Judith Butler Will Not Co-Sign Israel’s Alibi for Genocide

Last month, the famed American philosopher and gender studies scholar Judith Butler was thrust into the center of a controversy after remarks Butler made about the October 7 attacks in Israel. A longtime critic of Zionism and Israel’s war against the Palestinians, Butler had condemned the attacks in the immediate aftermath. But at a March roundtable in France, Butler offered a historical context for the Hamas-led operations and stated that the attacks constituted armed resistance. The blowback was swift, and Butler was criticized in media outlets across Europe and in Israel. This week on Intercepted, Butler discusses the controversy and their position on Hamas, Israel, and crackdowns on student protests.

Butler is currently a Distinguished Professor at UC Berkeley’s Graduate School. They are the author of several books, including “The Force of Nonviolence: An Ethico-Political Bind,” “Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism,” and most recently, “Who’s Afraid of Gender?”

Jeremy Scahill: Welcome to Intercepted. I’m Jeremy Scahill.

Murtaza Hussain: And I’m Murtaza Hussain.

JS: Well, Maz, there’s a lot to talk about this week. In a few minutes, we’re going to be talking with the great Judith Butler. But before we get to that interview, I want to ask you your sense of where things are right now with the Netanyahu government appearing to be ready for a full-scale invasion of Rafah.

Of course, Rafah has been attacked repeatedly, but this presumably would be a much more intense, full-scale ground operation, even as there’s reports that the Biden administration is trying to push for some form of a deal where Hamas would release 33 of the Israelis that they’re holding in return for some, as of now, undefined pause in the Israeli attacks.

But your thoughts on this moment, the political situation, and the threats coming out of Tel Aviv.

MH: Well, it’s been a very eventful few days. We had the reports suggesting that a peace deal could be imminent, in fact, that would end the conflict for a predetermined period of time. But on Tuesday, Netanyahu indicated that whether there is a deal for hostages or not, the war will continue and the attack on Rafah will continue.

And he said explicitly that we’re going to enter Rafah “with or without a deal.” So what it indicates to me, and most observers, I would say too, is that this war was not really about the hostages. It’s not currently about the hostages either, because Netanyahu’s had many opportunities to free the hostages in a peace agreement for a ceasefire or a permanent peace agreement.

And reportedly, even from the first days of the war, it came out recently that Hamas apparently had offered full release of hostages in exchange for the IDF not coming into Gaza on the ground. So it seems that Netanyahu is very, very committed to continuing the war as long as possible; the hostages are not a priority.

It seems like his statement on Tuesday was specifically geared to sabotage the current ongoing negotiations, which by all accounts, we’re almost reaching success. So it seems very, very obvious that Netanyahu is invested in continuing the war. And it could not just be for political reasons, in terms of Israel’s position, but his own political future inside Israel, because the second the war ends, he’s going to be in serious political and legal trouble with Israelis and continuing [the war] longer prevents that.

JS: There’s also this strange micro-mystery that’s been playing out. Some days ago, there were reports that started emerging in the Israeli press, indicating that Netanyahu and some of his senior officials in his government were very concerned that the International Criminal Court was going to be handing down indictments, including indictments of Netanyahu himself and Yoav Gallant, the defense minister.

And the initial reporting in the Israeli media was citing sources in The Hague, but it seems pretty clear from other reporting that has now taken place in Israel and elsewhere, that this was kind of rumor intelligence and that it was being floated to the Israeli press. For what reason would Netanyahu and his government want to float the notion that the International Criminal Court was potentially going to be issuing indictments?

It could be that that is true — that there is a contemplation at play at the Hague where the prosecutor, Karim Khan, is actually considering or has sealed indictments of Netanyahu or others. Though it would be a really swift course of action, if you look at the history of how the ICC proceeds, but it does seem as though there’s a political agenda at play that isn’t exactly clear right now.

Netanyahu reportedly also spoke directly to Joe Biden saying that he wants the United States to block any effort by the International Criminal Court to issue indictments against Netanyahu or other officials. But it’s something to sort of keep an eye on and flag. And just one thing I want to mention for people — we’ve talked about this on the show before, whether it’s true or not, the reports about potential International Criminal Court indictments of the Israelis — it’s important to remember this, that there is a law on the books in the United States that’s been in place since 2002, and it was a bipartisan bill that was signed into law by George Bush.

Known in the human rights community as the Hague Invasion Act, this law allows the president of the United States to use military force to liberate any American personnel indicted or brought to The Hague on war crimes charges. This includes military elected officials, appointed officials, and personnel from NATO member countries or major non-NATO allies, such as Israel.

The mere rumors of the International Criminal Court potentially indicting Israeli officials have caused panic in Washington, leading to Republican lawmakers drafting legislation to retaliate against the ICC. This hypocrisy in how the U.S. views international institutions like the ICC undermines the rules-based liberal order that the U.S. has supported in the past.

The crackdown on student protests and encampments at universities, both in the U.S. and internationally, has raised concerns about the suppression of rights of assembly, free speech, and academic freedom. While some university presidents have called in police to break apart protests, others have upheld principles of freedom of expression. The ongoing movement of student protests is gaining momentum, even internationally, with students at universities like Sciences Po in France erecting encampments. Paddy wagons are a common sight on the streets of Paris every weekend, waiting for student protesters and other demonstrators. The large police presence, armed with automatic weapons, aims to intimidate and prevent people from expressing their solidarity with Palestine and opposing the ongoing attacks on Gaza.

The reasons given by universities for deploying police on students seem spurious and objectionable, particularly concerning the issue of security. It is clear that the security measures are primarily focused on protecting the campus property and the entrance, rather than ensuring the safety of protesters exercising their rights.

There is also a security concern raised by some Jewish students, claiming they feel unsafe on campus due to certain utterances. However, the distinction between objectionable speech and actual threats to physical safety is often blurred in justifications for police presence on campuses.

The claim that opposing the genocide in Gaza makes a Jewish student feel unsafe is problematic, as it prioritizes their perceived safety over the safety of Palestinians who are actually facing harm and violence. The expanded definition of antisemitism has unfortunately led to calls for justice in Palestine being equated with antisemitism.

The scale and scope of protests on Palestine today reflect changing attitudes among younger generations, although it is important to note that not all individuals in this demographic hold the same views. The involvement of individuals like Ros Petchesky, an advocate for Jewish Voice for Peace, demonstrates that activism on this issue spans across generations. There is a growing solidarity across generations, with a specific focus on mobilization on college campuses. This mobilization follows previous actions by groups like Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, including high-profile protests in various locations. The current mobilization on college campuses is being watched globally and is seen as a source of great solidarity and clarity for many Palestinians.

Young people involved in the mobilization are gaining a deeper understanding of the history of Zionism, occupation, and apartheid within Israel. They are driven by a strong conviction that the violence against Palestinians in Gaza is genocidal and unjust, and they are actively educating themselves on the issues at hand.

The ultimate goal of liberation for Palestine, in the eyes of many involved in the mobilization, is a future where Palestinians, Jews, and others can coexist in conditions of radical equality, with the dismantling of occupation and colonial structures. This vision includes the removal of settlements and the right of return for Palestinians who have been forcibly displaced.

There is a call for more education and activism on college campuses to deepen understanding and challenge hateful or ignorant rhetoric. This includes discussions on what freedom means and how it can be achieved in a just and equitable manner.

In addition to discussions on the liberation of Palestine, there is a need to protect academic freedom on college campuses from interference by state powers and donors. Recent events at universities like Columbia and Harvard have highlighted threats to academic freedom, which is essential for educators to teach and express ideas without censorship.

The impact of recent events, including remarks made by Judith Butler in France, has brought attention to the ongoing struggles in Palestine and the need for factual and historical context in discussions surrounding the conflict. You used a phrase that was then cherry-picked and caused a lot of controversy in the international and Israeli press, as well as in Le Monde, American newspapers, and other European papers. The phrase in question was your description of the attacks on October 7 as an “act of armed resistance.” The full context of your remarks made it clear to intellectually honest people what you were trying to convey. However, you faced a barrage of public and private attacks as a result.

The question posed to you in Pantin was whether Hamas was a terrorist organization and if it was possible to distinguish its actions from an antisemitic attack. As a Jewish person, you expressed anguish over the events of October 7, which stirred controversy among some of your left-leaning friends. You highlighted the unequal treatment of Jewish lives lost compared to Palestinian deaths in the media.

You wrote against Hamas in the aftermath of October 7, hoping the movement would fade away. However, witnessing the Israeli state’s actions against the people of Gaza led you to denounce genocide and call it as such. Your understanding of the origins of Hamas and the context in which it emerged led you to believe it was important to consider the root causes of violence rather than just condemning the acts themselves.

You clarified that while you do not support Hamas or its military tactics, you believe it’s crucial to understand the conditions that drive people to such actions. You emphasized the complexity of the situation and the need for a nuanced approach to discussing such sensitive issues. I was attempting to comprehend the reasons behind individuals taking up arms and engaging in combat. However, the use of the term “résistance” in France invokes memories of the liberation from the Nazis and the victorious struggle against fascism. It is always idealized and celebrated. Despite my intention to discuss violent resistance while objecting to its tactics, using the term “résistance” inadvertently led to the perception that I was endorsing it, which was not the case.

I am interested in exploring why people resort to violence and when they decide to lay down their arms. It is crucial to distinguish between opposition to occupation or the Israeli siege of Gaza and antisemitism. While some members of Hamas have made antisemitic remarks, it is essential to condemn such behavior while recognizing their fight for justice, freedom, and equality.

Refusing to label Hamas as “terrorist” does not equate to endorsing their actions. It is vital to consider the political aims behind their military operations and avoid painting an entire population as terrorists. The term “terrorist” should be used judiciously, and we must also examine state-sponsored terrorism.

I advocate for substantive political negotiations to achieve a nonviolent future for Palestine. However, the tendency to label individuals based on a single word or phrase hinders meaningful dialogue and understanding. It is crucial to engage in thoughtful and precise discourse, especially in educational settings, to avoid misinterpretation and misrepresentation. Photo by Ashraf Amra/Anadolu via Getty Images” is the source of the image. I am well aware that when I used to visit Germany, I met many Israelis in exile living in Berlin who collaborated closely with Palestinians and were anti-Zionists. They believed they could live more comfortably in Germany due to cultural activities. However, these individuals, including Jewish individuals with a conscience such as the Jüdische Stimme and Jewish voices groups, are now being arrested by German police in the name of combating antisemitism. German politicians and their supporters are even determining whether a Jewish person’s criticism of Zionism or Israeli policies amounts to antisemitism. This situation is appalling, as Germans are essentially deciding who is antisemitic or not.

The German government’s unconditional support for Israel is based on the concept of the “raison d’état,” but the suppression of criticism against Israel within both Israel and Germany is concerning. This includes the recent persecution of Professor Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian and the crackdown on public criticism, which undermines democracy. The rise of the AFD party in Germany is also troubling, as it thrives in an environment where police powers are used to suppress democratic rights.

There is a need to open up the critique of Israel and allow for dissenting opinions. It is possible to be anti-Zionist and advocate for a state where Palestinians and Jews coexist peacefully with equal rights and protections. This vision does not entail the destruction of Israel but a transformation of the state to represent all its inhabitants, regardless of their background.

It is essential to debate and consider alternative perspectives on the Israeli state, as there have always been voices calling for a democratic Israel that upholds positive values of equality and justice. These discussions should be welcomed in Germany, given the historical connection of German Jews to these ideas.

Source link