Israel and Hamas: Villain-and-Hero Narrative and the t-Word

By Brigitte L. Nacos
This is the lead paragraph from an editorial in today’s Washington Post:

“HAMAS'S QUICK rejection of the U.N. Security Council's call for a cease-fire in Gaza might have surprised some in the West who have followed the mounting civilian casualties and the near-breakdown of access to food, water, and medical services with growing concern. In fact, Hamas revels in the Palestinian suffering its terrorism has triggered. Thousands of its fighters have retreated into Gaza's most densely populated areas, where they continue to fire dozens of rockets a day at Israeli civilians. They want nothing more than to draw Israel into an even bigger and bloodier fight -- during which, Hamas calculates, Israeli forces will suffer heavy casualties, while the even bigger Palestinian losses will reap a propaganda windfall for Hamas across the Middle East and Europe.”

As I wrote in earlier posts, this propaganda windfall for Palestinians and, more important, for Hamas is already reality. There are ever more and ever larger demonstrations against Israel and in support of Hamas during which Hamas flags are prominently displayed and embraced. One protester in London assured a reporter, “I am not supporting Hamas, but…” She obviously did not have a problem with Hamas flags around her and the fact that she contributed to a now dominant mass-mediated narrative in which Israel is the villain and Hamas the hero.

Were The Washington Post’s editorial writers right in using the term “terrorism” to describe Hamas’s activities as they did in the paragraph cited above? 

Terrorism means violence by non-state actors deliberately committed against civilians to achieve political objectives. That is precisely what Hamas is engaged in. Yes, Hamas is also a political party that won the 2006 elections in the Palestinian territories but that does not make the organization a state actor. There is no Palestinian state.
It must also be noted that in the case of Hamas the deliberate targets of its violence are not only Israeli civilians but also fellow-Palestinians that are intentionally used as shields and propaganda props.

Most news organizations in the West do not use the “t” word to characterize Hamas members and their deeds. They tend adhere to political correctness and call Hamas a militant organization or group or something along those lines and occasionally mention that the U.S. government and the EU consider Hamas a terrorist organization. But even this practice comes under fire. According to one media critic,

“At present, American papers’ reflexive use of the words “militant organization,” or some variation thereof, closely mirror the U.S. government’s political stance on Hamas, which is that it’s a “terrorist organization.” But the phraseology is simply too stark, given the complexity of forces at play in this decades-old conflict. This isn’t to say that Hamas’s violent history ought not be included in the public record. The organization is believed behind more than 500 deaths—via suicide bombing, short-range rockets, small arms fire, and other means—since 1993.”

It is too “stark” to characterize Hamas as “militant” organization? And it is merely “believed” that the organization is behind more than 500 deaths….? Since Hamas almost always claims responsibility for its attacks, this is not a belief but a fact.   

In addition to the powerful visual images of the victims of military confrontation that I have written about in earlier posts, the current conflict underlines once again: Mass-mediated narratives and terms—and the absence of alternative narratives and terms--are powerful shapers of audiences’ sentiments.

Comments

[Brigitte]

thanks, Eric, for the link to the worldpoliticsreview article that I have read with interest and bookmarked on delicious. I recommend it as well. There is no doubt that asymmetric warfare is on the rise and requires different training and equipment for regular forces.

[Eric Chen]

Hi Professor Nacos,

I just came across this ... here's a reading recommendation I think is relevant to the dilemmas posed in your recent posts and my responses:

WPR: "War Is Boring: U.S. Wages First Battles in New Generation of War" - http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Article.aspx?id=3125

"Trying to wage a third-generation, firepower-heavy war against an elusive, sometimes hard-to-define fifth-generation enemy will only cost the United States its wealth, its domestic political unity and its good standing in the eyes of the world."

. . .

"Instead, the Pentagon plans to use less-than-lethal means to defeat -- gradually, and over long periods of time -- the latest-generation threats. These means include economic and humanitarian assistance, legal action and communication. Their goal is to alleviate "the insecurities and the conditions of human beings that create these insecurities across state borders," in the words of Maj. Shannon Beebe, the U.S. Army's top intelligence officer for Africa. These plans have already been put into effect in all three of the fifth-generation wars listed above."

[Eric Chen]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4212055.ece

“If we are going to fight future wars, they’re going to be very similar to Iraq,” [General Petraeus] says, adding that this was why “we have to get it right in Iraq”.

The reason I bring up Operation Iraqi Freedom so often in my comments is this notion that General Petraeus expresses: the importance of our Iraq mission is and has been more than our involvement with the nation. Victory in OIF holds a key, if not the key, to victory in the global War on Terror.

As Petraeus implies, OIF has been our essential testing, proving, and refining ground in order to put to rest our stubborn 20th century '9/10' mindset to war and peace, and develop the methods and mindset we need to win the War on Terror. (Yes, I understand the methods we've used in Iraq have historical bases, as do the methods used against us. Evolution, after all, is not alchemy.)

The solution to the dilemma you pose is found in the lessons GEN Petraeus and his fellow travelers purposely set out to learn in Iraq. We're still learning, and there are no easy answers, but we have found useful answers through much sacrifice and cost. I just worry that too many important people, especially media, have become so invested in a dogmatic close-minded opposition to our Iraq mission that they're incapable of promoting the solutions we've learned in Iraq.

When we can accept that the greater good has been served by our Iraq mission, then that will establish the popular frame that confronting outlaw regimes and terrorist groups is not hopeless; that indeed, as is being achieved in Iraq, the greater good is also achieved by bearing the cost to confront and defeat Hamas. But that narrative will work only if Israel, with the aid of her fellow travelers, matches our Iraq mission by disenfranchising the enemy and using occupation to actively build the peace.