Debate on Armed Resistance and Hamas

We can have different views about Hamas as a political party.

We can have different views

about armed resistance.

But I think it is more honest and

historically correct to say that the uprising of October 7th was

an act of armed resistance.

It is not a terrorist attack,

and it's not an anti Semitic attack.

It was an attack against Israelis. And I did not like that attack.

I have gone public with this.

I have gotten in trouble for saying it was, for me, anguishing.

It was anguishing. It was terrible.

However, I would be very foolish if I then decided that the only violence

in the scene was the violence done to Israeli people.

The violence done to Palestinians has been happening for decades.

This was an uprising that comes from a state of

subjugation and against a violent state apparatus.

OK, let us be clear.

Now, you can be for or against armed resistance. You can be for or against Hamas.

But let us at least call it armed resistance.

And then we can have a debate about whether we think it's right or

whether they did the right thing, whether a different strategy.

But the problem is, if you call it armed resistance,

you are immediately thought to be in favor of armed resistance

and in favor of that armed resistance and that tactic.

It's like, well, actually, maybe not that tactic.

And we can discuss armed resistance. It is an open debate.