4 ms·

The backlash against the student letters is understandable--the associated harassment is too far, but it's understandable and within reason for people to feel t

The backlash against the student letters is understandable--the associated harassment is too far, but it's understandable and within reason for people to feel that they were insensitive, or otherwise objectionable. But artists signing a letter of this description: > Thousands of artists, academics and cultural workers, including Velasco, signed the Oct. 19 open letter, which supported Palestinian liberation and criticized the silence of cultural institutions about the Israeli bombing of residents in Gaza… In it, the signatories “call for an end to the killing and harming of all civilians, an immediate cease-fire, the passage of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and the end of the complicity of our governing bodies in grave human rights violations and war crimes.” … The Oct. 19 open letter met condemnation, drawing responses by figures in the art world. On WhatsApp, campaigns were organized to dissuade advertisers from working with the magazine. By far most of the substance there shouldn't be controversial, especially in the presumably liberal-leaning art world. This has all been far more aggressive than the "cancel culture" decried by the right, but one hears crickets about it from the usual free speech absolutists.

pxc 3y ago
> By far most of the substance there shouldn't be controversial, especially in the presumably liberal-leaning art world. An academic who has likewise seen censorship of this issue affect his own career has written an entire book about this 'progressive except for Palestine' phenomenon. https://thenewpress.com/books/except-for-palestine https://thenewpress.com/books/except-for-palestine
- catlover76 3y ago
  oh wow Luckily, this seems to be changing with my generation (early 30's millennials), I think/hope
jfengel 3y ago
The substance might be less controversial if it also called on Hamas to release the 200+ hostages it still holds. As it is, its own silence rightly attracts criticism. This pains me deeply, because I'm a woke leftist bleeding heart socialist liberal lefty. I believe that Israel's right-wing government has treated the Palestinians with bad faith for decades. But I also think that the left has bought too easily into Palestinian propaganda, as evidenced here by the exclusion of the very clear and real atrocities that sparked this reprisal. Hamas has Jewish genocide incorporated directly into its charter. Netanyahu has badly mis-handled the Palestinians, but the alternative of simply throwing open the border between Gaza and Israel is also plainly unacceptable. Calls for peace need to acknowledge that the cycle of violence includes both sides before we can even begin to untangle it. Excusing the atrocities of October 7 makes the situation much worse, instead of better.
- catlover76 3y ago
  I hear you on the hostages, that makes sense as part of any ceasefire. > but the alternative of simply throwing open the border between Gaza and Israel is also plainly unacceptable. I don't know that anyone is asking for that, or whether or not it is good, but, assuming the letter did suggest that, does that merit the kind of treatment the signatories received? Like, it might be a stupid and totally unreasonable ask (again, IDK enough about this), but I don't see how asking it could be that morally condemnable. > Excusing the atrocities of October 7 makes the situation much worse, instead of better. Did the letter do that? I didn't read the full text, just what was excerpted in this blog post. There are many understatements in your post regarding the treatment of the Palestinians lol Do you feel the same about all the statements on the attacks we have seen from corporations, even recently, that are totally silent on the death count and maltreatment of Palestinian civilians here? Because those statements absolutely exude the attitude that Palestinian innocents do not count or exist at all, and that the side those statements are on is totally innocent, which is basically the exact attitude for which a lot of the pro-Palestinian statements are being criticized.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    In talking about "throwing open the border" I'm talking about the longstanding conflict between the left and Israel. Israel is consistently accused of "apartheid", which I feel is unjust. They do indeed have a wall between them and Gaza -- a wall that usually prevents attacks like the one on October 7th. That is not at all comparable to the situation in South Africa, and I think that the false equivalence demeans both situations. I think that statements condemning the October 7th attacks are perfectly reasonable in excluding references to the Palestinians. That was not an act of warfare. It had no chance of accomplishing any political goal. It was a sadistic atrocity, in a way that its high body count alone obscures. This situation is not well served just by totting up the numbers of corpses. That accounting is made murkier by the way Hamas uses its citizens as human shields. Hamas has been using civilian apartment buildings for years -- long before October 7 -- to attack Israel. Israel issues warnings before the buildings are attacked, and Hamas has been accused of forcing the residents to stay. That accusation sounds shocking, but given the events of October 7 (which went far beyond mere massacre of innocents to include rape, torture, and mutilation), it's unfortunately easy to believe. As I said before, I do think that it was right and good to tell Israel to stop its settlements in the West Bank. They should have implemented the Oslo Accords long ago. Crimes committed by settlers should be laid at the feet of the Likud government. But note that those are on the West Bank, not Gaza. Gaza had been turned over to the Palestinians in 2009. Hamas has run it since they won the election -- and refused to hold any more elections. This wasn't about mistreatment, and it's perfectly reasonable for corporate statements to link Israel's crimes in the West Bank to the situation in Gaza. That's why I think that this letter is such a mistake. The situation is complex and ugly, and it's not well served by a shallow, one-sided understanding. Omitting a return of the hostages is merely missing something that "makes sense". It demonstrates a failure to recognize how thoroughly Palestinian propaganda has distorted the genuine problems. Much of what they think they know "regarding the treatment of the Palestinians" is a lie -- and I say that having reiterated that I'm well aware that there are some genuine truths buried among the lies.

pxc 3y ago

> By far most of the substance there shouldn't be controversial, especially in the presumably liberal-leaning art world. An academic who has likewise seen censorship of this issue affect his own career has written an entire book about this 'progressive except for Palestine' phenomenon. https://thenewpress.com/books/except-for-palestine https://thenewpress.com/books/except-for-palestine

catlover76 3y ago
oh wow Luckily, this seems to be changing with my generation (early 30's millennials), I think/hope

jfengel 3y ago

The substance might be less controversial if it also called on Hamas to release the 200+ hostages it still holds. As it is, its own silence rightly attracts criticism. This pains me deeply, because I'm a woke leftist bleeding heart socialist liberal lefty. I believe that Israel's right-wing government has treated the Palestinians with bad faith for decades. But I also think that the left has bought too easily into Palestinian propaganda, as evidenced here by the exclusion of the very clear and real atrocities that sparked this reprisal. Hamas has Jewish genocide incorporated directly into its charter. Netanyahu has badly mis-handled the Palestinians, but the alternative of simply throwing open the border between Gaza and Israel is also plainly unacceptable. Calls for peace need to acknowledge that the cycle of violence includes both sides before we can even begin to untangle it. Excusing the atrocities of October 7 makes the situation much worse, instead of better.

catlover76 3y ago
I hear you on the hostages, that makes sense as part of any ceasefire. > but the alternative of simply throwing open the border between Gaza and Israel is also plainly unacceptable. I don't know that anyone is asking for that, or whether or not it is good, but, assuming the letter did suggest that, does that merit the kind of treatment the signatories received? Like, it might be a stupid and totally unreasonable ask (again, IDK enough about this), but I don't see how asking it could be that morally condemnable. > Excusing the atrocities of October 7 makes the situation much worse, instead of better. Did the letter do that? I didn't read the full text, just what was excerpted in this blog post. There are many understatements in your post regarding the treatment of the Palestinians lol Do you feel the same about all the statements on the attacks we have seen from corporations, even recently, that are totally silent on the death count and maltreatment of Palestinian civilians here? Because those statements absolutely exude the attitude that Palestinian innocents do not count or exist at all, and that the side those statements are on is totally innocent, which is basically the exact attitude for which a lot of the pro-Palestinian statements are being criticized.
- jfengel 3y ago
  In talking about "throwing open the border" I'm talking about the longstanding conflict between the left and Israel. Israel is consistently accused of "apartheid", which I feel is unjust. They do indeed have a wall between them and Gaza -- a wall that usually prevents attacks like the one on October 7th. That is not at all comparable to the situation in South Africa, and I think that the false equivalence demeans both situations. I think that statements condemning the October 7th attacks are perfectly reasonable in excluding references to the Palestinians. That was not an act of warfare. It had no chance of accomplishing any political goal. It was a sadistic atrocity, in a way that its high body count alone obscures. This situation is not well served just by totting up the numbers of corpses. That accounting is made murkier by the way Hamas uses its citizens as human shields. Hamas has been using civilian apartment buildings for years -- long before October 7 -- to attack Israel. Israel issues warnings before the buildings are attacked, and Hamas has been accused of forcing the residents to stay. That accusation sounds shocking, but given the events of October 7 (which went far beyond mere massacre of innocents to include rape, torture, and mutilation), it's unfortunately easy to believe. As I said before, I do think that it was right and good to tell Israel to stop its settlements in the West Bank. They should have implemented the Oslo Accords long ago. Crimes committed by settlers should be laid at the feet of the Likud government. But note that those are on the West Bank, not Gaza. Gaza had been turned over to the Palestinians in 2009. Hamas has run it since they won the election -- and refused to hold any more elections. This wasn't about mistreatment, and it's perfectly reasonable for corporate statements to link Israel's crimes in the West Bank to the situation in Gaza. That's why I think that this letter is such a mistake. The situation is complex and ugly, and it's not well served by a shallow, one-sided understanding. Omitting a return of the hostages is merely missing something that "makes sense". It demonstrates a failure to recognize how thoroughly Palestinian propaganda has distorted the genuine problems. Much of what they think they know "regarding the treatment of the Palestinians" is a lie -- and I say that having reiterated that I'm well aware that there are some genuine truths buried among the lies.