This story originally appeared on Jill.substack.com, a newsletter from journalist, lawyer and author Jill Filipovic.
I had a piece in the New York Times last week about the dangers in denying, ignoring or minimizing the many acts of sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas and others against Israeli women on Oct. 7. (I hope you’ll read it.) The level of denialism—generally to serve a political end and coming from thousands and thousands of people including some with large platforms—has left me stunned and disgusted.
So many reactions to Oct. 7 and the war that followed have been revolting in their utter inhumanity, especially in the refusal of so many people to extend any empathy, decency or even recognition to innocents not on their favored side. That does seem to be behind much of the sexual violence denialism: a fear that recognizing one group’s suffering may somehow take away from, or even justify, another’s.
It doesn’t. Behaving as though it does isn’t protective or virtuous; it’s perpetrating a cycle of dehumanization and brutality. It is both immoral and counterproductive.
This war has extracted a devastating toll:
- According to the Gaza health ministry, more than 18,600 Palestinians have been killed, most of them women and children, and tens of thousands of more wounded, traumatized, pushed from their homes or all of the above.
- More than 60 journalists and media workers are among those dead, most have lost their lives in Israeli airstrikes.
- Close to 2 million people—85 percent of Palestinians in Gaza—have been displaced, and the destruction is so extreme that it’s unclear where, exactly, people will be able to return when the war ends.
This is a horror, and we should face it squarely.
It’s crucial to ask: How much is too much? Even if ending the existence of Hamas is a legitimate aim—and I believe it is—at what point are the costs simply too high?
In case it’s not clear, I think that point has been reached and blown past. And also: This awful reality is not a good reason to downplay or deny atrocities committed against Israelis. The fact that people who support this war are emphasizing these atrocities is not justification for denying that they happened.
Palestinians and Israelis live in different media universes, and so do different political tribes of Americans. Israelis are largely unified in favor of the war, and from the sounds of it, Israeli television is emphasizing Israeli suffering and not airing a whole ton of sympathetic footage of the casualties in Gaza. Palestinians have become more supportive of Hamas since the war began, and overwhelmingly believe that Hamas has not committed war crimes—numbers that might be partly explained by the fact that 85 percent of Palestinians tell pollsters that they had not seen the videos, which are ubiquitous on international news, of Hamas killing women and children in their homes.
And in the U.S., many of us get our news from curated social media feeds and closed social universes. I’ve seen multiple people, for example, demand that if you are on one side of this war or the other, that you unfollow or unfriend them immediately. Many people are surrounded by those who generally agree with them on politics, and on Israel and Gaza. Many people decide to simply not read even very reputable publications they believe are biased against their side. Many have decided that one group, being wholly in the right, is in need of unwavering support, including denying or downplaying anything that might not serve their interests.
It is so, so easy to draw your circle of empathy only around those who look like you or think like you or believe like you. It is just as easy to believe information when it confirms your existing views, and reject or hold to a higher evidentiary standard that which conflicts with them. And in highly charged, high-stakes moments, it’s easy to believe that, because you are on the righteous side, any claims that may benefit or bring sympathy or offer justification for your opponents are de facto dangerous, and must be fought against.
That’s not righteousness. It’s cowardice.
Many have decided that one group, being wholly in the right, is in need of unwavering support, including denying or downplaying anything that might not serve their interests.
This is what we’re seeing in the determined denials of sexual violence on Oct. 7, and also in the silence of many anti-war feminists who would usually have much to say about high-profile cases of wartime rape. It’s also what we’re seeing in the sanitizing of Palestinian suffering, and in the insistence that tens of thousands of human lives stuffed out are little more than unfortunate, unintentional and unavoidable collateral damage at best, and deserving at worst.
Whatever one believes about this current war and the bigger question of how to achieve a fair resolution to a decades-long conflict, I hope that most presumably liberal-minded readers would generally agree that the ideal is an end to the ongoing devastation, as well as a longer-term plan that allows for maximal safety and freedom for all people in what is now Israel and Palestine, and that comes into being with minimal violence.
I won’t pretend I have any idea how any solution—two state, one state, anything other than the unsustainable status quo—comes to be. To put all of my cards on the table, I am a normie supporter of a two-state solution for two peoples with historic ties to a long-contested land, and who all deserve freedom, safety, self-governance and self-determination. (This is a really great post that explains why two states remain both the best answer and a very illusive one.) You may think there’s a better or fairer answer, and I’ll probably think you make some good points, because what the hell do I know about solving one of the most intractable problems in the modern world?
I know for sure, though, that we won’t get to a better place by siloing ourselves off, being more self-righteous than curious, and reserving our empathy only for a few.
It is so, so easy to see how cycles of violence perpetuate themselves. Having seen some of the footage from Oct. 7 that the Israeli government has shown journalists, I understand—deeply, viscerally—why even liberal Israelis are so sickened and angry, and why there seems to be no other option than destroying Hamas, whatever it takes. It’s the stunning violence, including against so many innocents, but also the intimacy of that violence—these were not far-away targets, but often people killed at close range, and then sometimes mutilated or desecrated just for fun. And it’s the utter glee the terrorists took in it: taking selfies with gravely wounded civilians, whooping and laughing, thanking God. It is hard to watch without thinking that these attacks were carried out by utter sociopaths—profoundly sick individuals who take great pleasure in murder and torture. It is understandably human to see that and feel revulsion that curdles into vengeance.
Palestinians are feeling the same way. If your home is destroyed, your loved ones killed, your existence threatened, and your children traumatized if they live at all, it is very, very difficult to extend your empathy to those in the nation dropping the bombs. When you see your people being compared to animals, or the mass death you’re witnessing simply shrugged off, it is easy to conclude that it is the other side that is sub-human, and that violence is the only language they understand.
When wars are this expansive, and when they touch every single life in the place under bombardment, and when you leave so many dead or homeless or horrifically injured, you wind up creating a society that is not just fearful and traumatized, but angry and vengeful. This is the story of human existence for thousands of years. This is the most predictable thing in the world.
We won’t get to a better place by siloing ourselves off, being more self-righteous than curious, and reserving our empathy only for a few.
There is no perfect recipe for breaking these awful, untenable cycles of violence and retribution. But a few ingredients seem necessary, and one is a willingness to acknowledge suffering, instead of avoiding the instances of it that are inconvenient or that complicate a good-guys-versus-bad-guys narrative. One is facing difficult truths, especially those that complicate your politics or your worldview. One is refusing demands for silence, and rejecting with-us-or-against-us ultimatums.
A fuller piece, which looks at some of these questions in relationship to Oct. 7 sexual violence, can be found at this gift link.
Up next:
U.S. democracy is at a dangerous inflection point—from the demise of abortion rights, to a lack of pay equity and parental leave, to skyrocketing maternal mortality, and attacks on trans health. Left unchecked, these crises will lead to wider gaps in political participation and representation. For 50 years, Ms. has been forging feminist journalism—reporting, rebelling and truth-telling from the front-lines, championing the Equal Rights Amendment, and centering the stories of those most impacted. With all that’s at stake for equality, we are redoubling our commitment for the next 50 years. In turn, we need your help, Support Ms. today with a donation—any amount that is meaningful to you. For as little as $5 each month, you’ll receive the print magazine along with our e-newsletters, action alerts, and invitations to Ms. Studios events and podcasts. We are grateful for your loyalty and ferocity.
