Challenging Violent SpeechUnless It’s About Israel – Commentary Magazine

Given their particular sensitivity to the triumphant mightiness of the pen, its profoundly disturbing to note where lines are drawn and exceptions made.

Linda Sarsour, the lefts darling of the day, posted a widely-shared picture of Palestinians praying in the streets of Jerusalem, an act protesting the placement of metal detectors outside the Al Aqsa Mosque. This is resilience. This is perseverance. This is faith. This is commitment. This is inspiration. This is Palestine, Sarsour wrote. Denied access to pray at Al Aqsa Mosque in their own homeland, Palestinians pray on the streets in an act of non-violent resistance. They are met with tear gas and rubber bullets.

Absent from her platitudinous prevarication was any mention of the inarguably violent act that led Israel to construct the metal detectors in the first place, the recent killing of two Israeli police officers at the Temple Mount. Also absent: any reference to the three Israelis who were brutally murdered in the settlement of Halamish on Friday night. It was a far cry from nonviolent resistance when 19-year-old Omar al-Abed entered a home, saw a family finishing a Shabbat dinner, and began indiscriminately stabbing his victims.

Sarsours rhetoric is dangerous precisely because she understands her audience and how to appeal to their emotions. She peppers her statements with a few felicitous bromides like non-violent resistance and hopes no one notices the inconsistency of her arguments. Others on the left are slightly more honest about their intentions.

Writing in Al Jazeera, Stanley Cohen called on Israel to accept that as an occupied people, Palestinians have a right to resistin every way possible. He begins by telling his readers: long ago, it was settled that resistance and even armed struggle against a colonial occupation force is not just recognized under international law but specifically endorsed. His entire article is predicated on a false premise in that it demands the characterization of Israel as a colonial occupation force a characterization that is categorically incoherent.

Cohen cites a 1982 UN Resolution which reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle. He does not mention which countries voted for and against this resolution.

Among the countries that voted for it: Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Rwanda, Qatar, Niger, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq.

Among the countries who voted against it: Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

On college campuses, the call for armed struggle has become the Cri de Coeur of leftist students who are otherwise hypersensitive to the impact that intangible words can have on corporeal beings. On Columbias campus, students who form the backbone of the BDS movement have successfully blurred the line between incitement and impassionedalbeit severely misguidedopinion. In 2016, the Columbia/ Barnard Socialists concluded one social media post by declaring: long live the intifada. As recently as Sundayafter the Halamish attack the Students for Justice in Palestine shared the Al Jazeera article calling for armed resistance. Where are the outraged professors, administrators, and students concerned for the safety of the student body? Where are the charges of bigotry and racism, the calls to silence this speech, to stop this violence?

Nowhere does the idea that speech can constitute violence find more support than on elite liberal arts colleges. But regardless of whether they have intellectual or moral merit on their own, calls for safe spaces, trigger warnings, and micro-aggression-free environments that come from groups or individuals who not only condone, but use their words to quite literally call for violence, must be ignored, and the hypocrisy highlighted.

From the safe confines of an ivy-covered campusor from the relative safety of this country, for that matterits easy to preach justice and retribution, to portray armed struggle as the necessary means that will find justification through a righteous end. But especially those who are sensitive to the power of language should understand: euphemistic terminology does nothing to mitigate the violent nature inherent in this rhetoric. There must be no confusion. The lefts glorification of armed struggle is nothing short of approval for those Palestinians who target and kill innocent men, women, and children. Those who proclaim to speak for social justice have been damningly silent.

See the rest here:
Challenging Violent SpeechUnless It's About Israel - Commentary Magazine