Does Hamas = ISIS? Unravelling More Anti-Zionist Propaganda

Does Hamas = ISIS?

What does that slogan even mean? Certainly ISIS and Hamas are distinguishable. I don't think anyone is saying that Hamas and ISIS are the same organization, with the same leaders, the same members, or even the exact same ideas. It seems obvious that "Hamas=ISIS" only means that their goals and practices are *similar enough* so that we should treat them the same.

On that topic, I encourage you to read this analysis from The Conversation. It provides a good overview of similarities and differences between the two terrorist organisations, if you want to make up your own mind on the topic. It is certainly much more useful than this opinion piece by Monica Marks, which I believe is representative of the pro-Palestinian movement. My suspicion is that its publication in Time was not based on the merits of its argument, but rather because of the anti-Israel rhetoric it propagates.

The inadequacy of Marks' argument is plain as day. While she admits that Hamas is a terrorist organization that resembles ISIS, she claims there are two significant differences that people are forgetting. The problem is, nobody seems to be forgetting anything--except Marks. 

First, she reminds us that there's a difference between Hamas' nationalism and the pan-Islamism of ISIS. True, Palestinian nationalism is different, but that doesn't mean their goals and practices are significantly different wrt Israel. Both Hamas and ISIS refuse to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate state, and both seek to eliminate Jewish sanctuary and self-determination in the Middle East. While Hamas does it in the name of Palestinian nationalism, as opposed to pan-Islamism, the difference does not seem to make a difference to Israel.

Second, she reminds us that Hamas does not exhibit the same religious extremism as ISIS. True again, Hamas is more tolerant of *some* Western influences and institutions, to a degree. But again, it's not clear why this should make a difference to Israel.

Strangely, Marks overlooks a fundamental similarity between Hamas and ISIS. She says that Hamas alone feeds off of anger, anguish and impoverishment, whereas ISIS feeds off of religious extremism. The truth is that the religious extremism that ISIS fosters *also* feeds off anger, anguish and impoverishment. Hamas and ISIS traffic in the same emotions and needs, utilise many of the same tactics, and share many of the same ends. She says Hamas should be treated differently because it is "a hydra that feeds off embittered youth," not realising that ISIS could be described the very same way.

She ends her argument with some dangerously misleading advice for Israel and its supporters: "Ensuring that Palestinians get the freedom, dignity, and self-determination they have demanded for over 75 years would be the most effective way to ensure Israel’s long-term security." For one thing, the Palestinian national identity doesn't go back that far. The Palestinian national identity did not exist 75 years ago, nor was there any movement for Palestinian nationalism. The identity and movement did not begin to solidify until after Israel took control of Gaza and the West Bank in 1967; and, as explained by an ex-Soviet general, it was largely fuelled by Soviet-controlled anti-US and anti-Israel propaganda. Furthermore, according to polls, Palestinians do not want Israel's long-term security. They do not want Israel to exist at all. They want a single, Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea--one that does not afford Jews equal rights--and they are willing to resort to terrorism to reach those ends. Contrary to Marks' claim, the demands of Palestinians preclude Israel's long-term survival. Instead of acknowledging the deep-rooted anti-Zionism prevalent in Palestine, Marks makes it sound like Hamas has been perfectly happy to negotiate peacefully with Israel--as if Hamas had ever acknowledged Israel as a state at all.

Despite the glaring problems with her argument, Marks launches a rhetorically sophisticated attack on Israel. She calls Hamas a "Frankenstein's monster" created by Netanyahu. This is odd, since Hamas was created long before Netanyahu came to power. That point aside, the remark has political teeth. We all know the monster was the misunderstood victim of Doctor Frankenstein's misguided experimentation. Marks wants us to think that Netanyahu is to blame for any violence or terrorism caused by Hamas. She even says that Hamas "justifies" terrorism, instead of saying that Hamas "tries to justify" terrorism, indicating that the terrorism is justified, with only Israel to blame.

This kind of victim-blaming is sadly prevalent among left-leaning academics. We see the same thing in Jason Stanley's provocative opinion piece in the Guardian, where he blames "the complete security breakdown by Netanyahu’s government" for the Oct 7 massacre. Stanley portrays Netanyahu as an "obsessed" politician only looking out for his own interests "and those of the extremists who put him into power"--going so far as to suggest that Netanyahu was not democratically elected and that the attack on Israel was the result of Israeli extremism. To hammer home the accusation that Netanyahu is the real monster behind the Oct. 7 massacre, Stanley says Netanyahu and Hamas were "partners." The reality, which Stanely skews with such rhetoric, is that Israel had supported Qatar's decision to send humanitarian aid into Gaza--funds specifically marked for civilian use. We can only imagine what Israel's enemies would have said if Netanyahu had refused to support humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians.

Typical for pro-Palestinian activists and sympathisers, Israel is blamed for everything, including antisemitism and violence against Jews. There is no sense of nuance or balance, and no attempt to recognise how Hamas's own behaviour has played a role in the horrifying conditions that Palestinians in Gaza have faced over the years. It is much easier to demonize Netanyahu, create a scapegoat, and pretend that everything would be fine for all the Jews in the Middle East if only . . . 

If only what? That's really the question, isn't it?