Thank you Matt - an in depth and clear-headed overview.
The look on Sunak’s phiz as Netanyahu’s rhetoric bound him to what has just been done and more so, what is yet to come, made me think that there’ll be some tiptoeing back from an “unequivocal” stance of support over the next few days, weeks, maybe months.
The issue with the slippery slope of redefining morality anew on your terms is that the only thing at the bottom is an abyss into which you never thought you could go.
The comparisons to Northern Ireland/North of Ireland/Ulster aren’t without merit. What you need to give people who have very little to lose is a lot more to lose. They require hope, prospects for prosperity and the respect that comes with this
Immediately they require aid, intensive and meaningful aid. The paucity of commitment in this regards augurs very badly, as does tonight’s news that a ground attack is imminent.
I’m not sure Netanyahu wouldn’t just kick away any ladders thrown his way for climbing down. It seems very likely that the only way out of this will have to emerge from the Israeli people who won’t have ceaseless barbarism, however one justifies it, carried out in their name.
What Hamas did was hideous. They knew they’d get a reaction and they will receive one I suspect their fevered nightmares didn’t dare expect. But who wins? Who loses less badly?
All good points Robin. I’m stunned, not only by the different forms of barbarism, on both sides, but at the absence of any coherent goal or endpoint from the government and organisation involved. A former Shin Bet guy told C4 News today he didn’t know what would happen to Gaza if Hamas is destroyed (something v. Difficult to achieve, as Hannah Ashrawi pointed out the other day). He then said the outside world should take care of Gaza. So Israel smashes it to pieces, creating a ‘buffer zone’ and other countries occupy what’s left of Gaza, by force, and impose a government? Total madness. And as for Hamas, beyond a massive battle in the ruins, I don’t see where it plans to go or what it expects to happen.
What does seem plausible is that both an increasingly desperate Hamas and a flagging and floundering Netanyahu now have a cause and an issue to which to rally support.
I can only agree with Robin M's comments on your article Matt. As you say barbarism comes in different forms and right now both sides seem set on continuing the downward spiral. Biden's comments suggesting Israeli restraint offer only the faintest hope. Unlikely to be fulfilled as long as Hamas continue to hold hostages. Neither side (Hamas and the Israeli government) seems to have anything constructive to offer in terms of a way forward. Just pouring more petrol on the flames, in which the Palestinian population are destined to suffer the most.
And I have just stumbled on your book on terrorism - and ordered it. I studied conflict as part of a post grad course some years ago and it reinforced the underlying complexity of all such situations. They are rarely simple good vs bad as portrayed by politicians and the media, and their supporters on both sides.
"has turned the entire population of Gaza into a military target". Matt., the population of Gaza has been a target for many years. This is not the first bombing campaign, it is one in a long series. You seem to be committing the same error you started out criticising. If we judge both Hamas and the Israeli state by the same standards, we are omitting the reality that one is a powerful nation state with a modern sophisticated military supplied with al the most advanced heavy weapons modern technology can provide, a functioning (though one-sided) judicial system, and well-maintained infrastructure and thriving society. The other is a lightly armed group of fighters that only exists because all other means of resistance are denied, in a population of 2.3 million denied adequate food, clean water, jobs, most basic human rights, and above all, any hope of a better future, fenced into 365Km2 .
Let me remind you that The Great March of Return was peaceful, and the response by Israel was deliberate shooting, including widespread targeting of limbs to inflict permanent disability on men, women and children. Is this the standard that Hamas have to meet? Where intensive, missile, drone and bomb strikes delivered by state-of-the-art tech on a vast scale, targeting everyone and everywhere in Gaza, where there are no shelters and no protection is the response to low grade rockets fired into a state with widespread bomb shelters and the most advanced anti-missile system on the planet? Where is the equivalence there? What of the denial of legal rights to Palestinians arrested by Israel? Or the destruction of homes as a collective punishment? Or the denial of access to medical care? Or of access to education? Or the imprisonment of an entire population and the ongoing theft of their land and homes? What standards are the Palestinians supposed to meet? They have to be responsible, peaceable, non-violent, while their oppressors can do whatever they choose, because they have all the power. Who could remain peaceful and calm in the face of the level of aggression, violence, intimidation, oppression, dispossession and humiliation? Could you?
You're preaching to the converted here Zoltan - up to a point. I'm well aware of what Israel has done in Gaza in the past. I've written about it many times, including here. I've also mentioned the March of Return. I'm aware of the military imbalance between the two 'sides'. I don't deny the right to Palestinian resistance. I don't expect an occupied people to remain 'peaceful and calm' - but that doesn't mean I can applaud actions that are damaging to the Palestinians, when facing an enemy as powerful as the one they're up against.
And - in this last case - Hamas has carried out vicious atrocities which violate all rules and customs of warfare and humanity. Just because they are weaker doesn't give them the 'right' to do this, anymore than being stronger gives Israel the right to obliterate Gaza. And these pogrom-like acts - the murder of children, old people, pregnant women and clearly 'non-military' targets have given Israel carte blanche to go further in the destruction of Gaza than in all its previous wars. So yes, I condemn these acts, because the murder of civilians is never justified, and also because these gratuitous crimes (and I'm not referring to attacks on military bases) have brought genocidal violence to Gazans who had nothing to do with it, and this is exactly what anyone who has followed this 'conflict' would have expected..
It's not about whether people condemn atrocities, nor about having a right to commit them. Clearly nobody has a right to, and the use of that word carries strong condemnation. But the double-standards of what words are applied to the actions of the different parties are a problem. I see many world leaders and politicians leaping to throw all sorts of condemnation at Hamas, but virtual silence about the Israeli atrocities.
We always get this knee jerk response - people are judged by whether they condemn or not, regardless of what position or influence they might have. Obviously, it matters a lot more what the US president says, than what you say. Not because the content of his speech has more moral weight, but because of the power and influence he wields. What matters is whether the words have any bearing on the events.
The main point I wanted to make was that Gaza has been bombed many times before, always justified as Israeli self-defence, 'carefully targeting' those responsible for an atrocity. Yet, each time, many women and children died. So to suggest that this particular set of atrocities had made all of Gaza a military target seemed to me to be missing the fact that it has ALWAYS been one. It also elides the reality that any violent act can be viewed as an atrocity, but if you happen to wear a uniform of a recognised state, that is much less likely. Not because the action is any different in effect.
Once again, I feel we're talking at cross-purposes here. I know that Gaza has been attacked many times, and I know that women and children have been repeatedly killed, and that these deaths have been repeatedly ignored. So, I'm aware of the double standards - as my pieces make clear (I hope). Nor am I remotely suggesting that the IDF doesn't commit atrocities. But, I insist, this time it is attacking all of Gaza in a way that it has never been able to do before, and the violence appears to be aimed at the complete destruction of Gaza society. That's been hinted at, and talked about before, but now it is actually being done.
No cross purposes. You are saying that Hamas shouldn't have given them a pretext for this action by attacking and killing people. But what is the alternative? Intifadas, marches, peaceful and violent protests, active attacks and killings are all met with the same result. In the spectrum between collaboration and resistance, what is the middle way? Where does appeasement meet cooperation meet withholding of any cooperation? Where do any of these lead to a viable state for Palestinians? The truth is, they don't, since Israel has no intention of allowing such a thing, Ever. Unless the US forces them to. Which they have shown no signs of doing. So, I ask you, what should Hamas have done? Its fine to say what they should not do, but unless you have an alternative, then your words are empty posturing.
Thank you Matt - an in depth and clear-headed overview.
The look on Sunak’s phiz as Netanyahu’s rhetoric bound him to what has just been done and more so, what is yet to come, made me think that there’ll be some tiptoeing back from an “unequivocal” stance of support over the next few days, weeks, maybe months.
The issue with the slippery slope of redefining morality anew on your terms is that the only thing at the bottom is an abyss into which you never thought you could go.
The comparisons to Northern Ireland/North of Ireland/Ulster aren’t without merit. What you need to give people who have very little to lose is a lot more to lose. They require hope, prospects for prosperity and the respect that comes with this
Immediately they require aid, intensive and meaningful aid. The paucity of commitment in this regards augurs very badly, as does tonight’s news that a ground attack is imminent.
I’m not sure Netanyahu wouldn’t just kick away any ladders thrown his way for climbing down. It seems very likely that the only way out of this will have to emerge from the Israeli people who won’t have ceaseless barbarism, however one justifies it, carried out in their name.
What Hamas did was hideous. They knew they’d get a reaction and they will receive one I suspect their fevered nightmares didn’t dare expect. But who wins? Who loses less badly?
All good points Robin. I’m stunned, not only by the different forms of barbarism, on both sides, but at the absence of any coherent goal or endpoint from the government and organisation involved. A former Shin Bet guy told C4 News today he didn’t know what would happen to Gaza if Hamas is destroyed (something v. Difficult to achieve, as Hannah Ashrawi pointed out the other day). He then said the outside world should take care of Gaza. So Israel smashes it to pieces, creating a ‘buffer zone’ and other countries occupy what’s left of Gaza, by force, and impose a government? Total madness. And as for Hamas, beyond a massive battle in the ruins, I don’t see where it plans to go or what it expects to happen.
What does seem plausible is that both an increasingly desperate Hamas and a flagging and floundering Netanyahu now have a cause and an issue to which to rally support.
I can only agree with Robin M's comments on your article Matt. As you say barbarism comes in different forms and right now both sides seem set on continuing the downward spiral. Biden's comments suggesting Israeli restraint offer only the faintest hope. Unlikely to be fulfilled as long as Hamas continue to hold hostages. Neither side (Hamas and the Israeli government) seems to have anything constructive to offer in terms of a way forward. Just pouring more petrol on the flames, in which the Palestinian population are destined to suffer the most.
And I have just stumbled on your book on terrorism - and ordered it. I studied conflict as part of a post grad course some years ago and it reinforced the underlying complexity of all such situations. They are rarely simple good vs bad as portrayed by politicians and the media, and their supporters on both sides.
"has turned the entire population of Gaza into a military target". Matt., the population of Gaza has been a target for many years. This is not the first bombing campaign, it is one in a long series. You seem to be committing the same error you started out criticising. If we judge both Hamas and the Israeli state by the same standards, we are omitting the reality that one is a powerful nation state with a modern sophisticated military supplied with al the most advanced heavy weapons modern technology can provide, a functioning (though one-sided) judicial system, and well-maintained infrastructure and thriving society. The other is a lightly armed group of fighters that only exists because all other means of resistance are denied, in a population of 2.3 million denied adequate food, clean water, jobs, most basic human rights, and above all, any hope of a better future, fenced into 365Km2 .
Let me remind you that The Great March of Return was peaceful, and the response by Israel was deliberate shooting, including widespread targeting of limbs to inflict permanent disability on men, women and children. Is this the standard that Hamas have to meet? Where intensive, missile, drone and bomb strikes delivered by state-of-the-art tech on a vast scale, targeting everyone and everywhere in Gaza, where there are no shelters and no protection is the response to low grade rockets fired into a state with widespread bomb shelters and the most advanced anti-missile system on the planet? Where is the equivalence there? What of the denial of legal rights to Palestinians arrested by Israel? Or the destruction of homes as a collective punishment? Or the denial of access to medical care? Or of access to education? Or the imprisonment of an entire population and the ongoing theft of their land and homes? What standards are the Palestinians supposed to meet? They have to be responsible, peaceable, non-violent, while their oppressors can do whatever they choose, because they have all the power. Who could remain peaceful and calm in the face of the level of aggression, violence, intimidation, oppression, dispossession and humiliation? Could you?
You're preaching to the converted here Zoltan - up to a point. I'm well aware of what Israel has done in Gaza in the past. I've written about it many times, including here. I've also mentioned the March of Return. I'm aware of the military imbalance between the two 'sides'. I don't deny the right to Palestinian resistance. I don't expect an occupied people to remain 'peaceful and calm' - but that doesn't mean I can applaud actions that are damaging to the Palestinians, when facing an enemy as powerful as the one they're up against.
And - in this last case - Hamas has carried out vicious atrocities which violate all rules and customs of warfare and humanity. Just because they are weaker doesn't give them the 'right' to do this, anymore than being stronger gives Israel the right to obliterate Gaza. And these pogrom-like acts - the murder of children, old people, pregnant women and clearly 'non-military' targets have given Israel carte blanche to go further in the destruction of Gaza than in all its previous wars. So yes, I condemn these acts, because the murder of civilians is never justified, and also because these gratuitous crimes (and I'm not referring to attacks on military bases) have brought genocidal violence to Gazans who had nothing to do with it, and this is exactly what anyone who has followed this 'conflict' would have expected..
It's not about whether people condemn atrocities, nor about having a right to commit them. Clearly nobody has a right to, and the use of that word carries strong condemnation. But the double-standards of what words are applied to the actions of the different parties are a problem. I see many world leaders and politicians leaping to throw all sorts of condemnation at Hamas, but virtual silence about the Israeli atrocities.
We always get this knee jerk response - people are judged by whether they condemn or not, regardless of what position or influence they might have. Obviously, it matters a lot more what the US president says, than what you say. Not because the content of his speech has more moral weight, but because of the power and influence he wields. What matters is whether the words have any bearing on the events.
The main point I wanted to make was that Gaza has been bombed many times before, always justified as Israeli self-defence, 'carefully targeting' those responsible for an atrocity. Yet, each time, many women and children died. So to suggest that this particular set of atrocities had made all of Gaza a military target seemed to me to be missing the fact that it has ALWAYS been one. It also elides the reality that any violent act can be viewed as an atrocity, but if you happen to wear a uniform of a recognised state, that is much less likely. Not because the action is any different in effect.
Once again, I feel we're talking at cross-purposes here. I know that Gaza has been attacked many times, and I know that women and children have been repeatedly killed, and that these deaths have been repeatedly ignored. So, I'm aware of the double standards - as my pieces make clear (I hope). Nor am I remotely suggesting that the IDF doesn't commit atrocities. But, I insist, this time it is attacking all of Gaza in a way that it has never been able to do before, and the violence appears to be aimed at the complete destruction of Gaza society. That's been hinted at, and talked about before, but now it is actually being done.
No cross purposes. You are saying that Hamas shouldn't have given them a pretext for this action by attacking and killing people. But what is the alternative? Intifadas, marches, peaceful and violent protests, active attacks and killings are all met with the same result. In the spectrum between collaboration and resistance, what is the middle way? Where does appeasement meet cooperation meet withholding of any cooperation? Where do any of these lead to a viable state for Palestinians? The truth is, they don't, since Israel has no intention of allowing such a thing, Ever. Unless the US forces them to. Which they have shown no signs of doing. So, I ask you, what should Hamas have done? Its fine to say what they should not do, but unless you have an alternative, then your words are empty posturing.