I have no idea why I continue to read Star Parker. I don’t find her to be particularly insightful, and I can’t think of a single instance in which I have agreed with her conclusions.
A recent column, “An allegedly civilized world genuflects to Hamas,” was as offensive as it was sophomoric.
She claimed of the 1,200 Israelis killed in the Hamas attack, that an equal proportion of Americans would be 44,000. It would actually be under 41,000. People often torture numbers to make a point when they aren’t on sound rhetorical ground, and she doesn’t examine the other side of the issue.
The UN reports that 61,000 Gazans have been killed. Reuters places the Gazan population at 2.1 million. Such casualty numbers, 80% civilian, according to Adam Gaffney (“Don’t Believe the Conspiracies About the Gaza Death Toll.” The Nation, 30 May 2024), 70% were women and children, according to Ivana Saric. (“Nearly 70% of verified deaths in Gaza are women and children, “UN report finds”), Axios, 8 Nov. 2024).
These facts statistics underscore her bias. The more horrifying statistic would be that this represents 2.9% of the Gazan population, and an equivalent number of Americans would be 9,876,190. It is foolish to invoke statistics without a thorough examination of the situation. Ms. Parker’s analysis is, at best, one dimensional. Such a flat analysis tends to undermine the validity and morality of the writer’s point.
The right’s frantic claims of antisemitism in the U.S. are unfounded. To be sure, many have been critical of the IDFs actions, particularly as civilian death tolls rise far beyond the levels of Hamas’ initial attack. Hamas’ attack was an act of terrorism; however, Israel’s response had been nothing short of a war crime. Over 1,000 Gazans have been killed in aid lines. There is the uncomfortable fact that many of those protests have nothing to do with religion whatsoever, and more to do with the lack of basic humanity or regard for civilian life in Israel’s military operations.
Ms. Parker can be a lion when unopposed in print, but seems incapable of the rigors of a vigorous debate, where their armchair assertions are subject to examination and a broader range of facts. I suspect this is why I have often seen her articles in print, but have never seen her take an in-person interview.
Brian Barnett
Glendale, Mass.
Comments are closed