Photos of two disturbing posters ostensibly in support of Palestinians began circulating widely on X-Twitter in early March. It was claimed that the posters were distributed in Times Square in New York – one of the photos appears to have a New York taxi in the background.
Superimposed over the Palestinian flag in the two posters are the slogans “Rape is resistance” on one poster, and “Babies are occupiers too” on the other, with a subscript on both reading “Free Palestine By Any Means Necessary”.
Despite calls for other images of the posters from people attempting to establish their origins and authenticity, only these two images seem to have appeared. This would surely be unusual if flyers or stickers with such repugnant messages had actually been distributed in New York City.
As far as I know, no one has come forward to claim responsibility for the posters or declare their support for the slogans they bear. There have been many claims that they are a false-flag operation carried out by the pro-Israel camp, aimed at discrediting the Palestinian movement by association with such objectionable ideas. Since they have been circulated widely by pro-Israel forces, accompanied by such expressions of outrage, I have also seen claims that they were designed to discredit the Israel camp by building their outrage on images which would later be revealed to be fake. Either of these scenarios seems plausible to me: the posters have a certain whiff of fakery about them.
Fakes or not, they pose succinctly some important moral questions in relation to the Hamas-led war in Gaza, and are worth discussing. Whatever the truth of their provenance, it cannot be denied that the posters express ideas which have been voiced many times by some of those who claim to support the Palestinian struggle.
Hamas itself, which along with Islamic Jihad, carried out the atrocity of 7 October 2023, not only declares its agreement with the slogans openly, but acts on them: this video1, posted by Hamas supporters on social media in the immediate aftermath of the pogrom, shows a woman’s semi-naked body, mutilated and abused, being paraded around Gaza in the back of a truck. The dead woman has been identified as Shani Louk, a 23-year-old German-Israeli woman who was abducted from the Nova music festival during the Hamas rampage.
The most shocking thing about this is not just the abuse and murder of a woman – heaven knows, such horrors are common enough everywhere in this world – but the cries of jubilation in celebration of that crime, the shouts that this is God’s work. At one point, a child leans over and spits on the body. If this video doesn’t demonstrate the slogan “Rape is resistance” in action, then I don’t know what would.
Hamas spokesperson Ghazi Hamad defends the 7 October pogrom in this video,2 explicitly supporting all the actions of that day. “We are the victims of the occupation. Everything we do is justified,” he declares.
Everything, including rape, gang rape, rape of corpses. Everything, including gunning down hundreds of defenceless young people at a music festival; everything, including the murder of children and infants. Even investigators for the United Nations– no friends of Israel, to say the least – were eventually obliged to admit, six months later, that “sexual violence occurred in multiple locations during the 7 October attacks, including rape and gang-rape in at least three locations, namely: the Nova music festival site and its surroundings, Road 232, and Kibbutz Re’im. In most of these incidents, victims first subjected to rape were then killed, and at least two incidents relate to the rape of women’s corpses.” 3
Their report continued: “The mission team also found a pattern of victims, mostly women, found fully or partially naked, bound, and shot across multiple locations. Although circumstantial, such a pattern may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence, including sexualized torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”
October 7 was deeply connected to the whole history of Israel and Palestine, without question. But there were also aspects of that attack which were qualitatively new departures. One of these departures was that on that day the means to an end, killing Jews and terrorising the survivors, became the end in itself for the Hamas combatants and others who got drawn into participating in the pogrom.
Ghazi Hamad is not alone. Kuwaiti scholar and leader of the Muslim brotherhood Tareq Al-Suwaidan can be seen arguing the same line here.4 There is no Israeli woman who is innocent, he says, adding “Who owns the money and the media? The Jews”. The government of Iran takes a very similar line.
I am relying on the subtitled translations in these videos. But in the millions of times they have been viewed, I have never seen the accuracy of these translations challenged. The speakers have no wish to dispute them. These are the coarse voices of unashamed misogynists and Jew-haters.
But the same ideas are also expressed in the more soft-spoken tones of academia, voiced by Jews and others who deny that they are Jew-haters, by those who recoil in horror from the idea that ‘rape is resistance’, by those who speak as feminists. In these cases, the same ideas appear in slightly more disguised, but still recognisable, forms, often concealed behind deliberately vague slogans, euphemisms and circumlocutions.
Prominent academic and supporter of Palestine Judith Butler can be heard here, speaking on 3 March 2024, at a panel in Paris hosted by the French YouTube programme Paroles d’Honneur, arguing that the atrocities of 7 October constituted armed resistance.5
Butler is important both for who she is – the doyenne of liberal academia as well as a prominent long-time leader of the Hamas apologists in ‘left’ academia6 – and also for what she actually says here.
As the high priestess of post-modern obscurantism, Butler’s usual method of ‘argument’ is to pile up questions, one on top of the other, without attempting to answer any of them, while dropping broad hints about the desired ‘conclusion.’7 However, in this video she is uncharacteristically lucid.
Butler even indicates the reason for her clarity on this occasion: she explains that she ‘got in trouble’ for an article published in the London Review of Books7 a couple of weeks after the atrocity, in which she had stated that “nothing should exonerate Hamas from responsibility for the hideous killings they have perpetrated.” (With whom did she ‘get in trouble’ for expressing such an apparently reasonable opinion, one wonders. Doesn’t Hamas itself accept responsibility for these killings?) Here, she attempts to explain that despite her initial ‘anguish’ she remains a defender of Hamas and of the atrocity.
“We can have different views about Hamas as a political party,” Butler says in the video, “We can have different views about armed resistance, but I think it is more honest and historically correct to say that the uprising of October 7th was an act of armed resistance. It is not a terrorist attack and it’s not an anti-Semitic attack.” (See footnote for entire transcript of her remarks.)
So Butler declares the Hamas pogrom to be “armed resistance” – and by this simple act of labelling, by this magic incantation, the pogrom becomes ‘not anti-Semitic’ and ‘not terrorist.’ She thereby exonerates it from all moral constraints and all responsibility, just as she had previously argued should not happen. Her expressions of ‘anguish’ only strengthen the case: it implies that even someone who recoils from the horrors of 7 October can still defend them in the context of armed resistance – as she herself does. It is “more historically accurate.”
In a sense this is a statement of ‘the end justifies the means’. The ‘end’ – resistance – justifies the ‘means’ of random violence. But like Ghazi Hamad, Butler goes even further, all but removing the ‘end’ from the formulation altogether. Simply being the victim is sufficient to grant licence from moral constraints. “The violence done to Palestinians has been happening for decades. This was an uprising that comes out, that comes from, a state of subjugation and against a violent state apparatus.” This has become the constant refrain, by means of which the coarse Jew-hatred of Ghazi Hamad reaches a wider public in liberal circles in the imperialist countries.
The connection between these two groups, the key political bridge over which they cross from academic liberalism to support for reactionary Islamism – and back again, as circumstances require – is precisely the moral one, encapsulated in the slogan stolen from Malcolm X: “By any means necessary”.8
Malcolm’s slogan has a genuine appeal to radical-minded youth who are disgusted by the hypocrisy of bourgeois moralising.
Malcolm used the slogan “By any means necessary” to declare his rejection of ruling class morality, and in particular, the moral stricture of ‘non-violent means’ which the rulers, their religious leaders and the big-business media sought to impose on the Civil Rights movement. Malcolm asserted that Black people have the right of self-defence against violent attack.
“I myself would go for nonviolence if it was consistent, if everybody was going to be nonviolent all the time,” Malcolm explained. “I’d say, okay, let’s get with it, we’ll all be nonviolent. But I don’t go along with any kind of nonviolence unless everybody’s going to be nonviolent. If they make the Ku Klux Klan nonviolent, I’ll be nonviolent. If they make the White Citizens Council nonviolent, I’ll be nonviolent. But as long as you’ve got somebody else not being nonviolent, I don’t want anybody coming to me talking any nonviolent talk.”9
The slogan became a common refrain in his speeches, the motto of his own organisation, the Organization of Afro-American Unity. “We want freedom by any means necessary. We want justice by any means necessary. We want equality by any means necessary. We don’t feel that in 1964, living in a country that is supposedly based upon freedom, and supposedly the leader of the free world, we don’t think that we should have to sit around and wait for some segregationist congressmen and senators and a President from Texas in Washington, D. C., to make up their minds that our people are due now some degree of civil rights…
“We declare our right on this earth to be a man, to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.”10
It was a profoundly revolutionary, liberating slogan.
Do not the dispossessed and displaced Palestinian people also have the same right to armed self-defence? Certainly they do!
But Malcolm never advocated or defended the rape of women, mass terror against a civilian population, or other such barbarities as a means to win freedom, justice and equality. He advocated the use of any means necessary.
Hamas and its apologists forget the word necessary. Wanton violence against innocent non-combatants and the methods of indiscriminate mass terror are not necessary to an oppressed people fighting for its liberation – on the contrary, these methods are obstacles.
Nor is this problem resolved by the clumsy attempts to abolish the category of ‘innocents’ among the Israeli Jews through branding the entire population of Israel as ‘occupiers.’ Nor by Tareq Al-Suwaidan declaring that since all adult Israelis are liable for military service, therefore “There are no civilians in Israel – neither men nor women… We are talking about soldiers here, not innocent people.” Such attempts only reveal the Jew-hating character of the violence even more clearly. And nor was October 7th a case of accidental civilian deaths incurred in the course of a justified action against a military target. The civilians were the target, killing Jews was the ‘end’.
Hamas thus steals Malcolm’s revolutionary slogan and invests it with an opposite, utterly reactionary content. In the mouths of Hamas, the meaning of the slogan is “By whatever means we choose.” On the plane of morality, Hamas is the mirror image and counterpart of the reactionary government of Benjamin Netanyahu.
Revolutionaries who have been required by circumstances to engage in armed struggle have paid close attention to such questions. Fidel Castro’s Rebel Army faced a dictatorship every bit as vile as Netanyahu’s11 – any Rebel Army soldier who fell into the hands of the Batista’s thugs knew that they carried out eye-gouging, castration12 and other grisly tortures on their victims before killing them and hanging up their bodies in public as a deterrent to others. Fidel nonetheless insisted on the highest standards of moral conduct from his fighters. Soldiers of the dictatorship captured by the rebels were given the same medical treatment they gave their own wounded, and then released. On the few occasions when Rebel Army soldiers violated this code and mistreated prisoners, or engaged in looting the property of peasants or raping them, they were court-martialled and shot. Fidel understood well that only in this way could he gain the trust and support of the peasants among whom they moved and upon whose generosity and courage they depended. Fidel’s morality was drawn entirely from the needs of the struggle. He continued to rely on this ‘moral armour’ to shield the revolution from its enemies long after the victory over the dictatorship. (I have written about Fidel’s ‘moral armour’ here.)
The Bolsheviks too, drew their moral code from the laws of the class struggle in the period of the Civil War of 1917-21.
Basing himself on Engels’ writings on morality in Anti-Duhring,13 Lenin explained the Bolshevik attitude to morality in a speech to the Youth Leagues:14 “Is there such a thing as communist morality? Of course, there is. It is often suggested that we have no ethics of our own; very often the bourgeoisie accuse us Communists of rejecting all morality. This is a method of confusing the issue, of throwing dust in the eyes of the workers and peasants.
“In what sense do we reject ethics, reject morality?
“In the sense given to it by the bourgeoisie, who based ethics on God’s commandments. On this point we, of course, say that we do not believe in God, and that we know perfectly well that the clergy, the landowners and the bourgeoisie invoked the name of God so as to further their own interests as exploiters. Or, instead of basing ethics on the commandments of morality, on the commandments of God, they based it on idealist or semi-idealist phrases, which always amounted to something very similar to God’s commandments.
“We reject any morality based on extra-human and extra-class concepts. We say that this is deception, dupery, stultification of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landowners and capitalists.
“We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat’s class struggle. Our morality stems from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.”
The accusation of Bolshevik amorality was hurled even more forcefully two decades later. The context on this occasion was the Moscow Trials, the most monstrous frame-up of revolutionaries in history. The target of the accusation was the few surviving Bolsheviks, relentlessly slandered and persecuted by the Stalinist prosecutors; the moral accusers were petty bourgeois former sympathisers of Bolshevism now retreating in fright before the onslaught of reaction. Their general line of attack was to accuse the Bolsheviks of operating by the maxim ‘The end justifies the means.’ The goal of this moral crusade was to demonstrate that the Stalinist police-state was the natural outgrowth of Bolshevism.
When Trotsky, the chief defendant in absentia of the Moscow Trials, protested the Stalinist persecutors’ practices of shooting the children of the accused and taking family members hostage in order to force dissident Soviet diplomats to return home, the petty-bourgeois moralists responded “The detention of innocent relatives by Stalin is disgusting barbarism. But it remains a barbarism as well when it was dictated by Trotsky (1919).”
This was a reference to a 1919 decree by Trotsky, then commander of the Red Army, which mandated the taking hostage of family members of Czarist officers drafted into the Red Army as insurance against their betrayal in combat. In the early days of the civil war and imperialist encirclement, the Bolsheviks needed to rely heavily on the military expertise of these former Czarist officers – many of whom who were politically hostile to the revolution – in building the Red Army and defending the revolution. Hostage-taking was also ordered in a few other instances during the civil war, particularly to combat sabotage by rich peasants of grain requisitions.
Trotsky responded to the accusations of the moralists in a 1938 article entitled Their Morals and Ours, and a follow-up the following year entitled Moralists and Sycophants Against Marxism. These two articles are among Trotsky’s most brilliant writings, and some of the most incisive statements on morality by any Marxist.15 “Only that which prepares the complete and final overthrow of imperialist bestiality is moral, and nothing else,” he declares.
Trotsky accepts responsibility for the hostages decree. “We will not insist here upon the fact that the Decree of 1919 led scarcely to even one execution of relatives of those commanders whose perfidy not only caused the loss of innumerable human lives but threatened the revolution itself with direct annihilation. The question in the end does not concern that. If the revolution had displayed less superfluous generosity from the very beginning, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved. Thus or otherwise I carry full responsibility for the Decree of 1919.
“It was a necessary measure in the struggle against the oppressors. Only in the historical content of the struggle lies the justification of the decree as in general the justification of the whole civil war which, too, can be called, not without foundation, “disgusting barbarism”…
“A slave-owner who through cunning and violence shackles a slave in chains, and a slave who through cunning or violence breaks the chains – let not the contemptible eunuchs tell us that they are equals before a court of morality!”
Is Trotsky’s stance indistinguishable from that of Hamas, then? – that in pursuit of a just cause, “everything is justified”? Not at all. There is a dialectical interdependence between means and end, Trotsky explains.
“A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified. From the Marxist point of view, which expresses the historical interests of the proletariat, the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man.
“We are to understand then that in achieving this end anything is permissible?” sarcastically demands the Philistine, demonstrating that he understood nothing. That is permissible, we answer, which really leads to the liberation of mankind. Since this end can be achieved only through revolution, the liberating morality of the proletariat of necessity is endowed with a revolutionary character. … It deduces a rule for conduct from the laws of the development of society, thus primarily from the class struggle, this law of all laws.
“‘Just the same,’ the moralist continues to insist, ‘does it mean that in the class struggle against capitalists all means are permissible: lying, frame-up, betrayal, murder, and so on?’ Permissible and obligatory are those and only those means, we answer, which unite the revolutionary proletariat, fill their hearts with irreconcilable hostility to oppression, teach them contempt for official morality and its democratic echoers, imbue them with consciousness of their own historic mission, raise their courage and spirit of self-sacrifice in the struggle. Precisely from this it flows that not all means are permissible. When we say that the end justifies the means, then for us the conclusion follows that the great revolutionary end spurns those base means and ways which set one part of the working class against other parts, or attempt to make the masses happy without their participation; or lower the faith of the masses in themselves and their organization, replacing it by worship for the “leaders”. Primarily and irreconcilably, revolutionary morality rejects servility in relation to the bourgeoisie and haughtiness in relation to the toilers, that is, those characteristics in which petty bourgeois pedants and moralists are thoroughly steeped.”
“Dialectic materialism does not know dualism between means and end. The end flows naturally from the historical movement. Organically the means are subordinated to the end. The immediate end becomes the means for a further end… Seeds of wheat must be sown in order to yield an ear of wheat.”
By these criteria, Hamas’s means, and the 7 October attack in particular, are indefensible.
They demobilise and sideline the Palestinian masses, disunite, terrorise and scatter them. The Hamas actions of 7 October and in the six months since have left the Palestinian masses defenceless, both militarily and politically, atomised and left to fend for themselves in the face of the Israeli onslaught. They have been barred from taking shelter from the bombing in the Hamas tunnel network, and used as human shields: their only value to Hamas – their only historic mission – is as martyrs. Over many years prior to that, they have been trained in dependence, looking to outside saviours – to military aid from Iran, monetary aid from the United Nations, European Union, and Qatari billionaires, and political aid from boycotts and worldwide protests – all manner of substitutes for their own organised strength. These are precisely the means and methods the working class rejects.
For the working class, support for the liberation struggle of an oppressed nationality is not the end in itself, but the means to a greater end. Freedom for an oppressed people, by overcoming national inequalities, unifies and strengthens the working class for the task of overthrowing imperialist bestiality. Hamas’s end is not Palestinian liberation, but Islamic rule and a Palestine without Jews. Its means setting one section of the working class against another, Palestinian worker against Jewish worker, and this is its greatest crime.
“They do not understand,” wrote Trotsky of the petty-bourgeois moralists, “that morality is a function of the class struggle; that democratic morality corresponds to the epoch of liberal and progressive capitalism; that the sharpening of the class struggle in passing through its latest phase definitively and irrevocably destroyed this morality; that in its place came the morality of fascism on one side, on the other the morality of proletarian revolution.”
Ninety years later, as the class struggle begins to sharpen as it did in the 1930s, the destruction of that democratic morality is all but complete. Bourgeois and petty-bourgeois moralists are conspicuously absent from the discussion. The proletarian morality of Trotsky, Lenin, Fidel Castro and others has hardly drawn its first breath, and the liberal academics are too remote from the working class to have any sense of proletarian morality of their own. The readiness of Judith Butler and broad middle class liberal forces to concur with Hamas’s claim that “Everything we do is justified”, even including the atrocious acts of October 7th, is a new stage in the decline of democratic morality. It binds Butler and her ilk to the capitalist descent into depravity. Fascist morality beckons to them.
Footnotes
- The video is becoming increasingly difficult to find, because many sites are taking it down out of respect for Shani Louk. As difficult as it is to watch, I think it is important to understanding the nature of the attack on 7th October. This Twitter feed includes the video: https://twitter.com/DrAyeshaRay/status/1773903209444024517
- See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJNccvNJtGk
Unfortunately the subtitles are partly obscured. Alternatively, try this one:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1719662664090075199 - For a UN press statement summarising the report, see https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/press-release/israel-west-bank-mission/
- Video of Tareq Al-Suwaidan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itdWeMBXIdI
- Video of Judith Butler https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFjYFonN3ZI
- Butler asserting that Hamas is part of the “left”: https://isgap.org/post/2023/10/judith-butler-and-the-normalization-of-hamas-and-hezbollah-within-progressive-social-movements/
- See for example, the second paragraph of her LRB article “The Compass of Mourning” for an example of this mode of ‘argument.’
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v45/n20/judith-butler/the-compass-of-mourning - Morality is not the only bridge between academic liberalism and support for Hamas. It should also be noted that the ‘decolonisation’ perspective that has long dominated historical and political discourse at western universities, with its associated culture of victimhood and its backward-facing orientation of undoing the historical crimes of colonialism, dovetails neatly with the Hamas vision of a Palestine free of Jews. In particular, the emphatic assertion that Israel today is a colonial-settler state, long after it has evolved into a modern capitalist state, serves this purpose. But to explore these aspects of the question is beyond the scope of this post.
- To Mississippi Youth, in Malcolm X Speaks, ed. Breitman, p138
- Founding rally of the OAAU, By Any Means Necessary, ed. Breitman, pp37 and 56
- Insofar as such things can be measured, the Batista dictatorship was probably even more vile. Certainly, the impassioned campaign to paint the Israeli regime as “Apartheid – but even worse than South African Apartheid” is deeply connected to the quest to find justifications for the crimes of October 7.
- See for example the following brief account.
https://havanatimes.org/diaries/elio/massacres-during-batistas-dictatorship/
Fidel discusses the eye-gouging and other tortures in his famous speech from the dock, History Will Absolve Me available at https://www.marxists.org/history/cuba/archive/castro/1953/10/16.htm - Frederick Engels, Anti-Dühring: Herr Eugen Dühring’s Revolution in Science . See Section 9: Morality and Law. Eternal Truths
- Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues. 1920. Collected Works, Vol 31, p283
- The two articles have been published, together with a contribution to the discussion from the time by the pragmatist philosopher John Dewey, and an afterword summary written three decades later by Marxist philosopher George Novack, by Pathfinder Press under the title Their Morals and Ours. The whole collection is a little 100-page gem. The two articles can also be found on Marxists Internet Archive, although the translations are not as good as in the Pathfinder book.
Transcript of Butler comments on 3 March 2024 (Credit for transcript: Cary Nelson, Fathom journal.)
We can have different views about Hamas as a political party; we can have different views about, um, ah, armed resistance, but I think it is more honest and historically correct to say that the uprising of October 7th was an act of armed resistance. It is not a terrorist attack and it’s not an antisemitic attack. It was an attack against Israelis, and, you know, I did not like that attack. I have gone public with this, I have gotten in trouble for saying for me it was anguishing. It was anguishing, it was terrible. However, I would be very foolish if I then decided that the only violence in the scene was the violence done to Israeli people. The violence done to Palestinians has been happening for decades. This was an uprising that comes out, that comes from, a state of subjugation and against a violent state apparatus. OK. Let us be clear. You can be for or against armed resistance, you can be for or against Hamas. But let us at least call it armed resistance, and then we can have a debate about whether we think it’s right or whether they did the right thing, whether a different strategy [audience applause]. But the problem is, the problem is if you call it armed resistance you are immediately thought to be in favour of armed resistance and in favour of that armed resistance and that tactic. It’s like actually maybe not that tactic and we can discuss armed resistance, it is an open debate.
A worker at large 
Excellent, well done. I don’t know if I would characterize the Israeli military response to 10-07 as an “onslaught”, but leaving that aside, your essay is quite valuable. Many thanks!
Pingback: The Union of Workers welcomes back guest columnist, James Robb. – The Union Of Workers·
It’s a fine piece, but I disagree with the description of Netanyahu or the Netanyahu war government as “mirror image and counterpart” of Hamas. He’s not. In a previous piece on Israeli “apartheid” you pointed out (correctly and importantly) that the Israeli ruling class had given up on the project of a “Greater Israel” due to growth of the Palestinian population, and concerted effort at negotiations for a two-state solution set in. This was continued by Netanyahu as well, and with largely the same results. Hamas is a fascist-minded, bluntly genocidal, jihadist organization, and the comparison to Netanyahu is just wrong. Even a comparison to Batista is wrong IMO. Netanyahu is certainly brutal and immoral but no Batista. At this point in the bourgeois media and among governments like Canada, Netanyahu seems to be a stand-in target for Jews, so I’d be as concrete as possible with the formulation of the political character of Netanyahu.
Thanks for your comments. In regard to Batista, my point was not to draw any general equivalence, but to take issue with the false idea that there is something particularly vile about the Netanyahu regime which necessitates and justifies the crimes of Hamas. Fidel showed that even against a regime equally bad or worse than Netanyahu’s, proletarian morality was justified and necessary to win. I agree that Batista was probably far worse (see footnote 11).
On the Hamas-Netanyahu ‘mirror image ‘, I restricted the equivalence to the moral plane: they are both bourgeois regimes that defend their class rule by whatever means they consider necessary.
A characterization like “bourgeois regime that defend their class by whatever means they consider necessary” is so broad and vague that it’s practically meaningless. Abraham Lincoln did the same—suspended habeas corpus, executed 38 Sioux warriors, unleashed Sherman’s March, sent federal troops to suppress the New York draft riots. And yet the political character and moral acts of Lincoln and Hamas (or Netanyahu) would be hard to compare except with vagaries like “defend their class……” Hitler AND Lincoln defended their class.
Netanyahu is a convenient stand-in for the Jewish people at this moment. Canada has suspended arm sales to Israel due to the “extremist” Netanyahu. It’s a common trope among the pro-Hamas crowd to say that Netanyahu is prolonging the war in Gaza to maintain his position in power, never mentioning that the holding of hostages (which Castro criticized FARC for) by Hamas, the drumbeat for ceasefire, and insistence on largely unprecedented measures to protect civilians has slowed the progress of the war. It has resulted in one of the lowest civilian casualty figures ever seen, especially in modern urban warfare (ignored by those screaming “Zionist genocide”). Netanyahu is in no way the leader that the Israeli and Palestinian workers deserve, and at some point he’ll be brushed aside, but any equivalency to Hamas, etc. needs to be concrete, focused, and weighed out with better tools.
That’s because I’m not attempting to *characterise the regime* with that description, only its moral basis. I think it is legitimate to discuss some aspects of the situation without necessarily examining *every* aspect.
When you throw in Lincoln and Hitler, you are comparing bourgeois regimes at two very different points in history. In Lincoln’s day, the bourgeoisie was still a revolutionary class, and Lincoln pursued the bourgeois revolution to crush the slavocracy ‘by any means necessary’. That’s a very different matter from Hitler’s drive, at the behest of the bourgeoisie in its period of decline, to prolong its moribund rule by crushing the working class by any means necessary.
I take your point that “Netanyahu is a convenient stand-in for the Jewish people at this moment” and that therefore it is necessary to be very precise and concrete as possible in what we say about it. That is true, and important. With that in mind, although it goes somewhat beyond the narrow focus of the post, I would make a few points:
1. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Netanyahu continued “concerted effort at negotiations for a two-state solution”. I’m not especially knowledgeable about this, but I regard it as fairly well established that Netanyahu gave support to Hamas precisely in order to hobble the Palestinian Authority and make a two-state solution impossible for the PA to achieve, and also that he gave (and continues to give) full support to the annexationist efforts of the Israeli settlers in the West Bank.
2. I accept that the IDF is making serious efforts to minimise civilian casualties in the present war, and that if they were really trying to exterminate the Palestinian population of Gaza, with the firepower they have, the death toll would be a great deal higher than it is. To that extent, I think the supporters of Israel are correct in saying that it is not a genocidal war.
3. On the other hand, I also think that Netanyahu has no other solution than further expulsions of Palestinians from the lands they occupy now, and further extensions of Israeli military power and direct rule over those lands. In that sense, I think the Palestine supporters are not wrong in describing it as a ‘new Nakba’.
4. The only solution has to be a political one, based on recognising that Israel-Palestine belongs to all who live there, both Jews and Palestinians. Netanyahu’s regime is incapable of *politically* defeating Hamas in this way, and its continued pursuit of military ‘solutions’ imperils Israeli Jews as well as Palestinians.
Well, I do agree with your last comment. Except I don’t believe the IDF is minimizing civilian casualties. 34,000 plus killed since 10/7. Two years if Russia’s war on Ukraine has had fare less killings than this.
While I think the Hamas-supplied casualty figures are highly dubious (and notably fail to distinguish between combatants and civilians) there can be no doubt that there has been colossal death and destruction in Gaza in the last six months. My point is, when you look at the scenes of apocalyptic destruction of apartment buildings etc, it’s not difficult to see that if these buildings had been crowded with their usual occupants at the time of the bombings, the number of deaths would be far higher still. The IDF warnings to civilians to evacuate are effective.
I don’t know where you are getting your casualty figures for the Ukraine invasion from, but I think you are mistaken there. The BBC estimates that at least 100,000 Russian soldiers have been killed since the invasion began two years ago (i.e. not including the earlier conflicts in Donbass and Crimea). Ukraine Armed Forces give a figure of 180,000. According to different estimates, Ukrainian and US, anywhere from 45,000 to 70,000 Ukrainian soldiers, plus about 10,000 Ukrainian civilians, have been killed on the Ukrainian side. Bigger countries, different kind of war mostly fought along a battle front, true – but hardly “far less killings” than Gaza. About five or six times the number killed in Gaza, in fact.
I would be interested to hear your response to the rest of the post.