More on the Pro-Hamas Left

 I must say, the rise of the pro-Hamas Left has been profoundly unsettling for me. Up till now I had assumed that, whatever problems Europe might have with unassimilated Muslims, US Muslims fit well within the larger society and should be seen as faithful Americans.  Some terrorists existed, but they did not represent the entire community.  Stories of Muslims cheering on 9-11 were false. And while there was no doubt that the violent fringes of Islam were altogether too large and too difficult to separate from the mainstream, the fact remained that most Muslims were decent people, most Muslims despised terrorists (who killed many Muslims, after all) and most Muslims condemned 9-11, reacted with appropriate outrage a the murder of Russian school children, and so forth.

But apparently all of that is different when the country in question is Israel.

I also assumed that charities that cared for war refugees were wholly worthy and uncontroversial causes. Now, after seeing the extent to which many (seemingly) worthy organizations have been coopted by Hamas, I have to wonder, does the same thing happen in other wars around the world?

Just to be clear, I still hold to many former beliefs.  I reject the hardcore pro-Israel crowd who insist than any criticism of Israel whatever inevitably leads to Hamas.  I reject the "no daylight" crowd who insist that in the wake Hamas' ghastly slayings, all criticism of Israel must be suspended and that our only acceptable response toward Israel is absolute and unconditional obedience  Some people seem to believe that Israel has no obligation to limit civilian casualties, or that if Israel thinks the best way to put pressure on Hamas is to cut off all supplies and induce mass starvation, who are we to question Israel?  And Israeli setter's abuses of West Bank Palestinians are an outrage.

So, yes, there is much to condemn about Israel. I am not complaining about people who oppose the war on humanitarian grounds. I also agree that it is not hypocritical to focus on a war being fought (largely) with American weapons, financed by American aid over one that does not involve us. We have a lot more leverage to stop a war we are arming and funding than one we are not.  And it is certainly not my place to criticize Palestinians in the US who have had family killed in the war and are outraged.*

Nor am I disputing that there are reasonable pro-Palestinian people.  But that is not what the "pro-Palestinian" movement about.  The "pro-Palestinian" -- I prefer pro-Hamas -- movement starts with the premise that Israel has no right to exist, and that anything -- anything -- dedicated to the destruction of Israel is justified.

Before Israel had fired a single shot -- before Hamas was fully dislodged from territory it had seized -- people were celebrating its action, proclaiming "Resistance is not terrorism," and chanting "From river to sea" -- a call for the destruction of Israel.  The existence of Israel is described as an "occupation," and resistance to the "occupation," i.e., to the existence of Israel, whether in the form of a Hamas rampage of murder, rape and torture; or in the form of the Houthi's indiscriminate blockage of shipping traffic; or in the form of Iran launching over 300 missiles and drones against Israel -- anything goes so long as it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.  

And, it should be noted, cries of genocide went up against Israel from the very outset of the war.

A little background is in order.

Israel withdrew its occupying forces from Gaza in 2005. Pro-Hamas advocates argue that Gaza was still under occupation pre-October 7 because it was under blockade and had become "the world's largest open air prison."  Not mentioned -- Hamas continued to fire rockets at Israel and occasionally to cross over and commit acts of terrorism. And, yes, Israel did fire back and did inflict vastly more damage than it took. It is certainly fair to condemn this.  So far as I can tell, the position of pro-Hamas advocates is that Israel should have given free access to the people committing these acts because, under the laws of war, resistance to the occupying power is not only allowed, but a positive obligation, and the occupying power has no right of defense. In other words, Israel, as occupying power, was required to allow Hamas to attack at will and do nothing to oppose such attacks. 

Even if that is one's moral position, it seems a bit much to ask Israel -- or anyone else, for that matter -- to agree.**

My view tracks with Jonathan Chait. Israel's actions have been appalling.  There is no theoretical reason why there cannot be a liberal, humanitarian, universalist pro-Palestinian movement.  But the pro-Hamas movement coopted any such prospect before Israel had taken any action whatever:

Many students were attracted to these groups because of the horrendous human toll inflicted by Israel’s counterattack in Gaza. But the groups themselves are very clearly not advocating for “peace.” They are for war. Their objection is not to human suffering but that the wrong humans are suffering.

___________________________________________________

*And, just for the record, what is my view on the war?  I generally see eye-to-eye with Kevin Drum.  "Hamas invaded Israel for the express purpose of slaughtering civilians. Israel may be guilty of not caring enough about civilian deaths in Gaza, but they are fundamentally fighting against a terrorist group which has the announced aim of destroying Israel."  And I do not see that as a legitimate goal.

**And it should come as no surprise that the laws of war say no such thing.  The official position of the Red Cross states:

 After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements and genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation. If they do so, they must distinguish themselves from the civilian population, or on the basis of GP I, at least carry their weapons openly during attacks and deployments. Civilians who take a direct part in such hostilities lose their protection against attack for the time of their direct participation, but not their civilian status. If they do not participate directly in hostilities or no longer do so (for example, if they are hors de combat), they are protected against attacks. You know this from the lesson on the conduct of operations. Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing information or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected against attack. They may, however, be in contravention of security laws passed by the occupying power. In that case, they can be tried and sentenced or their freedom of movement restricted

And again:

Civilians who take a direct part in hostilities against the occupying power may be prosecuted. Remnants of the occupied country’s armed forces who continue fighting are of course combatants and must be treated as such. If captured, they are entitled to POW status and treatment as laid down in the Third Geneva Convention. In particular, they cannot be tried for the simple fact of taking part in hostilities. If, however, they commit acts in violation of the law of armed conflict, they may be subject to prosecution.