For years, intellectuals on the left have treated “intersectionality” as an inevitability. The social theory, which holds that all oppressed peoples must unite to overthrow their common oppressor, has been an essential strategy of the Left.
There is some truth to this theory. When the left’s fortunes rise, intersectionality seems like a big warehouse: identity groups are lumped together, internal conflicts are subordinated to the cause of liberation, and a policy of “no enemies in the left” changes political life in favor of the radicals. But the aura of inevitability surrounding the intersectional coalition is an illusion. Moments of crisis can bring suppressed contradictions to the surface and initiate a process of fragmentation.
Hamas’s recent campaign of terror against Israel could become such a crisis. After the attack, the foot soldiers of intersectionality—notably Black Lives Matter (BLM), the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and the academic “decolonization” movement—celebrated the militants who murdered civilians, raped women and kill babies. . Chicago Chapter of BLM published a graphic depicting Hamas paragliding terrorists who killed innocents. The DSA blamed Israel for the terrorist attack against it, arguing that it did it was the “direct result of Israel’s apartheid regime”. Ivy League professors with expertise in “decolonization” called it “impressive victory” and said that “the Palestinians have every right to resist through armed struggle”.
For years, these academics and collectives had been able to hide their ideological commitments and operate with an air of respectability. But after last week’s statements, they have met with a well-deserved backlash. Jewish groups, including the generally left-leaning Anti-Defamation League, have condemned BLM’s anti-Semitism. A Democrat MP left the DSA in protest. Major Donors have he chided Ivy League universities for not strongly condemning Hamas. The Financial Times warned that “the left’s opinion on Hamas” could lead to a “split in the democratic party”.
While the backlash against the radical left’s support for terrorism is welcome, such support should not have come as a surprise. All groups have long promoted the violent “decolonization” not only of Israel but also of the United States.
BLM has pushed this ideological line since its inception. In 2015, BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors driven a delegation to the Palestinian territories, so that the group’s activists could learn about the “Palestinian struggle”. He condemned Israel as an ‘apartheid state’ and the main theme of the trip was revolution.”from Ferguson in Palestine”. The same year, Cullors signed a statement that draws a parallel between the Palestinian struggle against Israel and that of blacks against America. During a speech at Harvard Law School, Cullors went further, telling the audience, “If we don’t step boldly and courageously to end the imperialist project called Israel, we are doomed.”
Likewise, the DSA has long made it clear that it supports the decolonization of Israel and the United States. The DSA’s Palestine Solidarity Working Group has repeatedly expressed its support for violent resistance against the Jewish state. “One he can not combine the violence of colonized people trying to free themselves from the shackles of oppression and the violence of the colonizers as they try to maintain a brutal and horrific system of domination. To do so is to side with the oppressor”, the group he wrote last year. “Indigenous resistance in all forms is valid, whether it’s non-violent protests or armed resistance,” he said. declared this summer. At national level, the DSA published a statement in 2019 endorsing “the complete decolonization of all occupied lands of the United States,” leading to “the liberation of all peoples from capitalism and imperialism.”
After the carnage in Gaza, both the BLM and the DSA confirmed their support for the violence. The BLM Grassroots organization declared that the terrorist campaign of Hamas “should not be condemned, but understood as a desperate act of self-defense”. The San Francisco chapter of the DSA reiterated this commitment to violent decolonization, writing in an official statement: “Violent oppression inevitably produces resistance. Socialists support the right of the Palestinian people and the entire people to resist and fight for their own liberation. . . . We call on all those who share our vision of the global emancipation of the working class to join the struggle to end the occupation and decolonize Palestine, from the river to the sea.”
The extremism of these movements offers an opportunity to drive a wedge between the establishment left and the more radical factions. As the public begins to connect the dots between Hamas, BLM, the DSA, and academic “decolonization,” responsible political leaders will be forced to accept that recent events in Israel are not just a matter of foreign affairs, but which have deep internal ramifications. Radicals will no longer be able to play the double-edged game. When they sing about the revolutionary struggle “from Ferguson to Palestine”, they are not speaking metaphorically. When they call for an “American Intifada,” they don’t mean peaceful democratic resistance. It means violence, a truth that can no longer be denied.
This article was originally published in the City Journal.
English 
Español de Venezuela 