The 31 pro-Palestinian groups at Harvard said something foolish. They wrote:
We, the undersigned student organizations, hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence. The apartheid regime is the only one to blame.
Israeli violence has structured every aspect of Palestinian existence for 75 years. From systematized land seizures to routine airstrikes, arbitrary detentions, to military checkpoints, and enforced family separations to targeted killings, Palestinians have been forced to live in a state of death, both slow and sudden.
I cite this example of moral obtuseness because a number of readers sent me links to this story, conflating these activist groups with Harvard students generally, with Harvard-the-institution, and with me. I will summarize their message to me:
See! You aren't so smart, Peter. There are idiots at Harvard! Anti-Semites, too! Harvard produces brainwashed jerks! Maybe you, too.
Good test-takers like Harvard students should have known better than to write what they did, regardless of their politics. Any true-false or multiple choice question which uses the words "entirely responsible" or "only one" is wrong. Life is more complex and nuanced than that -- especially the situation in Israel. Israel is a mess, and I see victims trapped by their history. Not heroes.
People there have been fighting over conflicting claims of possession for 75 years, back to the founding of Israel as a nation; or rather to the Crusades, or rather back to the Prophet Mohammed; or back to the First Century and the Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple; or better yet, back another thousand years to the Jewish conquest of the land of Canaan described in the earliest books of the Jewish Bible. And probably before that.
Following the holocaust in Europe, Jews sought a homeland. The UN created a nation of Israel, but Jews believe they have a prior and sacred claim: God gave the land to them. All of it is sacred land, especially the Temple Mount, where King Soloman built a temple. Alas, that same God made that a sacred spot for Muslims, too, the place where the Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven. This isn't simple.
In response to Hamas' attack, Israel's Defense Minister announced:
I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.
The Biden administration's messaging began as support for Israel, combined with an expression of hope that the Israeli response would show restraint, to minimize loss of innocent life in the densely populated Gaza and in hope the war does not expand to full-scale regional war. Republicans criticized this, saying it implied moral ambiguity and criticism of Israel's right to defend itself. The Biden administration deleted tweets that had called for restraint and replaced them with the statement that "Israel has the right to defend itself, rescue any hostages, and protect its citizens."
Of course, this is grist for U.S. presidential politics. The crosscurrents create inconsistencies, hypocrisy, and nuance. People who urge Ukraine to accept the invasion of Russia and compromise over territory to end the suffering of war, also condemn asking Israel to exercise restraint. Trump said that the fighting in Israel -- and Ukraine, too -- would never have happened if he were president. Ron DeSantis said that Biden had "gone easy" on Iran, and that "Israel is now paying the price for those policies." Mike Pence said "this is what happens when @POTUS projects weakness on the world stage [and] kowtows to the mullahs in Iran." Other candidates say similar things.
There is a revolutionary strain within the American left that defines itself in opposition to the political center and right, but also in opposition to the establishment left. We saw it in the year 2000, when Ralph Nader ran as a third party. From the view of the revolutionary-left, little harm was done since Republicans and Democrats are nearly indistinguishable as parties of empire, colonial wars, White supremacy, patriarchy, and corporate capture of politicians. In 1972, George McGovern himself was not part of the revolutionary-left, but he was supported by people like me who thought the establishment-left to be pro-Vietnam war. Many of Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign volunteers were from this revolutionary-left, and they vigorously attacked Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders himself did not .
The revolutionary-left serves a purpose. They call out compromises and hypocrisy within the establishment left. On cultural issues, they articulate the point-of-the-spear issues that push social change on issues of race, LGBTQ, transgender, and social benefits. They don't do what is necessary to be popular; they seek justice and righteousness and they currently represent the thinking of educational and cultural elites, not the non-college masses. If they succeed in an area -- for example, marriage equality for homosexuals-- they move the goalpost to equality and participation of trans athletes. Readers call me out for being critical of the revolutionary-left. I think they create more backlash than forward progress. My critics disagree.
There have been socialists, communists, hippies, yippies, anarchists in or near the Democratic Party. They are outliers, influencing policy, but not electing leaders. They are to the left of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and AOC, all of whom spoke out in support of Israel while condemning the Hamas attack. Although it fits the GOP narrative to call Biden a communist and Marxist, and to say revolutionary-leftists are typical Democrats, they mis-aim. The Biden administration and the current Democratic Party is firmly part of the mainstream establishment left -- to the regret of the Harvard protesters.
I analogize the Harvard group to the members of the political right who condemn Ukraine, call it a corrupt Nazi-friendly country, blame the U.S., NATO, and Biden for the Ukraine war, and are sympathetic to Putin, though not to Russia bombing civilian targets. Those people are not outliers within the GOP. They have a near-majority of GOP primary voter support and their leading candidate, Trump, espouses that policy.
Among Democrats, the Harvard group is an outlier.
It must have cost millions of dollars to arm Hamas so they could attack Israel. The US contributes billions of dollars every year to Israel's military. Just think if all that money were spent for peace instead of war, to feed people rather than kill them.
One has to wonder just how far Israel will go in killing Arabs, in order to save Israeli lives. Scary shit!