Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Eric Brooks's avatar

The foundational theme of your thesis - that the desperate often feel they have no choice other than to commit an extreme act to trigger the general public to either support or oppose them - is a good start. But the essay itself falls apart because it deflects itself into a a false black and white narrative in which Mao, Lenin, and 'Hamas' are the 'bad' people and their opponents are the 'good' people.

That narrative is far more CIA and Mossad neoliberal war propaganda, than reality.

Here's a more tenable essay founded on the same premise, but using objective facts and analysis to paint a much more accurate picture of what is happening in Palestine and Israel, and to better explain the actions of the Gazans in their attack on Israel, by comparing that attack to similar strategies used by the Allies, and in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, in World War II.

Why Gaza's Attack On Israel Made Sense To Palestinians & Why It Doesn't Make Sense To Call It "Barbaric"

LINK: https://ericbrooks.substack.com/p/why-gazas-attack-on-israel-made-sense

Expand full comment
TW's avatar

Interesting and I think very accurate analysis--but I'd consider using a more traditional state-based lens. It occurred to me a few days ago that Hamas is acting like a state (a widespread terror attack reminiscent of the Tet Offensive) while simultaneously claiming the protection of a non-state (a group of displaced people, a people oppressed by a tyrannical imperial power, etc.). The problem every guerilla group eventually faces is that force is only truly effective to get What You Really Want when conducted by disciplined, professionally-trained and -equipped regulars; and organizing one of those gives your enemy something to smash...and he usually will if you had to guerrilla him in the first place. The enemy may be too far away, have other things to think about, etc., but if you mess with a state you'll tend to get the horns.

If the state surrounds you, is vastly better-equipped, and has a plausible belief that you are an existential threat, 'tis better to tread lightly. You haven't conducted a terror attack. You've entered the State Vs State arena by invading a sovereign state. Hamas has, I think, lost the ability to control the perceptual narrative, at least in terms of people who decide whether and how to fight wars. They're not just a horrible fringe group anymore. They deserve a full-state response, or so the thinking will go.

More recent perspectives have argued that Tet was a long-game play by the North Vietnamese Army to remove or neutralize the VC, who presumably would get a share of the post-war pie otherwise. I leave it to the reader to think about whether there may be any parallels here.

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts