Dear WEIRD People, You Might Be Racist
For over four months, the genocide in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) by Israel has intensified, prompting global scrutiny of the occupying power’s actions. Notably, however, individuals and groups from WEIRD (White/Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Developed/Democratic) backgrounds have shown a reluctance to condemn Israel’s actions while often deflecting blame onto Palestinians.
On the international stage, the image of Robert A. Wood, the United States (US) Alternate Representative for Special Political Affairs in the United Nations (UN), vetoing a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza remains vivid. Additionally, the recent ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) demanding that Israel take immediate measures to prevent genocide has been met with defiance, with the Israeli army preparing for an offensive in Rafah, a densely populated city in southern Gaza.
Regionally, leaders such as Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, have openly endorsed Israel’s military offensive in the oPt, despite international calls for restraint. Furthermore, the European Union’s decision to review funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) following unsubstantiated allegations against UNRWA staff demonstrates a concerning trend of prioritizing Israeli interests over Palestinian rights.
Domestically, WEIRD diplomats have raised concerns about a “shrinking diplomatic space” in Indonesia, attributing this to the reluctance of Indonesian authorities to engage with human rights recommendations. However, these diplomats have failed to acknowledge their own governments’ complicity in global injustices, including tacit support for Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land.
Lastly, on a personal level, some WEIRD individuals have remained silent. Some argue that their professional environment demands them to stay composed and covert. Others believe that what is happening in the oPt is extraordinarily complex and, thus, requires more profound research and a position that considers “both sides of the story.” Some others suggest that the evidence circulating online showing Israel’s brutality is “too much,” “disturbs” their peace, and, in turn, makes them docile and “helpless.”
The stutters mentioned above have shown how much WEIRD people’s denial of what’s happening in oPt ultimately unravels the embedded racism that they consciously or cluelessly possess. The stammers met some of the racist denial strategies identified by Teun A. van Dijk in his article titled ‘Discourse and the denial of racism.’
Before delving into the strategies utilized by WEIRD individuals, however, it’s crucial to recognize and establish the existence of specific anti-Palestinian racism in WEIRD countries.
Yasmeen Abu-Laban and Abigail B. Bakan highlight that Palestinians, as an Arab collective encompassing both Christians and Muslims, confront anti-Muslim racism (Islamophobia) in addition to anti-Arab racism and Orientalist stereotypes. These prejudices stem from three primary sources. Firstly, the denial of the Nakba, the 1948 events which led to the forceful displacement of over 80% of Palestinians, rendering them stateless refugees within and beyond historic Palestine. The prevalent pro-Israel narrative surrounding 1948 is founded on a framework of myths, particularly pervasive in WEIRD contexts. These myths, constituting Nakba denial, propagate notions such as the land being uninhabited, the non-existence of Palestinians, and the portrayal of opposition to Israel as fascist and racist.
Secondly, the exploitation of power imbalances, wherein stateless, occupied, and Israeli Palestinian individuals encounter disparities distorted by the depiction of Israel as a ‘democratic’, ‘Jewish’ state within WEIRD environments. Thirdly, victim-blaming is evident in WEIRD discourses that characterize Palestinians as ‘terrorist’, ‘anti-Semitic’, and ‘undemocratic’.
Given this context, let’s further explore recent instances of racist tropes exhibited by WEIRD individuals and groups through the lens of van Dijk.
According to van Dijk’s analysis, the international and regional dynamics align with what he terms the ‘defense and offense’ strategy. Essentially, this approach involves overt criticism and direct attacks rather than subtle denials, serving as both a defensive measure and an offensive tactic against perceived ideological adversaries. Instances such as the US veto, Israel’s military actions in Rafah despite the ICJ’s order, Ursula von der Leyen’s unwavering support for Israel, and the decision of some countries to halt funding for UNRWA all exemplify this strategy.
However, when we dissect Wood’s statement further, we uncover another layer of denial tactics. Wood’s justification for the US veto portrays what van Dijk labels as ‘positive self-presentation’ and ‘denial and counter-attack’ strategies.
In explaining the US veto, Wood claims that during the resolution drafting process, the US was proposing “language with an eye toward a constructive resolution that would have reinforced the life-saving diplomacy, […] increased opportunities for humanitarian aid to enter Gaza; encouraged the release of hostages and the resumption of humanitarian pauses; and laid a foundation for a durable peace.” However, Wood argues that nearly all of the US recommendations were ignored and “the result of this rushed process was an imbalanced resolution that was divorced from reality, that would not move the needle forward, on the ground, in any concrete way.”
Wood’s statement portrays the US as inherently virtuous, advocating for a constructive resolution aimed at humanitarian aid and peace — hence, the ‘positive self-presentation’ strategy. The positioning of the US as the ‘good guy’ then shifts to a reversal tactic, painting the US as the victim when their recommendations were disregarded and labeling the resolution’s drafter and supporters as the perpetrators — hence, the ‘denial and counter-attack’.
Looking at the situation domestically within Indonesia’s diplomatic circles, we may observe what van Dijk identifies as ‘mitigation.’ This strategy involves downplaying concerns or using euphemisms like “shrinking diplomatic space” to mitigate the severity of the situation or deflect accountability. This strategy could also be manifested by employing other indirect expressions that minimize the severity of an act or the accountability of those involved, such as by asking what WEIRD diplomats could do in Indonesia rather than at home.
In a more enclosed personal space, many individuals from WEIRD backgrounds resort to various denial strategies when confronted with issues related to the oPt. They often employ disclaimers or the ‘fair, but’ strategy, presenting a facade of impartiality by endorsing ‘both-sideism’ or opting for silence out of fear of reprisal. Additionally, WEIRD individuals may resort to ‘moral blackmail’ strategy, portraying themselves as overwhelmed by the issue and manipulated by expectations to act morally. However, van Dijk suggests that this dilemma may often be a rhetorical strategy rather than a genuine moral struggle, employed to deflect criticism.
I anticipate that WEIRD individuals, irrespective of their political leanings, including those on the far-right, may resort to other various racist denial strategies, either before or after reading this article. They might deny any accusations or implications of prejudice, discrimination, or racism (‘denial’). Alternatively, they could use denials of racism as a springboard to criticize anti-racists (‘denial and reproach’). They may also deflect blame onto others (‘reversal’). However, I would welcome being proven wrong in this specific case.
