THE WORLD IN WORDS

Censorship of solidarity

There has been much discussion in recent years about the "culture of cancellation," but this wave of suppression of speech deemed impermissibly pro-Palestinian is strikingly strong. The reactions are unusual

4115 views 0 comment(s)
Photo: Reuters
Photo: Reuters
Disclaimer: The translations are mostly done through AI translator and might not be 100% accurate.

The Frankfurt Book Fair has canceled its award to Adania Shibli, a Palestinian-born writer and essayist, because of the "war started by Hamas". A cultural center in Berlin has been denied funding and will be closed after hosting an event by Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in the Middle East. France bans all pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

Michael Eisen was fired as editor of the biomedical journal eLife for retweeting a post from the satirical website Onion titled "Dying Gazans Criticized for Not Using Their Last Word to Condemn Hamas." David Velasco, editor of the leading art magazine Artforum, was fired for signing an open letter calling for "the liberation of Palestine ... an end to the killing and maiming of all civilians [and] an immediate ceasefire." Columbia University has suspended two student organizations, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. The Hilton Hotel canceled a conference in Houston organized by the American Campaign for Palestinian Rights, after pressure from the Chamber of Commerce of Orthodox Jews.

In Britain, Science Minister Michelle Donelan is demanding public condemnation of two academics for their views on Israel and the Gaza conflict. The University of Liverpool has canceled a lecture by the British-Israeli historian Avi Shlaim in which he criticizes Israeli politics. Social media platforms are removing content or suspending the accounts of Palestinian activists, journalists and media sites. Instagram adds the note "Palestinian terrorists are fighting for their freedom" to the bios of Palestinian users. (He later apologizes, citing a machine translation error.)

These are just some of the cases in the past two months in which organizations and individuals - including many Jews - have been canceled, banned or fired for expressing solidarity with the Palestinians. There has been much discussion in recent years about the "culture of cancellation," but this wave of suppression of speech deemed impermissibly pro-Palestinian is astonishingly intense. And yet, those who have been most vocal about the cancellation culture have been relatively quiet in recent weeks, while many on the left who welcomed the censorship of despicable ideas are now vocally opposed to curtailing free speech.

Attempts to limit the expression of solidarity with the Palestinians are perhaps nowhere as fierce as in Germany. "In Berlin," recently wrote the philosopher and American Jew Susan Nyman, "you will be fired for the word 'apartheid' faster than in New York you would be fired for a derogatory term for blacks."

In 2019, the director of the Einstein Forum in Potsdam, Najman published the study Learning from the Germans, in which she compared Germany's and the US's approach to dealing with the dark aspects of its own past, and praised Germany for the way it dealt with the history of Nazism and the Holocaust. Germany, Nyman believed, set "a model for other countries that are trying to face their sins and write a more honest version of their history."

Four years later, Nyman changed her mind. Germany, she claims, has adopted too "a formal approach to historical confrontation", while treating Jews "as if they all speak with a monolithic voice, forever fixated on their own oppression". Najman concludes: "Now it seems to me that the most we can learn from Germany is a warning."

On the other hand, Die Zeit foreign correspondent Jerg Lau disputed the idea that the attitude towards Israel and the censorship of Palestinian voices were linked to Germany's attempt to atone for the Holocaust, describing it as a "dangerous conspiracy theory".

And yet, the degree to which the German authorities have tried to suppress Palestinian voices is extraordinary, and it has provoked protests from many Jews, not least Susan Nyman. Another German-American author, Deborah Feldman, noted that only those Jews who do not criticize Israel are considered real Jews. Since I myself have long made similar arguments about the perception of Muslim communities - that liberal, secular Muslims who criticize Islam are often dismissed as "inauthentic" - it's a perspective I understand well. Both Najman and Feldman are signatories to an open letter by German Jews - writers, artists and academics - condemning the "disturbing suppression of civil life after months of appalling violence in Israel and Palestine".

In America, the reasons for suppressing pro-Palestinian voices are different, but there, too, many were taken aback. "The scale surprised me, as did the intensity," notes Genevieve Lequiere, a law professor at the University of Chicago and a leading expert on free speech and US constitutional law. She adds that all this "seems like a new McCarthyism... we haven't seen such suppression of public speech in a long time." People are fired and fired not for "promoting violence" but for "calling for a ceasefire" and "criticism of Israel". The meaning of "hate speech", argues Lequier, has been expanded "to include speech that in my opinion is completely legitimate, often speech for peace". It is an attempt to redraw the moral boundaries around what is considered acceptable, to delegitimize Palestinian perspectives.

In this context, Britain was relatively liberal, which is perhaps surprising. More recent laws, such as the Public Order Act and the Police, Crime, Punishment and Courts Act, have greatly expanded the authorities' ability to criminalize protests. Yet the police have dealt relatively mildly with demonstrations over the conflict in Gaza, even when they have come under intense political pressure.

Sections of the left displayed warped judgment after the October 7 attacks, with some celebrating Hamas' savagery as "resistance" and questioning the credibility of rape claims, crossing the line between supporting Palestinian rights and inciting anti-Jewish hatred. It is necessary to challenge such arguments, oppose anti-Semitism and reject Hamas, which poses a threat not only to Jews but also to Palestinians.

One cannot, however, counter anti-Semitism or dismiss Hamas by labeling expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian people as illegitimate, or by narrowing the space for debate about a just future for both Israelis and Palestinians. Such censorship ironically reflects the arguments of many on the left in recent years, who have sought to delegitimize certain viewpoints by expanding the boundaries of hate speech and reframing political debate in moral terms. Both are mistaken.

Just as the barbarity of the Hamas attack does not justify the brutality of Israel's attack on Gaza, neither does the unreasonableness of sections of the left justify the suppression of political advocacy for Palestinian rights. Censorship cannot be the basis of justice.

(The Guardian; Peščanik.net; translation: M. Jovanović)

Bonus video:

(Opinions and views published in the "Columns" section are not necessarily the views of the "Vijesti" editorial office.)