Israel’s government approved on Sunday a proposal by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi that mandates any government-funded body refrain from communicating with Haaretz or placing advertisements in the paper. The proposal was approved by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The decision, according to the government’s explanation, is a reaction to “many articles that have hurt the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its right to self defense, and particularly the remarks made in London by Haaretz publisher, Amos Schocken, that support terrorism and call for imposing sanctions on the government.”
The proposal did not appear on the government’s agenda published ahead of the weekly cabinet meeting. The Attorney General’s office, unaware of the intention to bring the proposal to a vote, did not review it at all and did not present its opinion, as customary. The resolution was presented to ministers during the discussion without any legal opinion.
In a speech at the Haaretz conference in London last month, Schocken said “the Netanyahu government doesn’t care about imposing a cruel apartheid regime on the Palestinian population. It dismisses the costs of both sides for defending the settlements while fighting the Palestinian freedom fighters, that Israel calls terrorists.”
If you had grown up in the open air prison camp called Gaza, and wanted to fight for your country, you too would have joined Hamas or one of the smaller militant organizations (PFLP and the like). Think of the average US election discourse: you don’t vote whomever, you vote for who’s on the ballot, least evil and so on. Same logic applies: when your family is repeatedly traumatized and your country is occupied, you don’t join whatever organization western liberals imagine, you pick one of the existing ones and join the fight. Simple as.
Broadly I agree with you that, inasmuch as Hamas enjoys popular support, it is for exactly that reason.
But, that does not mean Hamas is fighting for the freedom and independence of Gaza. They are fighting to push Israel into the sea, and any means to that end is acceptable to them, including putting Gazans in terrible risk.
Any popular movement will never be monolithic. By it’s very nature as a popular movement it will contain all sorts. From fanatics and hardliners to opportunists, to idealists, to moderates, to people who had no other choice. So saying “Hamas is fighting for this or that” as if “this or that” is an immutable non-negotiable goal set in stone is ignoring the realities of armed struggle. If anyone is interested in peace, they would need to either completely annihilate Hamas, like Isis was, which the last year has shown is impossible, or more realistically to try to play on the internal dynamics of the factions, hoping to strengthen those that can make peace. For example, Marwan Bargouthi is ex-Fatah, but has worked with Hamas and the PFLP, and is more of a moderate than Sinwar ever was. If Israel was to release him, he could use his fighter credibility to push for peace.
Agreed. Hamas and Israel are locked in a death struggle – the existence of Hamas depends on a “river Jordan to the sea” hard line position on the extermination of Israel, and Hamas’ existence fuels Israeli conservative support for apartheid.
Which is why I think anybody characterizing Hamas as “freedom fighters” is disingenuous. Fighters, certainly, but not for freedom.
Israeli support for apartheid is not dependent on Hamas. Proof: the West Bank.