as always, depends on the specifics of the behavior in question (and the definition of anti-Semitism, which is hardly uncontested).
Thoughtful. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteUpon reflection:
ReplyDelete"Is it an irrational strategy to focus criticism on Israel but not worse actors -- if you believe that Israel might actually modify its behavior in response to criticism, whereas the worse actors would not?"
"[T]his argument is only available to those who concede the premise: That Israel is not a 'worse actor'. Not every critic buys the premise, and those sorts of critics were the main target of the post. So part of my answer is 'it depends on whether the critics affirmatively demonstrate that they believe that Israel is 'better' in important and significant respects from the entities they are declining to criticize on grounds of futility.'"
When people complain about Indiana’s RFRA, do they face some duty to first affirmatively demonstrate that they believe Indiana is “better” in important and significant respects (e.g., recognizing same-sex marriage) than the other states they are declining to criticize on the grounds of futility?