I think some aspects of criticizing such selectivity are worthwhile and important, but it\u2019s a type of critique that can also be used disingenuously to discredit rather than broaden efforts to address injustice. Distinguishing between helpful and harmful forms of this argument can be relevant to Consistent Life Ethic advocates and their work.<\/p>\n
Why So Much Attention to Gaza?<\/strong><\/h3>\nIn his piece<\/a> \u201cCan We Be a Little Less Selective with Our Moral Outrage?\u201d columnist Bret Stephens points out that the Gaza War, which has provoked such impassioned protest on college campuses and elsewhere over the past year, is not the only severe humanitarian crisis unfolding in the world. He mentions other cases of repression, war, or similar human rights violations in countries such as Venezuela, Turkey, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Iran. Stephens exhorts \u201cmorally energetic college students from Columbia to Berkeley\u201d to direct their energies to protesting these injustices.<\/p>\nThe selectivity Stephens describes, in which some injustices or crises provoke significantly more attention and outrage than others, is an issue that has interested me for a while. Such selectivity is real<\/a>.<\/p>\nFor example, from 2020 to 2022, Ethiopia endured a civil war<\/a> as bloody as the Russia-Ukraine war and yet attracted far less media attention. Sudan has been wracked by its own catastrophic civil war<\/a> for more than a year now, but remedying Sudan\u2019s agony has not become a cause c\u00e9l\u00e8bre <\/em>in the United States.![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/1-blog-demo-2-1024x701.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nOne possible explanation for such selectivity among Americans is that because the United States is Israel\u2019s most important supporter, with Israel being the leading recipient of US military aid<\/a>, Americans have a special responsibility to stop Israel\u2019s military campaign in Gaza. This explanation is plausible up to a point, but it doesn\u2019t explain why other humanitarian crises for which the United States bears responsibility haven\u2019t generated the same kind of protest movement as the Gaza War. Stephen\u2019s column mentions US support for Turkey\u2019s repressive regime as a counter example, but I think there is a more apt comparison.<\/p>\nFor over seven years, from 2015 to 2022<\/a>, a coalition of Middle Eastern countries<\/a>, including two close US allies, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, waged a devastating war<\/a> against Yemen that created a massive humanitarian crisis<\/a>. US support for Saudi Arabia and the UAE during the Yemen war generated a certain amount of controversy, but not a response comparable to what Israel\u2019s war on Gaza has provoked.<\/p>\nCampuses did not erupt in protest over the Yemen war. The war did not become an issue in the 2016 or 2020 presidential elections. According to the Tyndall Report<\/a> on network newscasts, Yemen never broke into the top 20 TV news stories of 2015-2019.<\/p>\nTo offer a crude but telling comparison of the relative amounts of media coverage these conflicts generate, a search for \u201cYemen\u201d in Gale General OneFile (a database of more than 14,000 periodicals, newspapers, and other media sources) turns up 12,560 mentions during the war\u2019s first year, from March 2015 to February 2016. A search for \u201cGaza\u201d in General OneFile turns up 77,427 mentions in the roughly 10-month period from October 2023 to the present.<\/p>\n
The Yemen war is perhaps the most significant case of contrasting reactions to destructive US-support wars, given how analogous it is to the Gaza war. Other cases could be highlighted, though.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/1-blog-Whitehead-1024x1024.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nTo take one other example, since the Taliban\u2019s takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, the United States\u2014not Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or some other close American ally, but the United States itself\u2014has imposed sanctions and other economic penalties<\/a> on Afghanistan that have contributed to that country\u2019s severe food insecurity<\/a> and related humanitarian problems<\/a>. American policymakers have imposed these hardships on Afghanistan while also dragging their feet on providing a haven<\/a> in the United States for Afghan refugees<\/a>.<\/p>\nThe human suffering in Afghanistan, for which the United States bears direct responsibility, would seemingly be an even more pressing issue than suffering caused by American allies. Yet Afghanistan seems to be a low priority these days. (A General OneFile search turns up 24,805 mentions in the past year.)<\/p>\n
Given the current situation, I would like to see at least some of the violent conflicts and humanitarian crises that are apparently such a low priority receive greater investments of attention, funding, and political will from policymakers, journalists, and activists. To that extent, I agree with Stephens\u2019 column.<\/p>\n
Why Not So Much Attention to Gaza?<\/strong><\/h3>\nWhile I recognize the value of broadening our concern for the many people beyond Gaza affected by injustice and deprivation, though, I also recognize a crucial point needs to be made: the fact certain injustices around the world receive relatively little attention does not make the injustice of the Gaza war any less worthy of attention.<\/em><\/p>\nStudent protestors and others who focus primarily on the plight of Palestinians in Gaza may have a relatively narrow scope of concern\u2014but they are not wrong. Israel\u2019s campaign in Gaza is unjust, and large numbers of people are suffering and dying as a result of it. Protestors are right to say so and to campaign against this injustice, regardless of any other crises in the world.<\/p>\n
Does Stephens hold this view? I cannot read his mind but given the rather snide tone of his column and his past expressions of support for Israel\u2019s policies<\/a>, criticism of the campus protestors<\/a>, and hawkish views generally<\/a>, I suspect not.<\/p>\nI think Stephens\u2019 point about how little attention certain injustices receive is intended more to deflect criticism from Israel and to discredit the pro-Palestinian protestors than to call for broader human rights activism. This is the impression I also get from similar commentary<\/a> I have read on the theme of how Israel is selectively targeted<\/a> for criticism<\/a>.<\/p>\nWhen raised in this spirit, pointing out how narrowly defined certain activists\u2019 concerns are is not a legitimate call to expand activists\u2019 circle of concern, but instead a kind of rhetorical trick. The aim is to change the subject from the suffering caused by the Israeli military to the character and motives of pro-Palestinian activists. This kind of critique of narrowly defined activism should be rejected.<\/p>\n
Relevance for the Consistent Life Ethic<\/strong><\/h3>\nThe good and bad ways in which a critique of \u2018selectivity\u2019 can be made contain lessons for Consistent Life Ethic advocates. The Consistent Life Ethic stands for defending life against a variety of threats. This broad concern for life means cultivating awareness of the many ways life is under threat in our world. As I wrote previously<\/a>, \u201cno commitment to any one issue exhausts the work that needs to be done to protect life.\u201d<\/p>\nFor a Consistent Life Ethic advocate, activism that focuses exclusively on countering just one threat to life\u2014whether abortion, the death penalty, war, or another threat\u2014is a good but an incomplete response to the varied demands of defending life. In that respect, such narrowly focused activism is like activism exclusively focused on stopping the Gaza war.<\/p>\n
The appropriate response to activism that\u2019s limited to a single threat to life or to a single crisis in the world is: 1) to provide recognition and encouragement for the activists doing this good work, and 2) at the same to time highlight the many other ways life needs to be defended. Reminders about the array of legitimate concerns for those committed to defending life can guard against an excessively narrow focus on a single concern and serve as encouragement to become informed about and engaged with a broader spectrum of ongoing injustices.<\/p>\n
This approach can also avoid the cynical way calls for a \u2018broader perspective\u2019 can be used to attack activists doing good work, as I think is the case with some commentaries on pro-Palestinian activists. Pointing out that defending life means defending it against a variety of threats should not be an occasion to condemn those defending it against just one threat. Rather, promoting a broader perspective should be an occasion to support those already doing important work to defend life from specific threats while extending an invitation to work against other threats as well.<\/p>\n
==================================<\/p>\n
For more of our posts on recent wars, see:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n
The selectivity Stephens describes, in which some injustices or crises provoke significantly more attention and outrage than others, is an issue that has interested me for a while. Such selectivity is real<\/a>.<\/p>\n For example, from 2020 to 2022, Ethiopia endured a civil war<\/a> as bloody as the Russia-Ukraine war and yet attracted far less media attention. Sudan has been wracked by its own catastrophic civil war<\/a> for more than a year now, but remedying Sudan\u2019s agony has not become a cause c\u00e9l\u00e8bre <\/em>in the United States. One possible explanation for such selectivity among Americans is that because the United States is Israel\u2019s most important supporter, with Israel being the leading recipient of US military aid<\/a>, Americans have a special responsibility to stop Israel\u2019s military campaign in Gaza. This explanation is plausible up to a point, but it doesn\u2019t explain why other humanitarian crises for which the United States bears responsibility haven\u2019t generated the same kind of protest movement as the Gaza War. Stephen\u2019s column mentions US support for Turkey\u2019s repressive regime as a counter example, but I think there is a more apt comparison.<\/p>\n For over seven years, from 2015 to 2022<\/a>, a coalition of Middle Eastern countries<\/a>, including two close US allies, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, waged a devastating war<\/a> against Yemen that created a massive humanitarian crisis<\/a>. US support for Saudi Arabia and the UAE during the Yemen war generated a certain amount of controversy, but not a response comparable to what Israel\u2019s war on Gaza has provoked.<\/p>\n Campuses did not erupt in protest over the Yemen war. The war did not become an issue in the 2016 or 2020 presidential elections. According to the Tyndall Report<\/a> on network newscasts, Yemen never broke into the top 20 TV news stories of 2015-2019.<\/p>\n To offer a crude but telling comparison of the relative amounts of media coverage these conflicts generate, a search for \u201cYemen\u201d in Gale General OneFile (a database of more than 14,000 periodicals, newspapers, and other media sources) turns up 12,560 mentions during the war\u2019s first year, from March 2015 to February 2016. A search for \u201cGaza\u201d in General OneFile turns up 77,427 mentions in the roughly 10-month period from October 2023 to the present.<\/p>\n The Yemen war is perhaps the most significant case of contrasting reactions to destructive US-support wars, given how analogous it is to the Gaza war. Other cases could be highlighted, though.<\/p>\n To take one other example, since the Taliban\u2019s takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, the United States\u2014not Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or some other close American ally, but the United States itself\u2014has imposed sanctions and other economic penalties<\/a> on Afghanistan that have contributed to that country\u2019s severe food insecurity<\/a> and related humanitarian problems<\/a>. American policymakers have imposed these hardships on Afghanistan while also dragging their feet on providing a haven<\/a> in the United States for Afghan refugees<\/a>.<\/p>\n The human suffering in Afghanistan, for which the United States bears direct responsibility, would seemingly be an even more pressing issue than suffering caused by American allies. Yet Afghanistan seems to be a low priority these days. (A General OneFile search turns up 24,805 mentions in the past year.)<\/p>\n Given the current situation, I would like to see at least some of the violent conflicts and humanitarian crises that are apparently such a low priority receive greater investments of attention, funding, and political will from policymakers, journalists, and activists. To that extent, I agree with Stephens\u2019 column.<\/p>\n While I recognize the value of broadening our concern for the many people beyond Gaza affected by injustice and deprivation, though, I also recognize a crucial point needs to be made: the fact certain injustices around the world receive relatively little attention does not make the injustice of the Gaza war any less worthy of attention.<\/em><\/p>\n Student protestors and others who focus primarily on the plight of Palestinians in Gaza may have a relatively narrow scope of concern\u2014but they are not wrong. Israel\u2019s campaign in Gaza is unjust, and large numbers of people are suffering and dying as a result of it. Protestors are right to say so and to campaign against this injustice, regardless of any other crises in the world.<\/p>\n Does Stephens hold this view? I cannot read his mind but given the rather snide tone of his column and his past expressions of support for Israel\u2019s policies<\/a>, criticism of the campus protestors<\/a>, and hawkish views generally<\/a>, I suspect not.<\/p>\n I think Stephens\u2019 point about how little attention certain injustices receive is intended more to deflect criticism from Israel and to discredit the pro-Palestinian protestors than to call for broader human rights activism. This is the impression I also get from similar commentary<\/a> I have read on the theme of how Israel is selectively targeted<\/a> for criticism<\/a>.<\/p>\n When raised in this spirit, pointing out how narrowly defined certain activists\u2019 concerns are is not a legitimate call to expand activists\u2019 circle of concern, but instead a kind of rhetorical trick. The aim is to change the subject from the suffering caused by the Israeli military to the character and motives of pro-Palestinian activists. This kind of critique of narrowly defined activism should be rejected.<\/p>\n The good and bad ways in which a critique of \u2018selectivity\u2019 can be made contain lessons for Consistent Life Ethic advocates. The Consistent Life Ethic stands for defending life against a variety of threats. This broad concern for life means cultivating awareness of the many ways life is under threat in our world. As I wrote previously<\/a>, \u201cno commitment to any one issue exhausts the work that needs to be done to protect life.\u201d<\/p>\n For a Consistent Life Ethic advocate, activism that focuses exclusively on countering just one threat to life\u2014whether abortion, the death penalty, war, or another threat\u2014is a good but an incomplete response to the varied demands of defending life. In that respect, such narrowly focused activism is like activism exclusively focused on stopping the Gaza war.<\/p>\n The appropriate response to activism that\u2019s limited to a single threat to life or to a single crisis in the world is: 1) to provide recognition and encouragement for the activists doing this good work, and 2) at the same to time highlight the many other ways life needs to be defended. Reminders about the array of legitimate concerns for those committed to defending life can guard against an excessively narrow focus on a single concern and serve as encouragement to become informed about and engaged with a broader spectrum of ongoing injustices.<\/p>\n This approach can also avoid the cynical way calls for a \u2018broader perspective\u2019 can be used to attack activists doing good work, as I think is the case with some commentaries on pro-Palestinian activists. Pointing out that defending life means defending it against a variety of threats should not be an occasion to condemn those defending it against just one threat. Rather, promoting a broader perspective should be an occasion to support those already doing important work to defend life from specific threats while extending an invitation to work against other threats as well.<\/p>\n ==================================<\/p>\n For more of our posts on recent wars, see:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nWhy Not So Much Attention to Gaza?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Relevance for the Consistent Life Ethic<\/strong><\/h3>\n