To think that some on the left make the argument that the killing of children, young people, and old pensioners is a legitimate form of anti-colonial struggle reveals a moral vacuity and political bankruptcy that should receive an unqualified rebuke. I am sure that such words never were uttered, even in moments of anger and despair, by the great anti colonial leaders of the 20th century. Not Fidel. Not Mandela. Not Gandhi. Not Ho.

Closer to home, Martin Luther King, including in the most tragic moments of the civil rights struggle, never considered such heinous actions. Only the other side — the Southern racists — did. And without any moral indecision or scruples proceeded to murder and maim young Black children and teenagers.

Even in the most difficult moments, King refused to allow rage and revenge to frame his politics. With a laser-like focus he counseled non violent mass action, grassroots organizing, an expansive strategy and equally expansive tactics, and participation in every arena of struggle, not least electoral politics. In the end it paid off.

The system of Jim Crow came down. Today’s activists here and elsewhere would be wise to study this experience as well as the politics and values of the great anti-colonial leaders of the last century.

If there is something unseemly about Palestinian solidarity activists in the United States – and especially attending elite universities – showing either slight or no concern, or, worse still, vigorously defending the righteousness of killing Israeli children, young people, and older pensioners by Hamas terrorists (to call them freedom fighters is no drain the word of any meaning and a slap in the face to those who are), what can we say about these same “militants,” cheering on from the safety of their campuses or their comfortable homes that the people of Gaza press their fight against Netanyahu’s military blitzkrieg, to become fodder in an escalating, one sided war.

In this clash, Gazans, who did nothing to trigger this war, are quickly piling up as collateral damage and have absolutely no chance of winning against an aggressor that possesses a superior military capacity by a high order of magnitude. Moreover, Gaza, which was unlivable before the bombing began, will quickly become, if fighting continues at even greater intensity as Netanyahu promises, a city of ruins.

Thus anybody with a bit of common sense, anybody who decries the unnecessary loss of life, anybody unbitten by the peculiar bug of anti-imperialist solidarity that rests on the notion that the Israeli lives don’t matter should insist that the Biden administration and their representatives in Congress call for an immediate ceasefire on both sides, convey expressions of grief to the families in Israel and Gaza who have lost loved ones, provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, and initiate negotiations between representatives of both sides to end the ongoing conflict and reach a mutual agreement on a two state solution that provides a viable state for the Palestinians and security assurances and measures that satisfy the Israelis.

To engage in mass slaughter, as we are seeing, first in Israel and now in Gaza, requires, it seems to me, more than real or invented grievance, anger, and weapons of war. To this lethal mix, systematic dehumanization of the other side, the collapse of one’s moral restraints, and the rise of political extremism have to be stirred.

To think that some on the left make the argument that the killing of children, young people, and old pensioners is a legitimate form of anti colonial struggle reveals a moral vacuity and political bankruptcy that should receive an unqualified rebuke. I got to think that such words never were uttered, even in moments of anger and despair, by the great anti colonial leaders of the 20th century. Not Fidel. Not Mandela. Not Gandi. Not Ho.

Closer to home, King, including in the most tragic moments of the civil rights struggle, never considered such heinous actions. Only the other side — the Southern racists — did. And without any moral indecision or scruple proceeded to murder and maim young Black children and teenagers.

All that said, most young people don’t share such views, thanks to their political outlook, moral ballast, and good sense.

1. The death of more than a thousand innocent people in Israel by Hamas on a Jewish holy day and and the holding of hostages is a heinous action with no justification or plausible explanation.

2. Context can shed light and reveal the unseen, but it should never be deployed to legitimize the murder of innocent victims.

3. Notwithstanding what some on the left here say, the killing of children or young people at a dance or older people in Kibbutzim in Israel isn’t “resistance” unless the word has lost any substantive meaning. Such a claim strikes me as callous and a sign of moral and political degeneration, maybe some anti-semitism.

4. This wasn’t a spontaneous action; it was organized, coordinated, and carefully planned. It wasn’t the doing of the people of Gaza. The perpetrator was Hamas, a terrorist, theocratic organization that holds power in Gaza.

5. There was never any intention on Hamas’ part to attack Israeli soldiers or the command posts of the Israeli state.

6. Its aim was to spread death and fear across Israeli society and provoke a counter response from the Netanyahu government and Israeli military. Predictably Netanyahu cooperated in unhesitatingly ordering a massive military action and the collective punishment of the Palestinian people – a war crime – in what could be a protracted military campaign.

7. We shouldn’t think of Hamas as the equivalent of the civil rights movement of the 1960s here or the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa. If anything, it’s their opposite. Much like the present right wing extremist, racist, and increasingly theocratic governing coalition in Israel, its aim isn’t to expand freedom, democracy, and equality within a multi-racial, multinational, secular-democratic state or establish an independent, viable, democratic, secular Palestinian state, living peacefully next to Israel. Quite the contrary. The two perpetrators in this conflict share in many ways the same political DNA.

8. In triggering a new cycle of violence and counter violence Hamas has thrown into harms way as well the two million people of Gaza and people living in the West Bank, not to mention Palestinians and other Arabs living in Israel.

9. Moreover, this conflagration will surely weaken the efforts of the people and organizations in Israel resisting the right wing authoritarian regime led by Netanyahu. Their climb, never easy, just became much steeper.

10. Much the same could be said of the people in Gaza and the West Bank who advocate a diametrically different vision than Hamas.

11. Just as the attack on 9/11 wasn’t a blow against US imperialism, the terrorist actions of Hamas and the predictable reaction of the Netanyahu led government will not bring stability to the Middle East or security and peace to Israel or a viable solution to the national aspirations of the Palestinian people.

12. What seems more likely in present circumstances is the establishment of an apartheid like authoritarian state in Israel, the crushing of Palestinian statehood, the relegation of the Palestinian people to conditions of squalor and humiliation, no matter where they live, and heightened instability and tensions between rival powers in the Middle East – not to mention a new source of conflict between the great power blocs, the U.S. and China in the first place.

13. Realistically speaking (and realism is important in politics) a two state solution again looks like the only viable option, if there is any option worthy of conversation at this moment. Of course, present boundaries would have to be redrawn to take into account the encroachment and expansion of Israeli settlements and expansion in recent years. What is more, the international community, divided as it presently is, would have to play a substantive role politically and economically if there is any chance for such an outcome.

14. One can’t rule out the danger of a wider war in which Hezbollah, which has considerably more firepower than Hamas, and even Iran, join in as combatants against Israel. If that happens, all bets would be off.

15. The Biden administration faces an immense foreign policy challenge, diplomatically and politically. A change in playbook will be necessary.