Perhaps the worst silence in this tragedy is of those who still dream of reaching out to the other side in the hope of future coexistence, that ongoing events render ever less likely on either side. In Israel, the act of openly expressing sympathy and grief for the people in Gaza is rare. A rabbi leading a prayer for the victims of the 7th October in the religious suburb of Bnei Brak was almost lynched when he dared add a prayer for Gaza’s victims. One can only imagine how a Palestinian who expresses sympathy with Israel’s victims will be treated by members of Hamas.
Ted mentioned the massive demonstrations that took place against Netanyahu’s attempt at judicial state capture, that have been put on hold since the war started. Those demonstrations had their silence too: the Palestinian question was deliberately excluded, because of its divisive nature within the population. Yet, on occasion people could be seen with banners and teeshirts declaring “No democracy with occupation”. Those who organized the demonstrations stepped in immediately after October 7th to set up logistics to bring relief to the victims, when Netanyahu and his crony government remained mute. Many Israelis await the end of the conflict to march on Jerusalem for a reckoning. What disturbs me about this question of silence as applied to the current conflict is that it appears to be more rhetorical than real. The conflict is being echoed on the streets, in the press, in a cacophony on social media where the supporters of either side make their hatred of the other amply known. When it comes to the deafening silence that presides over so many conflicts - Darfour 300,000 fatalities, Boko Haram 60,000, Eastern Congo 70,000, Rohingya 25,000, Yemen 200,000, Tigray 500,000 - where are the voices of protest? Not to mention the oppression of the Ouïghours. Not many articles in the press, few (if any) demonstrations on the streets or upheavals and controversies on campuses. Possibly written about on Nettime. I seem to remember a piece about Syria. One might say that there is a degree of hypocrisy in this, particularly on the part of progressives who pride themselves on their solidarity with the downtrodden and persecuted. Maybe it is because those other subjects are off the radar, being that they do not slot into the colonialist and capitalist narrative that creates an unjust selection of causes, leaving the less visible or fashionable ones out in the cold. Indeed, silenced. Thankfully, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict gets the visibility it deserves. But then it fits totally into the colonialist narrative (as it should). But is there perhaps another, less avowable reason? Saying what I am about to feels as if I am on a tightrope and am about to put my foot in it. Might the amount of global passion relative to this conflict occur because it involves Jews? In a revival of antisemitism that Jews suffered in Europe and elsewhere? This is what Israelis believe when they hear that sinister slogan, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. Where does that leave them, apart from in the sea? When those who go beyond a condemnation of Israel’s behavior, to denying the right of Israel to exist at all, by simplistically equating Zionism with the colonialist endeavors of the 19th century. For Israelis and Jews, denial of statehood, the right all peoples should dispose of, can be no other than antisemitic. Indeed, those people who chant it, how do they plan for the Israelis to be disposed of? Hamas certainly makes no secret of their intentions. May the New Year surprise us with peace. One can always make a wish - Joe. > > Le 25 déc. 2023 à 03:04, Keith Sanborn via nettime-l > <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > In my for once humble opinion, silence has many meanings according to > context. As has been pointed out, there is the silence of the powerful and > the silencing of those who protest, who touch historical nerves. There is > also a silence of the normally vocal to make a space for listening amidst the > disinformation wars which vocalize simplistic conflicts in order to muddy the > waters. There is also the silence of the fearful and the confused, the > perplexed, and the thoughtful. Many Israelis and those outside are in the > latter position: burdened by history and conscious of the moral evil of what > goes on in Gaza in their name. They are all too aware of their own silent > complicity in the slow genocide which has now reached an accelerated pace. > And the massacres perpetrated by Hamas can only touch the nerves of inherited > trauma. The three hostages gunned down—silenced—by the IDF can only amplify > their realization that the reaction to Hamas has reached a murderous pitch, > if they choose to ignore the murders of Palestinians. Ordinary Palestinians > experience being silenced by the destruction of the means of communication > with the outside world and by an abject struggle for daily survival. “It’s > complicated,” can indeed be a simple fear of taking a moral stand. Silence = > Death, as we know all too well, and yet obfuscation is as bad or worse than > silence, as it is disinformation that serves murderers as much as silence. > The inheritance of trauma serves as no justification for mass murder. > > Merry Christmas > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Dec 22, 2023, at 8:00 AM, Geoffrey Goodell via nettime-l >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 at 10:47:49PM +1100, paul van der walt via nettime-l >>> wrote: >>> The way i understand it, Ted is remarking that in our situation, (some >>> number of) people are participating in a discussion on a mailing list, and >>> some (many more, by definition almost, given the subscriber count) are >>> lurking / listening / thinking their thoughts / sending everything to spam, >>> but not replying in public to the postings. He's saying that the gesture >>> of labelling this phenomenon as an (my words) "active / deliberate silence" >>> is firstly a specific framing (one of many, as he argues), and secondly a >>> nostalgic one, in that it stands in comparison to collective manifestations >>> out in the streets, with people shouting, as an example (among many). I >>> think the claim is that instead of choosing this one framing, of labelling >>> this state of affairs as "silence", we are invited to reflect on how else >>> to respond to our contemporary context. >>> >>> Apologies Ted if i'm flat-footing your (eloquent, IMHO) framing and >>> argument. >>> >>> For what it's worth i can see where Ted is coming from, and to me it does >>> make sense. I'll remain neutral on the substance of it as well as the >>> implications that has for our various (potentially deontological) roles in >>> discourse. >> >> I would say that the reason for the silence is much more quotidian than >> that. The choice to be silent or not is really only a fair choice for those >> of us with the privilege to respond at close to zero marginal cost. >> >> For the less privileged among us who have day jobs or similarly taxing >> responsibilities that require a time commitment, the time needed to >> formulate a thoughtful response constitutes a prohibitive cost. For such >> persons, the choice is between responding with a superficial message and not >> responding at all. From this perspective, the fact that there is not a >> flood of superficial messages is a sign of respect for the community and the >> value it places on thoughtful consideration. >> >> However, although this might explain the silence in communities such as >> nettime, I am not sure that this explains the silence in the world at large. >> Perhaps there really is a dearth of privileged people who are unwilling to >> speak out against a system that has benefited them, a frightening thought >> indeed. >> >> Best wishes -- >> >> Geoff >> >> -- >> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission >> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: https://www.nettime.org >> # contact: [email protected] > -- > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: https://www.nettime.org > # contact: [email protected] -- # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: https://www.nettime.org # contact: [email protected]
