Why It's So Hard To Talk About Gaza

If you feel frustrated that there isn’t a reasonable debate, it’s because Netanyahu’s supporters don’t want one

By Sophia A. McClennen, Salon

Not long after the Black Lives Matter movement started in 2013, there was hope that the tragedies that sparked it might lead to real reflection and dialogue about how to address systemic racism in the United States. That hope didn’t last long for those of us who found ourselves almost immediately drawn into another conversation, one that was maddeningly irritating: All Lives Matter. All Lives Matter advocates suggested that Black Lives Matter was akin to racism. The position was pull-your-hair-out frustrating because it was so profoundly inaccurate. Rather than productively discussing critical race theory, we were now drawn into a debate over a misrepresentation of what we were advocating.

As I put it in a piece for Salon on why it is so hard to argue with the right, these conflicts are not real discussions or debates. Instead, more and more often, on issues of major social and political significance, we are confronted with an inaccurate manipulation of our views created by our critics, that is followed by their outrage over their own misrepresentation of us.

The same thing is happening with conversations about Gaza. Only, now, it’s worse.

Anyone even suggesting that there is a human rights crisis in Gaza faces potential repercussions, from calls of anti-Semitism to doxing to arrests to threats to their safety.

It feels like any effort to discuss the crisis in Gaza is like arguing with a dumpster fire: either you say something, like bombing a hospital seems like a human rights violation, and are barraged by flames, or you just have to shut up and walk away.