Ultimately Obama never stood for anything except his own celebrity. He built the deeply loathed Democratic party that exists today. https://t.co/mUTs3Tomll
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) April 30, 2026
"After two years of unimaginable loss and suffering for Israeli families and the people of Gaza, we should all be encouraged and relieved that an end to the conflict is within sight; that those hostages still being held will be reunited with their families; and that vital aid can start reaching those inside Gaza whose lives have been shattered," Obama posted on X on Thursday.
He continued: "It now falls on Israelis and Palestinians, with the support of the US and the entire world community, to begin the hard task of rebuilding Gaza – and to commit to a process that, by recognizing the common humanity and basic rights of both peoples, can achieve a lasting peace."
Many users criticised the choice to reference "Israeli families" while referring to Palestinians as "the people of Gaza".
The ‘people’ of Gaza are Palestinians. They have survived a genocide and an ongoing attempt to eliminate them for over a century,” Palestinian-American human rights attorney Noura Erakat added.
The people of Saudi Arabia are Saudi Arabians. The people of Nigeria are Nigerians. The people of Ukraine are Ukrainians. And the people of Gaza are Gazans. This should not be so hard. Yet
Several argued that the distinction was not merely stylistic, but part of a long-standing rhetorical pattern in western political language.
Sana Saeed, a media critic, wrote: “this wasn’t a deliberate demarcation of humanity; it’s reflex. A masterclass in seven words on how Palestinians are rendered faceless and nameless when slaughtered, while Israelis are granted empathy - especially when they are the butchers.”
Obama observed "an end to the conflict is within sight;" that hostages "will be reunited with their families." He suggested also that"vital aid can start reaching those inside Gaza," that "the hard task of rebuilding Gaza" and of achieving "a lasting peace" can begin.
It's unsurprising that eventual peace with Israel and the release of live hostages would be distasteful to Islamists. It's a little more surprising that someone envisioning lasting peace and the rebuilding of Gaza would be scolded (though not much more).
The article continued
"For Obama, Israel has families, but Gaza just has people. Israelis are hostages being held but Gazans are merely 'those' who need aid," posted one user.
“When they deign to mention Palestinians at all, they must always throat-clear by mentioning Israelis first. Thems the rules," said journalist Barry Malone.
If it is unacceptable to address the matter of Israelis while addressing the plight of Palestinians, there is an alternative. "The Palestinians in Gaza are led by a ruthless, evil entity named Hamas which should be wiped off the face of the earth." O.K., then: Palestinians are mentioned with no mention of Israelis.
Moreover
Several social media users highlighted Obama’s use of the word “conflict” to describe Israel’s assault on Gaza, which the UN, genocide and legal experts, and international rights organisations have concluded constitutes a genocide.
"'Conflict' connotes that this was a war with two equal sides and not a genocide/wiping out of an entire region and its infrastructure," responded one user.
"It’s a GENOCIDE," responded historian Assal Rad.
"There is no accountability without acknowledging it, and there is no
justice without accountability."
Several users said the framing constituted a “bothsides-ing” of a situation defined by Israeli occupation and siege.
The word "conflict" was used because it was a conflict (unfortunately, still is). Obama was not trying to score points or to litigate the issue of genocide; he was applauding an apparent ceasefire.
And- for the 173rd time or so I've had to mention: this was, or is, not genocide. Killing lots and lots of people, even unnecessarily, is not genocide. If it were, Russia currently would be accused of genocide against Ukrainians and the USA would be accused of genocide against Iranians (or Persians). Nonetheless, neither major power- and Israel has proven it, too, is a major power- is attempting to wipe out an entire people.
Russia, a nuclear power, could wipe out Ukrainians; it is not. The USA, a nuclear power, could wipe out Irainians; it is not. Israel, generally believed to be a nuclear power, could wipe out Iranians; it is not. The Russian assault against Ukraine is not referred to as war crimes committed against Slavs, but rather against Ukrainians. However, it has become acceptable for Islamists and their allies to define the ongoing Middle East dispute in racial terms.
This is reprehensible.
The Israelis are not trying to exterminate a people. If it were trying to eliminate Palestinians, Jordan- at least 50% Palestinian- now would be under brutal asault. (And it probably would become a wasteland.)
The Islamists who actually were offended by the remarks of ex-President Obama would argue that what Israel has done to Gaza would constitute genocide. However, with the ever-increasing number of people outside of Gaaza who would identify as "Palestinian,"it is odd that "Palestinian" would be considered synonymous with residents of Gaza. I suppose that referring to inhabitants of a strip of land constituting a political entity would fit "the longstanding rhetorical pattern in western political language," as Middle East Eye put it. Que c'est horrible!
The term "genocide" is one of the best examples of definition creep. "Genocide" never meant unnecessary killing or even slaughter but something far worse. However, those who wish to accuse Israel of the worst behavior imaginable have employed "genocide" as a weapon against a nation with the gall (chutzpah?) to believe that it has a right to exist. The expression joins "traitor" and "racist" as among the most commonly abused words whose definition is stretched well beyond its original, justified, meaning.
These were comments posted on social media and everyone has a right to express his or her opinion. However, individuals who find these viewpoints distasteful and- more importantly- absurd should not ignore them. And it shouldn't be left to the far right, which often attacks such remarks, to expose them as nonsense.
No comments:
Post a Comment