The Genolibel: The Existential and the Proximate Motivation

Two recent posts have sharpened my thinking about the pernicious lie of the genolibel. The West should be far more concerned about how blame is transmitted by people who believe in intersectionality, whereby complicity is contagious through impurity centred by ideas based Palestinianism.

The French protests began in September largely as school protests: overcrowded classes, missing teachers, crumbling buildings. Those grievances deserve to be heard in these strained times. But alongside the placards, the Palestinian flag and the keffiyeh have appeared, as they now appear at almost every protest in Europe: the intersectional flag of convenience, adaptable to any cause, suitable tinder for any act of violence. The symbolism behind this must be examined to understand who the real enemy is, as disorder continues to spread unabated.

In the first post, a woman is videoed saying she was threatened with rape while holding her infant, after challenging rioters who called her a filthy bourgeois. A professor of gender sociology responds that she is collateral damage in the “revolution”. In the second, a group calling itself Youth Strike announces an action on 20th November under the slogans “Fight for our future” and “Not their wars”, beside maps marking prominent European locations. In the background are flags of Palestine, whilst no European country is in any danger of entering the Israeli-Hamas war.

The existential motivation of the Genolibel is aimed not at anything Israel does, but at the fact that it exists. Hamas cannot defeat Israel militarily. It can, however, try to make Israel a pariah, and no state survives indefinitely outside the community of nations. The genocide charge is the most efficient instrument for that: it converts a war into a crime and a country into a criminal.

But there is a proximate motivation too, visible when you set the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood beside what is said on the streets of London. Hamas’s own 1988 charter describes the movement as a wing of the Brotherhood in Palestine. The Brotherhood’s goal is a restored caliphate, and its strategists have long held that in the West the path runs first through influence rather than force. My reading is that a society persuaded its history is shameful and its values worthless is a society too drowsy to defend itself.

On London marches you can hear the method at work: chants repeated until hostility to Israel becomes reflex, and the refrain of a “live-streamed genocide”. The logic is total. Genocide is the supreme crime; everyone, the argument runs, must oppose it, and silence is complicity. Guilt is no longer about what you did, but about what you failed to do.

Here the two posts meet. In societies already strained economically and socially, anyone who has not sufficiently declared allegiance to Palestinianism becomes not merely fair game, but an inevitable target. A mother in France can be threatened with rape because, by this logic, she is complicit in genocide and no horror enacted against her measures up to the original sin. Under such circumstance it is easy for a “progressive” academic to dismiss her suffering as collateral damage. How easily the dismissal of rape against Israeli women has stretched to cover the same threat against a woman thousands of miles from Gaza, whose only offence is not being ideologically pure enough.

On its face, “Not their wars” may be about European rearmament and conscription, and many who share it could mean exactly that. But read beside the flags, I fear part of this movement is right in a way it never intended. It will not fight in the West’s wars because it has already enlisted in someone else’s: the wars of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.