Well, Lebanon isn’t a democracy in the way Israel is for starters. And in any case the answer is simple: no individual should be held as responsible for their government’s policies and that applies for Israelis or Americans just like it would anyone else. Nowhere in my piece did I suggest that Israelis should be mistreated just for being Israeli. In face, I’ve long been a critic of BDS on precisely this grounds.
Shadi - I just want to point out - the talks and positions you are describing here, are exactly the reason why Haviv Rettig Gur characterized your Gaza war commentary as “identitarian” on X last week.
You are articulating it here quite clearly and honestly. As you describe it, all the people at your talks have been muslims and, so, you admit, it follows practically without even saying that they are “pro-Palestinian” to one degree or another. Setting aside the usual semantic dissembling (what are the distinctions at this point among pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, and pro-Hamas, if any exist) that is the perfect illustration of an “identitarian” approach to perceiving the conflict.
You reacted quite harshly to Haviv’s accurate and descriptive response to your comments, and you should probably apologize to him.
The second person's 'moral question' doesn't seem to leave any room for clarity or nuance. They try to automatically sort people into one of two boxes based on their position without caring about anything else. On the flip side, as a person that happens to agree with your views on de-politicization, I drain myself by constantly worrying at what point this switches to being apathetic and disillusioned with everything in general. So much so that you eventually end up nodding along with understanding and empathy at all expressed view points and never care too much for any of them
Your first interlocutor dismisses the value of reading and the depth of information and ideas it provides, comparable to no other medium. There’s her first terrible idea.
Your second young interlocutor doesn’t seem to think that “moral questions” are worthy of discussion. There’s her terrible idea.
To regard offering or discussing a different point of view as “emotional vampirism” - that one might take the cake.
I would have been interested in the reaction of your interlocutor who asked whether she could still be friends with a pro-Israel supporter had you asked if she could still be friends with a Syrian who supports Assad (who is responsible for mass murder, including murder and starvation of thousands of Palestinians) pretty much any Lebanese (where the laws that prohibit Palestinians from citizenship, owning property and access to many professions can legitimately be described as apartheid laws). The world seems curiously disinterested in what some call Muslim on Muslim violence and, if universal principles are to have any meaning, they must be applied universally.
Thought-provoking though not easy to achieve
Well, Lebanon isn’t a democracy in the way Israel is for starters. And in any case the answer is simple: no individual should be held as responsible for their government’s policies and that applies for Israelis or Americans just like it would anyone else. Nowhere in my piece did I suggest that Israelis should be mistreated just for being Israeli. In face, I’ve long been a critic of BDS on precisely this grounds.
Shadi - I just want to point out - the talks and positions you are describing here, are exactly the reason why Haviv Rettig Gur characterized your Gaza war commentary as “identitarian” on X last week.
You are articulating it here quite clearly and honestly. As you describe it, all the people at your talks have been muslims and, so, you admit, it follows practically without even saying that they are “pro-Palestinian” to one degree or another. Setting aside the usual semantic dissembling (what are the distinctions at this point among pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, and pro-Hamas, if any exist) that is the perfect illustration of an “identitarian” approach to perceiving the conflict.
You reacted quite harshly to Haviv’s accurate and descriptive response to your comments, and you should probably apologize to him.
The second person's 'moral question' doesn't seem to leave any room for clarity or nuance. They try to automatically sort people into one of two boxes based on their position without caring about anything else. On the flip side, as a person that happens to agree with your views on de-politicization, I drain myself by constantly worrying at what point this switches to being apathetic and disillusioned with everything in general. So much so that you eventually end up nodding along with understanding and empathy at all expressed view points and never care too much for any of them
Your first interlocutor dismisses the value of reading and the depth of information and ideas it provides, comparable to no other medium. There’s her first terrible idea.
Your second young interlocutor doesn’t seem to think that “moral questions” are worthy of discussion. There’s her terrible idea.
To regard offering or discussing a different point of view as “emotional vampirism” - that one might take the cake.
I would have been interested in the reaction of your interlocutor who asked whether she could still be friends with a pro-Israel supporter had you asked if she could still be friends with a Syrian who supports Assad (who is responsible for mass murder, including murder and starvation of thousands of Palestinians) pretty much any Lebanese (where the laws that prohibit Palestinians from citizenship, owning property and access to many professions can legitimately be described as apartheid laws). The world seems curiously disinterested in what some call Muslim on Muslim violence and, if universal principles are to have any meaning, they must be applied universally.