Abandoned and Forsaken

In a piece in the Times, "progressive" Jews bemoan the fact that what they believed to be their allies on "The Left" have left them hanging by not showing enough sympathy for those killed and captured by Hamas. They wish to enforce a certain hierarchy of grief and outrage: first come those killed by Hamas, followed by the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza. Followed by all Palestinians (those in the West Bank). But the first order is to "condemn the killings". After that you can start in with the nuance, you know, children in Gaza, women and old people, yada yada. Defy the grief order and risk outrage. These Jews say "the Left" is sending the message that Israelis "deserved this terrible fate." But is that what "The Left" is saying? Or is this the perfect opportunity to Jeremy Corbyn "the Left", to crush them for not being on board the Zionist Train? Is pointing out the conditions and history of an apartheid state the same as saying people "deserved" to die? These "progressive" Jews need you to know how much they care, how much they suffer. Their deep concern for the injustice. It's all about them feeling better. According to the authors of the piece, "progressive groups" (left unidentified), skipped mourning and went straight to "justifying" the attacks. But is it justifying or providing context? All of us who lived through 9/11 remember how this works. Any attempt to explain or understand is labled justification. Excusing. Sympathising. Then the "progressive Jews" play the ace. They start referencing the Holocaust. That ends any debate altogether. They say: "We have been warned about how quickly people would turn on us." Much hand wringing. Pogroms are real and Jews have faced unimaginable terror. But there are no signs of pogroms at the moment. The usual level of anti-semitism, sure. Americans hate a lot of people. It's in our DNA. What needs to be examined in this media discourse is the use of the terms Jewish, Israeli and Zionist. It tells you a lot about the workings of propaganda.