Tactics and Tragedy in Last Summer's Gaza War

“For if life had taught her anything, it was that healing and peace can begin only with acknowledgment of wrongs committed.” ― Susan Abulhawa, Mornings in Jenin

The Gaza Strip and West Bank

Many people believe the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a centuries-old problem where the same two sides have been killing each other side the dawn of civilization.  Some depict Israel as a murderous regime while others believe the same of the Palestinians.  The reality is far more complicated than this.  The United Nations on Monday released a report which accuses both Israel and Hamas (one faction of Palestinians mostly located in the Gaza strip) of war crimes from last summer's outbreak of violence.  With the one year anniversary of this war coming up in July, let's take a closer look at this event and some of the (often tragic) tactics used by both sides in this conflict.

The complete history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is much too long to detail here (and trying to shorten it into a few paragraphs just doesn't do it justice).  The modern roots of the 2014 Gaza war come from the split between the Palestinian Authority (recognized by Israel in the 1993 Oslo Accords as the representative government of the Palestinians) and Hamas (a much more radical political party which opposed the Accords) in 2006.  In short, Hamas won an election over the PA, a serious battle ensued between the PA and Hamas, and Hamas ended up taking control of Gaza while the PA remained the primary governmental power in the West Bank. Since 2006, Hamas and Israel have occasionally launched rockets and bombs at each other (while the West Bank has remained mostly nonviolent in its disagreements with Israel).

Gaza Strip and the Israeli Blockade

So what kicked off last summer's war?  On July 7th, several senior Hamas leaders died in an underground tunnel explosion (Hamas often uses tunnels to smuggle weapons and militants into Israel).  Hamas claims that this was the result of an Israeli airstrike while Israel claims it was an accidental explosion of their own weapons.  The next day, Hamas launched rockets into Israel, Israel responded with attacks of its own, and the whole situation escalated into one of the worst periods of violence in recent years.  Both sides claimed their justifications, and both sides committed some terrible acts in the process. 

One of the primary tactics of Hamas has been their use of rocket attacks against targets in Israel.  These rockets have relatively low precision compared to most modern rockets, so Hamas militants mostly point them in the general direction of a city or military base with the intent to hit whatever they can.  The main point of this tactic is to terrorize the Israeli population in the hopes this will convince them to pressure the government into giving in to Hamas' demands.  Fortunately, the "Iron Dome" missile defense system ensures that the vast majority of rockets do not hit any major cities (part of the reason Israeli casualties were so low in this conflict).  Hamas is also well known for using people's homes, hospitals, and other key infrastructure points to house weapons and their own fighters (making it difficult to attack them without creating civilian casualties).  In all, Israel lost 64 fighters and 6 civilians during the conflict.

Israel's Iron Dome Missile Defense System

On the Israeli side, the IDF (Israel Defense Force) used a combination of precision rocket strikes and armored vehicles to attack Hamas positions.  Unfortunately, as mentioned above, most of these positions are either key infrastructure points for Gaza City or civilian homes. Israel's military technology is very advanced (to the point where they can pinpoint an exact house to strike from the air).  Unlike Hamas, Israel knows exactly what it is hitting when it launches an attack.  For most civilian homes, the IDF claims to fire warning shots at homes and send phone calls as they are about to be hit (the warning shots are actually a small missile which has been altered so it doesn't explode).  This still only gives civilians at most a few minutes to evacuate their homes or die.  After the warning shot, the building is quickly leveled, destroying whatever military target (alleged or otherwise) was inside, but killing or displacing civilians in the process.  This is part of the reason Gaza City lost a hospital and power plant during this conflict. 

Though the IDF is correct in its assertion that Hamas uses these locations to house weapons and fighters, this does not make them legitimate targets by most international standards.  Just because a hospital is being used as an enemy base doesn't mean you should blow it up (for context, the U.S. military Rules of Engagement specifically prohibit attacking these sites unless absolutely necessary).  In all, Hamas lost an estimated 750 fighters and roughly 1,500 Palestinian civilians were killed during the conflict (not to mention over a quarter of a million people were displaced according to the United Nations).  Certainly, some of these civilians may have been combatants or could have been killed by Hamas instead, but this figure is still staggeringly high.  Furthermore, this mentality of "shoot the hostage to kill the enemy" is a poor way to conduct what is, in reality, an insurgency rather than a conventional war.

Casualty Figures in the 2014 War

On August 26th, a cease-fire finally took hold between Hamas and Israel.  So where is the conflict one year later?  Is any real peace possible? Not in the foreseeable future.  Israel and the Palestinian Authority continue to disagree on the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank (the process by which Israel builds houses in the West Bank and allows its citizens to live on this land, often displacing Palestinian civilians in the process).  Israel and Hamas remain in an unsteady cease-fire (which could flare up again at any time).  Finally, the PA has little power in Gaza and any final peace treaty would need both the West Bank and Gaza behind it (Israel has already stated it will not negotiate with Hamas on this).  Though international opinion is starting to turn in favor of the moderate (nonviolent) Palestinian factions, any true peace is still a long way away.

Settlements in the West Bank

Just to be clear, this isn't one of those posts which claims that both sides are equally guilty and at fault in this war.  Both sides are guilty of egregious crimes for sure, but one side is exponentially more powerful and capable than the other. Israel is a stable, (mostly) democratic country with a very strong military and some of the most advanced hardware in the world (courtesy of the U.S.).  It boasts a GDP of 268 billion and an average per capita GDP of around $36,000.  Gaza, on the other hand, is a severely impoverished region (GDP per capita of $6,100) with a barely functioning government ruled mostly by armed militants.  Their weapons consist primarily of whatever scraps they manage to find from Syria, China, and Russia, along with the limited number of outdated rockets which are smuggled in through the Egyptian border.  If any side truly has the means to bring about meaningful change in this conflict it is Israel.   The Palestinians in Gaza can barely keep the lights on and clean water flowing, so expecting them to have any real negotiating power is simply unrealistic.

If this analysis seems a little one-sided, its because that is the reality of the situation on the ground.  While Israel emerged from this war almost completely unscathed, Gaza's infrastructure has once again been decimated and its population continues to spiral into desperation.  This isn't entirely Israel's fault by any stretch of the imagination (after all Hamas is legitimately a terrorist organization).  But the continued blockade of Gaza essentially means that the region's population is imprisoned with a large group of desperate militants who know they will likely be killed the moment they lose power.  Israel certainly has the right to defend itself, but Israel also has the capacity and capability to be part of the solution.  Granted, the costs to Israel and risks associated with something like a broad humanitarian relief effort are high, but so is the moral cost of simply keeping Gaza contained in its own misery.  Then again, when the human and material costs of this conflict to Israel are so low, what incentive is there to solve the problem?

TL:DR: Both sides are guilty of serious crimes, but Israel is much more capable of changing the current situation.  A little restraint in the fight against Hamas can go a long way towards minimizing civilian deaths.

The Winners And Losers Of Turkey's Parliamentary Election

"The discussion of executive presidency and dictatorship have come to an end in Turkey with these elections." -HDP leader Selahattin Demirtas.

Turkey, the country not the bird

As one of the most stable countries in the Middle East, Turkey has long provided the region with an excellent example of how democracy and a weak executive branch can work in an otherwise highly fractured region.  Recently, Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan appeared to be challenging this tradition by making moves towards increasing the authorities of the presidential office.  Fortunately, Turkey's parliamentary elections earlier this week appear to have ended this dream (or at least dealt it a serious setback).  Let's take a look at the politics of Turkey and what this election means for the future of the country.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Unlike most other regional powers, Turkey does not have a strong authoritarian leader (something Erdogan is supposedly trying to change).  However, Turkey (with the notable exception of the Kurdish minority) does have a much stronger sense of shared nationalism, religious identity, and culture than most other Middle East nations (like Iraq for instance).  The modern state of Turkey was founded mostly by Mustafa Kemal just after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War.  Kemal believed strongly in making the new nation appear more "Western."  Among other things, he is famous for establishing a secular parliamentary government, abolishing the Islamic office of the Caliph, and introducing a Latin-based script to the Turkish language (he also banned the Fez for not being "European enough").  Turkey has remained relatively stable throughout the decades and is not as vulnerable to the same ethnic/religious breakdowns we have seen in other nations.  Today, the office of President has few significant powers (this is mostly vested in the Parliament).

Mustafa Kemal (Called the Father of the Turks)

So who is Erdogan and what was he trying to do?  Erdogan founded the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in 2001, which has since become the dominant party in Parliament.  He assumed the role of Prime Minister in 2003 and President in 2014, and started a process of encouraging infrastructure and educational investment (doubling the number of universities and drastically increasing the education budget). However, his presidency has also been marred by corruption scandals, media intimidation, and attempts to return Turkey to a more religiously-centered nation.  It seems his plan for the recent elections was for the AKP to win enough parliamentary seats to change Turkey's constitution without a holding a national referendum.  If this would have happened, Erdogan's party could easily have granted significant powers to the presidential office through constitutional changes.

He also built this giant presidential palace on federal land

But Erdogan's plan was foiled in this week's election.  His party only won 40% of the seats in Parliament (still more than any other party, but not enough to form a government on their own).  Under the Turkish constitution, the various political parties need to join together to form a majority government every election cycle.  Now, the AKP will need to combine forces with another party to form a ruling coalition (none of which are likely to help Erdogan amend the constitution).  If a new coalition isn't formed in the next several weeks, there will be a re-election to go through the process all over again.  This setback by the AKP is being recognized as a clear indication of the public's disapproval of many of Erdogan's actions (though many still support his reform programs).  Most likely, the AKP will relax its reform-minded agenda in favor of one which is more inclusive to other parties. 


If the AKP was the big loser in this election, the primary Kurdish party (People's Democratic Party or HDP) was the big winner.  The Kurds are a distinct ethnic group whose lands were split among Turkey, Iraq, and Syria following the First World War.  Since then, the Kurds have never attained real independence in any of these states (they have also split into several distinct factions, making a unified Kurdistan nearly impossible).  This party, which pushes a more left-leaning and pro-Kurdish agenda, attained the 10% of overall votes needed to hold seats in Parliament.  This party has reached across cultural divides to gain both Kurdish and Turkish votes alike.  Their dramatic inclusion into the Turkish Parliament will likely mean more rights and autonomy for the Kurdish people (and a growing check on Erdogan's power).

A quick breakdown of the election results

So what does all of this mean for the region?  Well it certainly seems like the Kurds will play a much bigger role in Turkish politics (likely giving themselves greater independence).  Without his party's super-majority, Erdogan will be unable to increase his own power significantly, but he will still heavily influence things like Turkey's European Union bid and the fight against ISIS in neighboring Syria.  After all, the AKP is still by far the dominant party in Turkish politics. 

In all, this election seems to be a big win for the forces of democratic governance in Turkey.  In an era where Middle East nations are increasingly becoming more authoritarian (Egypt, Syria, and the Gulf nations), the defeat of Erdogan's potential power grab is a welcome reminder that popular rule can still succeed.  Some nations need a strong executive leader to function, others only a need broad ruling coalition.  Turkey, it seems, has opted for the latter. 

TL;DR: Minority parties win big in Turkish elections, President Erdogan loses his chance to increase his own power.

Hijabis Need Not Apply

"Discrimination has a lot of layers that make it tough for minorities to get a leg up." - Bill Gates

The inspiration for this post title, if you didn't already get it

Religious discrimination comes in many forms.  Sometimes it is as obvious a bunch of armed protesters outside a mosque in Arizona.  But more often than not, discrimination is subtle and much harder to fight against.  Workplace discrimination is no exception.  Affirmative Action and other such programs have attempted to correct this inequality, but often with mixed and controversial results.  In one recent case of workplace discrimination, Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman who regularly wears a hijab, was denied a position at Abercrombie and Fitch because of her religious apparel.  On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Elauf, citing that A&F violated her individual religious freedom by penalizing her application because of her clothing.

What justification did A&F presume to have for denying Elauf a job?  She had applied for a position as a "model" (the people who wear Abercrombie's preppy clothes and drown you in cologne) when she was 17.  As part of their "Look Policy," the company typically doesn't hire people who wear "inappropriate" clothing (such as hats or unfashionable items).  It isn't so much that they are outright rejected, but their applications are usually demoted in favor of those who more closely resemble the A&F style.  This isn't the first case of discrimination in the Look Policy either.  In Elauf's case, her interviewer specifically stated that she was rejected because she wore a hijab.  (Check out a previous post for more about the importance of wearing hijabs and other apparel in the Islamic faith.)

Samantha Elauf and her mother Majda

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating based upon religious reasons (though people often have to specifically request this protection).  This is where policies such as the A&F Look Policy can often run into trouble. This policy in general makes some sense in a clothing store (A&F needs to promote the brand after all), but these policies can sometimes encourage judgements based upon cultural characteristics.  Making sure someone "looks appropriate" is an extremely subjective criteria (one which encourages hiring attractive, successful looking people with less regard to actual performance ability).

In the case of A&F, the main point of contention was whether or not Elauf should have stated she needed a religious exemption from the Look Policy.  As the court ruled, its pretty obvious Elauf would have needed an exemption for wearing a hijab (women wearing a hijab tend to identify as Muslim after all).  Now this doesn't mean that anyone wearing religious clothing can request an exemption.  After all, a women in a full body niqab probably wouldn't be granted this exemption since wearing A&F clothes is part of the job description.  Instead, other meaningful options for similar employment must be provided.  This is why such cases are so often difficult to mediate. 

The nine justices of the Supreme Court

In Monday's case, most of the justices decided in favor of Elauf, with only Justice Samuel Alito ruling against her.  Their arguments speak to the debate over company vs personal freedom in the workplace.  Most people would agree that a company can't decide to reject a job applicant just because they are black, gay, or republican (though many still do).  But discriminating against someone's weight, attractiveness, or religious appearance is still a very real possibility with policies such as this.  Unfortunately, Elauf's case is still not over (it gets pushed back to the appeals court who will make the final decision on her compensation).  At least for now, the case helps build the precedent against similar religious discrimination cases (A&F has also made changes to its Look Policy in recent years).

Overall, things like the Look Policy speak to a greater dynamic of maintaining a misguided definition of American dress and culture.  It isn't that Muslims (or anyone who does not fit the norm of "American" culture) aren't allowed to work for A&F, they just can't express their religious individuality in a meaningful way.  Like society in general, you can be different (or Muslim) all you want on the inside, just don't show it.

TL;DR: Abercrombie's "Look Policy" streamlines the process of rejecting people just for being different.

Why Is The 2022 World Cup So Controversial?

"We depend on misfortune to build up our force of migratory workers and when the supply is low because there is not enough misfortune at home, we rely on misfortune abroad to replenish the supply." -Harry S. Truman

The Living Quarters Of A Migrant Worker In Qatar

 Last week, several journalists were arrested in the small Middle East nation of Qatar while attempting to document the condition of the region's migrant worker population.  These journalists, working for the BBC, were touring one of the housing camps for these workers when they were detained and questioned by Qatari security forces.  Though the BBC journalists were released after several days, this isn't the first time such incidents have occurred surrounding the 2022 FIFA World Cup. The decision to hold the 2022 World Cup has already generated its share of controversies (enough that it actually has its own Wikipedia page).  So why is everyone so upset about a handful of soccer games in Qatar?

Qatar, In Case You Didn't Know

First of all, these controversies range from scandals about the selection process, to the logistical nightmare of trying to hold an international outdoor sporting event in temperatures which regularly exceed 120 degrees.  Though FIFA has recommended holding the cup in the winter to alleviate this, it hardly solves the other pressing issues surrounding the cup.  Both alcohol and homosexuality are illegal in Qatar, though government officials have stressed that nobody will be arrested unless they refuse to "refrain from homosexual activities."  However, probably the greatest controversy has surrounded the workers used to construct the massive (and expensive) facilities for this event.

To date, at least 1,500 migrant workers (predominantly from Nepal, India, and Bangladesh) have died while building the facilities for the World Cup.  These deaths often occur due to heat stroke and exhaustion brought on by the extreme desert conditions of Qatar and its capital Doha.  These are just a few of the estimated 23 million migrant workers who live and work in the wealthy Arabian Gulf nations of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman.   These individuals come from all over Africa and Southeast Asia to work and send money back to their home countries. 

The Country Of Origin For Most Migrant Workers

Unfortunately, as is often the case with migrant workers around the world, these individuals are often exploited for their labor.  In addition to low wages and grueling working conditions, migrants in the Gulf are subject to what is known as the Kafala system.  This is a process by which migrants are allowed into the country only under the sponsorship of their employers.  Once they arrive, the employers often confiscate their passports and prohibit workers from leaving without consent (which obviously doesn't come easily).  Workers are also under contract during this time, so they have almost no legal standing to change their situation.  Essentially, once they arrive the country, they are the property of whichever person or company has contracted to hire them.

To make matters worse, these workers are usually housed in labor camps (which are also of very poor quality).  Most are paid very meager wages (much of which goes to their families anyway), while others have gone months without being paid.  This is extreme exploitation in a country which boasts the highest per capita standard of living in the world (a statistic which even includes the migrant populations!!).  Even modest attempts at reform have been met with criticism or painstakingly slow progress. 

Sepp Blatter: President Of FIFA

Not only is this a moral problem, it has the potential to create a significant security problem as well.  The populations of migrants make up a majority of the population in several of these counties. This can lead to instability if these populations mobilize and agitate for better working conditions.  Demonstrations like this have already occurred on several occasions, prompting some governments to react with minimal efforts to reform the system. To date, these efforts have produced few meaningful changes to migrant worker life in Qatar.

In the meantime, FIFA has been called upon by numerous organizations and players alike to relocate the World Cup to a more suitable location (the U.S. has volunteered as one such potential location).  This might help the immediate situation of these workers (though they also might just become unemployed), but it still doesn't solve the plight of the rest of the region's workers.  Of course, not every migrant worker is treated horribly in these countries.  But these measures are designed to keep a large socioeconomic disparity between the citizens and non-citizens of these countries, so the potential for abuse is often taken advantage of.  Other nations can only put so much pressure on these countries to improve the situation of their workers, but ultimately that change has to come from within each country.  Sadly, the people most able to bring about this change (the Gulf nation's citizens) have the least to gain from an overhaul of this system.

Syria's Refugees, Where Are They Now?

"We are seeing here the immense costs of not ending wars, of failing to resolve or prevent conflict,"-  U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres

The Zaatari Refugee Camp In Jordan, Currently Housing Over 80,000 Syrians

Syria's refugee situation continues to go from bad to worse.  In neighboring Iraq, the radical group ISIS continues its brutal oppression of the civilians under its control (despite recent successes against the group in Tikrit).  Lebanon and Jordan (who have already had to contend with a very large Palestinian refugee population) are unable to keep up with the influx of people fleeing Syria's Civil War.  Even Turkey, one of the most developed and stable countries in the region, has started to limit the entry of refugees, citing a lack of necessary resources to care for them all.  Lastly, people looking for a safe haven in places like Europe often meet tragic ends.

First, let's make a few distinctions in the refugee discussion.  The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees classifies several different types of at-risk individuals.  First, there are those with full refugee status.  They are people who have fled to another country other than their home country due to violence or extreme economic hardship.  Then we have internally displaced people (same as refugees, only within their home country).  Finally, there are asylum seekers (those who have filled out applications to be classified as refugees, but whose status has not yet been determined). Worldwide, the UNHCR estimates that there were 51,200,000 refugees, displaced people, or asylum seekers in 2013 (16.7 million refugees, 33.3 million internally displaced, 1.2 million asylum seekers).  This is the highest number since the end of the Second World War and equates to roughly 1/7th of the entire U.S. population!! 

You Know The Situation Is Bad When People Flee To Iraq For Protection

So where does the Syrian refugee situation stand after over four years of devastating war?  By most estimates, there are over 9,000,000 refugees and internally displaced people from the Syrian Civil War (that's 9 million, but it looks more impressive when it's spelled out).  To put this in perspective, think of everyone in Iowa, South Dakota, and Minnesota being forced out of their homes and having to find any place they can to survive.  That's how bad things are.  The Syrian Civil War itself remains just as bleak.  The forces loyal to Syria's president Bashar al-Assad continue to battle a patchwork of militia units who remain embedded in strongholds and some cities throughout the country (including rival factions like the Free Syrian Army and ISIS).  Assad recently won re-election (which was conveniently only held in the places he controls) and is still firmly in power (though rebel groups have made some recent gains).  For the most part however, his regime has time on its side.  So long as the international community continues to allow him to use poison gas and indiscriminate weapons on his own people, the refugee count will continue to grow.  

How are Syria's neighbors handling the refugee situation?  In Jordan and Turkey, refugee camps have been set up to provide the basics of housing and food.  Though food assistance is often provided by organizations such as the UNHCR, these camps take on a life of their own as individual micro-economies spring up around them.  Lebanon, on the other hand, has refused to build camps while attempting to integrate the Syrians directly into the Lebanese population.  However, most refugees are denied the ability to apply for a business license or work permit, preventing them from securing the means to escape the camps and refugee life. 

António Guterres, The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees

So things are just plain terrible.  What can anyone do to help?  Recently, the Middle East Policy Council hosted a Capitol Hill Conference where top U.S. policymaking officials and think tank leaders met to discuss Syria's refugee crisis.  One of the key points which came out of this discussion was the strong emphasis for donations of money to aid organizations.  However, just throwing money at the problem isn't enough.  These organizations need to send the money through the proper channels by investing in local communities and long-term institutional development.

Part of the reason this aid needs to be closely directed is to prevent "aid dependency."  This isn't the same poor-shaming argument people use about those on welfare (that welfare programs just make people lazy and not want to work).  This is where only food aid and shelter are offered, but no other useful services are provided such as education or job training.  Unless aid programs can provide those services as well, people often become trapped in a cycle of aid dependency simply because no other alternatives are provided to them.  One thing you learn pretty quickly about being on some form of assistance is that almost nobody likes taking it.  If one provides meaningful opportunities for people to improve their situation in life, they will often take them. 

The Painstakingly Slow Process Of Resettlement In Graph Form

We also cannot give up on a political solution.  It is clear that the U.S. has backed away significantly from its demand that Assad must go, but this doesn't mean the peace process should be abandoned entirely.  Anything which might help ease the fighting would go a long way towards slowing the long-term refugee problem.  While President Bush has been strongly criticized for intervening too much in the region, many have been critical of President Obama for not doing enough.  International refugee resettlement programs are the key to helping resolve this intractable (and likely decades long) problem. Still, there is some hope.  Since 2013, around 87,000 Syrian refugees have been resettled through the UNHCR.  This is a start, but only large increases in funding and international support can help the UNHCR come anywhere close to achieving its mission.

Ultimately, we need to look at this not as a regional problem, but an international crisis with global implications.  Today's Syrian youth are at risk of becoming a Lost Generation, one plagued by instability and enticed by radical ideologies.  Without considering the global implications of this, we risk marginalizing an entire generation through our inaction and apathy.  After the genocide in Rwanda, the international community looked back and wondered why nothing of substance was done to stop this crisis and relieve the suffering.  Let us not make the same mistake again.  In the end, it isn't so much the guns, bombs, and poison gas which does the most damage (though they certainly inflict a horrible toll).  The greatest danger is apathy.

TL;DR: Syria's nine million refugees are still in dire trouble.  You can help by raising awareness and donating to organizations like the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees.

How Charlie Hebdo Got Satire All Wrong

This week's post comes to us from friend and colleague Kurt Guner.  Kurt is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Utah and specializes in Modern Turkish History and Middle East Studies.

The PEN America Awards Ceremony

The PEN America Gala was this past Tuesday evening. Tickets went for $1,250 a pop, and plenty of major literary figures were in attendance. A small group of writers publically decided not to attend, skipping the event in protest of an award given to Charlie Hebdo. The award seems innocuous enough, especially considering its goal: to award writers/publishers who defend free expression. For Hebdo, which continued to publish even after many of its cartoonists and editors were murdered by an Islamic Militant group, this award is just one of the many ways that Western governments have celebrated their dogged attempts to insult and annoy everyone equally. If you’re being charitable, you might use the word “satirize,” but I will not.

The writers who protested the gala, numbering around 200 in a written petition, and the writers who were scheduled to host tables at the ceremony (Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi) had thoughtful reasons for protest that were shouted down by many others in the media (including Salman Rushdie), but it is important to understand their protest and its importance. In order to do that, we have to understand what, exactly, satire is supposed to do.

Satire is complicated, just like humor is complicated, but it boils down to an attempt to exaggerate or ridicule in order to point out the fallacies or ignorance of a group of people. Jonathan Swift’s famous work “A Modest Proposal” does this by taking the callous disregard for the lives of the poor in England to its logical extreme, suggesting that the poor be used as a source of food. This really only works when it attacks or criticizes those in power. That’s where it draws its power and influence. By punching up instead of down, satire gives oppressed groups a venue to seek justice or at the very least have their voices heard. Satire, then, has basic limits and boundaries, and a purpose that drives it.  

By Jonathan Swift, not to be confused with his cousin Taylor

What was so stunning about the Charlie Hebdo incidents is the lack of context given to the magazine itself. It goes without saying that the horrific attacks that were carried out under the guise of Islamic purity should be condemned. However, the seemingly immediate attempt to glorify Charlie Hebdo was stunning, to say the least. This is a magazine that for the past several years has traded in targeted racist caricatures and cartoons mocking African immigrants, Muslims, and other minority groups, groups that had already experienced violence from their neighbors and oppressive legislation from their government. What was the purpose of these cartoons? If it was simply an attempt to be an equal opportunity jerk, well that’s fine I guess, but how is that different from hate speech? This sort of analysis was largely lost in the immediate rush following the attacks and the “Je suis Charlie” rallying cry spread across the continents via social media and sympathetic marches. 

Empathy with survivors of a horrible attack is understandable and to be encouraged, but it is telling that such a movement was able to spring up in the aftermath of the violence… France, and much of Western Europe, was already primed to march against their Muslim neighbors. Far-right political groups like UKIP in England or the National Front in France have pushed an Islamophobic narrative for years and ridden a wave of anti-foreign sentiment to a surprising amount of political power. It was easy for people to say “I am Charlie” because their political leaders have been telling them “you are not Ahmed” for some time now.

A rally by PEGIDA, which means "Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West"

The context of Hebdo is important, and that context is not one that makes Hebdo out to be a free speech champion. Instead, the magazine simply bullied the oppressed religious minorities in their country in order to boost their circulation. They are not the first to do something like this and they won’t be the last, but it is important that we recognize Hebdo’s hate speech for the embarrassment that it was. It is possible to both empathize with a group that was attacked so viciously while still being critical of their actions. Without that balance, we risk lionizing a group whose only distinction is their ability to insult and degrade the weakest of their neighbors.  

The point here isn't that Charlie Hebdo is deserving of the tragedy brought upon it or that its right to free speech should be limited.  The point is that the publication is being praised for its bold use of satire to humiliate radical extremists.  In reality, its publications, rather than being satirical, use the same tired cliches and jokes about radical Muslims to paint a broad and somewhat hateful picture of anyone who is left feeling uncomfortable about its content.  Their displays of Muhammad serve as an indiscriminate attack, one which can offend the peaceful and the violent alike.  At its core, this is not satire, it is just hate speech.  Still worthy of protection under the auspices of freedom of speech, but hate speech nonetheless.