FORGIVE ME FOR SAYING

The attacks against Israel by Hamas have caused considerable consternation throughout the world, even to the point of diverting attention from Putin’s outrageous invasion of Ukraine, which in the last few days has been every bit as barbaric as the rain of missiles over Israel.

 

I have been struggling for the last couple of days to find a way to understand just what causes human beings to resort to such useless irrational violence. That it emerges out of personal and political frustration is what some would argue, whilst others would see that view as victimisation.

 

I was listening to Start the Week on Radio 4 this morning, which devoted itself to the current crisis in the middle east. Chaired by Tom Sutcliffe with, inter alia, Jake Wallis Simons, current editor of the Jewish Chronicle, and journalist and author Nathan Thrall. Both these men spoke with rational clarity and did not interrupt the other and expressed their differing views about what has gone on, and what is going on as a result. Mr Thrall went into some detail about how the treatment of Palestinians over the years has worsened.

 

Mr Simons, sees the history as the necessity of the Israeli leadership to achieve security in the face of anti-Israeli propaganda and violence against itself and the proliferation of antisemitism. He points out that suicide bombings were effectively stopped by the creation of the barriers between the west bank and the Gaza strip, as an instance in point. Whatever other security measures have been adopted are out of necessity. Mr Simons did add that there were policies of the Israeli Government with which he strongly disagreed. He also stated that hatred of the State of Israel went beyond criticism of political policy to antisemitic sentiments.

 

His view was, effectively, that you cannot blame the state of Israel for trying to secure its safety, nor could you excuse Hamas attacks by blaming harsh security measures imposed on the Palestinians by the Israelis. It is blaming the victim. Indeed James Landale, the BBC’s Diplomatic correspondent, asked Mr Simons whether he thought the attacks were the result of the frustrations and harsh treatment meted out to the Palestinians or their strong feelings of hatred and antisemitism towards Israel. Mr Simons felt that the question was implying it was the fault of the victim. “That sounds like victim blaming to me” he said.

 

As I listened to him, what he was saying was exactly what was being implied about Hamas and other militants. Blaming them for the treatment imposed by the state, resulting in revolt. So it goes on. I would have thought the parties had gone beyond the notion of blaming each other for the continuing violence. Continuing repression only increases tensions and frustrations which are bound to burst. The Israeli government had gone beyond finding security and stabilising the situation. One can only keep the handcuffs on for so long. They must be removed at a point where the resentment of wearing them does not open up to revenge. It is like a safety valve on a pressure cooker. If you do not let off some of the steam there will be an explosion.

 

The complacency and draconian methods adopted by the Government and security forces in believing themselves to be secure has now erupted like a volcano. The taking of hostages is clearly in response to the way in which people have been arrested and detained without any legal scrutiny. Why is that so surprising? That it is blatantly barbaric and terrifying is without question, but then it has been silently condoned for some time on the west bank. Whether it is an act of revenge or a racist action does not matter one way or the other, it is simple hate and it is hateful.  None of it should be condomed or excused.

 

There is an article in the New Yorker by Isaac Chotiner, dated 8^th October 2023 in which he interviews Nathan Thrall.

 

“Mr Chotiner questions: At least one Hamas spokesman said on Saturday that this attack should be a warning for Arab states not to ally with Israel. We’ve seen increasingly close relations between Arab states and Israel recently, and now discussion about the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, brokered in part by the United States. What do you make of that?

Mr Thrall replies: Clearly, this act by Hamas is suicidal. It is an attack of unprecedented scope, and Israel will retaliate to a greater degree than it has before, potentially leading to outcomes we haven’t seen before: not just a simple razing of Gaza by airplanes but also a ground incursion and potential reoccupation of parts of Gaza. So the decision to wittingly, knowingly, undertake this comes from a sense that there are no other options and that there’s nothing left to lose. And part of the reason that Hamas, and Palestinians in general, feel that they’re in such a desperate situation is that they have been entirely abandoned by those who should be their allies: the Arab states. The talks about the steps toward normalization with Saudi Arabia certainly inform the Palestinian sense that they have been abandoned.”

 

I have just been listening to BBC’s World at One with Sarah Montague (a.k.a. Lady Brooke) interviewing the current Head of International Relations for Hamas, Basem Naim. She asked him what they hope to achieve by this action? What do they think can be achieved?

His first words in reply,  “A lot. First of all our freedom. We want to get rid of this occupation. We have to be free like any people around the world. We want to have our self-determination, our freedom…”

 

There is a song with the refrain “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose. Nothing ain’t worth nothing cause it's free”.  Nothing left to lose. If losing one’s life is nothing, one must consider oneself already dead. If a Palestinian’s life is no life at all, what is? If a refugee is willing to risk their life, and that of their child, at sea, sitting on the edge of a rubber dingy, have they nothing left to lose?  What the hell have we become if we’ve allowed entire populations to have nothing left to lose?