As The Economist acknowledged, assessing what constitutes political violence is “inherently subjective: analysts must determine which forms of violence count as political and assign ideological labels to attackers or victims.” In recent days, the working definition of political violence that’s emerged across op-ed pages is somewhat narrow: physical assaults on relatively well-known political figures. But what else counts? School shooters often publish rambling manifestos that espouse political motives beforehand. Can violence be considered political if its victims aren’t, or if its authors’ politics are incoherent? What about when federal agents manhandle a U.S. senator—say, California’s Alex Padilla—for trying to question Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a press conference?
Shapiro alluded to the right’s efforts to capitalize on Kirk’s death in order to silence dissent and get revenge on what Vice President JD Vance this week alleged to be a “network” of nongovernmental organizations “that foments, facilitates, and engages in violence.” Just after Kirk was shot, Trump similarly, instinctively, blamed his killing on the “radical left,” promising to “find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it.”
While condemning Republicans’ opportunistic crackdown on free speech, Shapiro opted for a unifying tone. “Violence in all forms is unacceptable—and political violence is particularly dangerous,” Shapiro continued. “Giving violence a pass, justifying it, or looking the other way only deepens the divide,” he went on. “Let me be clear: Violence is never OK, regardless of the motivation. Violence is never the answer. And we can’t let violence be used as a pretext for more violence. We must reject the rhetoric of vengeance, and instead focus on the work of healing.”
Yet Shapiro’s own record on free speech is murky. Late last month, The Chronicle of Higher Education revealed that Shapiro used an archaic, little-used statute allotting Pennsylvania’s governor a nonvoting observer seat on the University of Pennsylvania’s Board of Trustees. Shapiro’s appointed representative to the board, Robb Fox, “pushed the university to ban Penn Students Against the Occupation of Palestine, its main pro-Palestinian student group.” After months of back-channel dialogue between Shapiro’s office, Fox, and the Penn Israel Public Affairs Committee (an on-campus pro-Israel group), Penn did just that, revoking the organization’s status as a registered student group and banning it from campus.
Israel’s assault on Gaza has by now left more than 65,000 dead since the fall of 2023, most of them women and children. A wide swath of Israeli government officials, politicians, and military leaders—not just Netanyahu—have been explicit about their intent to destroy Gaza as revenge for Hamas’s attacks on October 7, 2023, which killed an estimated 1,200 Israeli soldiers and civilians. Nissim Vaturi, deputy speaker of the Israeli Parliament, posted that day on social media that Israel’s task must be “erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth.” Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared this past May that Gaza would be “totally destroyed” in six months.
Is this violence political? In the parlance of the U.S. commentariat this last week, “political violence” would seem to target people who already enjoy “the ability to participate in politics without fear of violence,” as Klein put it. Palestinians are second-class citizens across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, living under conditions widely described as apartheid, without freedom of movement, opinion, expression, or assembly. Protesters in the West Bank are regularly assaulted and killed by extremist settlers who terrorize and demolish Palestinians’ homes as IDF soldiers stand watch. U.S. citizens ostensibly entitled to the rights of a free society stateside—such as Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in 2022, and Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi in 2024—have been killed by Israeli forces while attending those demonstrations. As they do with the mountains of dead in Gaza, U.S. officials mostly looked the other way and continued to furnish their killers’ organizations with hundreds of billions in U.S. military aid.
The point here isn’t to call out Shapiro and other Democrats’ hypocrisy simply for the sake of it. The moral clarity they’ve shown with regard to the evils of political violence and the importance of free speech is admirable. We can’t let violence be used as a pretext for more violence, and should reject the rhetoric of vengeance. As the right seeks to deprive its enemies of the rights to a free society, it’s more dangerous than ever to apply those principles selectively.
Hence then, the article about i t s time to broaden our definition of political violence was published today ( ) and is available on The New Republic ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( It’s Time to Broaden Our Definition of Political Violence )
Also on site :
- Ukraine-Russia war latest: Zelensky awaits Putin response to new peace plan while Christmas Eve blast kills 3 in Moscow
- JCPenney Has a 'Stunning' White Sapphire Jewelry Set on Sale for Just $16, and It's Perfect for Every Occasion
- China's First Domestic Anti-CTLA-4 Monoclonal Antibody, Innovent's TABOSUN® (Ipilimumab N01 Injection) Received NMPA Approval