How to Respond to Lies and Misinformation About Israel: Judith Butler

Part 3

Part 1, Part 2

Welcome to Part 3 of “How to Respond to Lies and Misinformation About Israel.” The purpose of this series is to provide the language needed to combat toxic and hateful rhetoric from anti-Israel influencers.

After I posted my “Jews Who Need to STFU” article, I received several requests from commenters to add Judith Butler to the list. I think the way she represents the screeching anti-Zionist As a Jew crowd necessitates its own article. Instead of including her on a list with other lunatics, I will do an entire takedown using Judith’s own words to reveal the true depths of her mental depravity (purely for educational purposes, of course).

Butler made a name for herself as a gender studies scholar before identifying one’s pronouns was cool. In addition to advocating for whatever LGBTQ+ issue that keeps her relevant, she also serves as an advisory board member of the hate group Jewish Voice for Peace. Some call her a feminist, a label muddled by the fact that she is now both legally non-binary and tacitly supporting sexual violence.

Here is a video of Judith Butler spewing word vomit that her followers view as intelligent. I will provide a primer on how to respond after each italicized quote:

“Palestinians deserve equality”—how could anyone dispute such a statement? Well, I don’t. The question isn’t whether or not a particular group of people “deserves” equality, but rather what “equality” means and how to get there. Let’s hear Butler’s ideas for that:

“I have always and consistently opposed the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th, and that part of my position has never changed. I do think that within Palestine there are those in favor of armed struggle, and others trying to seek diplomatic means to achieve greater self-determination and liberation for Palestine.”

Whenever someone opens a statement with, “I oppose what Hamas did on October 7th,” you can guarantee that a “but” will follow. No sane person needs to verbalize their “opposition” to what Hamas did on October 7th—because it was so universally horrible—unless they seek to contradict it. Here is her “but,” right in front of us:

“I think it’s worthwhile to understand why people sometimes do go for armed struggle. I think war brings with it sexual violence, and we’ve seen it on both sides, and it’s deplorable.”

No, war does not automatically bring with it sexual violence—what an atrocious statement. No western military today uses sexual violence as a weapon of war systemically. That doesn’t mean it never happens. The question isn’t whether or not sexual violence happens at all, but rather how the authorities deal with it when it does. Yes, there have been accusations of sexual assault of Palestinian prisoners levied against the IDF. If the soldiers in question are guilty, they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Compare the IDF to Hamas, who clearly and deliberately used sexual violence as a weapon of war. If you are interested in more specifics on that, I recommend that you watch “Screams Before Silence.”

Can someone please identify Hamas’s protocol for addressing sexual violence among their own militants? Butler does not expect them to have one (I don’t either, but not for the same reasons as Butler’s). For someone who calls rape “deplorable,” she seems to have no problem rationalizing it as something that just comes naturally with “the armed struggle.” You may notice that “armed struggle” is a term only used to refer to Hamas by people seeking to justify their crimes. What an ornament to modern feminism.

No matter who does it and no matter the circumstances under which they commit it, rape is NEVER okay, it’s NEVER justified, and it’s NEVER something that happens “just because” there is armed conflict. I always thought that a zero-tolerance policy for sexual assault was a key principle of modern feminism, but I don’t think Butler agrees. If she did, she would call out Hamas for the sexual assaults that they livestreamed on October 7th, not engage in a moronic game of both-sidesism.

“I am against war and am a proponent of non-violence. I long for and call for a mode of co-habitation in Palestine—in Israel/Palestine—that would actually give radical equality, freedom, and self-determination to the Palestinian people as well as all the other inhabitants of the land.”

Ladies, gentlemen, and gender non-conformers: raise your hand if you are pro-war. Only a psychopath wants war. That doesn’t mean it’s never necessary. Being “a proponent of non-violence” is a luxury belief reinforced by living in the world’s safer areas.

Civilized societies don’t fight wars because they like to, but rather because they are dealing with an enemy against whom they have no other choice (although I suppose this argument falls apart if we bring up the Iraq War, and maybe a few others backed by the U.S. military industrial complex. It does, however, generally apply to the Israel, a state surrounded by enemies). We can argue all day about the effectiveness of Israel’s war strategy in Gaza, but the fact remains that it started because of what Hamas did on October 7th.

How exactly does Butler define “freedom and self-determination for the Palestinian people”? Also, what exactly is she referring to when she says “all of the other inhabitants of the land”? Does that include the 2 million Arab-Israelis with full Israeli citizenship? What about the Bedouins and the Druze? We haven’t even gotten to the Jews yet, and I’ve just listed several minorities who enjoy the “radical freedom” of any imperfect western society. All of these terms are vague because Butler doesn’t really understand what they mean in the context of this particular conflict.

“I want a political solution. I want a constitutional solution. I am not an advocate of violence and I believe that understanding historically how Hamas formed after the bitter disappointment of the Oslo Accords and understanding how its aims were established and its aims were revised in 2017…so we might be more effective in convincing them to lay down their arms. You can just call them terrorists and be done with it, you can just call them evil and be done with it, but then we are learning nothing.”

It’s going to take a bit of effort to get through this pile of word vomit, but please bear with me.

Hamas was established in 1987. The first round of Oslo Accords was in 1993. I’m fairly sure that makes Hamas’s establishment before the “disappointment of the Oslo Accords,” not after. It’s safe to say that one of the many reasons that plan failed was because of Hamas’s “aims,” and Butler’s implication that it was the other way around is a terribly ahistorical confusion of cause-and-effect.

Since Butler is such an advocate for a “constitutional solution,” let’s examine Hamas’s stated “established aims” from their own charter, written in 1988. Do they look like the calls for peace that Butler claims to want so desperately?

Here’s a gem from Article 13:

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with.

Article 22 discusses their view of the Jews (read: their neighbors). It’s truly flattering to read how much we power we wield, according to them:

With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

Obviously, the original charter presented a major PR problem for Hamas as they sought to expand their influence to the western activist class, particularly after the Israeli occupation of Gaza ended in 2005, all settlements were removed, and Hamas was elected to govern Gaza. So, they revised their charter in 2017; that is what Butler refers to when she says they “revised their aims.” But there’s a major difference between revising one’s “aims” and revising one’s language to cover up bad intentions. Hamas did the latter, specifically to appeal to useful idiots like Butler and her sycophants.

One of the major changes to the revised charter was the addition of what I refer to as the anti-Zionism loophole, the replacement of the term “Jews” with “Zionists.” This revision obviously meant that as of 2017, Hamas no longer hates Jews. They’re not antisemitic in the least. They just hate Zionists—if no Zionists existed, they would without a doubt “lay down their arms”! See, it says that right here:

16. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.

17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine.”

You read that right: Hamas “rejects the persecution of any human being.” Except gays. And women. And Christians. And Kurds. And Blacks. And all infidels. But those exceptions to their anti-persecution values do not in any way, shape, or form include Jews! They love the Jews. They just hate the Zionists. None of their actions suggest otherwise. Are you convinced?

What saddens me deeply as I read the 2017 charter is that one could lift certain phrases from it and take it out to the streets to today’s anti-Israel protests in any major American city. “Say it loud, say it clear, we don’t want no Zionists here!” I want to ask them why they are plagiarizing their chants directly from the Hamas charter. But as long as we have people like Butler et. al. actively encouraging that behavior, Hamas is only partially to blame for it.

Butler and her gender studies friends have fooled people into believing that any issue can be viewed through a particular “lens,” and if we interpret everything through that lens, then our interpretations are valid. If I wish to use my personal critical-race-queer-gender-fat-acceptance-resistance-peace-activist theory lens to interpret Hamas, my conclusions about Hamas must be respected. But gender theory and Middle East history are two completely different things, and knowledge of one cannot substitute for a lack of knowledge of the other. We can debate the utility of Butler’s scholarship on gender studies and feminism, but it’s safe to say that none of it has anything to do with the Middle East. Do not allow bullshit academese from people like Butler to fool you into accepting false claims about Israel, Jews, and definitely not about Hamas.

In conclusion, I propose that Butler and her gender studies scholar friends pay a visit to Gaza ASAP. They are welcome to sign up for the Birthright Palestine program. Hamas will no doubt welcome them with a nice rooftop party as a thank-you for advocating on their behalf in their capacity as LGBTQ influencers. Butler then can ask politely for them to “lay down their arms” before….well, never mind.

---

Thanks for reading! If you made it this far, I have a small ask. The work of exposing lies and misinformation takes a lot of time and effort. I make all content of this series free so that as many people as possible can have access during these tough times in our war for truth. If you find my work informative and wish to support it, please consider either a paid subscription (link above) or a one-time donation (link below):