Anti-Netanyahu protesters within “Israel,” photo by AP
At this stage within the collapse of Zionism and imperialism, liberal Zionists play a particular role: making it easier for the hegemon to pivot towards its next hybrid warfare efforts. There is no saving Zionism; the entire project of “Israel” is unraveling, experiencing economic, energy, and demographic crises as global support for “Israel” keeps declining. This means the hegemon’s best option is to invest within a big new campaign of destabilization, seeking regime change in the countries that have been joining with China and BRICS. It’s obviously still useful for the imperialists to back “Israel,” though, despite its being unsaveable; so the narrative managers are promoting the liberal, “moderate” types of Zionists, who seek to extend Zionism’s lifespan through arguments like “Israel created Hamas.”
By “Israel,” these liberal Zionists specifically mean Netanyahu, who they argue is the sole reason why “Israel” is committing evils; they act like if only the Zionist entity were to get different leadership, peace would come, and “Israel” would somehow stop being inherently colonialist. Their narrative about Hamas being nothing more than controlled opposition for Netanyahu is an idea that’s attractive to many sincere anti-Zionists, because it seems like an effective way to argue against the genocidal “Israeli” military action. But the truth is that it’s an insidious and ahistorical piece of ideological poison; a manipulation that acts to assist Zionism’s liberal wing, and to divide anti-Zionists worldwide.
Because the liberal wing in all likelihood will never come back into power within “Israel,” and the extreme right is only going to keep speeding up the entity’s demise, the real usefulness of the “anti-Netanyahu, anti-Hamas” arguments is in how these sentiments weaken the anti-imperialist struggle. If the hegemon can turn Palestine supporters against Hamas, the anti-imperialist movement will be confused and fractured, making the war on BRICS easier. This is the effect when some elements of Zionism decry Netanyahu; it doesn’t help the Palestinians, it only acts to prolong the genocide and strengthen the U.S. destabilization apparatus. These elements may try to portray themselves as friends to the Palestinians, but in practice they usually don’t even talk about the genocide; that’s why the most visible types of anti-Netanyahu Zionists are the protesters who’ve exclusively focused on the hostages. These are the ideological forces behind the “pro-Palestine, anti-Hamas” arguments.
This effort to mislead pro-Palestine people about the role of Hamas relies upon lies of omission, ones which originate from a distinctly liberal Zionist perspective. This becomes clear when you look closely at the logic behind these arguments. When the “moderates” talk about how Netanyahu preferred for Hamas to gain power so that Palestinians could be divided, they act as if Netanyahu totally overrode the agency of Gaza’s people. The context these arguments leave out is that voting Hamas was the best way for Gazans to show their dissatisfaction over Fatah’s corruption, and over its complicity in the occupation of the West Bank. (Which is an injustice that liberal Zionists don’t have any real problem with.)
These arguments also leave out how since the election in 2006, Netanyahu’s plan for taking advantage of this development has backfired; Hamas has joined with the communists and the nationalists in a resistance coalition, one whose other members directly participated in October 7. And the strategic success which that operation has brought about, wherein “Israel” is falling apart and Palestine is closer than ever to statehood, dispels any narratives about October 7 being a false flag. The reality is that “Israel” failed to stop the operation because it had become complacent and overconfident in its perceived security strength, relying upon fancy surveillance technologies that had hidden weaknesses. October 7 wasn’t a plan by Netanyahu to create the pretext for military action, he was genuinely caught off guard. And when he enabled Hamas, he unknowingly helped ensure Zionism’s demise. The decision came from a place of overconfidence, an assumption that there was no way Hamas could ever truly threaten the settler project.
On the narrative about Hamas being a secret tool for “Israel,” Noel Bamen writes: “it has become a sort of article of faith, and at issue is whether one is willing to question it: Do I believe that relationships can change or not? Do I believe that there is some kind of ‘original sin’ that cannot be washed away? Do I believe that Western imperialism or Zionism are all‐powerful and control everything and everyone, regardless of the facts on the table?” When Bamen talks about how the relationship has changed, he’s referencing how the predecessor to Hamas—the Muslim Brotherhood—was at one point favored by the Zionist entity. Since then, as Bamen points out, the establishment of Hamas has reversed this situation:
To begin with the Muslim Brotherhood: as far as I know, there are certain indications, but no evidence, that it has received direct support from Israel; in my view, however, this point is of secondary importance. The toleration or even direct or indirect support of the Muslim Brotherhood by Israel was based on two grounds : 1. divide and rule — and this can hardly be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, as Baumgarten also emphasizes. 2. This support was essentially based on the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood did not resist the colonial regime — this in turn can and must be held against it. But the founding of Hamas was precisely a radical break with this earlier policy, which had served the Zionists…the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine had become a tame movement from the 1950s at the latest, which therefore enjoyed a certain benevolence from the Zionists and was even pragmatically supported in the spirit of a divide‐and‐rule policy. Hamas marked the end of this relationship and became the bitter, mortal enemy of Zionism as a result of Oslo and the Second Intifada.
The Zionist voices which seek to discredit Hamas have since put forth an updated version of this theory, where they point to how Netanyahu tried to use Hamas for those same “divide and rule” tactics. They assert that this means Hamas is a synthetic force which Netanyahu controls, or at least that Hamas is unwittingly playing into Netanyahu’s game. But this is not a serious analysis, and Palestine supporters harm their own cause by promoting it. It’s tempting to try to counter pro-“Israel” arguments by saying that the Zionist entity’s enemy in Gaza is fake, but to do this is to fall for a trick by Zionism’s more “respectable” element. In addition to creating distrust and infighting among the pro-Palestine camp, this narrative reinforces the logic of dogmatic pacifism, where Hamas and its partners are seen as necessarily wrong for utilizing armed struggle.
If Hamas is a false opposition, then it must be employing a strategy that’s hurting the Palestinian cause. Its methods must be a deviation from the right methods, the peaceful ones. This is not how national liberation movements work; throughout a struggle against an occupier state, the conditions call for peaceful tactics in certain areas, and armed struggle in other areas. The conditions required the resistance to carry out the Al Aqsa Flood military operation on October 7; this has been proven by that operation’s massively weakening the entity.
The way to argue against “Israel” being justified for perpetrating this genocide is not by smearing a crucial part of the Palestinian resistance. Not only is this divisive and inaccurate to the facts, it’s also wholly unnecessary for making our argument. That the military action isn’t justified is evident merely within its genocidal character; it’s a genocide, therefore it’s wrong. And therefore it’s right for a militant group to resist the state that’s committing genocide. Hamas has done what’s strategically correct within the mission to end the “Israeli” Nazi state, which means history will judge it as having made a vital contribution. This credibility that Hamas has gained is part of why it’s held a role within the Beijing negotiations for Palestinian unity, wherein it’s successfully united with Fatah and its other former enemies. If Hamas were Netanyahu’s tool, it wouldn’t be on its way to holding a place within the coming Palestinian state, and it wouldn’t be willing to participate in talks which bring that state closer.
Recognizing these things means adopting a different view of anti-imperialism than “war is bad, so both sides are bad,” which is the idea that such anti-Hamas smears implicitly promote. To be effective as anti-imperialists, we need to understand when it’s necessary to resist imperialism and fascism through military means; which requires doing more work when it comes to research. We need to diligently investigate each given strategic situation, and come to an honest judgment about which tactics are called for. The conditions within each place are always fluid, which makes this intellectual mission a constant challenge. And taking on this challenge is the only way to fight the empire in a competent fashion; to advance beyond merely reacting towards the things we see, and become skilled in the art of power struggle.
The impulse among the left to call Hamas controlled opposition comes from a reactive mindset, where it feels like everything must be a lie including the resistance. When you investigate further, it becomes apparent that the Palestinian cause has more allies than Zionists want us to believe, and the path to victory becomes so much clearer.
————————————————————————
If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures amid late-stage capitalism, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here.
To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.
No comments:
Post a Comment