Exposing Hamas-Apologism Amidst Moral Confusion

And after all, from where will peace emerge, if not from a continuing effort to dismantle terrorism, which is anti-peace?

Exposing Hamas-Apologism Amidst Moral Confusion
November 7, 2023

By Andrew Samaras

              Fully 4 weeks since the Massacre of October 7^th, and citizens of democracies around the world—who did not awaken to the sound of rockets and the angry and devout shouting of Hamas fanatics dragging neighbors out of their homes and into the streets—We the Privileged People, are again facing the chaos of distinct and entrenched perceptions of reality, informed by media bubbles, agenda, and bias, as they collide publicly and destructively in our societies. The purveyors of one of these realities observe October 7^th as simply the latest in a series of escalations, a timeless cycle of cause and effect stemming from an original sin, in this case a foolish and racist effort culminating in the foundation of Israel in 1948, which predestined the rise of a Hamas or PIJ to defend Palestinian interests. Others are altogether unconcerned with the history and just seek to quiet Palestine, at whatever cost to its people. Still others believe the bloodshed to be the bittersweet fulfillment of prophecy that will bring on the second coming. Not much can be done about such religiosity, and there are more than enough publications dedicated to dispelling the notion that Israel is blameless. My concern, however, is with the rising tide of equivocation and Hamas-Apologism flowing from the first group, because I am disappointed to see the moral confusion from fellow liberals, and I am deeply worried about where this clash of realities leads, in a time where moral clarity is key to avoiding the worst possible outcome. These points should be clear: terrorism is never justified, Israel’s retaliation is not genocide, and a ceasefire is not peace.

            Why should Israel’s defense of itself be treated as antithetical to a future armistice or the possibility of a Two-State peace, when Hamas is the most vicious and ruthless oppressive force under which the Palestinian people suffer? The answer is obvious, but not definitive—because Hamas doesn’t just use Palestinians as human shields when firing rockets from hospitals, schools, and residences in Gaza, when strapping suicide-vests to their women, coercing and paying their children to absorb violence, or when blocking refugees from fleeing retaliation.¹^,²^,³ Hamas uses human-shields when they claim the civilian dead as martyrs for their cause while shirking any responsibility for the wellbeing of those same civilians. When Hamas is declared the voice of Palestine and then wages a kind of brutal and inhuman warfare, the response to which will inevitably result in the irredeemable shedding of innocent Palestinian blood, the human shield dynamic of their existence is solidified. And this dynamic bleeds out beyond regional border, when voters, not just protestors and activists, treat the most gruesome display of violence against Jews since the Holocaust as if Hamas is defending Palestine, like a big brother from a bully.⁴ They see no moral distinction between a nation defending its citizens during times of war and, say, policing a state during peacetime. This is a delusionally charitable interpretation of Hamas and other Islamist groups’ agendas. A more reasonable interpretation would be to take Hamas at its word—that it is intent on demolishing the Jewish existence, and the further oppression of Palestine is one of their most successful means to that end.⁵ Deeper critical thought about the ethics of war and broad understanding of this moral distinction as a first principle are critical to breaking the spell of Hamas-Apologism.

              While saying they defend voiceless Palestinians and not Hamas, the apologists speak in terms defined by Hamas and use language that parrots Iranian propaganda, ceaselessly asserting that Israel is an apartheid state conducting a genocide in Gaza, and they hold this position to the exclusion of condemning the disgusting display of depravity the world witnessed on October 7^th. In one fell swoop, these friends, journalists, politicians, and well-meaning liberals write off the terrorism and claim the moral high ground. #FreePalestine and No Peace on Stolen Land, they are loudly protesting. While sympathy for the Palestinian plight is something everyone should share, the slogans display, not only an ignorance of a complicated history, but moreover the detachment of this position from any actionable reality.

              Stolen lands is more euphemism than actual concept. It is usually used as to award the only legitimate claim to a territory as belonging to its oldest indigenous inhabitants, notwithstanding states established through treaty, post-war division, absorption, or conquest. Any violence by the indigenous against anyone who came afterwards gets justified in this way. Members of this camp can be forgiven their naivety, but not their hypocrisy, as unsurprisingly, they apply this principle selectively. By this same logic, the Jews in Israel have at the very least an equally legitimate historical claim to their land⁶, but pre-Davidian history need not be invoked to turn over fallacies in the #FreePalestine movement.

              What reasonable policy action can be taken to #FreePalestine beyond ridding it of Hamas? If the IDF ceased to operate anywhere outside of Tel-Aviv, would the hostages be freed? Could the lives of the women and children who were raped and murdered in Kibbutz Nir Oz be returned if power and utilities are restored to Gaza?⁷ “No Peace on Stolen Land!” is spoken out of both sides of the mouth: the side telling Israel to stop defending itself and peace might somehow manifest, and the side dismissing even the idea of peace out-of-hand. Reasonable people can disagree on whether the British and American effort to establish a Jewish state was a good decision, and the method of carrying out such an ambitious goal can be scrutinized and roundly criticized. A claim like establishing a Jewish state was the only way to ensure the safety and security of the Jewish people can be judged according to its merits. But the absurdity of a slogan like “No Peace on Stolen Land!” creates a significant challenge when reasoning with its purveyors. What is to come of the two peoples, both born and raised on those hills and valleys, both cultures and religions equally bound to its history, both calling that land home for generations? And what is to be done about the conglomerate of religious extremists, intent on annihilating one of those peoples, using its own as a sword in its propaganda and as a shield on the battlefield, who will stop at nothing to prevent peaceful coexistence? And after all, from where will peace emerge, if not from a continuing effort to dismantle terrorism, which is anti-peace?

              Many who are perhaps only superficially aware of the context of this conflict are nonetheless being captivated by the unprecedented reports and beginning to engage with the topic, blissfully unaware of the onslaught of red herrings and exaggerations that awaits them. Under the heading of Palestine on Wikipedia, the first paragraph will state that both the Gaza strip and the West bank exist today under Israeli occupation, without reference to Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza or the thousands of Jewish settlers evicted from the area. Countless hours of misleading 30 second YouTube and TikTok shorts are casually throwing around the words apartheid and genocide to infuriate and mobilize the viewers. Journalism cannot necessarily be relied on to correct the record either. There was no pause—even on the 7^th—to the publication of articles critical of Israel, even to the point of holding Israel directly responsible for what its people have endured. And why would anyone question that narrative when their own universities and representatives can be heard publicly embracing this same incomplete-when-not-utterly-false understanding. Meanwhile the other lead is buried. What the terrorists do to their own people, and the illiberal and morally bankrupt vision they have for the world, is meant to go unchallenged with a #CeasefireNOW. This noisy confusion works against states making responsible policy decisions, which should be a common goal.

              Hamas needs to be isolated, rooted out, and destroyed, and yet Hamas is inextricable from Palestine, because it is composed of Palestinian fathers, sons, and brothers whose loss will be borne by the grieving families that they will leave behind. Some will seek vengeance or turn to religious fundamentalism, or both, and the vicious cycle will continue. In this way, the tacit Hamas supporter is correct that Israel’s actions in the coming months will perpetuate, if not expand, hostility toward itself from within the region and from without. It is worth noting, however, that given certain religious dogma, Israel will always be the target of hostility, by virtue only of being a Jewish nation. Still, Israel will likely retaliate in ways that will warrant the righteous denunciation of anyone concerned with ethics and human rights, in the same way that acts of terrorism warrant unequivocal condemnation and victims of terrorism deserve our full support.

            With antisemitism on the rise worldwide,⁸ getting support right today is critical to preventing greater suffering tomorrow. And when Hamas is linked to so many other nefarious actors in the region, and with the Russian Ruble flowing as freely through the Middle East as Iranian drones,⁹^,¹⁰ getting policy right could not be more crucial to preventing the war from going global. No matter what the Biden administration thinks they must obfuscate, Iran is linked to the massacre; they metamorphosed Hamas, and the two are interminably linked in all of Hamas’ activities. To the extent that the alliance of democratic countries is keen on washing its hands of overt involvement in the Middle East, it is dependent on a sturdy and equally ethical Israel to contain the volatility. Stability cannot be forced externally—it can only arise from within the democratic movements currently struggling in Palestine, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, which desperately need actual support.

            It is a moral imperative for the White House and State Department to continue supporting Israel’s sustained security. It is indeed a moral imperative for them to continue providing aid and securing agreements to protect tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees. It is also a moral imperative to use influence to attempt to curb Israel from being retributive rather than strategic. All these responsibilities are complicated by an upcoming election season where an expanding clique of voters with nationalistic tendencies, will use every lever of their significant influence, including antisemitism, to try to shake and shape public resolve into capitulating to terrorism. A combination of history education, explanation of nuance, unwavering resolve, and rebuke and ridicule of Hamas-apologism is the only way the White House may be able to drag its party to the right side in the war of ideas without crumbling into GOP-style chaos.