"Lip Sympathies" and the Indomitable Spirit of Resistance

A friend recently expressed distress over the "lip sympathies" offered by liberals for the suffering Palestinians. My response was this:

Historically, the oppressed have always had to fight their own battles. Even in Gaza, the so-called "lip sympathies" are inextricably tied to the Palestinians' relentless resistance to oppression. Our moral outrage—yours and mine—stems not just from their suffering but from the indomitable spirit of those who refuse to submit.

What if the Palestinians had chosen the easy path—meekly accepting their subservient role? Given the staggering power asymmetry, surrender might seem the "rational" choice. After all, those who comply with exploitation often avoid violence. They might even be fed, clothed, and superficially valued—much like slaves who never revolted, or cows worshipped by those who shackle them, control their bodies, and commodify their existence.

But here’s the deeper truth: cooperative social outcomes are not born of innate morality alone. Some conditions awaken our cooperative instincts; others bring out our selfishness. Humanity thrives on this tension. Stability is not the absence of conflict but the equilibrium of opposing forces. Remove one, and the system collapses into instability.

The Palestinians' struggle is a reminder: to be human is to resist when the world demands submission.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Limits of Rationalism?

Compared to the many other parts of India, rationalist movement took roots much earlier in Kerala. This development also intersected with leftist ideologies that emphasized social justice, equality, and scientific temper. This collaboration helped in gaining wider popular support for rationalist principles in the early 20th century. However, the movement has undergone sharp ideological cleavage in last decade (as indeed, many nuclear families have!) The group identified mainly with Dr C Viswanathan views irrational beliefs as something that afflicts all religions, as also some atheistic political ideologies. In contrast, the other group that idolizes Prof C Ravichandran seeks to target Islam in particular -- often supporting aspects of the Muslim-baiting agenda of the RSS -- such the UCC, opposition to Reservations, support for the criminalizing of "Triple Talaq", CAA and so on. A Left Vs Right split! Mulling on the above scenario, I have had some insights that I wish to shar...
Read more
Race, Caste and Breed Most people agree that all humans belong to the same species -- but some insist that we belong to different "races". This is often done in a flippant manner, without defining what is "race" in a biological sense. There are many "average" differences between Tamil Brahmins as group and a Kashmiri Brahmins as a group. Can these average differences be used to categorize them as belonging to different races (in a biological sense)? If not so, then what is the threshold of "biological difference" that would place a person in one "race" rather than in another? Biology has NOT found such a definable threshold.  What about dog "breeds"? Why are these breeds NOT called dog "races"? Different breeds of dogs have huge differences in external appearance, size, intelligence etc (much more so than between African humans and Caucasian humans). Yet, all dog breeds are biologically grouped in the same biological...
Read more
  The Revolution’s Gentle Dawn—And the Lessons We Lost Introduction In the winter of 1917, Russia did the impossible: it toppled a 300-year autocracy without firing a shot . Crowds melted imperial insignia into souvenir medallions; soldiers and students debated socialism in tram cars. John Reed, the American journalist who wandered Petrograd in those days, wrote: "It was less a revolution than a festival of hope." The tragedy is not that violence came later—but that it didn’t have to. The revolution’s bloodless birth proves change can be gentle. Its collapse proves how easily we forget that. 1. The Peaceful Revolution The February Revolution (March 1917 by our calendar) was a marvel of restraint: The Czar’s Quiet Exit : Nicholas II abdicated after his own generals refused to crush protests. The crowds didn’t storm the Winter Palace—they ignored it. A clerk’s diary noted: "The Tsar left like a guest who overstayed." The...
Read more