Were they at an eatery or a nightspot? This question seemed to be fateful for many Arab social media commentators who were deciding their stand on the victims of the Istanbul attack on New Year’s Eve.
It is unimaginable that those who raised the question are urging us to consider killing civilians at a nightclub as negotiable. This attitude has been reflected by myriad posts that openly described the killing of the victims as lawful because they were in a place that contradicts the ideology of those who wrote them.
True, many expressed their sympathy with the victims and launched a counter-campaign against those who justified the murder. Still, segments of our society appear again to base their ethical judgment on somebody in accordance with his or her whereabouts, nationality, sex, sect or choices.
Others tried to disguise the matter by saying the victims were in a “restaurant,” to tamp down controversy. This is nothing but collusion, and an acknowledgement that the presence of some individuals of different nationalities in a nightspot is a pretext for killing. Others even “blessed” the crime for being opposed to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, or for other political reasons.
This sin is repeated whenever a blast or aggression takes place. We are used to asking about the victim’s nationality and whereabouts to decide our stance. Remember the problem of sexual harassment in Egypt’s demonstrations? Some people blamed the women because they took part in a protest.
It the same story with those who warrant a random killing based on the victim’s nationality. If we reviewed similar cases in which we justified killing based on our bias in our social or religious values, the outcome would be very disappointing. In recent years, we have politicized death on every occasion so as to alleviate the shock of killing and make sympathy a relative matter.
Undoubtedly, social media has made the voice of this mean attitude louder. However, the causes of this phenomenon are deeply rooted in our communities. This discourse was fed by the dregs left by totalitarian regimes and parties that promote a culture of killing a “traitor” or “agent.”
There are many suspects in jail, and this makes us hesitant as to whether we should sympathize when we hear of an attack in Iraq, Syria or elsewhere. We should first recognize the victim and aggressor in order to be able to take sides.
Are we with or against killing, or are we more malicious to cover our position? Unless we take the side of the victims of any attack — regardless of their nationality, religion, country or conviction — we will be stuck in this quagmire of hatred.
• Diana Moukalled is a veteran journalist with extensive experience in both traditional and new media. She is also a columnist and freelance documentary producer. She can be reached on Twitter @dianamoukalled.
It is unimaginable that those who raised the question are urging us to consider killing civilians at a nightclub as negotiable. This attitude has been reflected by myriad posts that openly described the killing of the victims as lawful because they were in a place that contradicts the ideology of those who wrote them.
True, many expressed their sympathy with the victims and launched a counter-campaign against those who justified the murder. Still, segments of our society appear again to base their ethical judgment on somebody in accordance with his or her whereabouts, nationality, sex, sect or choices.
Others tried to disguise the matter by saying the victims were in a “restaurant,” to tamp down controversy. This is nothing but collusion, and an acknowledgement that the presence of some individuals of different nationalities in a nightspot is a pretext for killing. Others even “blessed” the crime for being opposed to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, or for other political reasons.
This sin is repeated whenever a blast or aggression takes place. We are used to asking about the victim’s nationality and whereabouts to decide our stance. Remember the problem of sexual harassment in Egypt’s demonstrations? Some people blamed the women because they took part in a protest.
It the same story with those who warrant a random killing based on the victim’s nationality. If we reviewed similar cases in which we justified killing based on our bias in our social or religious values, the outcome would be very disappointing. In recent years, we have politicized death on every occasion so as to alleviate the shock of killing and make sympathy a relative matter.
Undoubtedly, social media has made the voice of this mean attitude louder. However, the causes of this phenomenon are deeply rooted in our communities. This discourse was fed by the dregs left by totalitarian regimes and parties that promote a culture of killing a “traitor” or “agent.”
There are many suspects in jail, and this makes us hesitant as to whether we should sympathize when we hear of an attack in Iraq, Syria or elsewhere. We should first recognize the victim and aggressor in order to be able to take sides.
Are we with or against killing, or are we more malicious to cover our position? Unless we take the side of the victims of any attack — regardless of their nationality, religion, country or conviction — we will be stuck in this quagmire of hatred.
• Diana Moukalled is a veteran journalist with extensive experience in both traditional and new media. She is also a columnist and freelance documentary producer. She can be reached on Twitter @dianamoukalled.
