Your ‘Terrorist’ Is My Freedom Fighter
In the well-known paper-company documentary, The Office, Dwight Schrute outlines an airtight defence against idiocy:
Whenever I’m about to do something, I think, ‘Would an idiot do that?’ And if they would, I do not do that thing.
But while this works well in everyday scenarios like deciding whether to put pineapple on a pizza or buy stock in Twitter, it’s not so helpful for untangling a highly polarised, 75-year-old (or arguably far longer) conflict in the Middle East.
So in my article, Hamas Finally Answered The Question: “What Is Woke?”, I went with a take that I was sure of: terrorism is bad.
Khalid was quick to inform me that even this wasn’t idiot-proof.
Khalid:
What a biased article. No historical references of where the state of Israel actually came from. It’s land theft and injustice pure and simple. It’s normal
and commendable to resist occupation by any means necessary.Where is your condemnation of the hugely disproportionate response by Israel 100 to 1 civilian deaths. Why are you starting this story on October 7th. Israel killed its own citizens using helicopter gunships. This was a reaction from inmates of a concentration camp. I suggest you read Norman Finklestein. What a bubble you live in. Your figures are also wrong by the way. The correct figure of those who died on Oct is 1137 not 1400.
Steve QJ:
“Your figures are also wrong by the way. The correct figure of those who died on Oct is 1137 not 1400.”
Yes, and of course you knew this on Oct 31st when the article was written.🙄
Why are so many people struggling to understand that this article isn't even about the Israel Palestine conflict. There's absolutely no need for me to cite historical references about the state of Israel when all I'm talking about here is terrorists and their cheerleaders.
In this context, I don’t care what the state of Israel did 75 years ago, there is no justification for deliberately slaughtering innocent civilians who had nothing to do with it.
Khalid:
Your ‘terrorist’ is my freedom fighter
Steve QJ:
Okay, seriously, help me out with this. Because I see this argument a lot.
I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the Palestinian people. I think many of Israel’s pre-Oct 7th actions in Gaza and the West Bank are indefensible. I think, regardless of its original intentions, Zionism has been twisted into a cruel and sometimes brutal movement.
But how is it that you think Hamas' actions will change or possibly could change any of that? How do you square the fact that Hamas' actions have directly and extremely predictably led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians, the destruction of Gaza and the emboldening of settlers in the West Bank, with the notion of them as "freedom fighters"?
I'm asking this in all sincerity. I have no problem understanding why someone would seek an end to the blockade or the settlements or the human rights violations in Israel. I just have no idea why you think a terrorist…excuse me, “freedom fighter” organisation that has not only brought this hell down on Palestinians, but has also killed Palestinians itself, and would have happily left them to starve if not for the intervention of humanitarian aid organisations, is interested in helping the Palestinian people.
Khalid:
We have different world views that is all. I believe it is better to die with dignity than to live in servitude and humiliation. Also I go out of mainstream media and try to get up to date news about what is really happening on the ground. This is a war that Israel is loosing. Its soldiers do not have the appetite or courage for face to face combat.
Hamas has massive popular support on the Muslim street around the world. It has forever crushed the invincibility myth Israel had created. It is not simply about counting bodies to say who is the winner and who is the loser. Israel cannot claim any moral high ground ever. Despite huge daily propaganda the evidence is clear. They are petrified of Hamas which is why they have to bomb indiscriminately before entering any area.
You can’t defeat an idea. The fire of political Islam has been re-lit and being fanned with a vengeance by Israel itself. It only makes it stronger.
Israel was a failed colonial settler experiment like all the previous colonial experiments its time too has come to an end.
I thought you’d understand if represented in the words of Malcolm X when he describes the difference between the "house Negro" and the "field Negro."
(Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 23 January 1963.)When applied in this setting Hamas is in the field and PLO is certainly in the house with the master.
Steve QJ:
“I believe it is better to die with dignity than to live in servitude and humiliation.”
I don't necessarily disagree with this. Although it's very easy to spout things like this when you're not the one dying. I'm sure many, many people in Gaza disagree with you. And I'm not convinced you'd be so forthright if you were really faced with death. Plus, if you support the Palestinian people, don't you think they should have been given the right to choose for themselves?
But a) the people in Gaza aren't dying in dignity. They're being blown to pieces by bombs and crushed under rubble. And very soon, simply starving to death. And b) Hamas didn't choose to simply die with dignity, they chose to kill and rape innocent people who had nothing to do with the situation in Gaza and had no intention of hurting them. And in the process, assured the deaths of thousands of Palestinian women and children.
Hamas haven't crushed anything. Except, possibly, any hope for the existence of a Palestinian state. Right now, Netanyahu and his thugs are intent on bombing Palestine out of existence. As they have been for years. Only now, Hamas have handed them the justification they need to do it.
Disappointed to see that you ended on this embarrassingly stupid and racist note of "thinking I'd understand" if you explained the situation in racial terms. A) like many black people, I disagree profoundly with Malcolm X's embrace of violence while he was with the Nation of Islam. Malcolm came to realise that this approach was misguided too before he died.
And b) slavery wasn’t ended by indiscriminately slaughtering thousands of innocent women and children. The slave uprisings that did take place probably only delayed emancipation and led, through backlash, to the deaths and suffering of countless other innocent slaves. So I understand the anger. Truly I do. Both of the slaves and of the Palestinians. But I don't understand slaughtering innocent people who have nothing to do with your oppression. I don't accept the latter as an expression of the former.
I’ve been asked, several times now, where I stand on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
After all, I’ve written thousands of words condemning Hamas’ brutality, both in Israel and in Gaza, but I’ve also criticised Israel’s cruelty in Gaza and the West Bank.
I’ve argued that Hamas (and other terrorist organisations) need to be removed from power, forcibly if necessary, yet I’m openly skeptical that killing tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians will achieve that.
In a world where we’re constantly encouraged to pick a side and ignore everything else, I can understand why this might seem paradoxical.
But it’s simple.
Whenever I’m about to support something, I think, ‘Will this make a situation where thousands of innocent people are already dying even worse?’ And if it would, regardless of how angry or historically outraged I might feel, I do not support that thing.
“I believe it is better to die with dignity than to live in servitude and humiliation.”
There is no dignity to be found in something so dishonorable as rape, mutilation and murder of people have done nothing to you except exist, no matter how legitimate your grievance against the government they live under. It is cowardice.
Khalid says "The fire of political Islam has been re-lit and being fanned with a vengeance by Israel itself. It only makes it stronger. Israel was a failed colonial settler experiment like all the previous colonial experiments its time too has come to an end."
Every time I see statements like this, I wonder how so many has forgotten that the Muslim empires were themselves colonial enterprises. I would argue that Mohammed himself would've been against these empires. The Quran specifically says that only defensive wars are justifiable, and I would argue that by most definitions he kept to this principle. It was only after he died that his successors jury-rigged an interpretation of the so-called sword passage to justify forcibly expanding their colonial empire. The only reason that Palestinians are Muslims today is that Muslims in what is today Saudi Arabia expanded their empire into the rest of the Middle East, then onto Africa and Asia. So the idea of Islamic Anti-Colonialism is rather Self Contradictory.