Recognising the real enemy in Gaza

‘Stockholm Syndrome’ is a condition by which the kidnapped, imprisoned or abused develop a positive emotional attachment to their hostage taker. The trauma of captivity and subjugation induces misdirected feelings of sympathy and self-identification with the very actions and agents that are imposing the oppression and captivity - a subconscious self-protection of the ego. The relationship between the civilian population of Gaza and their governing authority Hamas is best understood as an en masse expression of Stockholm Syndrome.

Despite how heavily one prefaces and footnotes ones language, It is impossible to make comment on any manifestation of the Israel-Palestine conflict without leaving committed supporters on either side feeling as if you have inexplicably excluded vital information. And by virtue of this, seemingly denied accurate context from which to make respective claims to justice. Due to this, it is worth approaching such issues in carefully.

Though by way of a brief and insufficient preface - the nature of Israel’s latest offensive in Gaza should be open to criticism and criminal investigation, just as their settlements in the West Bank, their illegal acquisition of a nuclear arsenal, their existential domination and control of both Palestinian populations, and their tacit reticence toward a two-state peace accord based on precise 1967 boundaries should be.

Israel by no means represents a beacon of reason and peace within a region of hatred and violence, as its ardent proponents seek to portray it. However, the nature and severity of the current harm being suffered by the people of Gaza is predominately perpetrated by their own governing authority, Hamas.

To defer to the work of justice theorist Thomas Pogge, the current injustices within Gaza that are attributable to Israel amount to ‘interactional’ or ‘directly’ inflicted harm, whereas what is overlooked, and what is often considerably more pernicious, is ‘institutionally’ inflicted harm – and here Hamas is the single greatest enemy to the civilian population of Gaza.

Imagine yourself as a child whose house is surrounded by antagonistic and physically violent neighbours. Imagine your father is manifestly unable to protect you against their constant threats and physical assaults, while the local police force is unwilling or unable to assist your family. This is a tragedy and an intolerable injustice. Now imagine that your father becomes so obsessed with his personal failure and the perceived insult to his pride that, rather than seeking to achieve the best outcome for you and your family in spite of the less-than-ideal circumstances, he pursues with all your family resources a determined, yet impotent violent offensive against your neighbours. This in turn invites greater levels violence and suffering upon you and your family, by means of direct retaliation from neighbours in response to your father’s attempts at violence. It is impossible to view this situation without acknowledging that despite your neighbours causing you to suffer a continuing injustice (direct harm), your father also is similarly responsible for the nature and degree of your suffering (institutional harm) – this is the relationship Hamas has with Gaza.

Following a comprehensive, and appreciably free and open victory in the 2006 legislative elections, accompanied by a brutal militaristic assault upon their sister organisation Fatah, Hamas has existed as the governing authority for the people of Gaza. And importantly, it is the only significant power centre in the enclave.

From a government responsible for the well-being of a such a desperate and in-need population, you would expect Hamas to be primarily concerned with delivering humanitarian aid and economic development, and acquiring international assistance for such efforts – whereas the only sustained policy focus of Hamas has been on the surviving presence of the Israeli state.

Pathologically anti-Semitic to the point of holocaust denial, and constitutionally committed to destruction of the Israeli state and the death or expulsion of its entire Jewish population, Hamas publicly celebrated the September 11 terrorist attacks and later denounced the killing of Osama bin Laden. Such ideological posturing has seen the list of countries willing to support Hamas steadily degrade to the point of international isolation. This isolation effectively denies the citizens of Gaza access to the international assistance and investment that represents their best hopes for humanitarian relief and long-term development.

And this is all within the context of economic decay in Gaza. After seven years of Hamas rule, the government is, by any measurable sense, bankrupt. Unemployment is over 40 percent, there has been a systemic and notable contraction in private enterprise, perpetual power shortages correspond to eight hours of blackouts daily, the majority of Gazan households are reliant upon humanitarian aid, over a third of all Gazans are living under World Bank designated poverty levels, and although statistically economic growth can occasionally seem promising, the long-term trend has been that of steady economic decline.

As a simple cost-benefit calculation, in terms of their explicit ideological commitments, Hamas collects significantly more political capital from the suffering of its own population, than from material improvements and increasing standards of living.

In the purely military context, it is easy to accuse Israel of war crimes or crimes against humanity due to the asymmetrical capabilities within the conflict. Through the work of German philosopher Immanuel Kant it is demonstrated that the relative morality of certain actions cannot be understood simply in terms of consequences – in this case, in terms of statistics indicating comparative causalities, injuries and material destruction. Rather, a consideration of the motivations and intentions behind the relevant actions is of central significance.

Although the Israeli military offensive in Gaza has been enormously destructive, and has inflicted intolerably high levels of human suffering, Israel has also gone to considerable effort to avoid civilian casualties through a series of multifaceted early-warning mechanisms for the residents of Gaza - much of which have become a source of derision and satire in the international media. Though, if we are comfortable in criticising Israel for causing civilian deaths, then it is only reasonable and intellectually honest to credit Israel where and when they seek to avoid causing civilian deaths.

In contrast, Hamas have inexplicably defied Israeli attempts to minimise casualties by ordering the populations in northern Gaza to ignore advanced warnings to evacuate, have routinely used schools, hospitals and densely-populated residential areas as normative protection for missile launch sites and military storage. They have also, without exception, broken every single achieved humanitarian cease-fire of the current conflict, thereby denying the people of Gaza the chance for respite, the chance to resupply, and importantly the chance to negotiate for a lasting peace.

Such behaviour is only comprehensible by an understanding that Hamas is either indifferent to the suffering of the Gazan population, or are actively seeking a perceived international moral currency supplied by their deaths.

Moreover, Israel have invested considerable resources into creating the ‘Iron Dome’ missile defence system, have also developed an early-warning system for incoming rockets fire from Gaza, have built easily accessible public bunkers, and have effectively secured itself against internal attacks, thereby significantly diminishing any would-be Israeli causalities.

In contrast, Hamas has invested considerable human and material resources not into defending or developing Gaza, but rather into building tunnels into Israel (significantly difficult engineering exercises), and in building a stock-pile of increasingly sophisticated missiles (approximately 4000 have been fired at Israel in the latest conflict alone).

By virtue of the fact that it has not occurred, whereas the capacity exists if they were inclined, it is clearly not the intention of Israel to cause large-scale civilian deaths. If it were otherwise, there would be a very real and complete genocide in Gaza - 1.8 million deaths as opposed to the current 1800. In contrast, hypothetically what would Hamas do to the almost 8 million Israelis if they only had the capacity to do it? Indeed intentions do matter.

Just as with Russia’s invasion of Crimea, not all injustices can be corrected if the violating party wills it otherwise. At least not without maintaining a grasp on proportionality. By denouncing violence, disbanding its military factions, recognising Israel’s right to exist, and pursuing only peaceful political objectives, Hamas has a chance to build international support for its position, and hopefully a long-term peaceful solution. This may not be ideal nor appeasing to the pride of a subjugated people, but there is simply no other option – and certainly no realistic military option against an adversary as strong as Israel.

Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), and Fatah’s president in the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbas, exclaimed just this sentiment last month on Palestinian TV by rhetorically asking Hamas “What are you trying to achieve by sending rockets?...We prefer to fight with wisdom and politics”. Accordingly, international support for Fatah and the Palestinians in the West Bank is considerably more forthcoming, to the point of achieving ‘Observer Status’ at the United Nations (technically inclusive of Gaza). And, in the process drawing unambiguous international condemnation against Israeli settlements and obfuscations of the long-term peace process.

Ask yourself a simple question, not “what are Hamas doing in response to Israel?” but rather, “in spite of Israeli injustices, what are Hamas doing for the good of its own population?”. While the first question does not require much mental effort in order to answer, the second question can only be answered disingenuously, or with ahistorical references.   

Currently, Gaza more resembles a permanent refugee camp than a state, and Hamas is primarily responsible for this situation. Yet, on many accounts, Hamas still enjoys popular support within Gaza. One can only hope that this is a veneer obscuring an underlying and steadily growing public resentment. And, as was the case in Serbia in 2000, such suppressed resentment will eventually erupt into popular uprising, not against foreign inflicted suffering, but rather against their own governing authority for continually inviting that suffering, and for continually forcing them into a position of victimhood. Yet, in as far as this is not the case, and Hamas enjoys a very real and deeply visceral popular support from the residents of Gaza, this can only be explained as a mass expression of Stockholm Syndrome.