A person who says they have been abused should not have to pass a test of political agreement before being taken seriously. Yet when suffering enters a conflict, sympathy can become strangely conditional. Before asking what happened to someone, we begin examining whether they belong among the people we are prepared to care about.
Al Jazeera reports that Italy is investigating Israel’s Katz over allegations of abuse and sexual assault involving flotilla activists. The reported investigation does not establish that the allegations are true, or determine anyone’s responsibility. Those distinctions matter, especially when the allegations are grave.
But uncertainty about the facts leaves us with responsibilities. An allegation warrants serious examination. The people making it should be able to speak without their politics becoming a licence to dismiss them; those accused are entitled to a process that does not begin with a verdict.
This becomes difficult when we feel that acknowledging another person’s suffering might concede something to a cause we oppose. We can start treating concern as a scarce political resource, something to distribute carefully in case the wrong people benefit.
Consider what that asks of the individual. Their account of something intimate and potentially devastating becomes evidence in somebody else’s argument. Even a sympathetic audience may listen mainly for what can be used against an opponent. The person disappears beneath the usefulness of their suffering.
There is a reasonable objection here: allegations can be exploited, and public attention can outrun evidence. Taking an allegation seriously must include allowing scrutiny, disagreement and the possibility that an initial account will change. Care does not require credulity.
For most of us, the immediate choice is how we speak and what we circulate. We can resist sharing a claim as settled fact because it suits us. We can also refuse the suggestion that an activist’s choices would make abuse less consequential if established.
Neither choice resolves the conflict. They do, however, keep open the possibility of hearing a person whose account may disturb our loyalties. That is already a demanding responsibility, particularly when our own side would rather we stopped listening.