If the 'quiet' part is merely that performative activism is a common phenomenon in the context of any high profile issue, Israeli conduct included, I think it's actually a pretty widely acknowledged fact.
If the 'quiet' part is that opposition to Israeli conduct is just a hysteria and a performance, therefore illegitimate, then this assumes a consensus that does not exist.
The very first thing she says in the video is that stating her opinion on the conflict 'would make absolutely no difference to anyone'. I consider this a weaker strain of 'let them kill each other', and distrust people pushing it to western audiences. Why is it reasonable and proper for plebs to be neutral if their state supports one side?
p
If the 'quiet' part is merely that performative activism is a common phenomenon in the context of any high profile issue, Israeli conduct included, I think it's actually a pretty widely acknowledged fact.
If the 'quiet' part is that opposition to Israeli conduct is just a hysteria and a performance, therefore illegitimate, then this assumes a consensus that does not exist.
The very first thing she says in the video is that stating her opinion on the conflict 'would make absolutely no difference to anyone'. I consider this a weaker strain of 'let them kill each other', and distrust people pushing it to western audiences. Why is it reasonable and proper for plebs to be neutral if their state supports one side?
More options
Context Copy link