PASSIONATE INTENSITIES: "Bilateral slaughter," Kristof said!

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2023

Many Gazans, UN staffers killed: Nicholas Kristof could have been criticized right out of the gate.

Those in the grip of a certain passion could have said that he needed a sign—a sign just like the astonishing yard sign assigned to Barack Obama.

In yesterday morning's New York Times, Kristof offered his latest column about the Israel-Hamas war, and about the events which produced it. 

Kristof's columns on this topic have included in-person reporting from right there on the ground. That said, he could have been that he needed a sign as soon as he started his column this way, hard-copy headline included:

Three Myths of the Middle East

With the bilateral slaughter in the Middle East unleashing poisons that are worsening hatred worldwide, let me outline what I see as three myths inflaming the debate:

The first myth is that in the conflict in the Middle East there is right on one side and wrong on the other (even if people disagree about which is which).

Life isn’t that neat. The tragedy of the Middle East is that this is a clash of right versus right. That does not excuse Hamas’s massacre and savagery or Israel’s leveling of entire neighborhoods in Gaza, but underlying the conflict are certain legitimate aspirations that deserve to be fulfilled.

That's the way the column started. Just like that, right out of the gate, those in the grip of a certain passion might have said that Kristof should be issued a sign—the same sign Obama should have in his yard.

To people with one view of this matter, Kristof has perhaps engaged in disgraceful behavior. He has committed the sin known as "moral equivalency," and he's done so in several ways:

In his first few words, he refers to a "bilateral slaughter"—to a slaughter conducted by two different sides—and he quickly spells out what he means. 

In his third paragraph, he links Israel's military incursion into Gaza with the October 7 "massacre" committed by Hamas. Plainly, he's describing each of these events as "a slaughter." Our question:

If Obama was guilty of "moral equivalency" with his recent "absolutely disgusting" remarks, what might a passionate person say about this formulation?

Speaking for ourselves, a person might say that Kristof could perhaps have been more careful in the crafting of these opening comments. 

Does he mean to say that Israel's "leveling of entire neighborhoods" actually is a "massacre"—actually is a "slaughter" in the way the October 7 slaughter was? 

If that's what he means to say, we'd suggest that he should have said so more directly. For ourselves, we wouldn't have put it the way Kristof does—though we think that Kristof's writing from Israel and from the West Bank has been one of the most constructive bodies of work to emerge from this latest disaster.

Has Israel's response to October 7 really been a massacre—a slaughter? Kristof uses some highly evocative language in those opening paragraphs—the kind of language that could very easily get him issued a sign.

We refer, of course, to the kind of yard sign which was recently assigned to Barack Obama. For today, we won't repeat what that astonishing yard sign would have said. Over the past two weeks, we've repeated the words on that imaginary sign many times. 

We've repeated those words enough. 

In our view, the yard sign handed to Obama was the product of an extremely unhelpful type of intensity. Once again, we'll repeat the famous way the poet Yeats once limned it:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst   
Are full of passionate intensity.

Today, "the worst" are full of passionate intensity—or at least, we'd say that's true of certain people who seems to be (severely) mentally ill. 

Some of those people now speak about vermin. Others who aren't among "the worst" may issue Obama a sign, or they may say that the former president has been "lying through his teeth" about the current situation in Israel.

Personally, we wouldn't have started a column in the way Kristof did. At times like these, it seems to us that our most valuable observers should be extremely careful about the language they use—should speak as clearly and directly as they possibly can.

In our view, Kristof was perhaps a bit casual with some of his words at the start of this latest column. In fairness, he proceeded to offer a more upbeat type of equivalency—an equivalency which looks like this:

...The tragedy of the Middle East is that this is a clash of right versus right. That does not excuse Hamas’s massacre and savagery or Israel’s leveling of entire neighborhoods in Gaza, but underlying the conflict are certain legitimate aspirations that deserve to be fulfilled.

Israelis deserve their country, forged by refugees in the shadow of the Holocaust, and they have built a high-tech economy that largely empowers women and respects gay people, while giving its Palestinian citizens more rights than most Arab nations give their citizens. Israel’s courts, media freedom and civil society are models for the region, and there is something of a double standard: Critics pounce on Israeli abuses while often ignoring prolonged brutality against Muslims from Yemen to Syria, Western Sahara to Xinjiang.

Likewise, Palestinians deserve a country, freedom and dignity—and they shouldn’t be subjected to collective punishment...

Israelis deserve to have their country, and they deserve to be free of selective criticism. That said, Palestinians deserve a country too—and they deserve freedom and dignity.

Not everyone will agree with the assessments offered in those passages. Indeed, the most passionate among us will find plenty to disagree with in those passages too.

That said, Kristof provides a further service as his column continues. As he continues, he provides the type of information which might tend to get swept under the rug as these tragic events get discussed on our nation's TV shows or in our opinion columns:

Likewise, Palestinians deserve a country, freedom and dignity—and they shouldn’t be subjected to collective punishment. We’ve reached a searing milestone: In just five weeks of war, half of 1 percent of Gaza’s population has been killed. To put it in perspective, that’s more than the share of the American population that was killed in all of World War II—over the course of four years.

A great majority of those killed have been women and children, according to Gaza’s Hamas-controlled Health Ministry, and one gauge of the ferocity and indiscriminate nature of some airstrikes is that more than 100 United Nations staffers have been killed, which the U.N. says is more than in any conflict since its founding. Perhaps that’s because, as an Israeli military spokesman put it early in the conflict, “the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.”

“We are normal people, trying to live,” an engineer in Gaza told me by phone. He despises Hamas and would like to see it removed from power, but he says that Hamas fighters are safe in tunnels while he and his children are the ones most at risk: “We’re the civilians paying the price.”

Whichever side you are more inclined toward, remember that the other includes desperate human beings merely hoping that their children can live freely and thrive in their own nation.

Depending on "which side you are more inclined toward," you can find a lot to challenge or criticize—or to disregard or disappear—in those highlighted passages. In the end, the question is this:

To what extent can you respond to statements with which you may disagree without letting your "passionate intensity" hand Obama a sign? To what extent can you respond to such statements without claiming that when Obama said the October 7 slaughter was "horrific," he was actually saying or suggesting that it was "not so bad?"

As every experienced person knows, passions can sweep observers away on all sides of every aisle. For reasons which are perfectly understandable, high-end journalists in this country are more likely to be "inclined toward" the Israeli side in the current disaster—but that may mean that information about Palestinian suffering, past and present, may tend to be go unstated.

In the passage we've just cited, Kristof offers somewhat unverifiable figures about the extent of death and destruction as the IDF engages in the "leveling of entire neighborhoods in Gaza."

Is that very formulation a fair account of Israel's current military actions? Many people may feel that it isn't—but can they say such things without going on Fox and loudly handing out signs?

In the past two weeks, we've discussed some comments which were made on a pair of Fox cable programs. On Monday, we may move on to discuss some presentations we've seen on MSNBC.

The passions have possibly been a bit less intense at that blue tribe site. But have the discussions made good sense, even over there? 

Public discussions rarely do! Our human brains aren't wired for that, despondent top experts have said.

"Bilateral slaughter," Kristof said. We think his work has been invaluable. Still, we leave you with a pair of questions:

Bilateral slaughter. In your carefully considered opinion, was that a good choice of words? Also, can you state your view, whatever it is, without handing Others a sign?


41 comments:

  1. Erecting a Jewish state in Palestine was a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, which is why the majority of Jews live in the US, just a minority live in Israel. Only a wounded lost soul would want to live in an ethnostate engaging in apartheid which breeds horrific violence like the Hamas attack; an ethnostate that’s currently indiscriminately bombing and killing thousands of innocent civilians, half of whom are children.

      Jews got sold a con, the minority that bought into Zionism. They got suckered. The antisemites and Christian fanactics got their way.

      Most Americans support a ceasefire, time to step up, Biden.

      Delete
    2. I tend to think that erecting a Palestinian territory in Israel was a bad idea.

      Delete
    3. 9:07 makes an excellent point: Israel should not have forced Palestinians onto occupied reservations that are essentially open air prisons, huge mistake by Israel. Instead they should welcome the Palestinians back to the land the zionists took from them, and accept them as full and equal citizens.

      Most Jews in the world seem to endorse some version of this notion; however, Israel at the moment has been captured by right wing religious fanatics hell bent on proving their supremacy over Palestinians.

      Delete
    4. How would welcoming back Palestinians help when they have vowed to destroy Israel?

      Delete
    5. Palestinians should be welcomed by Egypt, Syria and Jordan, where they will feel at home among like-minded Arab Islamists.

      Delete
    6. Hamas has reportedly fled to Qatar. Why not allow the rest of Gaza Palestinians to follow? Qatar has a very high GDP.

      Delete
  2. In my carefully considered opinion, bilateral slaughter is a good choice of words.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You can't spell slaughter without laughter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Slaughter‘s Fly to the Angels is a ok fun song, in a very cheesy kind of way, but it’s a ripoff of a Jimmy Page song.

      Delete
  4. Kevin has spotted a trend.

    https://jabberwocking.com/antisemitism-is-going-mainstream-on-the-right/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kevin has not spotted anything, this trend has been notated in media for a long time. Kevin is desperate to be relevant, so he puts his finger in the wind and then offers the Official Weather Report. “I consider these protests generally ignorant of history” says the remarkably ignorant former marketing executive.

      Delete
    2. The point is, antisemitism is going mainstream on the right. Drum gives examples.

      Delete
    3. Good on Drum for noticing, he’s still an ignorant right wing ‘’centrist” former marketing executive out to make a buck while stroking his ego.

      Good on you (genuinely), though, for getting the word out about Republicans and antisemitism, it is concerning.

      Delete
  5. Kristof is as relevant as his failed attempt at running for governor of Oregon.

    Tired of being attacked for being an elitist NYC neoliberal, he figured that since he owned a vineyard in Oregon, he could become their governor. Turns out he did not qualify as a resident and therefore could not run, but he helped himself to the $3 million he had already raised towards his empty endeavor.

    If these ignorant fools, such as Kristof and other mealymouthed right wing pseudo “liberals”, were not able to weaponize and commodify their lack of integrity, they’d have no raison d’etre.

    Interestingly, today Somerby expresses frustration at Kristof’s slippery coyness, the very same technique Somerby employs! How dare Kristof. Stop the steal!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am seeing several types of equivalence in the reporting and framing from Kristof and other news media
    -- Equating intentional civilian murders of Israelis with Israel's efforts to minimize civilian Palestinian deaths
    -- Ignoring Hamas intentionally putting Palestinians at risk by putting military targets in civilian areas.
    -- Paying too little attention to the barbaric nature of the Palestinian civilian attacks. I can only imagine the coverage if Israel went out of their way to burn babies, torture people, etc.
    -- Paying too little attention to who was the unprovoked aggressor.
    -- Giving Israel no credit for not responding while Hamas fired thousands of rockets at civilian areas.
    -- Paying too little attention to the unannounced war strike by the Palestinians. imagine the coverage if Israel had made a similar unprovoked attack on Palestinian civilians.
    -- Treating statements by both sides the same: Simply reporting "Israel said" or "Hamas said". In fact, there is no comparison in their reliability.
    -- Reporting Hamas war crimes as if they were Israeli war crimes. That is, when Palestinian civilians are killed becaue Hamas put their war machinery in civilian areas, that is a war crime by Hamas, not a crime by Israel.
    -- Stating or implying that Israel should kill no more people than the Palestinians did. This makes as little sense as requiring the US to kill no more Nazis than were killed in Pearl Harbor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many Nazis were killed in Pearl Harbor?

      Delete
    2. How many Palestinians should Israel be able to kill? Is there a limit to how many?

      Delete
    3. @7:46 Israel should not be allowed to kill any Palestinians in an unprovoked attack. Indeed this is Israeli law. In a few cases, an Israeli did kill a Palestinian. ThesesIsraeli perps were severely punished by Israel.

      You asked about Israel killing Palestinians. Let me ask you the same question about Palestinians killing other Palestinians:

      How many Palestinians should Hamas be allowed to kill by putting military targets in civilian areas?

      How many Palestinians should Hamas be allowed to kill by intentionally provoking a war that Hamas can't possibly win, but which Hamas knows will lead to many Palestinian deaths?

      How many Palestinians should Hamas be allowed to kill by preventing them from fleeing the war zone?

      How many Palestinians should Hamas be allowed to kill by depriving them of the resources donated by other countries?

      How many Palestinians should be allowed to be legally killed or lynched by other Palestinians because they advocated peace with Israel?

      Delete
    4. I have no idea. I don't know anything about it.

      You brought up the issue of others implying that Israel should kill no more people than the Palestinians did. Does that not imply they should be able to kill more? If so, are there any limits on how many Israel should be able to kill? What are they?

      Delete
    5. Would you be okay if Israel kills all of them in order to achieve total victory?

      Delete
    6. You don't provide a basis for any of the claims that you make so it raises a lot of questions. I'm not saying that you're wrong or there is not a basis for them. But a baseless claim begs a lot of questions.

      Delete
  7. What sad about this is that Bob, as he so often hasn’t been in recent years, SEEMS to be trying to be fair and conscientious, but still rather mucks things up. Did Kristof say anything to suggest he thought Israel is guilty of massacre and slaughter equatable with the Oct 7 attack? I’d have to say he didn’t.
    On Israel, the usual suspects can’t be counted on to take their usual positions, which can make it a bit tricker to follow than other events. Bob has written the stupid attacks on Obama into the ground, but it’s fairly predictable certain hacks would use these events for score settling.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Getting to the nub of Kristof's column, let's imagine a reporter stationed in Germany in 1944. The reporter might have expressed sympathy for the devastation, the many dead and injured, and the hospitals accidentally attacked. But, the reporter would not imply that the Allies were at fault. These things happen in war.

    It would have been ludicrous to report or imply that the Allied military had a greater responsibility to protect German lives than the German military did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How has Israel been prevented from responding appropriately to this attack? By whom? What is preventing Israel from total victory? What about the innocent people killed in achieving total victory?

      Delete
    2. Would you be okay if Israel made Gaza a parking lot and killed or displaced all of the Palestinians there in order to achieve total victory?

      Delete
    3. What do the non-Hamas Palestinians suggest?

      Delete
    4. @David in Cal 5:42 PM,
      you appear to be certain that your Nazi analogies fit the post-Nakba indigenous liberation movements of Palestine.

      But no, indigenous liberation movements aren't Nazis. It's odd that you don't see it.

      Delete
    5. It’s a dubious analogy, but serious historians have questioned the use of A bomb in Japan and the bombing of Dresden. It’s perfectly reasonable that they have done so and it does not rationalize the German Holocaust or Pearl Harbor.

      Delete
    6. Have serious historians questioned the Soviet declaration of war on Japan?

      Delete
  9. Thought experiment: imagine Hamas hiding out in Tel Aviv, would Israel go about indiscriminately bombing Tel Aviv?

    Hamas leadership is in Qatar, it’s no secret, but curiously, Israel is not bombing Qatar.

    The twisted logic employed by right wingers excusing Israel’s brutal killing of thousands of innocent civilians in Gaza, mirrors their twisted souls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be ridiculous. Qatar is another country, so of course they will not bomb it -- that would be an act of war. If Hamas were hiding out in Tel Aviv, they would use police measures to locate and arrest them. This is analogous to the operation of terrorists and drug cartels in other countries. The policing is not easy but it is more effective than giving terrorist a territory to hide in and operate from as a base, as now occurs with Gaza.

      Delete
    2. Supposedly Gaza is not part of Israel, so no different than Qatar.

      I agree, this should have been a police operation, not indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians in a sovereign territory.

      Having said that, the War on Drugs has been a complete failure, so while it’s reasonable for Israel to engage in a police operation to find and prosecute terrorists, they are better served by examining the root cause of the conflict and acting towards a viable solution.

      As it stands, they are engaging in a Final Solution which is horrific.

      Delete
    3. Gaza is not a nation. Qatar is.

      Delete
    4. Hamas has its own military. Israel is not to blame for that. Those who fund and equip them are running an insurgency against Israel. Israel’s hands are tied in dealing with them because of the human shields in Gaza. I blame Qatar and Iran for those Palestinian deaths. As everyone has acknowledged, Israel has the right to defend itself.

      Delete
    5. anon 10:28, You say that Gaza isn't a "nation." What is it then?

      Delete
  10. Obama ain't nuthin' but shit, and neither is anyone who stans him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 11:11 - I must take issue. People should be able to stan (or stans) Obama as much as they want

      Delete
    2. I stans Obama, and I ain't no shit.

      Delete
  11. The problem with the Middle East is religon, which is why I am an atheist. Each side says that God tells them that this is their land. There is no way to resolve this when both sides believe this. This is why I have said in the past that maybe the whole region should be blown up and then we can start all over again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 99.9% of the world's problems can be traced back to religion, or Ronald Reagan.

      Delete