Why do so many on the Left side with Hamas - Prof. Jonathan Rynhold
Summary
TLDRThe script discusses the complex issue of why some people who support human rights might side with Hamas, despite its controversial actions. It suggests that this alignment may stem from a postcolonial and Marxist worldview, where people judge morality based on which group one belongs to, rather than individual actions. The speaker argues that this perspective leads to an oversimplification of conflicts, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and calls for a more nuanced understanding that separates radical activists from moderate liberals.
Takeaways
- đ€ The speaker questions why people who believe in human rights might side with Hamas, suggesting it could be due to a lack of information, naivety, or something more sinister.
- đ§ The speaker points out that even though some individuals may not be overtly anti-Semitic, they still use anti-Semitic tropes and conspiracy theories, which can be harmful.
- đĄ It is suggested that the inclination to side with Hamas might be influenced by a group of highly educated, motivated activists with a postcolonial Marxist perspective.
- đ The postcolonialist view frames the world as a clash between the 'first world' and the 'third world,' with Israel being seen as part of the oppressive 'white and strong' group.
- đ The speaker criticizes the postcolonial approach for undermining the principles of liberal democracy by focusing on group identity rather than individual actions and beliefs.
- đ The postcolonialists' radical views are exemplified by quotes from Joseph Harker and John Moleno, which emphasize group identity over individual behavior and opinions.
- đ The speaker notes that these radical views are not widely held by the public but are propagated by a small, dedicated group with influence in universities and civil society organizations.
- đŁïž The speaker argues that the postcolonialists blur the lines between mainstream liberal discourse and their more radical views, which can mislead the public.
- đĄïž The speaker calls for isolating and confronting key activists while engaging with more moderate liberals to expose the extreme values of the postcolonialists.
- đïž The speaker emphasizes the importance of recognizing the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the need for two states to live in peace and security.
- đą The speaker suggests that by highlighting the two-sided nature of the conflict and the need for mutual respect and recognition, one can challenge the postcolonialist narrative.
Q & A
What is the speaker suggesting when they mention 'Kamas'?
-The speaker is likely referring to 'Hamas', a Palestinian political organization, but has misspelled it as 'Kamas'. The context suggests a discussion about support for Hamas and its implications on human rights and anti-Semitism.
Why does the speaker believe the general public may side with Hamas?
-The speaker suggests that the general public's inclination to side with Hamas could be due to a combination of naivety, ignorance, or a more sinister form of anti-Semitism, rather than a well-informed stance.
What does the speaker identify as a form of anti-Semitism that is not violent but still harmful?
-The speaker identifies a form of anti-Semitism where individuals may not engage in physical violence but use anti-Semitic tropes, conspiracy theories, and imagery, which can be just as harmful even if not accompanied by physical aggression.
What is the core belief of the group that the speaker identifies as supporting Hamas?
-The speaker identifies a group of highly educated and motivated activists inspired by a Marxist postmodern, or more specifically, postcolonialist view of the world, which frames conflicts in terms of the first world versus the third world.
How does the speaker describe the postcolonialist perspective on morality?
-The speaker describes the postcolonialist perspective as one where morality is judged by which side you are on, rather than by individual actions or beliefs, emphasizing group identity over individual behavior.
According to the speaker, what is the fundamental basis of a liberal democratic society?
-The speaker states that the fundamental basis of a liberal democratic society is the belief that individual actions matter, which is in contrast to the postcolonialist perspective that focuses on group identity.
What does the speaker suggest is the key to responding to the postcolonialist narrative?
-The speaker suggests that the key to responding is to isolate and confront the key activists, while also engaging with the softer liberals, driving a wedge between the two groups by exposing the extreme anti-democratic and anti-humane values at the core of the postcolonialist approach.
Why does the speaker believe it's important to show that there are two sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
-The speaker believes it's important to show that there are two sides to counter the narrative that focuses solely on Israel as the 'strong' and 'wrong' side, and to promote a balanced discussion about achieving peace and security for both sides.
How does the speaker view the role of Hamas in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
-The speaker views Hamas as an independent political force in the conflict that should not be erased from the discussion, and criticizes the postcolonialist approach for failing to acknowledge Hamas's role.
What is the speaker's position on the possibility of peace between Israel and Palestine?
-The speaker believes that peace is possible but emphasizes that it requires recognizing the legitimacy of both sides and addressing the extreme views that hinder progress towards peace and security.
Outlines
đ€ The Complexity of Anti-Semitism and Postcolonialism
This paragraph explores the perplexing phenomenon of individuals who advocate for human rights yet find themselves sympathizing with Hamas. The speaker questions whether this stems from a lack of information, naivety, or a more sinister force such as anti-Semitism. It is suggested that while the general public might be influenced by ignorance, there is a deeper issue at play. The discourse then shifts to postcolonialism, a Marxist-inspired ideology that frames conflicts as a clash between the first and third worlds, positioning Israel as the oppressive 'white' and 'strong' entity. This perspective, the speaker argues, undermines the principles of liberal democracy by prioritizing group affiliation over individual actions and beliefs, leading to a distorted view of morality where support for the 'weak' is automatically valorized, regardless of the actions of the supported group.
đ Postcolonialism's Influence on Public Discourse
The second paragraph delves into the impact of postcolonial theory on public discourse regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It highlights how a small but highly motivated group of activists, with significant influence in academia and civil society, propagate this ideology. These individuals often obscure their radical views by aligning them with mainstream liberal positions, creating confusion and blurring the lines between legitimate concerns for Palestinian civilians and more extreme narratives. The speaker emphasizes the need to expose and confront these activists while also engaging with more moderate liberals to differentiate between the two groups. The goal is to highlight the extreme values inherent in the postcolonial approach and to foster a balanced debate that acknowledges the complexities of the conflict, rather than reducing it to a simplistic dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed.
đïž The Pursuit of Peace Amidst Conflicting Narratives
In the final paragraph, the focus is on the challenges of achieving peace in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly when narratives are heavily influenced by postcolonial ideologies. The speaker argues against the notion that all responsibility lies with Israel, emphasizing the need to recognize the threats faced by the country and the importance of mutual recognition and respect for peace to be possible. The paragraph calls for a shift in the discourse, from one that demonizes one side to one that encourages a dialogue about the actions and policies of all parties involved, including Hamas. It stresses the importance of viewing the conflict as a matter that requires two states to coexist peacefully and securely, rather than as a one-sided issue of power and oppression.
Mindmap
Keywords
đĄHuman Rights
đĄNaivety
đĄAnti-Semitism
đĄPostcolonialism
đĄMarxism
đĄLiberal Democracy
đĄDeterminism
đĄLegitimization
đĄZionism
đĄState Legitimacy
đĄPeace Process
Highlights
The speaker questions why people who believe in human rights side with Hamas, suggesting it could be due to a lack of information, naivety, or something more sinister.
The speaker mentions that even though some supporters of Hamas may help in anti-Semitic incidents, they still use anti-Semitic tropes and conspiracies.
The Jewish nation-state is deemed illegitimate by some, regardless of its borders, which the speaker finds puzzling.
The core issue is attributed to a group of highly educated, motivated activists inspired by a Marxist postmodern view, specifically postcolonialism.
Postcolonialism frames the world as a clash between the first world and the third world, with Israel being seen as the oppressor due to its perceived 'whiteness' and strength.
The speaker criticizes the postcolonial perspective for its determinism, suggesting that individual actions and beliefs are less significant than the group one belongs to.
Two quotes are provided to illustrate the radical postcolonial approach, emphasizing group identity over individual behavior or opinions.
The speaker argues that the postcolonial approach is distant from mainstream democratic thinking and can lead to a dismissal of individual actions' importance.
The influence of postcolonial activists is discussed, noting their presence in universities and civil society organizations.
The speaker describes how postcolonialists blur the lines between liberal discourse and their radical views to gain wider support.
The strategy of postcolonialists includes erasing Hamas as an independent political force and framing the conflict solely as a state issue.
The speaker calls for isolating and confronting key activists while engaging with more moderate liberals to expose the extreme values of the postcolonial approach.
Emphasizing the need to show that there are two sides to the conflict and that achieving peace requires recognizing the legitimacy of both sides.
The importance of debating Israeli, Palestinian, and Hamas actions and policies is highlighted, rather than focusing solely on Israel's responsibility.
The speaker stresses that peace cannot be made with a partner who demonizes and dehumanizes the other side, referring to Hamas's treatment of Jews and Israelis.
Transcripts
how can people who believe in human
rights side with
Kamas this is what we're
seeing in the world today is it a lack
of information is it naivity or is it
perhaps something more Sinister is it
anti-Semitism well naivity and ignorance
may be partly responsible among the
general public that don't follow things
closely but even then one has to ask why
does the general public inclination to
side with Kamas one would have thought
that islamists like Isis would not get
sympathy right so what is it then
well there is a kind of anti-Semitism
but it's strange in the sense that the
type of anti-Semitism that we see is not
the type where you get beaten up and hit
in the street in fact
some of the very people who are
supporting Hamas would actually help me
if I was being beaten up by anti-semites
in the street but they use anti-semitic
tropes they talk about Jewish
conspiracies they talk about zionists
controlling America they use images that
Echo the blood liel their behavior is
anti-Semitic even if their conscious
intention is not they discriminate
against the Jewish people everyone can
have a state but only the Jewish nation
state is illegitimate in any borders any
borders
whatsoever so where does this come from
well at its core is a group of Highly
Educated and motivated activists who are
inspired by a Marxist postmodern perhaps
view of the world but mainly Marxist
which is known as
postcolonialism so whereas in Marxism
you have a clash between classes between
the
Bourgeois and the working
class in postcolonialism it's a clash
between the first world and the third
world it's a clash between the
colonizing countries the the
empires and the colonized and the
dominated
and in this struggle on one side is the
class of white and strong people and on
the other side are dark skinned and weak
people and whatever the reality of the
situation from their perspective Israel
is white Israel is strong Israel is
wrong
now in this wider scheme
there's a certain
determinism for
them liberal democracy is kind of an
illusion what people think and how they
behave as individuals is not that
important it's not even that ex
significant
because everything that's said and done
is designed to keep the ruling class in
power and in this case the White and the
strong and this is done by
oppressing the dark skinned and weak but
also by
legitimizing by legitimizing that
control by speaking in a ling liberal
language so what does this mean it means
that for the Post Colonial postc
colonialists they judge morality by
whose side you're on not the way that
each side behaves and what it
believes so if you're on the side of the
dark skinned and the weak you are good
if you are on the side of the white and
the strong you are bad and what this
does okay is it takes away the
fundamental basis of a liberal
Democratic Society which is that our
individual actions matter and I'll give
you two quotes that show you just how
radical and how distant from mainstream
Democratic thinking this postcolonial
approach is so Joseph Harker who was the
assistant editor of the Guardian wrote
in 2002 the following as a black man I'm
bound to suffer prejudices of my own but
I cannot be
racist because in the Global Order of
things I do not belong to the dominant
group in other words it's about which
group you belong to not about your
opinions and not about your behavior and
John moleno of the Socialist Workers
Party put it like this in relation to
Israel and the
Palestinians from the standpoint of from
the standpoint of Marxism and
International socialis M an illiterate
conservative superstitious Muslim
Palestinian pres peasant who supports
Kamas is more Progressive than an
educated liberal atheist who supports
Zionism even critically so now we can
see that it doesn't matter whether you
support Hamas on everything they do or
whether you're liberal it matters which
group you belong to so the question then
is why haven't you
heard about this
Theory well the reason is that actually
only a small percentage of the public
believe this the people at its root are
a dedicated cutter of people a lot of
them have influence in
universities and in Civil Society
organizations like trade unions who may
have a million members but only 20 turn
up to a branch meeting and 19 of them
hold this View and therefore they can
speak in the name of these much larger
uh groups and organizations now they
also have
to speak in a way that hides their core
agenda and their core values because
they know they can't win support this
way so they have to try and blur the
distinction between small L liberal
discourse with which is very very common
in Western societies and their own
radical version so what do they do they
blur the distinctions so a liberal might
say I'm really concerned about
Palestinian
civilians and liberals might say well we
should only use military force as a last
result and you know what if we want to
have peace we need to redress legitimate
grievances these are positions that
liberals will articulate what the post
Colonial postc colonialists will do is
they will blur that into something far
more
radical so instead of talking about
roadblocks as an issue they will say
apartheid roadblocks instead of
discussing discussing the issue
of proportionate Force they will talk
about about war
crimes and most of all they will erase
Kamas they will say it's a war between
the state of Israel and the
Palestinians they will make it seem as
if Hamas does not exist independently as
a political force in this equation so
how do we
respond how do
we
expose what is is going on well we first
of all have to isolate and confront the
key
activists and we have to on the other
hand Engage The softer
liberals we have to drive a wedge
between these two
groups and we need to do this by
embarrassing them and showing and
exposing and
emphasizing the extreme
anti-democratic anti Humane values that
are at the core of their approach and
this means showing that there are two
sides in the conflict it's not about
ending the occupation even if you
believe in ending the occupation it's
about trying to achieve two states
living side by side in peace and
security for both sides once you talk
like that then one can have a debate
about how one goes about that it's not
predetermined by Israel being white and
strong in inverted
commer instead of saying that the
determinant of whether one is reasonable
is are you criticizing Israel we talk
about debating Israeli Palestinian Hamas
Arab actions and policies once we do
that we take away
their
foundation and when they say that it's
all the responsibility is on Israel
because it's the strong side we need to
remind them that Israel is very strong
but it's also extremely
threatened and that it takes two to make
peace one cannot make peace with the
devil he can't be a half devil if Kamas
is demonizing Jews and
Israelis and treating them and treating
us as
beneath even the modicum of decency that
you would give to
animals then they are not a partner for
peace
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)