Taking a stance against oppression and injustice has historically involved great personal risk, but every now and then we are confronted with a situation where the stakes are higher if we choose to remain silent. What is happening in Gaza today is such an example.
We are undoubtedly living through a time that will be written, talked and debated about for years to come. And just like we were shocked to learn about the horrors of Nazi Germany, future generations will also be in disbelief that one state’s genocidal intent was not a compelling enough reason for global intervention.
As we have seen with Russia’s attack on Ukraine, intervention in modern terms does not necessarily mean direct military involvement, but that financial and diplomatic measures can be taken against a state that violates international law. Yet, no such measures have been taken to protect the civilian population of Gaza nor to communicate the set of values democracies claim to be committed to. Instead, we have witnessed how efforts to alleviate tensions around this issue have failed miserably.
I’m writing this not because I have any special expertise on the subject, or to arrogantly assume I have all the answers. No, I am writing this because I see the struggle in Palestine as the climactic event that most of us saw coming from miles away, and one that could have been prevented. It’s the accumulation of decades long oppression and injustice that has not only taken place in Gaza and the West Bank, but throughout most of the global south.
This is a story that resonates with so many of us who come from countries that have been destabilized by foreign influence and then inevitably, ravaged by war. The struggle in Palestine today is at large, a representation of the devastating effects of western imperialism.
While the era of imperialism and western exploitation of indigenous cultures has formally come to an end, western hegemony has persisted unchallenged, at least until now. Considering how strongly the public has responded to the situation in Gaza, it stands to reason that most world leaders are incredibly detached from the people they are supposed to represent. Or alternatively, it reveals their disinterest in resolving conflicts that do not align with their political and financial incentives.
It is clear that the political elite have no qualms about where they stand on this matter. Protests have erupted on a mass scale in all major cities of the world, pleading for a ceasefire, while leaders of democratic countries have been apprehensive about so much as condemning the bombing of innocent civilians.
Contrasting this situation with Russia’s attack on Ukraine seems unavoidable, although the counter argument is that unlike Palestine, Ukraine is a sovereign nation and Russia’s attack was unprovoked and illegal. Thus, global intervention was warranted to mitigate security concerns.
The reason we should find this line of thinking alarming, regardless of whether it’s factual or not, is because while the political, cultural and geopolitical circumstances are completely different, we are still talking about living, breathing, human beings getting massacred by the thousands. Surely, all human suffering should be alleviated regardless of race, ethnicity, or even political circumstance.
In the news, we hear a number of talking points that justify Israel’s relentless bombardment of Gaza. That Hamas has brought this upon itself, that it uses civilians as human shields, that this is an existential threat that must be eradicated once and for all, and on and on it goes. Most of these arguments stem from premises that are simply untrue.
Firstly, it is dishonest to claim that the attack on October 7th happened in a vacuum. Reducing a century old conflict to a single event, and viewing it through one particular narrative told by the more powerful side, is only going to create more hostility and division. Secondly, the intentional killing of civilians will never be justifiable no matter who the perpetrator is and what their intentions are. A state should not get a moral pass on this matter either. So there is no argument to be made in defense of a hostile state that despite its need for self-preservation, attempts to proudly justify the unjustifiable. Not when the death tolls in Gaza consist of an alarming number of women and children.
Still, these are the primary ways in which such conversations are being redirected. Whenever there is an opportunity to create dichotomy, we often take the bait. Whether this is something we are naturally drawn to or whether it makes the processing of an event more comprehensible to us, I can’t say. But we see this happen in media constantly, and presently it is evident in the juxtaposition of one side consisting of terrorists and the other being a civilized, virtuous democracy whose actions are justified. The angling and framing of a certain story, the language and images that are being used, are all crucial components in constructing a particular narrative.
In essence, the overarching message I want to convey here is that despite today’s challenges – information overload, social media, and rampant misinformation – we ought to see these constructed narratives for what they truly are: one of many possible stories. Censorship, propaganda, and fear driven tactics to keep a population in line are not limited to places lacking freedom; rather, they are strategies that often manifest covertly in societies where freedom is revered as a core value.
If there is even a tiny glimmer of hope to be found here, it is awareness. These horrific events have the potential to change how we view world events that have previously caused separation and division, especially among ordinary people. We are empowered with the choice to react differently due to the abundance of information at our disposal. Most importantly, the situation in Gaza has showcased that there is an undercurrent of class solidarity, independent of background and personal inclinations, that is waiting to be realized and endorsed by all of us.