Since October 7th, there has been a lot of effort across media - major, minor, and social - to put the attacks committed by Hamas against Israeli civilians in context. To explain why so many Palestinian men would eagerly participate in acts of savagery, and why so many Palestinians would openly celebrate them. This contextualizing began immediately, and has continued apace as TV and phone screens have been flooded with images of the aftermath of Israeli airstrikes in Gaza. Plenty of examples can be found in which highly educated people try to put us in the shoes (and heads, and hearts!) of terrorists. The ultimate goal seems to be to shape the perception of observers so that the attacks of October 7th are seen not as a beginning of something new, but as a response to something that happened before, and therefore, not really bad.
Of course, trying to know history is admirable. It is also incredibly difficult to do fully. And when it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian issue, it is arguably impossible to bone up on all of the necessary backstory over the course of a day (or week) of deep reading to then walk away with an understanding that would allow someone to claim anything resembling expertise. Because of the depth of the relevant history, there is always one more tidbit that can be added to the conversation to try to tip the scales of bias in one direction or the other. Where in time an observer starts to view the conflict will also likely determine what they believe about which side has been more wronged, or which side “started it” when it comes to violence. Does the clock start on October 7th 2023? Certainly not. How about 2007? Or 2000? 1993? 1973? 1967? 1948? 1917? 1897? Hell, if we really want to we can cruise well back before the Ottoman Empire rose and fell to the Roman destruction of the second temple of David in the year 70 (and maybe before). But it would be pretty stupid to do so, wouldn’t it? When we deal with matters in the present, of course context is helpful, but it cannot be weighted to such a degree that proximate causes in the here and now become diluted beyond register, if for no other reason than the fact that the past and the people who made it and suffered it directly, are gone. It cannot be unmade. It’s a deep well of unknowable and unquantifiable activity that can be used to justify anything.
This morning I found this interview of Ghazi Hamad of the Hamas political bureau on Memri.org. In the video, Hamad makes some pretty clear statements. For one, he says that the October 7th attacks in Israel, Operation Al-Aqsa flood, were the first of many, and that he doesn’t really care how many Palestinians are killed by any Israeli military response.
“We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do this again and again. The Al-Aqsa Flood is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth, because we have the determination, the resolve, and the capabilities to fight. Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.”
Aside from unequivocally saying that Israel must be destroyed, he also washes his hands - and those of Hamas and the Palestinian people at large - of any guilt or responsibility for any action they take, no matter how heinous.
“We are the victims of the occupation. Period. Therefore, nobody should blame us for the things we do. On October 7, October 10, October 1,000,000 – everything we do is justified.”
What is anyone supposed to do with such a position? Mr. Hamad, representing Hamas and the Palestinians who support them, is basically saying that they will not negotiate, that they will commit acts of unspeakable violence against individual civilians again and again, and that they consider anything they do to be justified. From a position of suicidal weakness, Hamas is saying, “Come at me bro!” What possible response could the Israeli government have to such an antagonist that would satisfy the world’s scrutinizing moralists short of surrender? There isn’t one. Hamas has made it clear, it’s us or you and we’ll die trying to make it you, and for some reason a large portion of westerners are looking at the war unfolding in Gaza and then nodding their heads along to this ultimatum.
But let us ask, “What would Gaza look like right now if Hamas had never ordered operation Al-Aqsa Flood?” If roughly fifteen-hundred militants hadn’t streamed across the border into Israel to engage in the medieval slaughter and butchering of Israeli families, would there be a campaign of military bombardment against the Gaza strip right now? I think it’s pretty obvious that the answer is no. The massive act of coordinated and long premeditated barbarism committed by Hamas (and PIJ) against Israeli civilians is the proximate cause of the IDF action currently happening in Gaza. That’s it. If we want the ongoing death to halt, we need to address the proximate cause. And that’s why Hamas should surrender. The hashtags and banners and protests that are ostensibly in support of Palestinian civilians should not be calling for a ceasefire, because as Ghazi Hamad promised, Hamas will repeat their acts of terror again, and again, and again, until they get what they want, and what they want is ungivable. Further, despite being the government elected to govern the Palestinians of Gaza, Hamas does not give a damn if Palestinian men, women, and children die en masse. To Hamas, the whole population are martyrs in waiting. Israel, however, does care about its citizens, and cannot allow Hamas to make good on their promises to murder and mutilate Israelis wherever they can from now until forever.
There is no context that makes any of Hamas’s declared intentions OK. And frankly, even if there is a long list of valid grievances the Palestinian people can point to vis-a-vis Israel, those grievances will never be addressed in any satisfying way if Hamas continues on its current strategic trajectory. So not only Hamas’s plan horrific and vile, it is also just plain stupid. But something tells me that their leaders living in plush condos in Qatar don’t really care. If the conscientious citizens of the globe do, the probably aught to stop reciting poorly grasped context that is indistinguishable from Jihadist rhetoric.
With all due respect, John, this really doesn't seem very fair or balanced. You're acting as if the murder of thousands of civilians is more justifiable when the slaughter is conducted by a state. Could you expand upon this point please?
You know that I have a ton of respect for your work, but when you're calling for Hamas to surrender, you're calling for an oppressed group to submit to their oppression. You're tacitly making the argument that Might Makes Right.
My perspective is that two wrongs don't make a right. To put all the blame on Hamas is to ignore historical context, including the recent past. Do you know about the Great March of Return? How about the Dahiya Doctrine?
I refer you to this article, which briefly explains both: https://nevermoremedia.substack.com/p/the-dahiya-doctrine-proves-that-israel
Quoting from Colter Louwerse:
“Those now championing the Israeli onslaught will reply that the critical difference between Palestinian “terror” and Israeli “self-defence” is, whereas the horrific massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas a week ago was targeted and deliberate, Israel’s killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza is incidental and unintended. “Civilians … are very deliberately the target of Hamas operations,” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken argued. “They are not the target of Israeli operations.”
However, to propagate the latter claim is to exploit an audience bereft of historical memory.
Lest it be forgotten, five years ago, the people of Gaza launched an unarmed, popular, and grassroots protest movement near the Gaza security fence. Dubbed the Great March of Return, these mass Palestinian demonstrations aimed inter alia at lifting the illegal and inhuman Israeli blockade, which after almost two decades of economic strangulation rendered the Gaza Strip—in the words of a few reputable observers—a “sinking ship” (International Committee of the Red Cross), “unlivable” (UN Country Team), a “ghetto” (Ha’aretz Editorial Board), and a “toxic slum”, in which Palestinians “are caged … from birth to death” (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Ziad Rifai).
And how did Israel greet Gaza’s non-violent, ghettoized, demonstrators? With a “murderous assault” (Amnesty International), involving “individual snipers safely ensconced hundreds of feet, even farther, away, targeting individual protestors and executing them one at a time.” (Human Rights Watch Near East Director Sarah Leah Whitson). An exhaustive investigation by a Commission of the UN Human Rights Council subsequently determined that, in brutally suppressing the demonstrations, Israeli snipers “deliberately targeted” Palestinian health workers, journalists, disabled people, and children for death.”
And to answer your question as to where to start the story, I would suggest that the roots of the present conflict go back to the Balfour Declaration. It is a result of British imperialists basically giving land that wasn't theirs to an ultra-rich Jewish banking dynasty. Yeah, yeah, I know you're not supposed to put it in so few words, but the Balfour Declaration literally begins with the words DEAR LORD ROTHSCHILD.
We need to not being afraid of telling it how it is. This is WWIII, John. It's everyone against Israel. Are you going to instinctively side with a genocidal regime actively involved in a campaign of terror against a civilian population which obviously has the goal of ethnic cleansing?
Let me say again that I greatly respect your work, and I was considering reaching out to you to write something about your position. Clearly, we see things quite differently.
If you would like to write something directly addressing our audience, I would be happy to publish it. Though far from ideologically homogenous, we are very much for the cause of Palestinian liberation. I imagine that you support Palestinian freedom as well... but you don't seem to offer in the way of ideas about they might fight for their rights in a way that won't be completely ignored.
Perhaps we've been pro-Palestinian to the point of being imbalanced, and the fact is that we don't want to take sides in what is basically a race war. On the other hand, my instinctive sympathies are with the oppressed against the oppressor, and it's undeniable that Israel is an apartheid state, to put it mildly.
You also don't address the fact that Israel has supported Hamas in the past and there are major questions about the "intelligence failure" of October 7th. A lot of people are calling this a false flag, and it's worth looking into. Israel wanted an excuse to drive the Palestinians out, and now they've got one. I hope to see you address this in a future piece.