Listen to the article
Hundreds of young people have recently occupied numerous campuses in the United States and some European countries, pitching tents in a similar scenario. This is a reminder of the 2006 occupation of downtown Beirut by Hezbollah and its local cohorts. Therefore, these young people are unwittingly the tree that hides the forest.
On the surface, the aim of this protest movement is to denounce the deadly Israeli bombings in Gaza and to demand the emergence of a “free Palestine.” A commendable, noble, even captivating stance in principle… But upon closer examination, one cannot help but question if there might be something fishy about the circumstances surrounding this sudden pro-Palestinian wave.
For seven long months, the Gaza conflict has been raging on, marked by deadly violence that initially failed to provoke significant reactions. So, why this sudden surge of protests across American and European universities, with almost identical scenes unfolding: tent installations, prolonged sit-ins, flags of support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and uniform slogans?
Social media likely played a catalytic role, as is often the case in such circumstances. But in order to initiate such a rapid widespread of the movement in a short period of time in several countries, across multiple campuses, and under such similar forms, two conditions must be met: synchronization and centralization of directives allowing for the simultaneous organization of protest actions; and, above all, comprehensive and exhaustive financing of the vast movement, especially since numerous tents suddenly appeared on several campuses.
This prompts speculation about the hidden forces driving and financing this uprising, and their true intentions. Some point to the upcoming American presidential election, suggesting a ploy to influence public opinion in the November vote. Others suspect the involvement of foreign services, such as Russia or Iran, known for their destabilization tactics.
Critics may dismiss such conjecture as conspiracy theories. Yet, important questions remain unanswered.
French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal rightly denounced “selective outrages” in his recent address to the National Assembly.
For example, why has there been no significant reaction to the massacres perpetrated by the Syrian regime against the civilian population, which has particularly suffered from the regime’s extensive use of chemical weapons and barrel bombs?
How can one also explain the total silence surrounding the savage and deadly repression by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards against the youth and population of Iran, especially women and young girls who are thrown into prison, whipped, tortured, raped and beaten to death, and in some cases hanged, solely because they refuse to wear the veil or because they sing and dance in public? Not to mention the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, with all its consequences and humanitarian repercussions. The list goes on…
Supporters of the Iran-led axis may argue that the cases of Syria and Iran, to name just these two examples, are internal conflicts justifying non-interference. But does this rationalization allow repressive regimes to massacre their own people with impunity?
It would thus be tolerable and “legitimate” for a bloodthirsty regime, like the one in Damascus, to engage in a fierce struggle against its population, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and forcing several millions of its citizens into exile. Indignation is therefore not appropriate in this case, just as the Revolutionary Guards in power in Tehran can shoot at demonstrators with impunity and forcibly impose a way of life that plunges civilians, especially women, into a dismal atmosphere of the most retrograde kind.
Human rights seem to evoke “selective outrage” when the victims are Palestinians, but they are completely ignored when Syrian and Iranian civilians are victims by the hundreds of thousands of a policy of repression, or when the Lebanese population is subjected to a war of no concern to them.
Human rights are therefore selective (quoting Gabriel Attal) and do not carry the same values depending on whether one is a victim of policies practiced by foreigners or fellow citizens!
Our intention is by no means to trivialize the hardships endured by the population of Gaza… But it’s time to cease the exploitation of the Palestinian cause for unrelated agendas and also cease futile media posturing and geostrategic maneuvers that disregard the plight of Palestinians.
It is high time to put an end to the strategy of the irrational that has only plunged the populations of the Middle East into utterly sterile wars and endless armed conflicts, without horizons, and without any rational, pragmatic or lasting resolution in sight.
It is high time to cease waging “war for the sake of war” by captivating the youth and the population through deceptive and demagogic slogans whose sole purpose is to insidiously conceal the true hegemonic intentions of those in power.
