Israel and Gaza: A deafening silence and other lies
I don't mind admitting that I'm scared shitless writing anything about foreign policy, or the Middle East, or anything to do with Israel or Palestine, so I usually slope away from it like the coward I am.
The reason for my cowardice on these matters is simple. It's fairly certain that even dipping the tiniest pinky toe into the waters will open up a can of whoopass and a million stinging comments that buzz around your words for days. It's like taking on a second job, trying to plough through them all. Why bother? Aren't there more important things in life than that? You end up on the receiving end of essay length diatribes in which you're variously labelled as naive and stupid and immature, so what's the point?
The funny thing is I don't mind slagging off BNP types on here, and I've done so many times before, because there's even a spirit of decent banter that comes back. People who respond are either so aggressive that my bleeding heart ends up feeling sorry for them; or come aross as quite otherwise reasonable people who happen to believe things which I find appalling, occasionally because they're misguided or have misunderstood stuff, and occasionally because they're out-and-out scum. I'm really not intimidated by that at all, and I'm always quite happy to speak out against those forces of unpleasantness.
So why am I such a coward when it comes to other stuff? I think it's because it's a tedious process, like learning chess openings. You have to understand all the things that are going to be thrown at you so that you don't fall down the pit onto the bamboo spikes after only having taken a couple of steps forward. It requires so much work, so much effort. You end up having all your words twisted in such a way that you have to anticipate each and every single way they might be turned against you.
And even then - and this is the bit I really can't stand - it doesn't matter, because no matter how carefully you couch what you say in context, and no matter how much you try to be absolutely certain that you're not falling into a trap, someone will throw you in there anyway, regardless of what you've actually said. People will say you've said things you haven't. People will attribute things to you that you haven't said. People will fisk you - which I don't mind at all, but when it's by using two or three words out of a sentence out of context, then claim they've managed to prove your hypocrisy and stupidity, then it's just pointless. You might as well take the word 'the' out and put it in quote marks and say "Haha! I see where you're coming from now!"
And yet, I've been watching the news over the past couple of days, and I've been horrified by what I've seen. Seeing as I write about all kinds of other stuff about which I'm not an expert, yet still hold a view, shouldn't I write about this as well? Is it really worth the effort, to be sucked into the same old discussions and hear the same old stuff? Is it really worth it, or might it be better just to give up completely? I don't really know. But I think I ought to try, just because that's what blogging is: it's writing about things that you feel you have to write about, because those are the thoughts that are running around your brain, and you can't bear not to set them free into words.
In the spirit of chess openings, I'm going to try and anticipate some of the things that might be said already. The first is one of the most horrible cliches of all, and one which you hear all over the place nowadays. It's 'a deafening silence'. It's a cliche that's beloved of the pro-war left, and the usual suspects there whom we needn't name for fear of stroking their monstrous egos even more than they've already been stroked; but you'll see it elsewhere too.
"A deafening silence" is a trump card you can play whenever someone says anything, in order to negate everything they've written. You can say "I didn't hear you complaining much when X did Y, did I? I wonder why that might be?" but the more usual way of framing it is something like "Funny how you were so reticent about your feelings when X happened, an equivalent terror. All we hear from you [people who think that for some reason slaughtering other human beings is somehow wrong] is a deafening silence."
But I think "a deafening silence" is a lie. I know that other writers, and I do admire their courage, who dip their toe into the waters of writing about international affairs try and bend over backwards to condemn every single atrocity in the history of the world ever, no matter who's committed it, no matter where it is, no matter how historical, so that people can't then say "Aha! But there was a deafening silence about that, wasn't there?" But that's not the point. Just because you don't write about one thing doesn't mean that you can't write about something else. The entirety of world news is a spectacularly complicated and vast thing. A lot of the people who are first to dive in with "a deafening silence" can't claim that they themselves write about every single human rights abuse everywhere ever, because it's entirely pointless. Someone will, though, come in at some point and say "Aha! But you didn't mention Robespierre's Terror! That means you must think it's all right!" or "Funny how you don't think there's anything wrong with Pol Pot's crimes, that means you must agree with them."
So you have to start every single thing like this with: Yes, a lot of terrible things happen in the world and I am talking about this specfic one. I must state for the record that killing human beings is a bad thing. I must state that other human beings have been killed in the past, by people other than the people I am about to talk about. This is not to claim that this is the only incident of its type in the history of the world - however, it is the one I am going to focus on today. This is not a 'deafening silence' by me on all those other incidents but merely a reflection of the fact that I have chosen to write about this.
Even that won't save you, but you have to try.
Linked with 'a deafening silence' is the idea of 'whataboutery'. Sunny has written about it here, also in reference to Gaza. It's a wearingly familiar term for anyone who's ever tried to plough through any comment thread about international political situations. Whataboutery is similar to 'a deafening silence' but it's slightly less smug and self-righteous; it simply attempts to state that two wrongs don't make a right - which is fair enough in itself, if that's all it is, but 'whataboutery' in this context ends up as an orouboros of "he started it" or "he hit me first" or "they did this" and so on, and so on. Of course you can't take acts of violence out of context, and you can't isolate them as if every new day is a clean slate; but on the other hand, sometimes things just are what they are. You can't just say "Ah, but what about when X happened? That was just as bad and that's from the people you think are the goodies" and think that means all discussion is redundant, or that no atrocity can be condemned if the person committing it has been on the receiving end of some provocation. Nothing excuses certain acts. Whataboutery is another lie used to avoid real discussion.
You have to trudge on through all of this. By this time, it's mentally exhausting. You're already anticipating a flurry of snippy comments telling you that you're an idiot, and you begin to think to yourself: Oh, what's the bloody point? I've got better things to do with my day then spend all my time defending what I've written to people who don't care anyway. This kind of thing is like fly-paper for angry little wasps. Is it really worth it? Is there any point saying what you want to say? Won't it just be torn to bits anyway?
But here's the thing. Despite all my cowardice, my mind is full of thoughts after seeing the flotilla to Gaza attacked. I've read all the tales about weaponry and all the arguments about self-defence. I've seen everything. And I understand that, yes, Palestinians do bad things, and kill people, and launch attacks. I understand all of this. It's not a deafening silence. I do understand that there are other significant crimes against humanity right across the world, not all of which I manage to write about all the time, which is a source of shame for me, but I'll live with it. I do understand that there is a country called Israel and I am not one of those people who would like to see it wiped off the face of the earth; nor do I think that I am a 'useful idiot' who is somehow tacitly making that happen or helping the cause of those people who do, by writing what I write. I understand that the state of Israel is not the same as the people of Israel, and I know that states behave very differently to the will of the people who live there. I know that there are huge complex historical problems about who belongs where, and they won't be solved by next Tuesday. I know that both sides claim to have offered peace. I know that both sides claim the other side has been unreasonable. I know that both sides claim that they have suffered. I know all of this. I have read a great deal, and there is a lot more still to read - more than I'll ever have time to read. I believe the media including the BBC does its best to be balanced on these matters, and I'm not one of those people who thinks that TV or newspapers or anyone is run by Jews or that there's some kind of big conspiracy going on at all. I don't think that all Jews are Zionists and I know there are many different definitions of the word Zionist. I know that this is one incident in a long and bloody history. I am aware that I am in no position to judge any of these things. I know all of this. But despite all of this, I do have the right to say what I think about it.
And I do think that the storming of the flotilla was a crime - more than a war crime, a simple crime of needless violence and aggression, ending the lives of other human beings. It shouldn't have happened, and it was a shameful act, an atrocity.
Come along with your deafening silences and your whatabouterys and your other lies. But there, I've said it.
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- It doesn’t matter that much
- Workbrain
- So Solid Wiki fun
- Quentin Letts killed by a woodchipper
- I just sent Robin round
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- MightyBlackout on It doesn’t matter that much
- Jo Carroll on It doesn’t matter that much
- Mooney, the Mail, and Me « LeftCentral on Peter Hitchens depresses me. But I won’t kill him.
- Maeva on Tarts and hookers
- Merrick on Workbrain
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
June 2nd, 2010 - 10:17
Thank you. We all have the right to our opinions on this even if we don’t have doctorates or press passes.
June 2nd, 2010 - 10:20
Well said, there is a tendency in the less specialist commentators and MSM on these issues to look for “symmetry of blame” best exemplified by the BBC’s “Fair and Balanced” guidelines.
The default get out clause is “Both sides are equally to blame” and to look for faults on the side of the apparent victim. This too is an utter lie, and never more apparent than in this instance. the Israeli MFA parading pictures of tools and kitchen utensils as an “arsenal of weapons” is pure satire, beyond any reasonable person’s grasp.
The MSM can jump on these and parrot other accusations against the victims until the “balance” looks right, but this ignores that many times the ACTION is unbalanced and to introduce balance is a lie.
In most cases there can be a lot of small details piled against the victims, in this case however there are simply not enough to even begin to address the imbalance in the act itself, and many reports just seem ludicrous to even the casual observer.
Speaking out is so important on this and taking sides is also important. There is always a victim.
June 2nd, 2010 - 10:21
Wow. Good job! That is such a good post. I agree with EVERYTHING you have said. You said what I have been feeling but have not figured out how to say. Thanks for writing this!
June 2nd, 2010 - 10:36
You’ll get no argument from me. Talking about international incidents is always fraught with danger, and yes there has been evidence on both sides of this incident to suggest either that the IDFs actions were either justifiable, or that they weren’t, depending upon who is doing the talking. And it will certainly be interesting to see what evidence comes out over time.
However, I cannot for the life of me fathom how a group of highly trained and heavily armed soldiers can claim that the correct response to being hit with with sticks and stone is to open fire.
June 2nd, 2010 - 10:50
well said
June 2nd, 2010 - 10:50
excellent piece. it needs to be said, over and over
June 2nd, 2010 - 11:08
Nothing to say, just *applause*
June 2nd, 2010 - 11:16
No, you’re pretty much right I think. Those who get involved in it, even when they live across the world, always seem to have so much at stake in proving the others are blacker than black morally. It too often becomes an online screaming match.
On the one hand it’s so hideously complicated that you simply can’t caveat everything. On the other hand it makes statements like Tim Montgomerie’s ‘Israel is surrounded by enemies’ yesterday seem dangerously true, even though the reality is much, much murkier and shows his serious biases.
And that’s why I usually don’t get involved either; even though the stakes rellay are life and death, the amount of idiots and misreporting makes it hard to bother. So well done.
June 2nd, 2010 - 11:56
How dare you generalise, etc, etc…
Seriously though, spot on. If I’m honest, I don’t understand why this traditional alignment pf right-wing conservative hawks and Israel vs. left-wing secularists and militant Islam has happened. I can almost understand that conservative fundamentalist christians would side with the Biblical faction of Abrahamic religion (although to do so is in many ways self-defeating and irrational, particularly when you take into account strategic interests in the Middle East) but I don’t see what links Mohammed with liberal atheism. Is it just a position that the left, in opposition to the US and christian fundamentalism, has found itself. Is it just a variation on ‘My enemy’s enemy’? Or a hangover from the anti-British-Imperialist movement? Or simple anti-Americanism?
June 2nd, 2010 - 15:39
I don’t need to wear any badge of political persuasion to condemn killing people. It can be complicated, multilayered, and a historical minefield. But for fucks sake, that yesterday was truly horrific and needless. The state of Israel not only stormed a vessel trying to help another country, but then thought it appropriate to ‘defend’ themselves by opening fire. Not content with the early morning work up until that point, they then detain every single occupant of each boat, restrict all access to information, restrict all access to distribute information, and ran a day of statements trying to paint a picture of self-defence, a picture of violent aid workers, a picture of bullshit.
This was wrong. Even if I’m an American ‘new’ tory, god loving, bird of prey, surely, even then, with all those lies sloshing about in my brain, even then, I would be able to stand back, look at this needless killing, and say…
“This was wrong”. Fucking wrong on every level.
June 2nd, 2010 - 12:20
I don’t know whether the raid was a crime or not, I’m not an expert on the law of such things.
But I do know that there were 6 ships in that convoy, and all but one resisted the raid in peaceful non-violent protest.
One ship decided to try and kick the shit out of soldiers. If history has taught me anything, it’s that those with the guns win. And also, if you try and resist soldiers, you generally end up getting shot.
But the “deafening silence” and “whataboutery” comments are spot on.
June 4th, 2010 - 13:43
All ships experienced extreme violence towards those on board. On the ship in question, the woman leading the entire mission lost an eye, apparently when someone fired a gas canister into her face.
There were women and children on board that ship.
It doesn’t take any great leap to imagine why some people might not have had the stomach to peacefully and non-violently protest.
June 4th, 2010 - 14:51
You have your facts slightly confused. The woman who lost an eye after being shot in the face with a gas canister was at a non-violent demonstration at a check point in the West Bank. She wasn’t on the boats.
June 4th, 2010 - 15:00
who in their right minds would take children in such an expedition?!
June 2nd, 2010 - 13:17
One thing I find interesting about this juvenile debating tactic is that it’s relatively new. Before 9/11, the standard rightwing attack on bleeding hearts was that we were TOO bothered about faraway-people-of-whom-we-know-nothing. “Bolivian basket weavers” was a standard jeer, trotted out whenever we happened to mention a humanitarian crisis that wasn’t in the news much and didn’t directly involve British people.
Now, all of a sudden, we have to denounce every atrocity of every tyranny in the world, then when we get onto a Western one they just say “You left out Uzbekistan!”
Back when I was still visiting Harry’s Place, I experienced this. Having been told that I only objected to America torturing people because I hated the West, I actually listed all the protests I’d engaged in against activities of non-Western governments. I got a grudging concession that I was OK, followed by a swift insistence that I was an exception and the overwhelming majority of liberals DID just hate the West. Even when you win, you can’t win.
June 2nd, 2010 - 13:35
This is your blog, and you should feel free to publish whatever view you like without having to apologise to internet trolls too bored or immature to allow people to express themselves.
I agree with your thoughts though. It may be a gross over-simplification of the issues, but a state agency boarded a ship in international waters. It had to right or authority to do so. This was a crime. Perhaps, even state-authorised piracy? The only difference I find between this situation and pirates in Somalian waters is that the former had the authority of a state to take its actions.
June 2nd, 2010 - 14:00
LOL youve encapsulated the problem perfectly. Ive been interested in Mid-East politics for about 15 years, Ive had loads of Internet skirmishes and read a ton of stuff, yet everytime Israel is in the news I wince as I know I’m going to have to go through all the old arguments and accusations yet again.
It is like a chess game, you do have to know the moves if you want to cut through the bullshit so I guess its important to try and learn as much as possible if you want to represent any position fairly.
June 2nd, 2010 - 15:58
Stunning, Anton. Just…stunning. You’re not the only one who’s sick of all of the posturing and backbiting that Israel’s most ferocious defenders and detractors do. It’s just so hard to sift through the manure and find intelligence on any contentious issue.
June 2nd, 2010 - 16:44
Thank you for saying this. It definitely needs to be said.
Yesterday I got into the most infuriating argument with someone who decided to post over and over again, a range of statistics of people dying through other causes with pretentious sarcastic comments such as “Blame Israel!” and eventually said he found it offensive to the people dying of other causes that people cared about the flotilla deaths. A slightly different take on the ‘deafening silence’ response but essentially the same thing.
Basically, you summed up nicely what I should have said to this asshole.
June 2nd, 2010 - 21:30
There are some things I have decided to avoid getting into discussions about, and the I/P conflict is one of them. Because I am (a) a huge coward (b) too sensitive to live and (c) incoherent and liable to blurt out nonsense if I say anything at all, it seems better for me to stay out of something that has so much violent feeling surrounding it. So I don’t blame you at all for feeling anxious – you’re still much braver than I am.
June 4th, 2010 - 13:43
Absolutely brilliant piece. I never usually comment, but this article was truly exceptional. I’ve seen some truly horrific comments made against decent people who dared to express their anger about the attacks. I’ve seen some of the nicest people you could meet described as Jihad-supporting neonazis. It’s refreshing to read something that cuts to the heart of the matter and bypasses the hysterical pitch of the standard responses I’ve been reading virtually everwhere else. Everything in this article is spot on!
Keep up the good work.
June 4th, 2010 - 13:49
I totally endorse this article.
I have Jewish/Israeli/Zionist friends and I’m too chickenshit to say what I really think for losing them.
And what really, totally got to me – so much that I wonder if it actually happened or was just made up by the media – was when the Israeli’s called the flotilla people ‘Nazis’. I cannot describe how angry that made me.
There, I’ve said it too. And if my J/I/Z friends find this and want to condemn me, go ahead.
June 4th, 2010 - 15:06
I have Jewish friends ,they were the first one to speak out in anger.
Such a complicated issue, how do you resolve this?
Interesting to observe how some newspapers and journalists went from referring to people on board as “humanitarians” to “activists”.
June 4th, 2010 - 16:25
I saw a link to this:
http://www.seraphicpress.com/archives/2010/06/the_greatest_hu.php
on another blog a couple of days ago and it really made me rather angry. It’s just so gratuitously offensive and ignorant and hateful, it really made my blood boil.
So it was nice to be catching up with my reading here and find this. A fantastic piece, Anton.
June 30th, 2010 - 13:20
Great post. My mailbox is full of those mails you mention too (I’m currently boycotting Israel from my site, dylanchords.info.
Two comments, though:
1. Most of the hasbaranik commenters never return: they come to deliver their longwinded defensive diatribes (or their quick “asshole!”s), and then they leave. The select few who actually return and respond, make it worthwhile, IMHO.
2. The chess opening strategy is a good metaphor, and following up on that, a little study makes your game both better and more interesting. I’ve learned tremendously much from looking up source material, opinion pieces, etc. to prepare answers. Sure, it’s a part-time job, but it does some good too.
That said, I’ve found much truth in Schiller’s quote: “Against stupidity even the gods struggle in vain,” and I’m trying to implement the device: Stupidity should be exposed, not argued with.