MALIK: Accountability first, then action
Every day, we wake up and are told that nothing can be done regarding the Israel-Hamas war, whether from the "noble" institutions whose job it is to make sure international law is being followed or if it is the "leader" of the "free" world who is supposedly frustrated, but not enough to stop arming and funding what United Nations (UN) experts are calling a risk of genocide toward the Palestinian people.
Since January 26, when the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to prevent actions within the scope of the Genocide Convention, we have seen the horrifying flour massacre, the killing of more than 6,600 Palestinians and the decimation of al-Shifa hospital.
I was taught that we have outlined carefully what constitutes genocide so we can prevent a conflict from escalating to genocidal intentions. I was taught that institutions were put into place to prevent global tragedies and maintain peace. I was taught that when the world said never again, they meant it.
Genocide can be defined as the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" through actions such as the killing of members of the group, infliction of serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part or imposing of measures intended to prevent births within the group.
UN experts have noted "evidence of increasing genocidal incitement, overt intent to 'destroy the Palestinian people under occupation', loud calls for a 'second Nakba' in Gaza and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, and the use of powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts, resulting in a colossal death toll and destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure."
But what good is our definition of genocide if it does not accompany actions to prevent it? What good are our peaceful institutions if all they can do is categorize rather than cause real action? What good are our leaders if they use their positions to see injustice carried out rather than prevent it?
What we live in is not exactly a culture of inaction but rather, a culture of perceived inaction. Actions are committed without repercussions, and injustice seems inevitable. While we feign accountability by providing aid, we perpetuate injustice through continued inaction.
We are living in the societal equivalent of breaking someone's bone and then putting a band-aid on to fix it. In this scenario, what is being completely disregarded is the power that allows you to break the bone.
The culture we live in avoids accountability by disregarding our own powers. We are fed the idea that our leader can only be frustrated and our institutions are too weak. When the supposedly most powerful in our society are being portrayed as powerless in the face of a global conflict, it is not surprising that citizens act powerless as well and have focused on nonpolitical means of existence.
The Rutgers University Student Assembly's referendum regarding divestment seemed to showcase the individualistic nature of the average citizen, with organized groups giving away sweet treats and boba in front of The Yard @ College Avenue in the hope of getting students' votes.
Student organization managers rushed to their GroupMe chats to prevent discussion on the referendum to keep peace. It felt like a mixture of a corporate-like self-imposed limit to maintain peace and a weird auction where it did not matter where your money went or how much you gave because the result remained the same.
In a society where individuals are constantly robbed of their own merit, how can we be shocked when they would rather save $6 on a boba drink, for a direct result, rather than vote to change the status quo?
If our "noble" institutions sit back every day, despite the strong label from international groups of "genocide," how can we imagine college students to take action?
If people are constantly told to leave their personalities at home and to keep nonpolitical spaces nonpolitical, how can we sit back and judge when people so markedly are able to separate their existence from their morals and political beliefs?
This is in no way an excuse for the people who last week decided to throw their vote away from divestment toward a $2 donut or a $6 boba drink. Believing in your own inability to cause change does not mean that you should support an immoral side, free of judgment. I think it speaks to a great lack of moral character.
Instead, these instances contextualize how our society purposefully creates an increasing number of people who prioritize their individual gain over collective good or simply good that does not directly affect them.
A society that lacks accountability for its most powerful citizens creates a moral vacuum for everyone else, where caring a little is seen as caring too much. The world is not an auction. Your money and your vote matter. They have direct consequences. It is time to start holding people accountable for the consequences of their actions and inactions rather than continuing to enable a cycle of corporate-like inhumanness to keep a peace that is created on the basis of being complicit in injustice.
Sehar Malik is a sophomore in the School of Arts and Sciences majoring in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry and minoring in French. Malik’s column, “People Talking” runs on alternate Tuesdays.
Columns, cartoons, letters and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
YOUR VOICE | The Daily Targum welcomes submissions from all readers. Letters to the editor must be between 350 and 600 words. Commentaries must be between 600 and 900 words. All authors must include their name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Please submit via email to oped@dailytargum.com and eic@dailytargum.com to be considered for publication.
