Back to Square One
This essay was originally published in Spanish on the El Mazziniano and was translated by the author with tweaks for better English flow.
Strong internationalist sentiment is something I’ve always admired about the left. Compared to the naive isolationism of the modern right, a movement that defends democratic principles universally is something to be envied. The old tradition of the Western left—both the Third Camp and social democrats—has always showed solidarity with the victim, whether Bosnian, Kuwaiti, American, or Iraqi, understanding that democracy and totalitarianism can never coexist. But while the value of supporting the victim against the opressor is a fundamental principle, we often find it difficult to apply it when it compels us to criticize our own ideological camp; the left always encounters this difficulty regarding the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
Communism At Home, Fascism Abroad
The attacks by the Hamas terror group have shocked us all. Although the genocidal intentions of the jihadist gang were well known, it is always shocking when such groups actually carry out those intentions. In its Founding Charter, Hamas states exactly what it has wanted to do to Jews; Article 7 refers to the Hadith that encourages the annihilation of Jews, and there is no reason we shouldn't take them seriously. The kidnapping of young partygoers to be tortured and raped, the murder of babies in their cribs, the massacre of Israeli families in their homes—all of this is simply the faithful execution of the pledge made in that Charter. We should not be surprised when their actions match their words.
The main difference between fascists and communists is that fascists are honest. It is not uncommon for the far-right to support jihadist terrorism in the Middle East, especially when against Israel. Fascists have always maintained close ties with Ba'athists in Iraq and Syria, and they have cultivated similar relationships with Hezbollah and Hamas. It is not only Judeophobia that unites them, but also the goal of creating an ethnic, totalitarian state. Fascists supporting fascists is nothing strange. Communists, who like to position themselves as defenders of democracy and human rights, always find themselves in collusion with their worst enemies. While advocating for communism at home, they weirdly support fascism abroad. They just lie about it.
This time, however, it has been different. Previously, it was easier to criticize Israel’s response more heavily while whitewashing the terrorists because, generally, the casualties were Israeli soldiers. But given the chilling images of what the jihadists have committed—the overwhelming evidence of the murder of innocents and infanticide—trying to hide behind saying that "you oppose all violence" is no longer enough. The failure to condemn Hamas and call for its elimination will be an unforgettable failure. The reprehensible statements by the "activists" of Sumar and Podemos serve only to make it clear that they approve of terrorism as a political tool, and that they are unfaithful to the humanitarian values they pretend to hold. Even with the death of a Spanish citizen, they neither apologize nor resign.
Tale of Two Victims
I am not abandoning any of my internationalist principles, but I confess that it has been difficult to sympathize with the Palestinian cause—especially when compared to the Kurdish one. The Kurds have waged a longer struggle for self-determination, and their conduct—generally speaking, and setting aside the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)—has been impeccable. After suffering a true genocide at the hands of Saddam Hussein, and in seeking to shake off Ba'athist oppression, they never resorted to terrorism or killing innocents to achieve their liberation. Instead of demanding the total destruction of Iraq, the Kurds fought for a new republic in 2003 and participated in the country's first free elections.
Furthermore, they have striven to build a relatively liberal democracy, complete with a free press, elections, and women's rights. The Palestinians simply have not done the same, even in the face of less repression and more Western generosity. Palestinian authorities reject reasonable partition plans, launch rockets against Israeli civilians, promote hatred and the destruction of their neighbors, and use the aid we send to maintain authoritarian, corrupt, and sexist governments, without any interest in resolving the conflict.
A Failed Strategy
That said, no one has been more critical of the Israeli government in recent years. The policy of the Likud-led coalition has contributed to the drift away from a solid resolution. The shift within Israeli society has become increasingly sectarian, and during the riots of 2022, we saw for the first time real tension between Jews and Arab Israelis. This tension stems from the rise of the far-right, which has been indispensable to Netanyahu’s government. Following the Nation-State Law passed by the Knesset in 2018, which defines Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, ethnic divisions have only grown. The reclassification of the Arabic language as merely "recognized" rather than "co-official," as it was before, was also an alarming step toward further ethnic unrest. Moreover, the prolonged occupation of the West Bank and leniency toward Jewish settlers is just one item on a long list of misconduct by Israel. The tragic silver lining of the 2020 pandemic was that it prevented Naftali Bennett's disastrous proposal to annex Judea and Samaria.
The Israeli response to these recent attacks has not been good either. Although I understand it, it is hard to see the advantages—both moral and practical—of these bombings, regardless of how they are executed. A sad trend in Israeli foreign policy is advocating for unilateralism, regardless of what the international community thinks. This reality is certainly a result of the entrenched bias within the UN and other international organizations, but the consequences are still grave; on this occasion, Israelis are once again depicted as aggressors when, in reality, they have been the victims. Sympathy could not outweigh the imminent politicization of the event, and now that sympathy has vanished.
The Israeli Unilaterialist Problem
The indiscriminate and violent attack against Israelis was an opportunity for the Israeli government to try something new. Instead of acting as if they were alone and their existence depended solely on themselves, they had the opportunity to call on the international community for help, perhaps to form an anti-terrorist coalition to liberate Gazans from Hamas. A multilateral coalition led by Israel would have had the same justification as the one formed against the Islamic State in 2014. To me, that was the only way to eliminate both the suffering of civilians in Gaza and the terrorists holding them hostage. This should have been followed immediately by a reoccupation of the Strip and its return to the Palestinian National Authority for new elections. We will need a multi-year commitment from the international community to de-radicalize the antisemitic indoctrination in Gaza and return to where we were in 2005. We have to start from scratch.
In the West, we are already accustomed to violence in this part of the world. I think we pay attention every time the conflict heats up, but we are resigned to it remaining frozen forever. We have already chosen our sides and only step out to support them when necessary; the rest of the time, we maintain a passionate indifference without much real interest. The luxury of believing in the illusion of a two-state solution is a symptom of this indifference.
It is a shame to say, but the most realistic vision is not to perpetuate the existing sectarianism left by the British Empire, feeding ethnic problems in the former Mandate. I do not see how a policy of separation between Jews and Arabs can be the end of the violence. Better yet would be a binational state of Israel-Palestine where everyone is a voting citizen enjoying the same rights and serving in the same army. Two flags, two peoples, in one state—that way Israelis would have their entire homeland, and Palestine would be free from the river to the sea.
An Opinion Reevaluated: Three Years Later
Over three years since I published this piece has made me rethink many of my positions about the war. While my early fears of the consequences of Israeli unilateralism have come true, the disappointment I feel over this operation and the consequences to the hostages has been heavy. I have not abandoned any of my early support for the removal of Hamas or my belief in Israeli democracy, but my conclusions at the end of this article over the eventual resolution of this conflict, has changed.
While it was once my belief that a one-state solution of a binational Israeli-Palestine was the solution to the conflict, I no longer believe that this is viable. The hatreds are too deep and the risks of violence too rigid for peaceful coexistence to be possible. I now believe in a two-state solution along the lines of the pre-1967 borders.
