Those who assert that Hamas has not changed its underlying philosophy are correct; Hamas has not done so, which is appropriate and understandable. Hamas is the armed wing of a liberation movement against a typically fascist settler-colonial entity. As such, it would be feckless, irresponsible, and tantamount to suicide for Hamas to moderate its approach. Like all settler-colonial entities, the nominal state of "Israel" is intent on taking all of Palestine and genociding all Palestinians. Hamas' leadership understands that the so-called two-state proposal has always been a deceitful tactic and that it has long been a physical impossibility.
"We'll make a pastrami sandwich of them. Yes, we'll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart." --Ariel Sharon, 1973.
Of course, the entity's supporters often argue that Palestine does not exist now, nor has it ever existed, which is fine even though Ottoman census reports dating to the 16th century show otherwise. What cannot be accurately disputed is that, since 1948, more than a million non-Jewish people have been violently driven from their homes by the entity.
So, again, just as it is unfeasible for a settler-colonial presence to diminish its position while remaining a settler-colonial presence, so, too, is it not possible for its liberating counterpart to moderate its position. The immutable impulse toward deliverance is merely the dialectical response to typically violent settler-colonialism. It is a cycle of violence that was inaugurated by the advent of Zionism during the First Aliyah, if not before and one that will not end until state-sponsored Zionism is rescinded or the entity is dismantled. The entity's supporters argue that the rogue "state" has a right to defend itself. In actuality, the entity has a right to defend itself in the same sense that home invasion robbers possess the right to protect themselves from the people whose homes they invade.
So, the Israeli-created Hamas is the same Hamas that carried out the Sbarro Restaurant Massacre and others like it. Although such incidents are always tragic, they are reminiscent of Turtle Island's Tuscarora War and countless other incidences of Indigenous self-defense. Between 1711 and 1715, Tuscarora "Indians" repeatedly razed Carolina squatter settlements and killed settler colonialists/squatters, including women and children. That type of thing is never a good thing, but it's the sort that naturally occurs in a settler colonial/squatter dynamic. It may be likened to the white children who were killed during chattel slave revolts in the Antebellum South. It's always tragic when children die, but it's to be expected when their parents choose to introduce their children to a slave-master dynamic. It applied to settler-colonial "America," settler-colonial "Australia," settler-colonial "Canada," and settler-colonial "Algeria." And it applies today to settler-colonial "Israel."
Although most liberals, in fact, lend themselves to a halfhearted support of Palestinians that includes the entity's alleged right to exist and defend itself, most Marxists do not and never have. Liberals tend to condemn both sides while engaging in puritan politics in which they see a need to have to agree with those they support in every aspect. As an atheist, I, for example, view Islam as being unrelated to the dire need for Palestinian liberation. Hence, Marxists and some liberals, while not finding a need to agree wholeheartedly with Hamas, understand that international law recognizes occupied people's right to armed self-defense. Ergo, we realize that Hamas is not, by definition, a terrorist organization. Like the Tuscarora "Indians" mentioned above, Palestinians defend themselves from those whose intent is to genocide them.
Per the notion that Hamas and Palestinians, more broadly, are merely bloodthirsty savages innately bent on killing Jewish people," it should be remembered that for hundreds of years, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, and secular people lived together in relative harmony in what can be called historic Palestine. Irrespective of what one calls that land, the previously mentioned Ottoman census reports show that Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, and secular people lived in the same neighborhoods and that it was often difficult to tell them apart from one another. However, the advent of the European imperialist project known as Zionism during the late 19th century changed all of that. Hopefully, the end of Zionism as a political force will lead to the day that Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, and secular people will once again live together in relative harmony.
Many of the entity's supporters also claim that it cares about human rights for all. However, that is difficult to reconcile when, aside from its horrific human rights abuses in Gaza, it treats its Arab citizens as second-class citizens. For example, the entity's "Jewish Nation-State Law" prescribes that the right to self-determination in the entity and the occupied territories of Palestine "is unique to the Jewish people." It strengthens apartheid and bigotry toward non-Jews concerning housing by instructing the state to encourage "the development of Jewish [squatter] settlements as a national value."
Another example is the entity's Law of "Return," which allows Jewish people from anywhere in the world the right to immigrate to the entity as well as the occupied territories and to be automatically granted citizenship. Simultaneously, the entity denies Indigenous Palestinians who were driven from their homes during the Nakba the right to return because they're not Jewish.
Finally, among many other such laws, the entity's Absentee Property Law and Land Acquisition Law enables the entity to seize land and other property belonging to Palestinians who were forced from their homes during the Nakba. It is the principal tool used by the entity to steal vast amounts of land and private property from Palestinians who were expelled and denied their right to return, including many who are internally displaced within the entity. These laws, the vile behaviors of the entity's military, and "Israeli" society more broadly show that the entity couldn't care less about providing human rights to all.
As for international law, the entity clearly does not adhere to such law. Indeed, it flaunts it. From its occupation of Palestinian territories to its squatter settlements, its designation of enemy states, and its development of nuclear weapons, the entity deems itself immune from international law. (1) It is an arrogance that demonstrates that, as currently configured, the entity has no right to exist among civilized nations.
*****
(Notes: 1. Although, indeed, the entity is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), we can deduce by its flaunting of international law writ large, that "Israel" would have violated the NPT if it were a signatory. Moreover, had Iraq, for example, not been a signatory to the NPT, it is all but impossible to imagine a scenario in which it would not have been invaded in 1991 for its imagined violation of the NPT.)
Good day
Be well
Tankie
www.pslweb.org
"We'll make a pastrami sandwich of them. Yes, we'll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart." --Ariel Sharon, 1973.
Of course, the entity's supporters often argue that Palestine does not exist now, nor has it ever existed, which is fine even though Ottoman census reports dating to the 16th century show otherwise. What cannot be accurately disputed is that, since 1948, more than a million non-Jewish people have been violently driven from their homes by the entity.
So, again, just as it is unfeasible for a settler-colonial presence to diminish its position while remaining a settler-colonial presence, so, too, is it not possible for its liberating counterpart to moderate its position. The immutable impulse toward deliverance is merely the dialectical response to typically violent settler-colonialism. It is a cycle of violence that was inaugurated by the advent of Zionism during the First Aliyah, if not before and one that will not end until state-sponsored Zionism is rescinded or the entity is dismantled. The entity's supporters argue that the rogue "state" has a right to defend itself. In actuality, the entity has a right to defend itself in the same sense that home invasion robbers possess the right to protect themselves from the people whose homes they invade.
So, the Israeli-created Hamas is the same Hamas that carried out the Sbarro Restaurant Massacre and others like it. Although such incidents are always tragic, they are reminiscent of Turtle Island's Tuscarora War and countless other incidences of Indigenous self-defense. Between 1711 and 1715, Tuscarora "Indians" repeatedly razed Carolina squatter settlements and killed settler colonialists/squatters, including women and children. That type of thing is never a good thing, but it's the sort that naturally occurs in a settler colonial/squatter dynamic. It may be likened to the white children who were killed during chattel slave revolts in the Antebellum South. It's always tragic when children die, but it's to be expected when their parents choose to introduce their children to a slave-master dynamic. It applied to settler-colonial "America," settler-colonial "Australia," settler-colonial "Canada," and settler-colonial "Algeria." And it applies today to settler-colonial "Israel."
Although most liberals, in fact, lend themselves to a halfhearted support of Palestinians that includes the entity's alleged right to exist and defend itself, most Marxists do not and never have. Liberals tend to condemn both sides while engaging in puritan politics in which they see a need to have to agree with those they support in every aspect. As an atheist, I, for example, view Islam as being unrelated to the dire need for Palestinian liberation. Hence, Marxists and some liberals, while not finding a need to agree wholeheartedly with Hamas, understand that international law recognizes occupied people's right to armed self-defense. Ergo, we realize that Hamas is not, by definition, a terrorist organization. Like the Tuscarora "Indians" mentioned above, Palestinians defend themselves from those whose intent is to genocide them.
Per the notion that Hamas and Palestinians, more broadly, are merely bloodthirsty savages innately bent on killing Jewish people," it should be remembered that for hundreds of years, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, and secular people lived together in relative harmony in what can be called historic Palestine. Irrespective of what one calls that land, the previously mentioned Ottoman census reports show that Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, and secular people lived in the same neighborhoods and that it was often difficult to tell them apart from one another. However, the advent of the European imperialist project known as Zionism during the late 19th century changed all of that. Hopefully, the end of Zionism as a political force will lead to the day that Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, and secular people will once again live together in relative harmony.
Many of the entity's supporters also claim that it cares about human rights for all. However, that is difficult to reconcile when, aside from its horrific human rights abuses in Gaza, it treats its Arab citizens as second-class citizens. For example, the entity's "Jewish Nation-State Law" prescribes that the right to self-determination in the entity and the occupied territories of Palestine "is unique to the Jewish people." It strengthens apartheid and bigotry toward non-Jews concerning housing by instructing the state to encourage "the development of Jewish [squatter] settlements as a national value."
Another example is the entity's Law of "Return," which allows Jewish people from anywhere in the world the right to immigrate to the entity as well as the occupied territories and to be automatically granted citizenship. Simultaneously, the entity denies Indigenous Palestinians who were driven from their homes during the Nakba the right to return because they're not Jewish.
Finally, among many other such laws, the entity's Absentee Property Law and Land Acquisition Law enables the entity to seize land and other property belonging to Palestinians who were forced from their homes during the Nakba. It is the principal tool used by the entity to steal vast amounts of land and private property from Palestinians who were expelled and denied their right to return, including many who are internally displaced within the entity. These laws, the vile behaviors of the entity's military, and "Israeli" society more broadly show that the entity couldn't care less about providing human rights to all.
As for international law, the entity clearly does not adhere to such law. Indeed, it flaunts it. From its occupation of Palestinian territories to its squatter settlements, its designation of enemy states, and its development of nuclear weapons, the entity deems itself immune from international law. (1) It is an arrogance that demonstrates that, as currently configured, the entity has no right to exist among civilized nations.
*****
(Notes: 1. Although, indeed, the entity is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), we can deduce by its flaunting of international law writ large, that "Israel" would have violated the NPT if it were a signatory. Moreover, had Iraq, for example, not been a signatory to the NPT, it is all but impossible to imagine a scenario in which it would not have been invaded in 1991 for its imagined violation of the NPT.)
Good day
Be well
Tankie
www.pslweb.org
