After Hamas’ raids into Israel, I’ve read some writers defend it because it resistance against the Israelis government’s treatment of the Palestinian people . Like this example from Somdeep Sen, an associate professor of at International Development Studies at Denmark’s Roskilde University:
In fact, what appears to be the largest military response by Palestinians in decades was an inevitable development, an act of resistance and a reaction to the suffering of the people of Gaza under a brutal blockade and occupation. It is part of the Palestinian struggle for freedom, and it solidifies Gaza’s place at the heart of it.
The implication of these arguments is if oppose the attacks, then you’re against the Palestinians. I strongly disagree. Hamas does represent the Palestinian people. They won one election in Gaza, then consolidated power by killing the opposition. This is their war with Israel and they seem to regard the two million residents of Gaza as human shields.
You can oppose both Hamas’ recent massacres and Israel’s inhumane treatment of Palestinians. You can denounce war crimes committed by both sides. You can mourn the deaths on both sides.
Hamas’s “operation “ didn’t advance the Palestinian cause or weaken Israel. Dropping bombs on ambulances or shooting into a rave isn’t resistance. Turning Gaza into an open air prison isn’t protecting Israeli.
I don’t know what the long term solution is. I know there are people on both sides who want a just and lasting peace. I also know there will more bloodshed in the coming days.
I think the Jewish-Arab group Standing Together is on the right track with this statement:
We must not buy into the illusion that security can be achieved through military action. There is no future here—for any of us—without ending the occupation guaranteeing independence, freedom, and security for both nations.
I actually agree with significant parts of this. I take issue with “military response” (though it was an “armed response”). I take issue with “inevitable”, though it was certainly inevitable with no changes in the Israeli blockade of Gaza and… nothing changed. (I simply feel compelled to note that things didn’t have to play out that way.)
The attacks were certainly undertaken as a reaction to the suffering of the people of Gaza. And with so much more focus on West Bank and Israeli settlements within West Bank territory (there are no Israeli settlements within Gaza), they did pull attention to the plight of 2.3 million Palestinians living on the Strip and recentred their concerns.
However, just because one is “resisting” does not mean that was was engaging in “just resistance”. The attacks were vile and terroristic. They disgust me with their overt hatred and their contempt for human life.
That said, how do we acknowledge that we do have enough understanding of human psychology and sociology to predict violent response to a long-term siege that results in 55% of a population of 2.3 million being undernourished? This undernourishment doubles the chance of death by age 5. Hundreds of children each year (if not thousands, I don’t have the stats to hand) are being killed by a deliberate policy of malnutrition.
Is it wrong to say that with this many people in Gaza, and this many children dying, that it is inevitable that some parents and siblings will lash out violently? I quibble with the language “inevitable” because Israel had plenty of opportunities to turn away from a policy of deliberate and enforced starvation, but if you have hindsight and can see that Israel took precisely none of these opportunities, is the description “inevitable” victim blaming or otherwise unjust? Or is it a necessary statement to force us to confront the actual tragedy unfolding before us so that we might actually have a chance of choosing differently in the future?
I don’t know Somdeep Sen. Maybe he’s a violence-loving fuckface. But I don’t really see anything incriminatingly sympathetic to violence in that statement.
I mean, I don’t think that freedom and violence are compatible, so I gag at the phrase, “It is part of the Palestinian struggle for freedom,” but just as bad things have been done in the name of feminism, as misguided efforts at feminist struggle and women’s liberation, so too can we acknowledge that even though we believe that we ourselves would never shoot up a music festival, it’s very hard to put yourself in the mindset of someone watching children die because the military surrounding you won’t let in enough food. Is it, in the Palestinian mind, in the mind of Hamas, part and parcel of the struggle for an end to the blockade and thus for freedom? Yes, of course it is.
It’s nauseating and sickening and hateful, but just because we condemn it doesn’t mean that it’s entirely disconnected from better, more human, even noble efforts to bring attention to the injustices in Gaza and the immediate need for food and the longer term need for freedom and opportunity.
So, sure, condemn all crimes of violence and all that, but I would find this post more helpful if I knew just exactly what it was in Sen’s statement with which you disagree. So far I only know that you believe that “resistance” and “just resistance” are impliedly synonymous, which tells me more about you than about Sen.
You may not like the implications, but was Sen wrong? If so where and how?
I’ve given my own thoughts on this. It would be interesting to see yours.
So… should battered women just take the abuse, and never fight back, either?
@2 – that’s an interesting direction to take.
Should a woman who is assaulted just take the abuse and never fight back?
This is such an astonishingly stupid question that it borders on trolling, but I’ll take it at face value and answer it sincerely: No, obviously, you fucking idiot.
However, presenting this incredibly stupid question here, in this context, invites the reader to compare the Palestinians to the woman in question, and the Israelis to the abusive man. And if one can look past the clumsy phrasing and obviousness of the answer to the question as posed, there is a legitimate question of just what are the reasonable limits of self defence.
(1) If a man punches a woman in the face, is she supposed to just take it? We’ve dealt with that.
(2) If a man punches a woman in the face, can she punch him back? Well, yes, that seems perfectly reasonable. Except: ON AVERAGE, women are physically weaker than men and less inured to physical violence.
Simply advocating for them to hit back in the moment and in kind is not acceptable, especially if the man in question holds power over them by other means, e.g. economically – he’s the owner of the house in which the woman lives, for example. And this actually works as an analogy for Israel and Palestine – Palestine physically isn’t in a position to retaliate in kind – it’s smaller, weaker, and controlled by other means by Israel. Simply advocating “hit back just the same” ignores the massive power differential.
(3)If a man punches a woman in the face, can she hit him back with a weapon? Within reason, this is acceptable (“within reason” – if you’ve disabled him to the point he’s no longer a threat, stop stabbing. If he’s no longer a threat and you keep going, that’s an issue). If you initiate violence, you can’t complain about your victim’s being better equipped than you anticipated – don’t come crying to me if you brought only a fist to a knife-fight that you started. Unfortunately, the analogy to Palestine doesn’t work – Israel has ALL the weapons, and uses them. Palestine by comparison is almost comically under-equipped.
(4) If a man punches a woman in the face, can she wait until he’s asleep and stab him to death in his bed? This is, to me, a tricky one. I find it hard to accept that this is reasonable, yet the justice system lately seems to think it might be. In a military context, however, it’s more understandable – this is asymmetric warfare in a nutshell, and guerilla resistance has to work this way. And my usual objection to the man vs. woman situation (that if he’s asleep you can just leave and not come back – and yes I know there are economic and psychological barriers to that, but still, you’re defending cold-blooded murder…) doesn’t apply here, because Palestinians can’t just pack a small bag and go down the local battered countries refuge.
And now we come to an actual analogous situation:
(5) if a man punches a woman in the face… can she go to his ex-wife’s house and stab his children to death, then go back to him and tell him?
Because that’s what we’re talking about here. A carefully planned, pre-meditated, awful attack on people who have personally had nothing to do with the violence that has ostensibly been the reason for the “retaliation”, effected against innocent persons peripherally connected to those responsible for the provocation, intended (presumably) to be revenged on those responsible by causing them pain, doing nothing to prevent further violence and in fact inviting it.
While Palestinian violent resistance to Israeli occupation is, in general, understandable and acceptable (and indeed legal in international law for an occupied people), in this specific instance I find it hard to defend what’s been done here due to its horrific, unfocused nature and obvious counter-productive effect.
When I was young and naive, I thought I’d live to see a solution. I no longer think I shall, nor do I think my children will. I don’t think there is one.
Then Palestinians are justified in fighting back against their abuser, Israel. And they have the right to use as much force as needed to prevent Israel from harming them further.
Addendum: “(5) if a man punches a woman in the face… can she go to his ex-wife’s house and stab his children to death, then go back to him and tell him?”
But that’s what Israel does to Palestine all the time. Indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people in the hopes they might get the “terrorist”. Palestine hasn’t done anything even comparable.
And — last one, promise — thank you for understanding my point.
Abuse is abuse, whether it’s in the home or on an international scale. And abuse is unacceptable.
The Palestinians are under a military occupation. So, one question would be whether they would be justified in offering armed resistance against Israeli military targets?
It is a fact that all resistance by the Palestinians is met with collective punishment and area bombardment. That is unquestionably a crime against humanity. So is Israel’s stopping their water and electricity. So is the US’ providing Israel weapons that it knows will be used in crimes against humanity.
It’s really easy to sit back and play armchair general, but I think the Palestinians could do a lot of damage if they leaned more toward insurgency strategy instead of terrorism tactics. If they really wanted to see some shit hit the fan, they could try using those katyusha rockets as horizontal direct-fire weapons against military targets, instead of lofting them up at civilian targets where iron dome can get them. Just using them to blow some big holes in the wall would dramatically raise the cost of the thing, and every guard-post would need to become a bunker. If you want to see what I’m talking about, Bernard Fall’s Street Without Joy describes some of the problems the French had with their attempt to divide Vietnam along the De Lattre line, which turned out to be harder to defend than it was to build, because every bunker is now an isolated point of attack. etc. Those whacky French just gotta Maginot, you know?
PS – attacking the Israeli military is, of course, hellaciously tough and expensive. That’s rather the point of the Israeli military. But, they are also extremely expensive, themselves, and I’d bet that if they had a few tanks get brewed up with katyushas there would be severe freakout and, of course, retaliatory crimes against humanity. The Palestinians would have to play media wars better than they have, to date.
WMDKitty@#4:
Then Palestinians are justified in fighting back against their abuser, Israel. And they have the right to use as much force as needed to prevent Israel from harming them further.
I’d recommend Cecile Fabre et al, The morality of defensive warfare. It makes some good arguments that violence in defense is also pretty problematic. Certainly offensive violence is always a crime – but if you’re hitting back, you have a targeting problem: is it OK to go after anyone in the oppressor’s uniform? Or anyone in their supply chain? Or their government? What about front line soldiers? What about the cooks that make breakfast for the front line soldiers? One of the questions they ask, which I found problematic, is “is it OK to put a bomb in the oppressor’s mess hall?” Well, you might get some officers and front line soldiers, but you’re also going to get the cooks and dishwashers and cooks and dishwashers are noncombatants. The whole notion of noncombatants is complicated, too. If putting a bomb in a military mess hall is OK, what about a military hospital? Ugh. The problems multiply.
I think a freedom fighter is on safe ground if they learn to snipe, and start picking off enemy officers and front line soldiers, or doing like the Ukrainians are doing and dropping grenades into tank hatches with drones. But even that probably winds up blowing up a few noncombatant mechanics.
Another view on the defensive war issue is that it’s justified to go after your oppressor’s economy based on the argument that their economy is what enables their war efforts so, hey, blow it up. That leads directly to attacks on high value economic targets like the World Trade Center in New York. I have heard arguments that 9/11 was a legitimate attack on the US economy in the context of a war declared by Bin Laden in 1996 (he published a declaration of war, which is more than many nations bother to do!) In fact the US began its assault on Iraq by blowing up high value economic targets like power stations and municipal buildings. So apparently that is how things are done.
The Vietcong’s answer would be counter-force insurgency. Vo Nguyen Giap created an attractive insurgency nuisance and lured the French into coming to establish a firebase to assault them – a firebase in a place called Dien Bien Phu. Bad news for the French – it was a trap. Giap did the same thing to the US Marines at Da Nang many years later. Both of those traps had profound effects on the invader, to the point where the US nearly used nuclear weapons after Da Nang. And that is another problem – who wants to bet that Israel wouldn’t go completely over the top? I wouldn’t want to bet 100,000 lives on Israel’s good behavior — and Israel makes sure nobody wants to take that bet. If Palestinian insurgents set up a mouse-trap and clobbered an Israeli incursion force, Israel would make sure it was a pyrric victory.
Crip Dyke: Happy to reply. I quoted Sen as an example of black and white thinking that I think is wrong. Instead of quoting the person who inspired my post, I decided to respect their privacy. I agree with him that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, which worsened under Netanyahu, means it’s wrong to say the attack was unprovoked.
To rephrase, one can both support the Palestinian’s right to self-determination and be critical of Hamas’s actions. Like wise, one can express support for the people killed and injured in Israel, and still be critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. So I won’t be “standing with Israel” because, to me, that means uncritical and unconditional support for Israel. I hate their apartheid rule of the West Bank.
I also agree that Israel had plenty of opportunities to resolve this conflict peacefully. Based on Israel’s past response to violence, I expect a disproportionate number of Palestinian casualties. I would love to be wrong about this.
You can reach out to me on the back channel or my email if you have more questions.
WMDKitty–Survivor: You’re confusing the tactics of resistance with the concept of resistance. Resisting the blockade of Gaza, in general, is correct. How Hamas is conducting that resistance, like attacking a rave, the possible rape of female POW, and bombing an ambulance, is inhumane and will do more harm to Palestinian civilians. Conversely, countries, in general, have a right to protect their citizens. Israel’s practices, however, violate human rights, kill innocent people, create political prisoners, build resentment, and ultimately don’t protect its citizens.
Bombs and bullets won’t solve the conflict. I don’t know how to get to the solution. There are Palestinians and Israelis who are trying to bring about peace. They may not have the power to make changes now, but maybe someday they will.
Crip Dyke… @ # 1: … just as bad things have been done in the name of feminism…
Please name a few. All I can think of is Valerie Solanas, maybe Lorena Bobbitt (did she explicitly cite feminism?), and some antis getting roughed up at clinics – all directed at specific individuals (each of whom survived), not the wholesale slaughter begun 5 days ago. What feminist butcheries have I missed?
@WMDKitty, 6:
You’re welcome. Thank you for doing what I expected you to do, and missing mine entirely.
You seem (deliberately) not to understand that there is no amount of force available to them that will achieve that aim.
You also seem to have missed the point of my expansion of your analogy, and you’re actively advocating scenario 5. In fact, your response to scenario 5 is instructive of your mindset:
In other words, “they started it” AND, for bonus points, “the Palestinians atrocity of indiscriminate killing isn’t as large or effective as some of Israel’s, so it’s AOK”.
I mean – you have seen the news in the last week, right? No, wait, let me guess – it’s “fake news”. The attack on the music festival was a false flag operation planned and executed by the Israelis to make the concurrent Palestinian operation (that they evidently had NO idea was coming) look worse. And so on.
You’re condoning the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants. Say it out loud, clearly, then we can firmly decide what sort of person you are (if we haven’t already…)
@mjr, 8:
Well yes… but expensive to whom?
Not the Israelis for sure – they’re not spending their own money on those Apaches, they’re spending YOUR tax dollars, given to them gratis by the USA on the understanding that they pinky promise to spend them all right back there in the USA buying expensive weapons systems and guaranteeing American jobs.
The more I think about it, the more the word “expensive” becomes entirely meaningless in this context. The US is for all practical purposes a bottomless pit of money, after all. Normal economic considerations don’t apply. The idea that Israel would give a monkey’s how much their equipment costs is at best uninformed.
————————-
I’ve just thought a little further about WMDKitty’s assertion here:
Tell me you’re condoning genocide, without saying you’re condoning genocide. smh
That claim is far from self-evident. I agree with Marcus that it would be interesting if they decided to adopt more effective tactics as part of a coherent strategy instead of aiming to cause random mayhem and terror.
Israel doesn’t have an infinite number of soldiers. War of attrition.
Ok. As much as WMDKitty is being unreasonable, this right here is not a fair characterization of their position. You’re obviously extrapolating much further than the intention and reasonable person reading.
me @ # 12: Crip Dyke… @ # 1: … just as bad things have been done in the name of feminism…
Perhaps time for a correction. I’d first read CD’s comment as stating things “just as bad” had been done in that name; now I suspect she meant “just as” things we’d consider bad had been done, but not equivalently bad.
English – how does it work?
@16:
Quite simple, it’s one of those irregular verbs:
1. I made myself perfectly clear and can hardly be blamed for your lack of comprehension skills.
2. Your phrasing was muddled and I cannot be blamed for taking the obvious interpretation even if that wasn’t what you meant.
3. They are a fascist bigot.
WMK, 6: [the Palestinians/Hamas] have the right to use as much force as needed to prevent Israel from harming them further.
Me, 13: You seem (deliberately) not to understand that there is no amount of force available to them that will achieve that aim.
Gerrard, 15: That claim is far from self-evident
Really? You think that the Palestinians, hemmed in and blockaded in the Gaza Strip, have a realistic option that can prevent Israel, a country many times their size that has air superiority and nuclear weapons, from harming them? What are they using to repel attacks in your world? The Force? Harsh language?
Unless some outside force (Iran? Russia?) openly and MASSIVELY increases their logistical support for Gaza, the Palestinians have nothing… unless you know better. Do please describe what you think will allow them to force Israel to stop bothering them.