Judith Butler giving a lecture. Courtesy of Getty Images
By Mira Fox
March 5, 2024
Judith Butler is far from the only academic to be called a Hamas supporter. Since Oct. 7, numerous professors have made inflammatory statements celebrating or at the very least failing to condemn the violent attack on Israel. But Judith Butler is more than an academic; they’re a thought leader with enormous sway among the left, thanks to their groundbreaking work on gender.
As gender has made its way to the center of public debates, so has Butler. The idea that gender is “performative,” or that “gender is a construct” was made famous in their 1990 book Gender Trouble; today, that idea is so widely accepted as a simple statement of fact that it’s hard to imagine it ever being new.
But that now-mainstream idea has placed Butler in the limelight, and made them a target. And that’s why there’s such an uproar around Butler’s recent statements on the Israel-Hamas war.
“I think it is more honest and historically correct to say that the uprising of Oct. 7 was an act of armed resistance. It is not a terrorist attack and it is not an antisemitic attack. It was an attack against Israelis,” they said at a conference this week in France.
Judith Butler describing the October 7 massacre as armed resistance: “We can have different views about Hamas as a political party, we can have different views about armed resistance. But the uprising of October 7th was an act of armed resistance. This was an uprising” pic.twitter.com/YWqak847lx
— Joseph Hirsch (@josephhirsch5) March 4, 2024
The online rush to condemn their statements was swift, with pro-Israel talking heads including Ben Shapiro and John Podhoretz, editor of Commentarysaying that Butler endorsed the attacks as a legitimate act of resistance against an oppressor, and supports Hamas.
It’s no secret that Butler, who is Jewish, is critical of Israel and Zionism; they are involved with Jewish Voice for Peace and have written extensively on the topic, including in their book Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism.
But their actual statement at the conference was far more moderate than many that have come from the left in recent months; in fact, their argument could even be read as a rebuke to the trend in some activist circles of celebrating the attacks and refusing to acknowledge the pain and destruction caused to Israeli civilians. Instead, the quote people are so riled up about was simply an attempt to agree on language that would enable deeper discussion.
“You know, I did not like that attack,” they said. “The problem is, if you call it armed resistance, you are immediately thought to be in favor of armed resistance, and in favor of that armed resistance and that tactic. It’s like, well actually — maybe not that tactic. We can discuss armed resistance; it is an open debate.”
Butler noted that they have “gotten in trouble,” for calling the Oct. 7 attack “anguishing.” But they also made clear that their point in framing the attack as “armed resistance” was not an endorsement, but instead an acknowledgement that the pain and suffering that the Palestinian people have endured from Israel is also part of the equation in any discussion of the events.
It’s notable that many of the attacks on Butler’s statement also mention their work on gender in disparaging terms in the same post. One X user described Butler as “the philosophical godmother of gender radicalism and pronouns theory” before going on to castigate their remarks, while another noted that they are “one of the founders of trans woo woo/queer theory.”
Although some of the condemnations of Butler’s recent statement are based solely on disagreements about Oct. 7, Israel, Zionism, Palestinians and Hama, many of Butler’s detractors are using — and mischaracterizing — their statements about Oct. 7 as part of a bigger conservative push against leftist ideas.
The focus on Butler seems to come from a broader strategy of using the war to recruit people to rightwing politics. American Jews historically have leaned left, but the harsh criticism of Israel during the war, and the refusal of some liberal activists to condemn the attacks, have opened the door for some to change their political allegiances.
And figureheads on the right are jumping on the opportunity. After all, if people are rejecting Butler as a person or as a thinker based on their statements about Hamas, then perhaps that will lead them to reject Butler’s ideas about gender fluidity down the road — and, eventually, the entire political milieu they represent.
Much of the criticism of Butler’s politics has little connection to what they’ve actually said and written about Israel, Oct. 7 or even gender. In fact, in late October of last year, Butler published an essay in the London Review of Books about the attacks, clearly condemning them, and taking much the same stance as they did in their talk in France this week.
In the essay, Butler urges people to have a more nuanced political take than with or against, Zionist or anti-Zionist; perhaps Butler’s detractors are in fact mad at the lack of absolutes — not unlike Butler’s lack of absolutes about gender. Admittedly, the essay does not offer a clear way forward, but it does push for empathy and consideration of all parties. It’s not a radical take.
Perhaps the more radical idea is the question Butler poses, after condemning Hamas’ actions: “What if our morality and our politics did not end with the act of condemnation?” We’re still waiting to see.
