“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." That quote from George W. Bush shortly after the September 11 attacks has stuck with me. It is a statement that is very frustrating as it demands a simple black and white view of things. Yes, the USA was attacked, would and did respond, and was widely seen as justified in seeking to end Al Qaeda, even by international players who typically have little interest in giving an inch to the US. And most Americans were onboard with the war in Afghanistan to strike against Al Qaeda.
But that simplistic phrase continued to be used. In the lead up to the Iraq war, if you were against a military option, even slightly, you were on the side of Saddam. Or the terrorists. Or the Axis of Evil. Or insert your boogieman of choice here. And thus, you were against America. You were anti-American. You were opposed to mom and apple pie. All that. After the war started, it continued to be used against those that saw through the flimsy justifications and called for an end to the fighting. To the point of abject absurdity. But it was effective. Lots of Democrats, even nominally anti-war Democrats, bent over backwards to appear tough on terrorism by any means available lest they be labeled as terrorist sympathizers. And if you wanted to withdraw from Iraq you wanted to 'cut and run', like a coward. You didn't believe enough that what the US was doing was right. That the US was virtuous and good. Because you were either against us, or with the enemies of democracy. It was absurd. And yet we are right back there. Different players, same program.
At this point, after the Hamas attacks on Israel of 10/7, we are in a solid repeat of the post 9/11 black & white absolutism. Yes, the Israeli-Palestine conflict is a lengthy one with a fair bit of baggage going back decades, if not centuries. And it is nominally quite complicated in terms of the various twists and turns that got us here. But this attack is widely seen as being very different compared to the most recent back and forth cycles due to the scale and effectiveness of the attack against Israel. To the point of very specific 9/11 comparisons. I suppose one shouldn't be surprised then by the us vs them rhetoric that has cropped up. Though of course now, with wider internet access across the world, including in Gaza specifically, the number of voices filling the feeds are more diverse in their positions. But there's still been plenty of us vs them throughout.
Do you have a position with nuance? Then you're with Hamas. Do you think the killing of civilians is wrong? Then you're with Israel. Do you think bombing of hospitals is bad? Then you're a Hamas sympathizer. Do you want all hostages released? Then you're a stooge of Netanyahu. Do you see targeting of ambulances as a war crime? Then you must want Hamas to slaughter people. Do you believe Israel should exist? Then surely, you're an agent of the IDF! Do you find calls for the eradication of all Palestinians abhorrent? You must want to destroy Israel!
This rhetoric is the tool of propagandists. It is there to drive emotions. It is there to drive hate and fear. It is there to divide us and keep us from figuring things out. And it is the enemy of actually solving problems. And thus, it is the enemy of anyone who is so tired of the constant death.
So no, I won't jump on the trend of being an us vs them type on this issue. I didn't back in 2001 and I certainly won't now.
Of course, this sort of rhetoric doesn't need to be so blatant either. It is useful in some areas to play a rhetorical game. To intentionally misinterpret what someone is doing when they are making an argument. To make it seem like they are already onboard with the us vs them paradigm and are just trying to hide behind nuance in order to justify something. The most basic example is someone looking at the causes of this conflict, trying to look at the cause-and-effect relationships at play. Then someone swoops in and declares that this discussion is trying to justify horrific acts. That by simply stating the conditions that led up to the present it is somehow making the choices of the parties involved acceptable.
There's a difference between the cause of something and it being justified. Someone being radicalized to right wing Republicanism due to their specific local being economically depressed because a factory or mine shut down does not justify that person storming the capital. It provides a reason, not an excuse.
A variant on that is to instead play the responsibility game, typically in an over-the-top fashion. Again, someone is trying to look at the cause-and-effect relationships. But the us vs them person swings in and declares that oh, by laying out these causal relationships you are making it look like one side or the other is in the end responsible for their own mistreatment. And to do that is anti-Semitic/Islamophobic/racist/ect. Such an argument is again absurd as once again, it ignores the capacity of the players involved to make choices about their own actions. For Hamas not to fire a rocket or Israel not to drop a bomb. It relies on the notion that the players involved are without the ability to choose peace.
I will admit, expecting Hamas or the Israeli government to choose peace is a bit of an ask given their track records. But the choice to do that is in the end theirs to make. To change their own behaviors and to seek to do right by their people and the people they hurt.
In the meantime, people are being hurt. The bombs are falling. And there's armies of keyboard warriors demanding we choose one side or another. The Israeli government or Hamas. 100% no nuance, all in or you are with the evil alternative. But the side I choose is the people. The innocents.
And if those who seek to destroy are not going to do the moral thing, I guess I can be okay with using what leverage I have to push for them to end the death. And if someone gets upset with me for that, if you get upset with me for that, then oh well.