HYPERBOLE

[ The internet, 2023: Some random idiot is confronted by a human rights lawyer on social media ]

“It’s not a game. I’m calling you out.”

“From my end, it looks like you’re almost entirely engaged in a weird personal attack that ignores the intent and substance of what I wrote.”

“Your lack of understanding is the problem with what you’re writing. It means you leave out key details.”

“I wrote about how al-Husseini was the brother of the mayor of Jerusalem, Grand Mufti, president of the Supreme Muslim Council, chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and eventually president of the All-Palestine Protectorate; that he fomented and led major bigotry-fuelled riots, revolts, pogroms, and wars over three decades. Oh, and how, as a friend of Adolph Hitler, he also worked as the Arab voice for Nazi Germany and sought to import the Third Reich’s solution to the Jewish problem from Europe to the Middle East. Your response was that al-Husseini was not a meaningful character nor influential voice in the history of Palestine. I think you said that my offering as much was ‘laughable.’ And, of course, you gifted me that without evidence. When I responded that ‘every scholar on the planet acknowledges his leadership and influence…’ you told me that I achieved a level of hyperbole making me nearly impossible to communicate with. You did that, as well and of course, without offering so much as one scholar who thinks otherwise. And you failed to do so while knowing full well what I said was as non-controversial and well-subscribed as round-earth theory. Oh, and now you’re telling me I’m ignorant, again without offering anything. What part of my version of events is inaccurate? How is this anything but an attack?”

“You didn’t acknowledge the impact of the three Aliyahs on the overall tensions. And if you ignore central historical facts about the situation it’s difficult for your characterization of the conflict to have any credibility.”

“As stated three times in my essay, and in the damn title, I set out to illuminate the very frequent and fraudulent claim (and outrageous victim-blaming) that appears everywhere I turn which says occupation or the conditions resulting from occupation are why we see Arab violence toward Jews.”

“Who says that?”

“Well, you’ll find it in policy analyses, op eds, news reports, blogs, podcasts, social media posts, being chanted at pro-Hamas rallies, at conversations around kitchen tables... You cannot possibly avoid it. It’s everywhere. And it was the thinking and justification for violence given by bin Laden and al-Qaeda prior to 9/11.”

“That’s not what I’m hearing.”

“Well, these folks have been publishing this stuff for decades. If anything it’s all too much in the public record. So if you’ve never encountered it that’s because you don’t wish to and are actively avoiding it. There's not an alternative explanation.”

“If it’s everywhere let’s have a specific example.”

“Well, I just gave you the example of bin Laden. And I've given many other examples. Are you telling me that not once between 9/11 and today have you encountered or enquired into the reasons given by him or his friends and colleagues for why they attack the US and Israeli military and civilians alike?”

“No. I don’t speak Arabic.”

“You don’t need to speak Arabic to have this information.”

“Well, I don’t trust the translations.”

“Now you’re just channelling Mos Def.”

“What?”

“This is exactly the conversation Mos Def, the rapper, had with Salman Rushdie and Christopher Hitchens. You never saw that?”

“No.”

“Well, it's an amazing bit of television history. I recommend it. Mos Def was on a panel with these men when, during a foreign policy discussion, he asked what bin Laden and al-Qaeda, themselves, said they were up to; what were their stated motivations, in their own terms, not what the US intelligence community wanted Americans to believe. Rushdie and Hitchens, both basically experts on the topic, were happy to spell it out plainly. Mos Def immediately rejected their interpretation but, wildly, did so both admittedly and without any other information. Both men were flabbergasted: he didn’t know what bin Laden told the world (who could have missed that?) while also claiming to have wanted to know for a decade but in that time couldn't be bothered to look into it (with help from a trusted source if that was needed), all while flatly rejecting the on-the-record word of these two experts who he'd just personally asked. It's a bonkers conversation.”

“Well, he was right to be suspicious.”

“That’s what he said. But his preference seemed to be to reside in a place of confident, self-imposed ignorance, apparently to maintain some political stance or social footing that would suddenly be untenable if he knew better.”

“Well, again, he was right to be skeptical.”

“Sure, but these folks, bin Laden and friends, speak and write endlessly about their intentions and the world they seek to bring about. And, like bin Laden, all sorts of people of all stripes have and continue to issue very public and widely disseminated injunctions upon ‘every Muslim’ in the world to kill anyone even tacitly involved in preventing the perfect liberation of Arab and Muslim lands and peoples (so US and British taxpayers and preschool teachers in Israel and France and Australia are very squarely on the table). What's a good argument for rejecting what these folks demand they're up to and concerned about and leave written and spoken record of everywhere for the world to see? Why insist, without evidence, that this cannot possibly be what actually motivates and preoccupies them? Why not take their word for it?"

"I can’t talk about that. I don’t know what was said."

"Well, most pressingly these folks don’t want any non-Muslims anywhere near the Arabian Peninsula. And they note specific sites, like the al-Aqsa mosque and Mecca, as being befouled by the infidel against god’s will. And that's not a poor paraphrase. Like Mos Def, are you concerned this sort of scheme and language was all invented by Hollywood or the Bush administration or Salman Rushdie and only to discredit these honourable people and their good will? You've heard about al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, right? And you know the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and their charters? And you've seen or heard or read the countless interviews with their leadership, haven't you? And you know how all contain words from scripture, right? How everyone involved insists they're doing god's good work in pursuit of a pristine Islamic state where Israel sits?”

“But none of this is what you were writing about.”

“No, I named three vocal PhDs in the opening sentence of the piece. One a tenured professor, one a researcher at an institute, and the other an activist. All are heard arguing that extreme violence is an inevitable response to Israeli 'occupation' and that without that 'occupation' there would be no such violence. And you can hear this from activists and academics effectively anywhere they’re talking about the Palestinian circumstance. Few of them have a markedly different take on geopolitics or Middle Eastern real estate than ISIS or bin Laden or al-Husseini. Amazingly too, very few are interested in consuming this abundant media, from the source, to illuminate themselves on the self-described and self-administered madness of many millions of people which they themselves endorse and sell."

“Sounds to me like more hyperbole. Where is this stuff being offered?”

“I’ve shared some of those offerings in previous writing. But here I was just attempting to refute the outlandish and pervasive premise that rejects any reading of any history of the region prior to modern Israel's independence, especially the first half of the 20th century. Though many examples exist, to make my point I offered the biography of just one highly influential Arab leader; someone who many consider a central figure, policy-maker, and culture-creator in the history of modern Palestine. Nothing more was or is necessary. And I made no attempt, nor did I feel it useful, to spell out an exhaustive history of violence in the region or any and all precursors to the violence on every side of every major and minor conflict.”

“But how is that sufficient? How does that explain anything or get anyone closer to understanding?”

“What I brought up was not one example of pre-Israel violence, though that would be sufficient to my mind. Instead, I noted a highly influential character — someone who was a founder or was an appointed or elected head of every major Arab and Muslim body in the region — who also had a life-long obsession with whipping up Judeophiobia (with radio broadcasts preaching to the entire Arab world that Islam is incompatible with Jewish existence) and combined that with a terrible passion and preference for celebrating and enacting genocidal violence. This was a man who saw what the Nazis were up to, learned the details of their plans, toured the camps, and said, ‘Yes, we’d like to have all of this back home. Where do I sign?’ And, critically, none of these passions or actions needed the state of Israel or anything approximating occupation [sic] but merely the existence of Jews. This passion of his was the sort of thing he picked up from an endemic source, aggressively seeded where it didn’t exist, and fertilized and pollinated where it did. This was something he oriented his whole life around while receiving much encouragement from around the globe.” 

“Still, it’s bizarre that you chose to ignore the tension caused by the Aliyahs. That’s significant. It doesn’t excuse the violence but it explains where it came from. You can’t just skip over that because it doesn't fit your narrative.”

“I wasn’t writing about how folks justified violence or what may have compelled it. I can write you a whole book about the Aliyahs if you like.”

“Well, for credibility your argument has to be more fulsome.”

“What I write tends to be pretty specific. And I’ve written something on a different theme every week or more since the attacks took place. Please go read more than half of one essay. Or just have a look at some of the references I’ve offered. There are dozens in this one essay alone. Hundreds, maybe, just in the last few weeks? And I’ve offered many hours of podcasts with conversations and debates between leading voices who’ve been talking and publishing on this stuff for decades. Go have a listen to some of those.”

“I will.”

“Well, it’s weird that you haven’t. To this point you've felt compelled to argue with me here without knowing either what I wrote or what sources I was using. Like, almost anything you might disagree with in what I wrote has a link to a specific resource offering the only or the best information I could find on a topic… But never mind that. Just talk to me about what you know.”

“Like what?”

“Like the Aliyahs. You seem to suggest they're essential and a huge factor.”

“They are. Obviously so.”

“You can’t be suggesting the tiny minority of European Jews who fled to the area near Jerusalem, escaping ethnic violence, pogroms, brutal economic hardship and more — and who remained as a infinitesimal minority in the region and, even after the third 'major influx', still a minority population within the tiny Mandate of Palestine, never mind the Arab homeland — were illegal immigrants, or something, or themselves the cause of the violence directed at them? Is that what you’re saying? How is that something other than ridiculous victim-blaming? If that's what you feel just spell it out. If someone asked me right now, I would gladly offer this as your perspective as a human rights lawyer.”

“It’s a crucial factor in why the later violence occurred. I’m not justifying the violence, it just helps to make sense of how we got to where we are.”

“But effectively no one went to Israel."

“What do you mean?”

"Well, consider when Imperial Russia decided to exterminate their Jewish population — or, there was a bunch of those events... I mean the one at the end of the 19th century, in the early 1880s, which saw half a million flee more than 200 violent anti-Jewish events all over Kiev, Odessa, Warsaw and elsewhere. Those are the numbers I’ve seen. Half a million people and over 200 purges. But almost none of those victims, as far as I’m aware, fled to Jerusalem or the area we think of as modern Israel. Yes, those events helped justify the Zionist movement, obviously; but what definitely did not happen was, like what Germany saw with Syrians in recent years: a rapid influx of nearly a million people, most with no religious, cultural, historical, linguistic, political, familial, geographic, or environmental connection of any kind to the region.”

“Well, it wasn’t only one instance.” 

“No. But the Middle East saw so little of the migration in this period. The census numbers I’ve seen say even a generation later, around 1920, there were only tens of thousands of Jews in what became Mandate Palestine."

“I'd have to go look.”

"Please do."

"I will."

“And, again, come on, the ‘crucial factor’ was and remains an anti-Semitism that will not be abated; an anti-Semitism catalyzed and weaponized at every opportunity by key figures in the history of Palestine; an anti-Semitism enflamed by, as you say, the influx of a tiny number of people, all of whom very obviously and rationally trace their connection to this place back thousands of years. As you know, all of Europe said to these people, over and over again across centuries, 'Go back to where you're from!' And they responded, 'Okay, okay, fine!'”

“Well, you should read +972 Magazine or Jewish Currents or any number of others.”

“I do. I just wrote about an article in JC. But pick any of the articles you like from these and sources like them. You can walk through every one and point out where they’re ignoring everything they know to be true in order to make some point that doesn’t hold up to the lightest scrutiny.”

“Like your essays.”

“Look, I'm happy to hear when I've made an error. Where have I concealed the facts to created a forgery?”

“Hmm, well, let me see.”

“You’re claiming I left out critical things; things I did not leave out and that are not critical. As I said, in fact, I think bringing up the Aliyahs would only strengthen my position, just as I spelled out above. So I don’t know what you’re talking about. To be honest, all of it sounds like nonsense.”

“You need to know that it sounds like you’re trying to get the attention of Ben Shapiro or something. You can’t just be allowed to make these statements unchecked.”

“I read and listen to everyone I can. Not only folks I agree with. But, when I do that, too often I find people making certain statements and claims that require the fudging of numbers.”

“Like what?”

“Well, actually, there are almost only examples of this. Counter-examples are far harder to come by. That’s the problem.”

“Hyperbole.”

“Well, if you read what I’ve written the last few weeks you’ll find many examples. Or, if you like, I just read a piece in +972 about the hostage trade. Predictably it focuses on how Palestinian prisoners on the list for potential swap are women and youth.”

“I read that.”

“So you saw how they go on for pages about the vicious nature of evil Israel and their unjust detainment of minors and women. And, despite being hypertext, of course they mostly make wild assertions while offering no corroborating evidence. To me it violates basic journalistic ethics. And when they do this they also leave out critical facts and persistently downplay factors that are extremely serious.”

“Like what?”

“They say things like how none of these people were in jail or prison for ‘serious crimes’ like murder. Right. Many were just in for totally benign charge of attempted murder. And they offer this as though being detained for attempted murder is a sign of a broken justice system that deviates from all international norms. That’s how the piece is written. I mean, they act like arresting women or youth for violent crimes is, on its face, a human rights violation.”

“Israel captures kids for throwing rocks. We know this.”

“Was their ‘rock throwing’ a baseball sized stone launched from a slingshot at the heads of law enforcement executing a lawful warrant or manning a surveillance post?”

“You’re pretending you don’t know Israel engages in arbitrary seizure and detention. We have so many examples of the worst behaviour and systemic abuses.”

“So many of these folks, the prisoners being traded for hostages, were being held for violent crimes. I looked it up. I’ll happily send you the links. Many were in for shootings, attempted murder, assault, causing grievous bodily harm. Some had explosives charges, some had charges for planting bombs, others for lobbing Molotov cocktails.”

“Authorities can and do say whatever they want. Whatever fits their agenda.”

“Look, one lady was a suicide bomber. She blew herself and her vehicle up but failed to kill herself. (Of course, she now claims she was innocent and the propane tank she was carrying just mysteriously exploded when police approached her vehicle.) And many of these other people were connected with Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad or al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and others — you know, the ‘kill all the Jews’ people. These are +972’s victim-heroes. These wannabe terrorists with attempted murder charges are who +972 calls ‘soft prisoners’ and examples of people unjustly ‘doing time for some form of popular resistance…’ and only the latest showing of Israel's ‘heavy-handed suppression of any expression of Palestinian opposition.’ It's amazing. The potency and volume of bullshit here is so staggering it can hardly be overcome by force of will.”

“Well, I don’t remember exactly what they wrote. I would have to look at it again.”

“I just quoted them for you. I pulled quotes directly from the piece. And you know the magazine and the article. You said you read it. And it just came out, so you didn't read it two years ago. And yet you’re concerned about what you tell me is my leaving out critical context, context that I contend only helps my argument, but you're uninterested in or don’t even notice when folks like this publish pure propaganda that paints stabbings and failed suicide bombings as 'non-criminal' acts of 'non-violent resistance' on par with political lobbying or commercial advertising or something? They write like being stabbed in the neck by someone with a uterus or a person under age 18 is seldom harmful and most certainly never fatal. And I feel like you endorse all of this, like you care nothing for facts or evidence and only for arguing toward some imagined ends that require 'up' to be 'down' and 'black' to be 'white'.”

“Hyperbole.”