Words are like bees: they have honey and sting

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 the disclosure of diplomatic communications between then-Director of Israeli Military Intelligence Major General Amos Yadlin and US Ambassador to Israel Richard Jones in 2007. Dmitry Shumsky, an Israeli newspaper columnist Haaretz confirms this by stating that “ between 2012 and 2018, Mr Netanyahu authorized Qatar to transfer a cumulative amount of around $1 billion to Gaza, at least half of which reached Hamas, including its military wing ". 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 ". This approach of “Bibi” justified the maintenance of the blockade around Gaza by the Israeli army as well as the violent and murderous repression against the Palestinians – in a certain overall disinterest of Western governments and international political institutions – reinforcing the feeling of anger of the Palestinians. As Israeli journalist Haggai Matar notes, the October 7 attack was not “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: “ We impose a total siege on Gaza City. There is no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We fight human animals and we act accordingly ". 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 " occupies the high end of the spectrum of political agitation, immediately above other types of political violence. [He] can [Thus] be distinguished from these other types by its extra-normal quality, that is, it lies beyond the norms of violent political agitation accepted by a given society »^[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, " this labeling prevents the acceptance of the “other” and the recognition of its political legitimacy, so that terrorism cannot be combated by political means. It is this paradox that allows a movement to be considered "terrorist" (with which a State cannot 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 of the qualification of Hamas, then? Certainly, its status is currently a consensus across the entire Belgian political spectrum: it is a terrorist group. However, an end to the conflict and a possible peace process can only be achieved on the condition of at least discussions with Hamas, given the political base it has in the Gaza Strip and its legitimacy with of a large part of the Palestinian population and Arab peoples. Thus, as a dozen French academics write, “ 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 ".

In this exercise, we will necessarily have to remain vigilant about the words used by the different protagonists, particularly in cases where we are fortunate, for the majority of Belgian citizens, not to be directly involved in the conflict, to benefit from a certain perspective. We will then have to ensure that words, that our words contribute to peace and not to war.

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:

“ At a time when each person is called upon to stand together with their loved ones, when the slightest nuance is suspect and appears as treason, this fight for peace requires a lot of courage. It requires taking the risk of thinking against oneself and recognizing the full legitimacy of the other. This courage is perhaps the most beautiful horizon of our humanity. (…) Our political leaders and our institutions can and must act using diplomatic levers, the law, but above all their voice to put an end to this escalation of violence which is already having repercussions well beyond the borders of Israel and the Palestine. They must choose the side of peace; but for this, they must see that we are all, beyond our stories and our friendships, our sensitivities or affiliations, capable of bringing us together ".

We must continue to mobilize and speak out in this direction while remaining realistic, as Eran Nissan reminds us, a former soldier in the Israeli elite troops, today director of Mehazkim, an organization which wants to make Israel a more progressive and inclusive society:

“ The challenge we face is much greater today, not only because we must combat nationalist sentiment, the highly militarized far right in Israel, and extremists of all stripes in Israeli or Palestinian society. But we must also confront the moderates, those at the center of the political spectrum, who before October 7 were sensitive to our arguments of peace, compromise and empathy. Today, they turn their backs on us, telling us that it is not possible, that too many of theirs are dead, and that they no longer have room in their hearts to think of the children on the other side. side. (…) We have seen a dramatic increase not only in threats, but also in attacks. People are being attacked physically, not just online. There are photos, addresses, telephone numbers circulating. Some experience harassment and intimidation. The predominant feeling is that if we promote de-escalation, a ceasefire or even an agreement where we talk about the release of prisoners and the possibility for the hostages to return home, that means undermine the national defense effort ", he specifies.

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 labeling: 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.