SACRAMENTO — After Hamas terrorists murdered 260-plus mostly young people enjoying a “peace” concert near the Gaza border and slaughtered families in their homes, normal people were utterly outraged and sympathetic to the Israeli victims. Others — mostly university professors, progressive activists and “journalists,” and even some members of Congress — couldn’t bring themselves to condemn the violence. Some even excused it.
I would have offered my free public-relations pro-tip to some of these folks but didn’t bother given that productive suggestions don’t go very far on social media. But here goes: Even if you have no sympathy for the Jewish victims, despise the Israeli government and its treatment of Palestinians, and have no problem with Hamas extremism, it’s still wise to offer a statement acknowledging that murdering and kidnapping ordinary people is horrific.
Otherwise, you sound like a terrorism-supporting barbarian. It’s hard to, you know, complain about the very real suffering of ordinary residents of Gaza when you make clear that you have no real problem with civilian suffering as a general principle. This seemed like a relatively low bar to pass yet offers frightening insight into how some people are thinking. It’s foolish to insist that they offer condemnations, but better to learn from the fact they even need such prodding.
Examples abound. Black Lives Matter Grassroots issued a statement that didn’t acknowledge the atrocities but instead called on readers to “understand the resistance in Palestine as an attempt to tear down the gates of the world’s largest open air prison.” In response to a post on X condemning violence against all civilians, Yale University professor Zareena Grewal responded: “Settlers are not civilians. This is not hard.” I’ve read pro-Palestinian tweeters who downplayed the concert attack because the attendees were “rave girls.”
And many of us have read about the statement from the 33 Harvard University student groups stating that its signers “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.” Entirely responsible? Apparently, Palestinians have no control over their actions. That certainly makes one wonder what they’re teaching at one of the country’s premiere academic institutions.
One need only spend a few minutes perusing the site formerly known as Twitter to find other egregious examples. The Left isn’t the only culprit, of course. Some of the usual far-right trolls have spewed their predictable venom, and the response from some libertarians has been reprehensible too.
Nick Gillespie, from the libertarian Reason magazine, penned a needed rebuttal to the latter on X:
I’m increasingly frustrated by whataboutist libertarian takes on indefensible Hamas terrorism that seemingly deny Israel’s unquestionable right to respond to war crimes committed within its own borders. If your first—or second, or third—response to civilian deaths is to point out that not all the children were decapitated, you’re doing it wrong.
Certainly, it’s fair to oppose U.S. intervention in the Middle East and Eastern Europe and to question Israeli government policy. But he’s referring to the type of libertarians who seem to blame every world event on U.S. government action and who also justify “Putin’s war-of-choice as the inevitable result of US foreign policy, impugning Ukrainians defending themselves, or waving away solidarity with and empathy for the invaded as ‘CIA talking points.’” It’s sad this needed to be said, but I’m glad he said it.
I’m not in the “bulldoze Gaza, too bad for its residents” school whatsoever, although it’s hard to make a case against retaliating in Gaza given that, as of this writing, Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israeli territory. And I’m not weighing in on the long-simmering situation there, although it’s worth pointing out a few facts about the occupation — not least of which is the degree to which last weekend’s attacks will mostly harm Palestinians and set back their cause.
Israel relinquished control of Gaza in 2005, and Hamas has not spent the last 18 years building infrastructure, developing democratic institutions, and creating an economy that could uplift its beleaguered residents. It’s an awful situation for 2.3 million residents living in Gaza’s 140 square miles — a bit more than one-tenth the land area of tiny Rhode Island. Gaza residents are victims of their Hamas overlords, but I’m still waiting for examples of resistance to their rule.
Still, the point today is a much simpler one. If you can’t at least acknowledge that murdering young partygoers is wrong, then it speaks volumes about your stunted moral development. Note how U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) offered a mealy-mouthed response, noting, “The failure to recognize the violent reality of living under siege, occupation, and apartheid makes no one safer.” She scurried away from reporters asking her to condemn Hamas.
Another member of Congress’ left-wing “squad,” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, actually showed how easy it is to do the right thing. “I condemn Hamas’s attack in the strongest possible terms,” she said in a statement. She even blasted a pro-Palestinian rally in Times Square for its “hatred and anti-Semitism.” If AOC could nail such a simple test, so can everyone else.
Once Hamas is subdued, we’ll have plenty of time to analyze the Middle East situation, discuss Israel’s intelligence failures, debate American policy, and consider long-term policies that might ease tensions in Gaza. But there’s no point listening to anything that comes out of the mouths of those who cannot plainly and clearly condemn atrocities.
Steven Greenhut is a California-based writer. Write to him at stevengreenhut@gmail.com.
