Regimes that are repressive are usually those that have legal rights to monitor citizens and through legislation enforce laws. This reach varies from one regime to another; there are as many different means of monitoring and enforcement as there are democracies. There are, also, cultures, traditions, habits or things that are rendered permissible in countries. These are things that are not legislated, but nonetheless guide societies and social behaviour, so to speak. We will come back to this below.
Consider as a precursor to the main points, below. In some cities in the USA (Daytona Beach, Florida) it is illegal to spit on the street, but in Israel it’s acceptable (though not uncontroversial) to spit at, or on the ground before on Christians. In some countries, you can be jailed, or worse for insulting the head of state. Hate speech online can get you arrested in Germany. In Iran there are heavy restrictions on free speech; “the press have freedom of expression, except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public,” according to Human Rights Watch. In the USA freedom of expression is restrained or limited out of fear of harassment, intimidation. In the UK you may have to cautious about criticising the monarchy. In Singapore, everyone’s favourite country, the Foreign Interference Act “makes a dire situation for free expression and association even worse,” according to Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch.
Unless you’re instinctively or ideologically opposed to any of the above countries, you might be selective in your outrage. You might think that because Singapore has been so good at making money, and building gleaming skyscrapers, the Nusantaran Island should be excluded. You might think that because the US wangs on about freedom, and has given us iPhones or Ford trucks with gun racks, that country is excluded. As well as legal provisions, the Right to Bear Arms, guns are symbols of greatness and are cultural artefacts in the US. Some intellectual honesty is required here. Afghan politics has been described (not incorrectly) as “the rule of the gun,” and this has dominated that communities and society for at least three decades. (See this report on gun violence in Afghanistan).
From Law to Customs and Cultural Habit
At the level of “culture” and “habit” and “tradition” it is not unusual to see heavily armed civilians walking about the streets of Tel Aviv bearing machine guns. Sure, you might find justification for that. People in the US might believe they have rights to bear arms because of imminent threats. People in Afghanistan might have us believe that guns are a cultural or identity marker, and (no surprise), “who has the guns rules”. This brings me to the dangerous emergence of a global culture of repression that transcends national boundaries, and that is bolstered or backed by who has the most guns in the world, gets to rule the world.
We should probably get this out of the way. To some people equality, justice and fairness seems like oppression. This position is often contiguous with the belief that some violence or repression is necessary (when it’s against our gravest of opponents). What has been underway steadily for a number of years, most prominently since 2020, is the way that anyone or any group that opposes the Israeli state, one of about 195 countries in the world, is anti-Semitic and has to be silenced, and or “cancelled”. This has spread from the Levant, where Israel has the most guns, to North America which has the most guns in the world, makes the rules and would enforce it, as we saw in Vietnam, Grenada, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Iraq, Serbia, and who know, maybe Iran, next.
Let’s take that nice country, Canada. In early 2020, the Ontario state government voted to move forward legislation to delegitimise and criminalise all criticism of Israel. A provincial government in Canada mandated the adoption of the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism as a “guide” for government policies and public institutions, and equated criticism of Zionism with anti-Semitism. The draft law before the Ontario legislature (in February 2020) was a result of public protest against Israeli army reservists as speakers that “sought to whitewash the crimes of the Israeli Defence Forces. The meeting was supported by the Jewish Defence League, which even the US FBI has been compelled to designate a terrorist organisation”.
As part of the latest phase of Palestinian war against Israel, these “laws” have become normalised, and slipped into a type of repression which has become global in reach, and normalised across much of the world. In Cape Town people are harassed for wearing a keffiyeh. In Germany and in the USA police responded quite violently to public protests in support of Palestinians. In Toronto a spectator was thrown out of a basketball match because his cap, which had a map of Palestine on the front, reportedly upset another man. In Germany a man was arrested for wearing a Palestinian t-shirt.
It is dangerous also to call for the release of Israeli hostages, but any objections to that are considered to be anti-semitic. In the USA a legislator wears an Israeli lapel badge, and condemns people who support Palestinians. In France, where solidarity with Palestinians, has been turned into a crime, a politician condemns a legislator for voicing outrage at the violence against Palestinians.
When British Palestinian surgeon Ghassan Abu Sittah, who had witnessed the horrors of the assault on Gaza, arrived at Charles de Gaulle Airport, he was turned back because of an EU-wide ban placed on him by Germany. Rima Hassan, a Franco Palestinian candidate for EU Parliament, was summoned by policeinvestigating “terrorism apologia.” The arrest and interrogation was based on complaints that had been made by a pro-Israeli lobby group called the Organisation Juive Européen”.
This persecution of anyone who disagrees with Israel and its European Allies is becoming absurd. In Britain, one conservative politician, Robert Jenrick suggested that British citizens be forced to swear an oath of loyalty to Israel or face deportation, and that the Star of David should be displayed at every British port of entry.
We are converging on a point where there is a global acceptance, from Singapore to Tel Aviv, Berlin to Britain and across North America, where solidarity with Palestinians or criticism of Israel’s wars are either outlawed, or treated with harsh judgment and smear-campaigns. And anyone who disagrees is just anti-Semitic.
Actually, in the Israeli mind Palestinians either do not exist, or they are creatures that can be crushed. When Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that (early in 2023) there were “no Palestinians because there isn’t a Palestinian people”, or when an Israeli journalist, Antonia Yamin said (with reference to Palestinians), earlier in October that “every dog will get what he deserves” and threatens all Arabs in Germany there can be no criticism or even scrutiny.
In the first case, the complete erasure of Palestinians and Palestine becomes normalised and accepted. If a people don’t exist, it becomes easy to make sure they are not alive. Hatred of Palestinians and of Arabs is becoming a form of forced cultural normal. It is becoming a cultural habit. Opposition to Israel’s war on Arabs or Palesitians (as mentioned a few lines back) has become a crime.
There is no coming back from being declared an anti-Semite, or supporting Palestinians – “terrorists”. The late Kris Kristofferson once said: “I found a considerable lack of work after doing concerts for the Palestinian children…”.
Suddenly everyone is afraid to speak (or wear a keffiyeh).
It is not difficult to imagine that the war on Palestinians will continue for many years to come, until there are no Palestinians left in the Levant, and until Greater Israel is established. As Israeli Intel Special Forces member Frederic Landausaid, when he took offense to an Indian journalist wearing clothing with colours similar to that of the Palestinian flag – their “blue and white” will prevail.
I should end on a personal note. Among many other, I have a range of scarves from around the world, one bright orange with red Sanskrit writing (loved by Hindu Nationalists), a green keffiyeh from Saudi Arabia (not sure where or when I got it from), a scarf I bought in Mindanao, another I bought in Sulawesi, Indonesia, and a couple of patches from various countries. Because I am scared of losing income, I am hesitant venture to wear any scarf that is not on the right side of the America-Israeli wars. In particular, I have a long-standing and deep interest in Iranian culture, history, architecture and literature, but now displaying an Iranian cultural or political artefact may turn me into an anti-Semite, or an enemy of freedom and democracy….
From being told what may be worn (t-shirts, caps or saris), what may be said or done in song (as Kristofferson reminded us) or on the screen, It seems that repression can spread beyond the borders of particular countries, after all. All it takes is for the people with the most guns to lay down the law, or tell us what to do, and enforce it.