Why should I? I reject the premise of the question.
[Sure, go ahead and add me to your “terrorism watchlist” if that makes you feel better. It’s not as if I’m going to give up my right to free speech. I have principles, y’all.]
To declare up front that you condemn Hamas for the alleged “atrocities” committed on Oct 7 is begging the question—and I mean the true form of begging the question that is a form of fallacious logical reasoning. You cannot begin the discussion by asking me to assume the very conclusion you are intending to argue for.
Besides, what does it matter whether I condemn Hamas? What is the point of the question? What are you trying to accomplish? It seems the point is purely to begin the conversation from a place of prejudice against the Palestinians. Furthermore, the question, Do you condemn Hamas?, assumes adequate knowledge of the events of Oct 7, something I am unwilling to simply give to you even just for the sake of argument, because it really matters here what actually took place. (I will get into that discussion in another essay.) To grant you that assumption would be to give in to your prejudice against the Palestinians. The problem with that is that the origin of that prejudice is inherently causally related to the very thing for which Hamas is “on trial”, so to speak. For, that prejudice derives from the oppressor and occupier who created the very situation the Palestinians are resisting and fighting against; and that very resistance is what lies at the heart of the issue that Oct 7 brought to the table. Thus, to give in to your prejudice against the Palestinians and against Hamas would bias the conversation in a way that is significantly relevant to the topic of the conversation itself, and is antithetical to the purpose of the conversation.
And being antithetical to the conversation is precisely the point of biasing the discussion against the Palestinians from the outset; because it is a way of undermining the conversation and ultimately shutting it down.
(You will have noticed I refer both to Hamas and the Palestinians above. Am I guilty of equating referring to the Palestinians with referring to Hamas? Yes, but for the purposes of this particular essay, I think this is permissible. But I must emphasize the nuance that I am talking about equating and interchanging referring to the Palestinians and referring to Hamas, not equating the people themselves. On the one hand, in the context of the overall conversation being had by people all over the world, referring to Hamas is effectively equivalent to referring to the Palestinians and vice versa because, broadly speaking, the participants of the conversation treat them as equivalent in meaning more often than not. While I am normally one to obsessively nitpick such things—normally I’d be pounding my fist on the table insisting on the distinction between Hamas and the Palestinians, as well as between Hamas and Al-Qassam, as well as between Hamas and the other political factions and their own militia groups—on the other hand, referring to the Palestinians and referring to Hamas are so deeply connected in social meaning and in an historical sense that, for certain statements and claims, they may be spoken of as if equivalent without much degradation in truthfulness. But again, only so long as those claims are sufficiently limited and within the scope of certain topics of the conversation. And besides, let’s be honest here: there are certain people who actually do mean the Palestinians in general when they say “Hamas”, even when they claim they only mean Hamas and not all Palestinians.)
I would condemn Hamas no more than I would condemn any of the Native Americans for what they did to the European settlers who invaded and stole their land and were brutal savages to them. I would condemn Hamas no more than I would condemn the black slaves here in the U.S. who fought back against their brutal enslavement and oppression and attacked the slaveholders, or even whites in general, even when they killed them. I would condemn Hamas no more than I would condemn any battered, beaten, and brutalized woman by her abusive husband or boyfriend when she had finally had enough and fought back to end the abuse for good.
In fact, I doubt you would have any difficulty in understanding that abused and brutalized woman when she finally, let’s say, took a shotgun and killed her abuser at point blank range. You wouldn’t have trouble distinguishing the difference between, on the one hand, understanding why she did it and thus not condemning her for it, and on the other hand, endorsing her action. You would be able to agree with the statement, or in the very least the sentiment, “I’m not endorsing what she did; but, I don’t blame her either: it makes sense why she did it. I’m not going to condemn her for that.” Notice that the use of the term “blame” here doesn’t mean “being causally responsible for”. Obviously, she caused his death, she is the one who is responsible for doing it. To say that we don’t blame her for it is to say something about our attitude towards her, how we feel about her, that we don’t hold what she did against her, that we don’t draw a negative judgment of her moral character, and that we don’t condemn her.
And thus, in the exact same way, I do not and will not condemn Hamas; but it doesn’t logically follow that I am endorsing their actions. I don’t condemn them, because I don’t blame them. (To some of you who are sharply logically inclined: yes, what I have said also doesn’t mean I am not endorsing their actions.)
Now I will take it one step further. The abused and brutalized woman has a right to resist being abused and brutalized, and has a right to fight back as a means for that resistance. The same goes for the Palestinians: they have a right to resist being oppressed and brutalized and dehumanized and imprisoned and occupied and tortured, and so they have a right to fight back, and fight back with arms as a means for that resistance. In this case, that resistance manifests in the form of armed resistance militias like the Al-Qassam Brigades (the military wing of Hamas), and the militias of other resistance/political groups. The Palestinians have a specific right to organized militia groups in order to resist their oppression and occupation. For, how else could they attempt to fight back and resist against a formalized, organized, official and professional army with the full technical range of weaponry? (Not even to mention, the help of extremely well-equipped allies!) To deny them the opportunity or ability or freedom to form their own organized militia, and seek out weaponry for themselves, would be a way of violating their inherent right to resist oppression and occupation.
I don’t condemn Hamas, or any other Palestinians, because what they engaged in on Oct 7 was a powerful act of resistance against a fascistic and sadistic regime of occupation and oppression that had imprisoned them into a concentration camp, and continues to this day to do so. I will not condemn people breaking out of a concentration camp and trying to resist and fight back against their oppressors in whatever way they can that might make a difference. This last bit is crucial, because it is not sufficient in order to satisfy the right to resist if acts of resistance are only allowed up to a point that is designed to never breach beyond futility and thus to always fall short of accomplishing the bare minimum of successful resistance.
I will bring that last point into perspective regarding Oct 7, since we all have to keep pretending the historical clock starts on that date. Al-Qassam carried out an extremely carefully planned and detailed military operation they named Al-Aqsa Flood. (Note: just because it was carefully planned and quite detailed does not entail that, when carried out, every single moment played out according to the plan. In fact, Al-Qassam, et al., encountered some significant surprises.) At the broadest and most abstract conceptual level, Al-Aqsa Flood was an act of resistance against the oppressor and occupier. To be more conceptually specific, it was a military act (operation). As an act of resistance, what did it look like more specifically? First and foremost, Al-Qassam broke through the wall that the Israelis built around Gaza that was designed to literally keep the Palestinians imprisoned within Gaza. They broke through the wall in several locations. Breaking out of the concentration camp in which they were imprisoned was an act of resistance against that imprisonment.
But then what? The occupation and oppression doesn’t stop simply by breaking free. Something isn’t an act of resistance if it does not carry and express the message of being an act of resistance. And as I said above, resistance is intended to bring about a certain goal and so an act of resistance must be something that can be used to attempt to bring one closer to that goal. For the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, the thing that was intended to both more clearly express the message of resistance and be used towards bringing about their goal was the taking of prisoners and hostages. Obviously, the prisoners and hostages are a form of currency. But taking prisoners and hostages also forces interaction between the ones doing the taking and the relevant interested parties; therefore, it forces a kind of conversation.
And guess what. They damn well succeeded beyond anything they expected, because now the whole world is having this conversation!
What conversation? The one about ending the occupation, what Hamas and the Palestinians are resisting against, and have been resisting for over three quarters of a century. And by the way, international law guarantees their right—their legal right—to resistance, armed resistance, against occupation, because occupation is by definition illegal.
I will stop here so this doesn’t get too long, and so I can get some of these thoughts posted. But I have plenty more to say about this whole topic. This is barely scratching the surface.
No comments:
Post a Comment