John Wright — Off-Guardian May 17, 2018
It is hard to imagine anything so nauseating as a group of affluent liberals defending the mass murder of poor colonized people in the name of democracy and security. Though a species of moral turpitude associated with 19th century colonial tropes, in 2018 it remains very much alive under the banner of the UK Labour Friends of Israel (LFI).
In response to the shocking scenes of violence unleashed by Israeli security forces against Palestinian protestors on the boundary of the besieged Gaza Strip, resulting in the deaths of at least 58 people, including children, and the wounding of a further 2700, international condemnation of Israel has been near total.
Given that this latest body count raises to over 100 the number of Palestinians killed over the six weeks of Great Return March protests, organized to demand the right of return of refugees to their homes, along with a total of 10,000 wounded and injured, over 100, there is no doubting the willingness of Israel’s security forces to unleash lethal force against civilians.
Yet, as if to confirm the truth that colonialism is the toilet of the human soul, Labour Friends of Israel – a group of avowed Israel-supporting Labour Party MPs and officials – in a tweet subsequently removed amid the deluge of criticism it incurred, sought to defend this massacre by raising the spectre of Hamas.
Tragic events on the Gazan border; all civilian deaths are regrettable. Hamas must accept responsibility for these events. Their successful attempt to hijack peaceful protest to attack Israeli border communities must be condemned by all who seek peace in the Middle East.”
Language is important, for it is the key to unlocking consciousness, and the language deployed by LFI in its response to Israel’s massacre of unarmed Palestinian protestors in Gaza confirms that for them the world is defined by a hierarchy of human worth, thus assuaging the groups collective conscience in defending the indefensible.
But though LFI constitute a particularly egregious example of moral collapse when it comes to mitigating this unconscionable massacre, there are other culprits whose foray into the swamp of equivocation is worthy of condemnation.
Consider, for example, the BBC’s coverage.
In its reporting of the massacre the word ‘clashes’ predominated, conjuring the image of two equal sides engaged in a battle of some sort.
— Media Lens (@medialens) May 14, 2018