The Erasure of the Palestinian
Photo courtesy of Responsible Statecraft
“It has been an exhibition of what the Palestinian scholar Edward Said called ‘the permission to narrate’, and it is that permission that Palestinian Americans have been denied. They have heard their names mentioned fleetingly by a handful of speakers but have not been granted the right to speak their names themselves. Perhaps that is for fear of what else a Palestinian American speaker might name. I cannot say that fear is unwarranted.” Ta-Nehisi Coates, Variety, August 21, 2024
During the final stages of the 30 year war in Sri Lanka there was a perception held by the West and its allies, and reiterated like a mantra ever since, that it constituted something bordering on a genocide or a crime against humanity. US President Barack Obama likened it to ethnic slaughter. This was, of course, long before social media had evolved to a point where it could help clarify what was happening on the ground. But that perception persisted and for better or worse it has come to define Sri Lanka’s relations with the Global North, the US and the European Union in particular.
If the Sri Lankan state’s military campaigns constituted ethnic slaughter, what would constitute the erasure of the Palestinian in Gaza? It is difficult to dodge such questions. But they are being dodged, often by people who have made it their career to advocate for the rights of the marginalised. Are the Palestinians not marginalised enough? Are they not worthy enough? These are polemical questions but international relations can be polemical and I cannot think of a more polemical issue staring at our face right now than the systematic extermination of an entire ethnic group.
Following the end of the 30 year war in Sri Lanka – a war that has been called many things from “separatist conflict” to “ethnic dispute” – there were several Commissions and reports that tried to ascertain how many civilians died in its last stages. The estimates range from 7,000 to nearly 150,000. The UN, justifiably, called for fact finding missions into the country. These gestures were rebuffed by the Sri Lankan government and they generated some concern in Washington.
These concerns were genuine. No war can ever be won militarily without some carnage. No war can be fought without collateral damage. Yet the government, as all governments do, prioritised what they considered as the strategic imperative of winning the war over the humanitarian dimensions of the conflict. At the same time, they refuted allegations that they had systematically targeted the Tamil civilian population. Such denials continue to be met with cynicism and disbelief in the international community. But without proper documented proof, a la Channel 4, it is difficult to validate these claims.
It has been 15 long years since that military campaign ended. We are told that the military may have acted with impunity in the final phase. Fifteen years later we are seeing much more impunity in Gaza. We are seeing a sitting Israeli Defence Minister publicly stating that Israel is fighting human animals. We are seeing a sitting Israeli president observing that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza. The Sri Lankan government categorically denied that it targeted civilians in its campaign against the LTTE. Yet nowhere did ministers suggest that they were fighting animals or that there were no innocents among them.
I make these comparisons not to absolve one side and condemn the other but to emphasise the differences in optics and how these differences have been met by stone cold indifference by the political establishments of certain countries. While the Democratic National Convention was ongoing, the New York Times asked nine of its columnists to rate its best and worst moments. Many of them noted the idiosyncrasies of the speakers and the response by Republican commentators. No one talked about a particular community that had been deliberately kept out, side-lined, excluded.
It is reasonable to surmise that foreign policy isn’t of vital importance in a national political party convention even if it takes place in the US. But surely it is difficult to detach the one from the other. Where does one draw a fine line between domestic politics and foreign policy, between the home and the world? It isn’t that the situation in Gaza wasn’t talked about – the parents of an Israeli-American hostage spoke passionately and searingly about the need to bring back hostages and ensure a ceasefire. That this resonates with the American and international public became clear when the speech was greeted by thundering claps and cries of “Bring them home!” all around.
Yet there is something of a contradiction here. It isn’t just Israel that has lost the moral high ground. It is also its staunchest allies. I do not think that qualifications can ever be made for allegations of war crimes; whether they take place here or in Gaza, they are war crimes. Yet from the first day when it has been made clear again and again by multilateral bodies and human rights agencies across the world that what is happening in Gaza could well cross the threshold, could well constitute a humanitarian crime, the verbal gymnastics and the jittery phrases from the most powerful countries have been overwhelming. The call to bring back hostages, which is as valid as it is sensible, does not make sense when the Israeli press itself accuses the country’s own president of not giving a damn about their families. These are not allegations; these are documented facts.
In their decision to ignore such facts and realities and silence everyone who begs to differ – even relatives of the dead in Gaza – I see no difference between Colombo’s casual disregard for human rights allegations following the end of the war and the somewhat intriguing genuflection to alternative narratives which we are seeing in (most of) the Western world’s response to the carnage in Gaza. There have been exceptions to this. All in all, I think it’s not a coincidence that these exceptions, the Western countries which have chosen to be critical of Israel, including Ireland, have themselves been occupied territory in the past. After all, it takes one to know one. And throughout this carnage, the Irish and the South Africans have come to share more with the Palestinians of Gaza than have much of the international community that pays lip service to its own ideals.
