This is from the book I’m writing, which will be called “When Tears Can’t Save Them: Why The Pro-Palestine Movement Failed To Stop A Holocaust, & How It Can Still Win.”
In June 2024, the Jerusalem Post published an opinion piece written by Nadav Tamir, one that Ian Carroll would use to make an argument about Hamas being a tool for Netanyahu. The core piece actually went beyond saying Hamas is in league with Netanyahu; it also employed anti-Iran tropes to spin a larger narrative that implicated the Axis of Resistance within this great conspiracy. Tamir began by saying:
Last week, in response to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s statement that “What Hamas did on October 7 has thwarted Israel’s normalization with Saudi Arabia,” Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas said: “The Palestinians are paying the price of the war and Khamenei’s statements make it clear that the goal [of Iran] is “...to sacrifice Palestinian blood. [This] will never lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital... what we want is the end of the occupation.”
This exchange of statements clarifying the division of the parties in the conflict illustrates the abysmal gap between Hamas and the jihad supported by Iran on the one hand and the PA on the other, and why the PA has been and remains, even after October 7, the major partner in pursuing the interests of the State of Israel. Absurd as it may be, within our own government, there are those who share the vision of Hamas and Iran, which would mean an endless war of attrition.
This is the worldview of the liberal Zionist faction that’s represented by the bulk of Netanyahu-critical publications within “Israel.” It’s a view which comes from the attitude that if only the two “extreme” sides were to stop agitating for war, then the Zionist entity would be able to reach “peace” with the Palestinians. From this mindset comes the notion that Iran, Hamas, and the other resistance forces are playing into the hands of the “extreme” Zionists (who are portrayed as being utterly distinct from the “good” Zionists which supposedly hold a humanitarian position).
When the biggest “dissident” voices are getting their analyses on Zionism from Zionism’s own controlled opposition, the outcome is that U.S. imperialism’s propaganda gets repackaged for an audience which is seeking real answers. Carroll’s citing this article is only one example, but it does indicate a larger relationship between liberal Zionism and the typical conspiracy-centered perspectives about Palestine. In the absence of a class analysis, of a view that comes from rigorous investigation, you get confusion which the imperialists will exploit.
This is what was happening when Carroll came across the Jerusalem Post’s op-ed, and read the following part from it:
Smotrich is working to cut off the PA from Israel’s financial system, he is using his authority to stop transferring tax payments that belong to the PA and continues to prevent the return of Palestinian workers to Israel – together with his partners in the government and against recommendations of all security officials. As a result of these actions, the security forces are now alerting about the collapse of the PA and the dire consequences for Israel’s security of such a scenario. The economic strangulation of the PA carried out by the Israeli government occurs while money from Iran continues to flow to the West Bank with the aim of promoting terrorist attacks. Smotrich is not stupid, he understands the security dangers in the collapse of the PA’s economy, but this is exactly his goal. His ideological partner, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, also supports the vision of chaos driven by Iran and the efforts to weaken the PA. During Jerusalem Day celebrations Ben-Gvir stated that his policy is that Jews would be allowed to carry out religious rituals on the holy Temple Mount.
After quoting this, Carroll said Smotrich and Ben-Gvir “know that more terrorism, more chaos, more destabilization, though it leads to more violence it also leads to more opportunity.” This is the outcome of approaching foreign policy in a way that isn’t grounded within the actual liberation struggles which are being waged by those resisting imperialism. You end up taking your cues from actors who represent not a revolutionary agenda, but one of the factions within the Zionist/imperialist structure. In this case, the idea these faux-dissident forces have sought to convey is that the anti-colonial resistance simply represents “chaos”; with the implication being that Palestine’s subjugation can be ended not through fighting back against it, but through cooperating with the settler state. Which is why the Palestinian Authority gets held up as a buffer against “terrorism” and “violence” within this narrative.
There is a difference between the subjective intent behind a statement or action, and the objective impact that it has. If we are thinking charitably of the commentators who repeat the narratives about how Hamas and Iran serve Netanyahu, or how October 7 was a false flag, we can assume that these commentators merely intend to expose the corruption within the “Israeli” state. Whatever motives Carroll has, though, the reality is that his propagation of such views acts to strengthen Zionism.
This is the case even though Carroll denounces the settlers and their crimes. Because within the Zionist structure, there are multiple forces at play, extending beyond Netanyahu or the particular camp he represents. And these forces play off of each other to fortify the colonization project; from the start of Zionism, there has been a push-and-pull between the “moderates” and the most nakedly terroristic individuals. The “progressive” Zionists have had the role of winning support from mainstream society, and putting a friendly face on settler-colonialism.
The Jabotinskyists, Kahanists, and ultraviolent settlers have served to push Zionism’s lines forward at an accelerated speed, terrorizing Palestinians with no semblance of restraint. These different elements within Zionism do have real competing interests, and recognizing this is important insofar as it can let us take advantage of the intensifying rivalries between them. But as soon as you start promoting the opportunistic, pro-imperialist narratives that these forces employ against each other, you’ve set yourself up against the cause for Palestinian liberation.
The problem we face with these narratives is that there’s a very clear line of logic to them, where the believers in the “October 7 was staged” idea seek to connect it with a historical pattern of false flags. In a June 2025 podcast with the “Jewish question” influencer Jake Shields, Carroll explained this reasoning: “When you look at October 7, it fits the exact pattern where they knew about it in advance, Israeli military intelligence…they had multiple reports coming in that Hamas is prepared for a massive thing. They ignored those reports. But then, two days before the actual attack, they moved two whole battalions, a couple hundred men, off the border of Gaza.”
These facts, along with the parts of the story where “Israel” sacrificed its citizens in the military response and blamed Hamas for the deaths, have often been repeated within alt media. And there is a role for these facts in the rebuttals against the narrative justifying the genocide; but to bring up these points on their own is actually counterproductive.
When you look at the way that such discourses around October 7 are framed, what you notice is that they never come from the perspective of the Palestinian side in this anti-colonial war. The point of view they’re coming from is that of the liberals within “Israel,” and of the Palestinian elites who align with the PA. These are ideological forces which oppose Netanyahu, but will never support the resistance, and therefore aren’t interested in the parts of this history which have been experienced by the Palestinians who are defending their people.
When you start venturing into this aspect of why October 7 happened, you find the context that Gaza was desperate for a way to disrupt its unlivable status quo; that Russia’s Ukraine success had provided new hope for fighting back against the U.S. empire; that the occupier’s latest violations of Al-Aqsa Mosque had created a mandate for the resistance to act. These things are enough to dispel any speculations about October 7 having been the product of some Hamas-Netanyahu conspiracy, because they all point to Hamas having been compelled by larger material circumstances. And since the operation was the product of an organic revolutionary process, the efforts which “Israel” made to exploit the operation were carried out in reaction towards these events. These measures were not all according to plan, because the Netanyahu government’s plans were formulated to try to manage an upheaval which is far beyond its scope.
This is further shown by how since October 7, the Zionist structure has been successfully weakened, meaning the Al-Aqsa Flood operation was a strategically sound action. This structure had already been headed for collapse, largely due to how much Zionism’s internal camps are in conflict with each other. Al-Aqsa Flood only sped up the unraveling, bringing “Israel” into an unwinnable war that’s devastated the colonizer economy and irrevocably taken away Zionism’s narrative dominance.
When these liberal Zionists slander the resistance as a tool for Netanyahu, they’re trying to facilitate a transition that would be Zionism’s best hope for holding on. What they hope will happen is that Gaza remains divided from the West Bank, letting the pro-normalization collaborators in the PA define the project for Palestinian statehood. Of course, for Palestine to gain a state, the resistance would need to win; which is the contradiction that reveals what this collaborationist ideology’s true role is.
The purpose of “pro-Palestine” politics that opposes the resistance is to dangle a false solution in front of those who sympathize with Palestine. It’s pure diversion, and whether or not this diversion’s participants genuinely believe Palestine can be freed through “peaceful” means, this is the objective character of what they’re doing. The way to counter these insidious tactics is by connecting our political practice with the struggle that’s taking place in Palestine, growing beyond the analyses that look at Palestine from the outside in.
————————————————————————
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