By Marc Champion
Bloomberg Opinion
It is something close to a law of nature that the farther away people are from a conflict, the more simplistic their views are regarding its causes and solutions. That could not be more apparent now in Gaza, where Israel’s invasion is drawing howls of outrage from around the world.
That outrage is well deserved. There is no question that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) could and should be doing more to avoid civilian casualties. Yet that the anger of so many is directed only at Israel is disturbing, because there are two armed forces responsible for the deaths of Palestinians in Gaza. The other is Hamas.
Hamas invited the Israeli invasion with the barbarism of its terrorist attack on Oct. 7, and it has been open about how it fully expected Israel to retaliate. Recent reporting by the Washington Post would, if verified, underscore that this was the purpose of its attack, dubbed “Operation al Aqsa Flood,” and that Palestinian deaths were not a bug in that plan, but rather an essential part of it.
“The blood of the women, children and elderly... we are the ones who need this blood, so it awakens within us the revolutionary spirit,’ Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said on Lebanese TV on Oct. 26,’
Yet if you listened to talk radio in the UK over the weekend, you would have heard callers explaining — counter to all evidence — that it was not the Islamist terror group committed to the destruction of Israel that murdered Jewish children in front of their parents, but rather Israeli special forces. When an Iranian man had the temerity to hold up a sign in central London comparing Hamas with the Islamic State because of its actions that day, a group of pro-Palestinian protesters in hoodies attacked him and a woman shouted “death to all the Jews.’’ Posters of abducted Israeli children have been torn down in the UK, as has happened in the US, where a 21-year-old student at Tufts University, near Boston, was arrested last month for posting threats to kill Jews on campus, using the social media handle “Hamas Soldier.’’
These people need to ask themselves why they are so unwilling to criticize an organization that murders innocents on the grounds of race. The answer might not be pretty. The way Hamas carried out its attack and is now fighting the war in Gaza also demonstrates the organization’s utter disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians.
Consider the tunnels. Hamas built hundreds of kilometers of them under Gaza City to create an asymmetric advantage against the IDF’s vast superiority in terms of heavy armor, troop numbers and more. It makes sense as a military strategy, just like preparing the ground by intense aerial bombardment made sense as a military strategy for the Israeli military.
Yet Hamas did not build underground shelters to protect civilians during the war it was preparing to fight. There have been no reports of civilians offered shelter in the tunnels ahead of Israel’s ground invasion.
Then there is Hamas’ use of human shields, even beyond the 240-plus hostages it seized on Oct. 7. According to the IDF, Hamas has its headquarters underground, below Gaza’s main al Shifa hospital; locates its rocket launchers next to schools, and generally does its best to make it impossible to target Hamas without also hitting civilians. There is no reason to trust the word of the IDF — this is war and like all militaries at war, their job is to win, not to tell the truth. Nor does Hamas’ use of civilians as human shields excuse the IDF for killing them. However, this is not the first Israeli incursion into Gaza. Journalists from the Guardian encountered Hamas troops within al Shifa in 2014. Groups as Israel-critical as Amnesty International have reported that Hamas used the hospital as a site for the torture and execution of its Palestinian opponents as far back as 2008.
It is worth listening to how some prominent Arab journalists approach Hamas. Earlier this month, Egyptian TV commentator Ibrahim Eissa slammed comments from Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk, who said the tunnels were there to protect Hamas fighters from Israeli jets and that it was up to the UN to protect Gaza’s civilians. “Irresponsible” and “disgraceful” were just two of the adjectives Eissa used, noting that Hamas governs Gaza and that the first duty of any government is to protect its people. While Hamas is in its tunnels, “what about the Palestinian children who are targeted by Israeli aggression?’’ Eissa asked.
An Al Arabiya TV anchor was equally scathing in her grilling of Khaled Meshal, another top Hamas official. The nature of Hamas’ actions on Oct. 7 was a declaration of war that inevitably would draw an Israeli counterattack, the anchor said.
“The other factions, the Palestinian Authority and the people of Gaza were not consulted about this,’’ but they now bear the consequences, she said.
She also tried her best to get Meshal to take responsibility for the atrocities committed against Jewish civilians on Oct. 7.
This is not rocket science. Dead Palestinian civilians are an essential part of Hamas’ plan, whose goal was to draw Israel deep into Gaza, create a bloodbath and expand the war by enraging and drawing in new players, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran and Israel’s Arab neighbors. Most Arab governments understand fully that Hamas is an equivalent to the Islamic State, offering nothing to Palestinians beyond poverty and death. Yet they are now silent on this because Israel is playing the role that Hamas assigned to it. Tragically, so are too many well-intentioned people in the West.
Marc Champion is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously Istanbul bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the
RSS