Some Of My Tunnel Vision Is Caused By Frustration

I’ve always been a sucker for a good analogy. But they’re tricky. One false move, and you could drag in some social or historical context that makes the issue harder to talk about.

So in my article, The Painfully Obvious Reason Why Palestinians Don’t Condemn Hamas, I decided to play it safe…and compared Hamas’ attack on October 7th to Nat Turner’s Southampton County slave rebellion. 

After all, just like Hamas, Turner and his men slaughtered innocent women and children, this provoked a devastating response from the people they attacked, and that response was mostly the death and destruction of the innocent people suffering alongside them. 

But while the slaveowners' response wasn't surprising, it’s clear, at least today, that the rebellions would never be stopped with force. They’d stop when there were no more slaves to carry out the rebellions, which either meant killing all the slaves or setting them free. The question was; which would they choose?

David had questions about the social and historical context.

---

David:

The problem with your comparison is this. Imagine that the Black Slaves had voted Nat Turner as their leader, then once the retaliation began, not only hid him, but continued to support him, making sure that he thrived.

And then they started chanting - Kill all White People!

The call of "From the river to the Sea, Palestine shall be free" is a call for the extermination of Israel. And don't just take my word for it, that is what Hamas themselves have said:

https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/hamas-its-own-words

So, if a group says, "if you give us a cease fire, we will use it to recover and launch another attack against you", do you give them a breather?

I feel horrible for the Palestinians. But as long as they continue to support a terrorist organization that calls for genocide, it is not going to get better for them.

They are a nation who chose their leaders, and they continue to support those leaders who are more than happy to have them slaughtered to accomplish their goals.

Your article was well written, but I feel that it kind of missed the point.

---

Steve QJ:

“And then they started chanting - Kill all White People!”

Do you really think, if the slaves had been able to form a government, that there wouldn't have been extremists shouting exactly this? Do you even think this would be a particularly extreme position given the way that white America treated them? Would you have argued that as long as the slaves supported this government, America had no responsibility to free them?

If you spend decades with your feet on people's necks, if you treat them as subhumans, if you kill their children, they will hate you. Some of them will want to kill you. This isn't controversial for any thinking human.

I'm not justifying Hamas' atrocities by saying this, the Israelis they killed and raped had no power to change Israel's actions. Just as the women and children Turner killed couldn't have ended slavery. From my perch of safety and freedom today, I condemn Turner's actions. Just as I condemn Hamas' actions.

But it’s also worth noting that the tens of thousands of people being killed in Gaza right now have no power to release the hostages or force Hamas to surrender.

So, a) if you think "from the river to the sea..." is a call for the extermination of Israel, what do you think Likud mean when they say in their charter "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty"?

b) Are you aware that the majority of people living in Gaza weren't even born when Hamas came to power? And haven't had an opportunity to vote since? Who are you talking about when you say they chose their leaders?

And c) Do you think, perhaps, the reason why Hamas is not just a few antisemitic extremists, but an organisation with tens of thousands of men willing to fight and die for them, has something to do with Israel's decades long mistreatment of Palestinians? Do you think that maybe, right now, the parents of dead children in Gaza or the children of dead parents in Gaza are plotting their revenge in some future attack?

And if/when that attack comes, will you remove it from all past context as you seem to be doing here?

---

---

David:

Hey Steven!

Thanks for responding! You bring up some excellent points.

A) You are correct, just as Hamas talks about extermination of Isreal, Likud - The right wing Hebrew Party - talks about exterminating Palestine. I was unaware of this, but am not surprised. By definition, extremists are going to extremes. Just as Hamas killed over 1000 innocents, Isreal has killed thousands of innocent over the past several months.

I was not trying to say that this was all the fault of Hamas, however I can see why you would think I was. In my rebuttal of your core argument, I ignored the larger picture.

Some of my tunnel vision is caused by frustration over the whole thing.

1) The history. Jews and Arabs both have claims to the land going back thousands of years - Palestine as a concept is not that old, it was an administrative district in the Ottoman Empire. Regardless, Arabs have, throughout the centuries oppressed, moved and exterminated Jews. When the United Nations created Israel as a atonement for historical injustices against an oppressed people, the Arab world immediately attacked and once again tried to exterminate them. They failed, several times.

In the intervening decades, Israel has become the oppressor, because as you say "If you spend (centuries) with your feet on people's necks, if you treat them as subhumans, if you kill their children, they will hate you. Some of them will want to kill you. This isn't controversial for any thinking human."

Of course this one more reason why I think that comparing Palestine to the American Slaves is incorrect. The slaves were displaced and put into a majority White region. Israel exists in a majority Arab region, the same 'race' as the Palestinians.

2. Egypt (and other Arab Nations) - people rightly claim that Israel has helped to create the 'world's largest open air prison', however that prison could not exist without the support of Egypt, just like the West Bank would not be in such poor condition had Jordan not been complicit in it's oppression, actually removing citizenship from the Palestinians.

In fact the West Bank was part of Jordan, just as the Gaza Strip was part of Egypt.

Yet despite this, the casualties of the war are blamed exclusively on Israel, ignoring the fact that Egypt made it crystal clear that they had no space for refugees, and were not interested in protecting the innocent.

So, while Israel is the primary antagonist, I dislike how their partners in crime are ignored, simply because they are not Jewish. That is racism, pure and simple.

B) Actually, the median age in Gaza, prior to the war, was 18. (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25993-the-reasons-why-gazas-population-is-so-young/) Hamas had been in power since 2006, 17 years prior to the start of the war. The median age in Palestine as a whole was 19 as of 2019. Median age means that half the people are older then, and half younger. So, actually most people were alive when Hamas came to power. As to how many of them could vote at the time, I don't have a demographic breakdown.

However, we do know that as of 2023, many Palestinians actually do support Hamas, and if they were given the chance to vote today, would vote Hamas. (https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514)

To Quote: Despite the devastation, 57% of respondents in Gaza and 82% in the West Bank believe Hamas was correct in launching the October attack, the poll indicated. A large majority believed Hamas’ claims that it acted to defend a major Islamic shrine in Jerusalem against Jewish extremists and win the release of Palestinian prisoners. Only 10% said they believed Hamas has committed war crimes, with a large majority saying they did not see videos showing the militants committing atrocities.

C) You are correct. Just as the centuries long oppression of Jews led to a hard right majority in the Israeli government which calls for the extermination of Palestine, so to has the decades long oppression of Palestine led to calls for the extermination of Israel.

Which is why I believe that Israel has no choice but to defend itself as long as Hamas continues to exist.

Just as Palestine has no choice but to defend itself as long as the far right coalition controls Israel.

But my point stands. The Palestinians are not comparable to the American slaves. The slaves had no voice in the halls of power. Palestine has a voice in the United Nations as a non-member observer state, and many powerful allies who are full members.

Thank You

---

Steve QJ:

“Thanks for responding! You bring up some excellent points.”

Jesus, in this sea of hysteria and ad hominem, can I just say how much I appreciate this good faith response. I've had hundreds of conversations about this conflict at this point, and this one of only a handful of responses that sounds like it came from a sane human being.😅

I know exactly what you mean when you talk about frustration with this whole thing. So thank you for not adding to mine.

1) The history. Yes, as I've said many times, I have very little interest in litigating whose "ancestral claim to the land" is more legitimate. Both Jews and Arabs have lived there for centuries. I don't believe in ether of their Gods, so I don't care who they think gave them the land. And besides, I don't think very highly of any God who would let his chosen people fight and die for centuries over a scrap of land instead of just building them their own idyllic little planet.

I have to take issue with your claim that the United Nations created Israel to atone for historical injustices though. Britain gave the land to the Jews partly due to Jewish persecution, yes, but mostly to avoid having to take Jewish refugees into Britain and other European countries.

As Theodor Herzl, the architect of Zionism, said, "the Governments of all countries scourged by Anti-Semitism will be keenly interested in assisting us to obtain [the] sovereignty we want" because they were more than happy to see the Jews leave Europe too.

You're right though, none of this has any relation to slavery. This history is irrelevant to the analogy I ws trying to draw.

2. Egypt. Yes, Egypt used to control Gaza. Then Israel occupied it after the six-day war (but never officially controlled it), and after the Oslo accords, it fell under Palestinian control.

But you're drawing a false equivalence between Israel and Egypt.

Egypt completely ceded control of Gaza when they withdrew. All that was left was a border, which is perfectly reasonable for any country. But when Israel left, they retained total control of access to Gaza by land, air and sea. They also took control of Gaza's access to water and power. This is not a border, it's a siege. The distinction has nothing to do with races or antisemitism but the clear, material differences in the way that Egypt and Israel behaved.

---

I won't quibble about the median age. It doesn't make much difference whether most of the people in Gaza weren't quite born or were a few months old when Hamas came to power. The point remains that they obviously had nothing to do with electing Hamas. Again, I think, if the slaves had been allowed to form a government, they would very likely have ended up with "extremists" populating it. That extremism, of course, being very much a matter of perspective. And if that government carried out attacks like Turner's, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the slaves continued to support them.

As you say, in the case of Hamas, over 90% of Palestinians disbelieve or are unaware of the reports of atrocities committed by Hamas. They think it was a legitimate military strike, not a massacre. So it's even easier to understand why they continue to support Hamas' actions. To be very clear, that's not a defence of Hamas, but an explanation of why Palestinians don't condemn them.

Yes, after all these years of killing, Israel has no choice but to defend itself. And beyond that, I don’t blame them for wanting revenge after an attack of this savagery. I was absolutely horrified by the October 7th attack. But their response has gone far beyond any sense of proportionality. And as I said in the article, can’t possibly hope to achieve its aims of destroying Hamas.

I don’t think there’s been a single case in history where a terrorist group has been destroyed by military action. Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, they’re all still with us. And after six months of bombing, Hamas’ tunnels are still 80% intact, Israel has eroded near-universal international support (at least in the West), and they’ve created thousands of orphans and grieving parents who will gladly carry out the next series of attacks on Israel.

So the point I'm making is that if we open our minds, if we genuinely try to put ourselves in the place of the people from Southampton Country, we can understand that they would have been equally horrified by Turner’s attack. They believed they were good and just people. And by the standards of the time, they were. They were “kind” to their slaves. They saw the oppression in their midst, but believed they were doing it in the most humane way possible. And yet, the slaves returned their kindness by slaughtering innocent people.

They also felt they had no choice but to retaliate. And in many ways they didn't. If they hadn't, Turner would have killed more innocent people, news of the rebellion would have spread, other slave communities might have been inspired to do the same thing. So they responded with overwhelming force, killed everybody who even might have been a threat, and secured their safety.

But none of this addressed the central problem, which was that they were holding human beings in captivity. Until they addressed this point, there was always the fear and the danger of future attacks. The same is true for Israel.

And finally, no, Palestine doesn't really have much recourse in the halls of power. There is a resolution in the UN right now, has been since 1998, that lays out a proposal for a two-state solution that Palestine will accept. All it requires of Israel is that they stop breaking international law.

It has overwhelming international support. In fact, in its first vote, 138 countries supported it, two abstained, and only two objected. I'll let you guess which two. Since then, it's been voted on around a dozen times. Pretty much the exact same result each time. As long as the U.S. uses its VETO as a proxy for Israeli interests, there's nothing Palestine or any other member state of the UN can do.

Sorry for the very long rsponse. I wanted to make sure I addresed each of your points. Thanks again for being an example of good faith discourse on the internet.

---

The biggest problem with historical comparisons is that we’ve all had plenty of time to figure out who the good and bad guys are and whose side we’re on. And after ~160 years, we’ve all agreed the slaveowners were the bad guys.

In fact, some of my commenters were outraged that I’d even attempted to portray the people of Southampton County as anything more complex than monsters. 

But in the present, where we all live, there are no monsters. Just human beings, making more or less imperfect decisions, for more or less understandable reasons. 

By now, I think it’s clear that I believe Israel is making imperfect decisions. Decisions that are killing innocent people, that are damaging Israel’s standing in the international community, and that will ultimately make Israel, Israelis, and Jews around the world less safe. 

Because whatever happens to Hamas, the attacks will only stop when Israel kills everybody living in Gaza or ends the blockade. The question is; which will it choose?

---