'Do you condemn Hamas?' is a question so ubiquitous in Western media's coverage of the Israel-Palestinian conflict that it has become a political meme. The question typically demands a condemnation of extremism exclusively from the pro-Palestinian side. In the interest of condemning extremism across the board, it logically follows then to ask: what is the Israeli equivalent to Hamas?
Some may argue that the 'Do you condemn Hamas' question is a prerequisite to having a productive civil discussion. An extremist, by definition, is not one to compromise on their views and as such is detrimental to any well-intentioned peace effort. If that is indeed the criterion, then I would argue that Likud should be very much in the same trench as Hamas. Let me explain.
For context, Likud is the leading right-wing party in Israeli politics. It is also the flagbearer of revisionist Zionism: a form of Zionism that prioritizes territorial expansionism. Menachem Begin, the founder of the party, had also been the leader of Irgun, a Zionist terrorist group responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Deir Yassin massacre. Other leaders of Likud have included Ariel Sharon, the man primarily responsible for the Israeli West Bank barrier and much of the aspects that are frequently criticized as amounting to apartheid today.
Nowadays, Likud is dominated by one man: the current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In many ways, Netanyahu's extended reign has been a continuation of the Likud's policy of revisionist Zionism. He has boasted about being personally responsible for preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state and has been recorded warning his party members that only he could block a Palestinian state. To put it simply, the West's pontification on the two-state solution is utterly meaningless while Netanyahu remains in power. His revisionist Zionism dictates that support of a Palestinian state is, as he puts it, tantamount to yielding territory for "Radical Islam".
More recently, because of the political deadlock in Israel in the last few years, Netanyahu was forced to forge an alliance with even more extremist Israeli parties in order to form a ruling coalition for his sixth term as Prime Minister. This latest coalition has essentially morphed Likud into an umbrella of extremism under which far-right parties are politically emboldened and ensured representation.
This hardline coalition has produced such characters as Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir and Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich. Ben-Gvir has been convicted, by an Israeli court, of incitement to racism and supporting a terrorist organization. Smotrich is arguably worse as he was apprehended on suspicion of attempting to blow up Ayalon Highway in protest against the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005. These are people with a clear association with terrorism according to Israel's own security apparatus and yet they have been legitimized through Likud's brand of mainstream revisionist Zionism.
By all accounts, the extremism of Likud's revisionist Zionism and Hamas's radical Islam are intertwined. The leaders of Hamas need an expansionist Israel to justify their militant existence, which oftentimes comes at the expense of the wellbeing of the Palestinian people. Likewise, Likud needs a militant Hamas in order to maintain the political cover for their expansionist agenda. And I am not just analyzing here. Netanyahu said as much to his Likud colleagues in 2019, asserting that "anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas".
That is why it is baffling to me to see one part of the extremism equation condemned while the other is tolerated. I get that some may find drawing an equivalence between Hamas and Likud outrageous. But the comparison isn't far-fetched once you consider the goal at the core of each political ideology. Hamas's goal of a free Palestine from "the River to the Sea" has drawn endless accusations of antisemitism and genocidal intent. But the fact is that Likud's charter states the same goal almost verbatim: "Between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." Intellectual honesty dictates that we condemn both statements in equal measure. If you are hesitant to do so then you are quite simply a selective enabler of extremism.
Some may argue that condemning Hamas is condemning terrorism. Yet again, I'm not arguing against condemning Hamas but rather for ideological consistency. If our concern is to condemn the use of violence and intimidation against civilians for political aims, then Israel's Likud-led government is just as guilty of terrorism. What else would you call a sustained campaign of violence with a quite transparent goal of de facto forcing Gazans to leave?
Another argument of the 'Do you condemn Hamas' people is that they are avoiding framing the pro-Palestinian side as an extremist monolith by showing the public that there are pro-Palestinians who oppose Hamas's extremism. If that is the case, then I must ask: how come the Israelis are not afforded a similar courtesy?
Even from a pro-Palestinian perspective, it is imperative for our criticism to be pointed and precise to avoid painting all Israelis with a broad brush. As evident by the growing list of countries endorsing South Africa's ICJ case against Israel, the international community is growing increasingly critical of Israel's war on Gaza. My biggest concern is that framing the Israelis as a monolith at this time would only serve to entrench a siege mentality of extremism in the Israeli society.
Two months ago, 35 Israeli Jewish and Arab human rights groups were calling for a ceasefire and an end to settler violence in the West Bank. Yet their calls went largely ignored as Western media was preoccupied with uncritically reporting Likud's opposition to the ceasefire. Just last week, Likud MK Moshe Saada was on TV bragging about how his sentiment of Israel having to "destroy all Gazans" was no longer limited to right-wing circles in Israeli society. The normalization and mainstreaming of Likud's militant extremism is quite evidently marginalizing other Israeli voices, and it is critical that we acknowledge that media is not doing its part in offering the Israelis an alternative.
I recall watching a documentary years ago in which an Israeli young man and his IDF veteran father were in a helicopter flying over Tel Aviv while discussing peace with the Arabs. During the conversation, the young man proclaims, "for peace, I would give them Tel Aviv", while his father watches in disgust. Feel free to side with the father but he has been having it his way for decades and Israel is no closer to a lasting peaceful coexistence. Isn't it time we listened to what the young man has to say?
1
