Israel mourns the death of three teenagers after their bodies were found yesterday. Photo: Getty.
Show Hide image

“Hamas will pay”: Israel responds to the killing of three teenagers

Israel is preparing to retaliate for the killing of three teenagers, but an increase in violence will hurt both sides.

What is a proportionate response to the killing of three innocent teenagers? There is no easy way to reply to this question, because how can you possibly weigh up one human life against another, or against a set of political goals? Still, it’s a question I can’t help asking.

On 12 June, three Israeli teenagers – Gilad Shaer (16), Naftali Fraenkel (16) and Eyal Yifrah (19) – went missing while hitchhiking south of Jerusalem. After weeks of searching, their bodies were found under a pile of rocks in a field. They had been shot dead, just hours after they went missing. Their story gripped Israel. Their deaths are a tragedy.

But then things get a little bit more complex and political. Israeli intelligence have long maintained the teenagers were kidnapped by Hamas, and they have named two key suspects – Marwan Qawasmeh and Amer Abu Aisha – who disappeared from their homes on the night of the kidnapping and have not returned since. Hamas denies responsibility and claims Israel is using the tragedy as an excuse for another offensive in Gaza.

Either way, five Palestinians have been killed in the course of the search operation (according to the Guardian), over 400 Palestinians – mainly Hamas members – have been arrested, 34 locations in Gaza have been hit by airstrikes and Israeli troops have raided over 1,300 sites, sparking riots in some towns. Family members of the dead Palestinians, some of whom were teenagers, have complained that their deaths did not receive the same media coverage, and were not met with the same outrage. That’s an indictment of the political climate in the Middle East: a teenage death is not seen as a tragedy by everyone. Meanwhile, Hamas is fighting back: Israel say at least 26 rockets have hit their territory in the last four days.

The tensions on both sides are only likely to increase, and the violence will escalate. Concerns are mounting of another full-scale invasion by Israel of parts of Gaza and the West Bank. During the 2008-9 Gaza war, 1400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed.  

Would this be a proportionate response? Israel will argue that its armed retaliation is crucial to maintaining national security and combating terrorism. Palestinians will say the move amounts to collective punishment. Both are to some extent true – yet ultimately, an increase in violence will hurt both sides. Palestine will bear the heaviest losses, and Israeli violence will embitter and radicalise populations in Gaza and the West Bank.

“Hamas is responsible and Hamas will pay,” the Israeli prime minister has said. But it will not only be Hamas that pays the price. There is no proportionate response to the killing of children, but a violent retaliation will ultimately be a counter-productive one.  

Sophie McBain is a freelance writer based in Cairo. She was previously an assistant editor at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is it OK to punch a Nazi?

There are moral and practical reasons why using force to stop a far-right march is justified.

It says a great deal about Donald Trump that for the second time under his Presidency we are having to ask the question: is it OK to punch a Nazi?

More specifically, after the events in Charlottesville last weekend, we must ask: is it OK to turn up to a legal march, by permit-possessing white supremacists, and physically stop that march from taking place through the use of force if necessary?

The US president has been widely criticised for indicating that he thought the assortment of anti-semites, KKK members and self-professed Nazis were no worse than the anti-fascist counter demonstrators. So for him, the answer is presumably no, it’s not OK to punch a Nazi in this situation.

For others such as Melanie Phillips in the Times, or Telegraph writer Martin Daubney, the left have seemingly become the real fascists.

The argument goes that both sides are extremists and thus both must be condemned equally for violence (skipping over the fact that one of the counter-protesters was killed by a member of the far right, who drove his car into a crowd).

This argument – by focusing on the ideologies of the two groups – distracts from the more relevant issue of why both sides were in Charlottesville in the first place.

The Nazis and white supremacists were marching there because they hate minorities and want them to be oppressed, deported or worse. That is not just a democratic expression of opinion. Its intent is to suppress the ability of others to live their lives and express themselves, and to encourage violence and intimidation.

The counter-protesters were there to oppose and disrupt that march in defence of those minorities. Yes, some may have held extreme left-wing views, but they were in Charlottesville to stop the far-right trying to impose its ideology on others, not impose their own.

So far, the two sides are not equally culpable.

Beyond the ethical debate, there is also the fundamental question of whether it is simply counterproductive to use physical force against a far-right march.

The protesters could, of course, have all just held their banners and chanted back. They could also have laid down in front of the march and dared the “Unite the Right” march to walk over or around them.

Instead the anti-fascists kicked, maced and punched back. That was what allowed Trump to even think of making his attempt to blame both sides at Charlottesville.

On a pragmatic level, there is plenty of evidence from history to suggest that non-violent protest has had a greater impact. From Gandhi in to the fall of the Berlin Wall, non-violence has often been the most effective tool of political movements fighting oppression, achieving political goals and forcing change.

But the success of those protests was largely built on their ability to embarrass the governments they were arrayed against. For democratic states in particular, non-violent protest can be effective because the government risks its legitimacy if it is seen violently attacking people peacefully expressing a democratic opinion.

Unfortunately, it’s a hell of a lot more difficult to embarrass a Nazi. They don't have legitimacy to lose. In fact they gain legitimacy by marching unopposed, as if their swastikas and burning crosses were just another example of political free expression.

By contrast, the far right do find being physically attacked embarrassing. Their movement is based on the glorification of victory, of white supremacy, of masculine and racial superiority, and scenes of white supremacists looking anything but superior undermines their claims.

And when it comes to Nazis marching on the streets, the lessons from history show that physically opposing them has worked. The most famous example is the Battle of Cable Street in London, in which a march by thousands of Hitler-era Nazis was stopped parading through East End by a coalition of its Jewish Community, dockworkers, other assorted locals, trade unionists and Communists.

There was also the Battle of Lewisham in the late 70s when anti-fascist protesters took on the National Front. Both these battles, and that’s what they were, helped neuter burgeoning movements of fascist, racist far right thugs who hated minorities.

None of this is to say that punching a Nazi is always either right, or indeed a good idea. The last time this debate came up was during Trump’s inauguration when "Alt Right" leader Richard Spencer was punched while giving a TV interview. Despite the many, many entertaining memes made from the footage, what casual viewers saw was a reasonable-looking man being hit unawares. He could claim to be a victim.

Charlottesville was different. When 1,000 Nazis come marching through a town trying to impose their vision of the world on it and everywhere else, they don't have any claim to be victims.