Few things demonstrate the double standards and hypocrisy of the liberal establishment as much as the Palestinian conflict. For decades, Israel has killed about 20 times more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israelis. But this has never met with any condemnation, only regret, sometimes. When a Palestinian organisation attacks and kills Israelis, however, there is no end to the condemnation – and hatred.
That said, there is a big question mark over the Hamas attack.
It is quite possible that Hamas has calculated the impact, taking into account the likely extremely brutal Israeli response. There has been talk of the Israeli army being demoralised after years of dirty work as an occupying power. It has also been pointed out that the Ukraine war prevents effective US support. But even if this is true, escalating violence against a state power is always a risky business.
There is a famous historical example. On 21 January 1919, the IRA attacked an English police column and killed four policemen, the first attack in the Irish War of Independence. The IRA won that war, but it was by a hair. They were basically defeated in the spring of 1921, after massive English terror against Irish civilians. But the British government gave up first, and invited negotiations after American pressure, among other things.
So things could have gone very differently.
Even the Algerian FLN’s attack on French occupation forces on 1 November 1954 eventually led to Algerian independence. But not before about one million Algerians had been killed (out of 10 million), including virtually all the resistance fighters within the country. Those who survived were the exiled politicians, who then seized power and used it for private purposes, mainly by selling oil to the former colonial power.
States tend to have much greater potential for violence than any civilian power, even if it has well-motivated militias at its disposal. On the other hand, states are not necessarily better at politics than civilian movements, so in most cases it is not worthwhile for a popular movement to bring the conflict to a level of violence that allows the state’s resources to be fully utilised. Although there are exceptions.
It would be interesting to know how Hamas has reasoned. They may consider that after an escalation of violence, the Palestinians are in a better position than they have been so far. They may even be able to give good reasons for this.
Unfortunately, in public they have only moralised: “a response to all the massacres Palestinians have endured over decades“. You kill us, we have the right to kill you. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But that doesn’t get you anywhere.
It’s not enough to be right, you have to get it right. In politics, the aim is to defend the interests of one’s base, not to perpetuate a blood feud.
Activists for Peace 