How does one talk about something without actually ever really talking about it? And, in this case, why would they even want to? And, after a more-or-less thorough reread of the rest of this article, I believe -- and I say this with a not-unnoticeable smidgen of pride -- that I have succeeded in avoiding the subject altogether (assuming there's an "it" or "subject" to address to begin with).
If you have failed to understand the subject of which I will (not) be alluding to, consider yourself a fortunate son or daughter (or, perhaps, either/or, neither/nor, who knows these days?) of a benevolent God (or Goddess), who has spared you the pointless rhetoric of a conversation as stale as the ramshackle rationale with which arguments are being ingested into this inevitably vacuous exercise of a pseudo-national debate.
As is no doubt warranted, an explanation, an answer, to the overwhelming question that has been dropped on my plate: Why avoid a controversial subject that may or may not have split the mostly laughably “left” (ere you find yourself incapable of being the target of laughter, explanations will be provided, opinions will be delineated on) and the scarily oftentimes violent “right” (see: Previous parenthesis) of what I imagine to be a pretty small bubble that is par for the course for a nation whose capital has a tendency to forget that there is a rest-of-the-nation and an invisible underclass behind slum walls who have bigger fish (for them, unfortunately, a metaphor, most of the time) to fry?
For one, what purpose does it serve to discuss the merits or demerits of any subject that has some of the least capable discussants (both amongst its proponents and opponents) who, though they may deny it, serve nobody but themselves every time they spit their two cents out into the grotesque viscosity of the social media atmosphere?
These two cents, valuable opinions from invaluable stakeholders, are made worthless by the contextual and tonal inevitabilities of the hostile internet environment. More often than not, it can be guaranteed that those opinions have little to no purpose in actually changing anyone’s mind. Too busy genuflecting at the altar of moral superiority, these yay-toting, nay-saying, irrelevant disinformed misinformants are more occupied with taking very meaningful steps like deleting people from their Facebook or going viral with a post that has the spectacularly crafted quality of being written entirely using the Bengali script.
These actions, transgressions as they are, are nonetheless human reactions, and, therefore, understandable. But these actions usually belong to members of the volatile youth or the ageing ignorant, who either have yet to confront themselves regarding the matter or are too old and too set in their ways to be open to change. Anyone proposing an objective morality, thereby a morality that is inherently superior to other schools of thought, is not only stretching a divide that wasn’t all that wide to begin with, but surrounding themselves in the bubble of their own dogmatic self-righteousness, regardless of which side they may take, seeking comfort over change, cowering away from the reality of people whose life experiences may have led them to a different point-of-view, or worse, whose privileges did not allow them to be exposed to the thoughts (and the ways in which thoughts are formed) of educated academics or foreigner friends.
Secondly, as previously mentioned, the most spectacular aspect of the entire fracas to me has been the fact that people are actually interested in a subject potentially as stale as the US-Israeli tradition of (not yet official) genocide against the Palestinian people. Imagine how pointless it would feel to talk directly to a Zionist who believes the words of Bibi Netanyahu or Israeli spokesperson Eylon Levy (and unofficially the Assistant to the Head of Zionist Propaganda and Self-Victimization for the Non-Terrorist, Non-Fascist, Somehow-Not-Theocratic Ethno-State of Israel, or some such department, one may choose to imagine) and telling them that they are “wrong.”
Honestly, such an attempt feels wrong too, as any exercise in pointlessness should. That is not to say these issues are unimportant, but the manner and space in which it is being addressed, a cesspit of like-minded and unchallenging thought processes of one’s peers and their respective socio-economic minutiae, does the issue a massive disservice.
Any meaningful effort would require, as first steps, recognizing the humanness of our enemies, understanding their circumstances, and only then making attempts to bring about significant change in the way a complicated and diverse group of people (a single “ism” or “ist” does not a person make) are being educated in, and/or engaging with, a particular subject, especially considering how prominently these beliefs are embedded into our psyche when it is at its most vulnerable, as we internalize every piece of (mis/dis/mal) information, soaking everything in, ironically, like an in-discriminatory sponge. Years, if not entire lifetimes, are often spent unlearning the manufactured and inherited truths handed down to us during our childhoods.
In such a vacuum left by the absence of critical and open-minded discourse, it is best to shut up and listen and learn how to and where to and when to do (or, yes, even say) things in a way that it matters, instead of spending whatever limited time and energy we have to spare to prove to the rest of the world how educated and enlightened our perspectives on hot-button topics are, further spreading a disease that might have begun and ended with some arbitrary patient zero and his or her (or, I daresay, their?) blind supporters, whatever group they may belong to at this moment in time.
And, most importantly, those who wish to spread hatred in manners such as the ones that may or may not have been suggested on some platform (both literal and/or social) are empowered by the number of people who give it life and relevance by addressing it. An ancient subject for sad, frustrated, and more often than not, lonely men (an assumption, admittedly, but historical incidents would perhaps present a pattern for those who might, impressed by alliteration, perform a perfunctory glance at histories of specific pre-and-post-pubescent violence) whose self-pity and lack of self-worth are often more than enough punishment, enough to erase them, tragically even, from our consciousness.
What could be a more tragic death for a virus, failing to find a host it can occupy? What could be more effective as a vaccine than the resounding silence of an entire (small segment of a) nation that has better (and, hopefully, less metaphorical and sustainably farmed) fish to fry? What could be more supportive of a group oppressed than a decision to transform ourselves and transcend beyond the ancient rhetoric of those who wish to oppress them?
