Skip to main content

One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This, by Omar El Akkad. A Book Review by a Fellow Traveler

How does it feel to live in a time when no one is stopping a genocide?

That’s the question Omar El Akkad addresses in his new book, One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This.



This book can be called a "personal memoir," as some reviewers have done, but not in a dismissive way. The author is sharing his consciousness, like in an intimate diary. He speaks to the reader as a recently naturalized citizen of the US, and as an immigrant from the Middle East (born in Egypt).

He tells us about his personal experience of being baffled over how people in the West, especially in the US, can fancy themselves as exemplars of righteousness, and even supporters of the underdog, while letting their government supply a genocide. He shares his befuddlement without preaching at us. This is not a noisy protest. He doesn't rail against Israel's astonishing cruelty, nor chide the US for its complicity, but rather describes his personal experience as a person living in a world where a genocide proceeds unhampered by any other country.

He does side with those who protest. He admires those courageous students building encampments to protest the genocide in Gaza. He understands that harms may be done to some of their careers because of their public expressions of moral anguish and outrage. Indeed, an agreement to make a movie based on his novel, American War, was canceled, at least in part, because of his public protest against the genocide. Actor friends had suffered similar harms to their careers. For speaking out against the genocide, people of heightened moral sensitivities are unjustly labeled “antisemitic.” While not using the term, he recognizes that the New McCarthyism has had numerous victims.

But, in his view, authentic moral sensitivity sometimes demands self-sacrifice, even though that is contrary to the American philosophy of self-interest.

What he finds incomprehensible is the vast majority of moral duds, in and out of government, who just let the genocide grind along. Without effective political pressure intervening, it seems that the only way it will end is when there is nobody left to kill, and nothing left to destroy. (He doesn’t say this, but the actual world we are living in today makes a mockery of Stephen Pinker’s Pollyannish celebration of humanity’s “great” moral progress, made in The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, written before the genocide in Gaza.)

Throughout the book, I felt that Omar El Akkad is a kindred spirit. In this sense, the book was comforting for me. I too am deeply disturbed at the indifference the Western world, especially the US, shows towards the awful suffering of those human beings in Gaza. While I would describe my experience differently, and probably with less measure, getting an in-depth insight into the way in which Omar is baffled by the realities of the present shows me that I’m not alone in my own dismay.

I have two mild criticisms of the book. The first is that, unlike John Mearsheimer or Jeffery Sachs, Omar seems unaware of the power the Zionist Lobby has over the US, and other, governments. That’s never mentioned. Secondly, and unfortunately, the book does nothing to relieve my feelings of helplessness as first a Democratic administration, and then a Republican administration, showers Israel with arms and money, and unconditional encouragement to do as it pleases.

Clearly, there is no happy ending to this book. But it is an eloquent expression of a mind stunned by living in the moral desert we call “America.” I’m glad to have such companionship.

William J. Kelleher, PhD

#Gaza #GazaGenocide #Israel #Books

@WilliamJKelleh1

@drwjk.bsky.social

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How the “But For” Test for Causation in Law can be Adapted to Political Science

For social science, as for law, the concept of “causation” can  take on different forms. These forms of causation are “outside   the box” of the old Newtonian concept of causation. That is, a   one-on-one collision. For example, the “8 ball” in a pool game moved to the corner pocket because the cue ball struck it at the intended angle. The cue ball did that because Minnesota Fats hit the cue ball just right with his pool stick. This is a mechanistic model of causation. In that model, the list of causes prior to Minnesota Fats could go back endlessly; or at least to the Big Bang of 13.8 billion years ago, which, mechanistically, is thought to be the First Cause of everything. However, for the most part, social science, like law, envisions human behavior as conduct for which the actors are responsible. This need not be a “moral” responsibility, for which moral blame is attached. Instead, “causal responsibility” is simply a matter-of-fact, or practical, concept...

RIP Prop 33 😭 What happened?

Why did Prop 33 lose in California? Here are three reasons, although there could be more:  1) Out of state billionaire real estate special interests, combined with in-state millionaire Landlord orgs, spent over $121,000,000 on telling scary falsehoods to Californians. Like, rent control will cause rents to go up, and affordable housing will disappear. They just needed to cause enough confusion about the meaning of Prop 33 to get the voters – even tenants! – to vote no.   2) As I explain in a vid on YouTube,* the California Legislative Analyst presented a biased and negative summary of Prop 33 in the Voter Guide. That was sent out to 22M Californians. For many voters, it was the one and only thing they would read about Prop 33. The law requires the Legislative Analyst to suggest the economic impact of a prop for both state and local gov – but only a negative view was given, and only for the state gov – “tens of millions” would be lost in tax revenues, it said. But renters w...

Executive Immunity – Beyond the Hype

                                           The media and fund raising emailers are having a ball screaming “the sky is falling! The Trump Supreme Court has given Trump ‘absolute immunity’ for whatever he wants to do as President. He’ll kill us all!” But that’s far from true. The United States v Trump The case is known as US v Trump . In its opinion, the Supreme Court didn’t give Trump anything. In fact, the Court remanded the case to the District Court, and told the lawyers for both sides to start all over again. This time, they have to consider three important points. Before explaining these, lets see how the case got to the High Court. As you probably know, Trump was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for several criminal charges alleging a conspiracy to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. (SCt's Opinion, page 2. All references to the Opinion.) In the...