The new escalation of violence between Israel and Hamas shows how difficult it is to initiate a ceasefire when the bombs are raining. For supporters of peace, it is also a question of eliminating the war of words.
The deadly attack committed against civilians in Israel on October 7 by Hamas, an Islamist militant movement in the Gaza Strip, shocked a large part of Western public opinion. This attack must be condemned as a war crime and those responsible must face justice. However, many political reactions – in Israel and around the world – and the media treatment of this conflict must be analyzed critically if we want to give a chance, however small, to a new peace process in the Middle East. -East.
Some contextual elements are therefore necessary in order to achieve an objective and nuanced analysis of the situation:
First of all, Israel has maintained, since 1967, an illegal colonization of the West Bank and a system of apartheid which condemns the Gaza Strip to being a veritable open-air prison, where 2.5 million Palestinians survive in inhumane conditions.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, regularly in power since 1996, has also contributed indirectly to the development of Hamas, the most radical branch of Palestinian political organizations. Indeed, by allowing funding for Hamas through Qatar, the Israeli Prime Minister sought to reinforce the division of Palestinians and – ultimately – undermine the peace process initiated in 1993 (Oslo Accord), preventing the creation of a real state for the Palestinian people (the two-state solution) [1]. This unlikely political support was also revealed by la divulgation de communications diplomatiques entre le directeur du renseignement militaire israélien de l’époque, le général de division Amos Yadlin, et l’ambassadeur des États-Unis en Israël, Richard Jones, en 2007. Dmitry Shumsky, an Israeli newspaper columnist Haaretz confirms this by stating that “ entre 2012 et 2018, M. Netanyahou a autorisé le Qatar à transférer un montant cumulé d’environ un milliard de dollars à Gaza, dont la moitié au moins est parvenue au Hamas, y compris à son aile militaire ". Netanyahu defends himself from his accusations, now that “ he authorized these transfers of funds to Gaza only to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe […] ". However, this justification is shaky: During a caucus of his political party, the Likud, on March 12, 2019, Netanyahu reportedly said, according to a hundred witnesses : “ Anyone who is against the establishment of a Palestinian state should be for the transfer of funds to Gaza ". In addition, Mairav Zonszein, senior conflict analyst at the NGO International Crisis Group, reports that “ this mutual reinforcement between Hamas and Netanyahu […] is clearly seen on the ground ». Cette approche de “Bibi” a justifié le maintien du blocus autour de Gaza de l’armée israélienne ainsi que la répression violente et meurtrière à l’encontre des Palestinien∙nes – dans un certain désintéressement global des gouvernements occidentaux et des institutions politiques internationales – renforçant le sentiment de colère des Palestinien∙nes. Comme le remarque le journaliste israélien Haggai Matar, l’attaque du 7 octobre n’était pas “unilateral" Or "unprovoked”. “The fear that Israelis feel right now, including me, is only a small part of what Palestinians feel every day under decades of military rule in the West Bank, as well as under siege and repeated assaults on Gaza. ", he writes.
However, these contextual elements cannot be justifications for the barbaric acts of which the members of Hamas were guilty. Presenting itself as the only viable alternative to the Palestine Liberation Organization, the political party representing Palestinians in the West Bank, Hamas rejects the two-state solution presented in the Oslo Accords and pursues an approach based on strategies of terror towards the State of Israel, but also towards the population of Gaza, to maintain power. Since 2006, Gazans have not been able to democratically elect their political representatives. On the contrary, by relying on a radical Islamist approach, on means of terror, on an indoctrination of the Gazan population composed to nearly 50% young people aged 18 or under, disillusioned by the political approach, and on important financial channels, as mentioned above, Hamas presents itself as the political authority de facto in the Gaza Strip.
In light of these elements, no one should or could claim any moral ascendancy over others. In one camp as in the other, the real victims are the civilians, as in any war. However, in public discourse, it is very rare to hear this type of statement. On the contrary, we see that in addition to the military conflict, there is a war of words where both are trying to justify their attacks against civilians. Without a nuanced approach and appropriate rhetoric, we leave the door open for atrocities. For example, immediately after the attack, the Israeli Minister of Defense declared: “ Nous imposons un siège total contre la ville de Gaza. Il n’y a pas d’électricité, pas de nourriture, pas d’eau, pas de carburant. Tout est fermé. Nous combattons les animaux humains et nous agissons en conséquence ". Dehumanizing the Other in this way makes it possible to morally justify the bloody Israeli response in the Gaza Strip against civilians, men, women, children, babies... in the same way that Hamas did not make distinctions during its attack from October 7.
If we want to defend the values of peace and justice, we must therefore constantly remember that one life is worth another life, whatever its affiliation in the conflict and reject the apology for violence.
The importance of words
Words carry great importance and this is especially true in conflict situations. The doctor and professor, André Barrinha even states that “ the discourse surrounding a conflict is an important factor determining whether it continues or ends »[2].
Let's take an example: a word has been widely used by Israel and Western countries to describe Hamas: "terrorist." This name, as legal and popular as it is, poses a big problem of ambiguity. Since it can characterize several radically different types of political movements, it creates confusion in understanding the conflict and its limits for people and even for some analysts.[3]. Indeed, the term “terrorism” carries within it a wide spectrum of types of actions, ranging from actions with a political basis to apolitical ones. Yet, despite this, the public, continued and indiscriminate use of the term has fixed in the popular understanding that terrorism " occupe le haut du spectre de l’agitation politique, immédiatement au-dessus des autres types de violence politique. [He] can [Thus] être distinguée de ces autres types par sa qualité extra-normale, c’est-à-dire qu’elle se situe au-delà des normes d’agitation politique violente acceptées par une société donnée »[4]. So, on the one hand, “ terrorism is considered the most radical form of political violence [but it remains political]”[5]. On the other hand, " cet étiquetage empêche l’acceptation de “l’autre” et la reconnaissance de sa légitimité politique, de sorte que le terrorisme ne peut être combattu par des moyens politiques. C’est ce paradoxe qui permet à un mouvement d’être considéré comme “terroriste” (avec lequel un État ne peut pas negotiate) at one point, and as a legitimate political actor some time later (with whom negotiations are possible) »[6]. This ambiguity is dangerous because it gives political power great freedom of manipulation, according to fluctuating interests, favorable or not to peace. Thus, Barrinha argues that “ there is no a priori deterministic reality. This is why the construction of an enemy and the choice of how to confront it are eminently political, an exclusive political choice »[7]. History also shows us this: several movements initially qualified as terrorists have been reclassified to meet the demands of a ceasefire and the construction of peace such asAfrican National Congress (ANC) in South Africa.
Quid de la qualification du Hamas, dès lors ? Certes, son statut fait actuellement consensus sur l’ensemble du spectre politique belge : il s’agit d’un groupe terroriste. Cependant, la sortie du conflit et un possible processus de paix ne pourront se faire qu’à condition d’au moins discuter avec le Hamas, au vu de l’assise politique qu’il possède dans la bande de Gaza et de sa légitimité auprès d’une grande partie de la population palestinienne et des peuples arabes. Ainsi, comme l’écrivent une dizaine d’universitaires français∙es, “ once all the victims have been mourned, we will finally have to rethink peace between Israelis and Palestinians and necessarily change policy. To begin with, put an end to the growing colonization of the West Bank, find good mediators and recognize the Palestinians' right to self-determination and true political sovereignty. The co-construction of a road map is a vital utopia, because there will be no peace without justice ".
Dans cet exercice, nous devrons nécessairement rester vigilant∙es sur les mots utilisés par les différent∙es protagonistes, particulièrement dans les cas où nous avons la chance, pour la plupart des citoyen∙nes belges, de ne pas être directement impliqué∙es dans le conflit, de bénéficier d’un certain recul. Nous devrons alors nous assurer que les mots, que nos paroles contribuent à la paix et non à la guerre.
So, what type of speech for peace?
Let's read, for example, the Peace Warriors movement which calls for support for Israeli and Palestinian activists who are fighting on the front lines to find a peaceful outcome to the conflict:
Nous devons continuer à nous mobiliser et prendre la parole dans ce sens tout en restant réaliste, comme nous le rappelle Eran Nissan, ancien militaire des troupes d’élite israéliennes, aujourd’hui directeur de Mehazkim, une organisation qui veut faire d’Israël une société plus progressive et inclusive :
More than ever, it is time to cultivate peace…starting with our words!
Emmanuel Tshimanga and Christophe Haveaux.
[1] Dmitry Shumsky (2023) Why Did Netanyahu Want to Strengthen Hamas? Haaretz: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-needed-a-strong-hamas/0000018b-1e9f-d47b-a7fb-bfdfd8f30000
[2] André Barrinha (2011) The political importance of labelling: terrorism and Turkey’s discourse on the PKK, Critical Studies on Terrorism, 4:2, pp. 163-180.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
