“We condemn the horrific terrorist attack in Israel that took the lives of innocent men, women, and children. There is no justification for the massacre that unfolded. We pray for the victims’ families and reaffirm our commitment to stand with our Jewish community in this challenging time to ensure their protection against any potential threats against them.” 

This statement, or any amalgamation, should have been the de facto response from any person or institution needing to comment on what occurred in Israel. While some statements from Jacksonville leaders hit the correct tone, I was shocked to see many that missed the mark — and some that appeared to justify Hamas’ attack, particularly from those who consider themselves social justice advocates. 

In America, the modern social justice movement centers on the idea that a person’s indifference to the injustice or inequities of the contemporary American system is equivalent to violence. A person, particularly a person of a majority ethnic group or a member of a high socioeconomic class with privilege from the system, must not only speak out but actively work to divest themselves of privilege and seek to right the ills plaguing society. 

With that in mind, I found the reaction of some local politicians regarding the tragedy contradictory at best and, at worst, incomprehensibly tone-deaf. 

The first example was the statement of state Rep. Angie Nixon, D-Jacksonville, a self-styled community organizer who rode into office during the social justice protests in 2020. Before going further, I believe Rep. Nixon has raw political talent and a deep connection with her constituents rivaled by few electeds. The Florida House of Representatives is surely just the first stop in her life in public service. 

Article continues below

More from Jax Today

PHOTO ESSAY | What happens after Jacksonville flushes

Nights of Lights will shine this weekend in St. Augustine

UF Health begins expansion of trauma center

Jacksonville Today thanks our sponsors. Become one.

Two days after the attack, Nixon posted a statement on X referencing lives being “lost on both sides.” She also condemned “unjust killings” without saying who was responsible for said killings.  

Then, after receiving pressure, Nixon deleted her original statement and penned a new post, which said, “I’m angered by how many Palestinians have been treated for years, but the terrorism from Hamas is wrong and should be condemned, period” along with a screenshot from a post from Amy Schumer. 

In the past, Nixon has felt the moral clarity to call out politicians for pushing rhetoric and policies that led to the horrific racist shooting that took place in our city. However, her first statement failed to say “terrorism” or even blame Hamas. Additionally, her second statement condemned the treatment of Palestinians before condemning Hamas. Why does a terrorist attack that resulted in the most Jews killed since the Holocaust require a “both sides” reaction?

Of course, many people sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians, who will suffer due to Israel’s response, but if leaders fail to call out terrorism, how can they expect citizens to take their side on an issue such as social justice? 

Additionally, Rep. Nixon’s need to condemn Israel’s past actions is an action of moral equivalency that I know she would not condone in other circumstances. Like in 2020, when Steve Zona, the local Fraternal Order of Police president, posted on X a thread in which he criticized violence at a protest that occurred shortly after the George Floyd murder. 

In response, Nixon knocked Zona for not condemning the killing of unarmed Black people by police as well as alleged police violence that occurred during the protest. She also asked him to condemn the alleged agnostic actions of police officers on the scene. 

Mayor Donna Deegan, who aligned herself with the social justice movement in the run-up to her taking office, also deserves criticism. In her statement, the mayor did the bare minimum and condemned Hamas’ actions. However, in the end, her statement called for “a path for peace to be found.” 

Asking for a path for peace after Israel suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history seems to ignore not only the suffering of its people but also a failure to see the current situation for what it is. The only path for peace available at this point with Hamas, an organization committed to the genocide of all Jews, is its complete destruction. That does not mean an endorsement of the wholescale suffering of Palestinians. It means recognizing that Israel, like any nation, has a definitive right to respond to protect its citizens.  

Social justice has been a movement that has built a foundation on condemning injustice locally, statewide, and nationally. However, if leaders fail to call out terrorism and feel the need to equivocate or fail to call out the evil in the world for what it is, then what exactly what does social justice mean? 

Lead image: Democratic Rep. Angie Nixon of Jacksonville (center) sits on the Florida state seal in protest of congressional redistricting by the Florida Legislature in 2022. | AP