By Jacob Griffith
Photographed by Unsplash
As a Jewish student attending LSE’s book launch for ‘Understanding Hamas: And Why That Matters’, it became clear to me that campus has become an increasingly polarised environment. This event touched the core of a sensitive topic and invited the opportunity to facilitate conversations in a constructive manner, integrating multiple perspectives into discussion aimed toward striving for peace. Unfortunately, the book launch and the protests which were planned in response to it only contributed to pitting each ‘side’ of campus further away from one another, creating an ever more hostile environment within the university – the very space where it is most essential to have difficult and complex discussion.
The talk began with the assertion that “if we are to emerge from this state of current impunity surrounding the actions of Israel to a state of peaceful coexistence, then understanding all the relevant players and engaging with them constructively is absolutely essential.” This is by all means a crucial point and justification for why an event like this was necessary. Professor Jeroen Gunning opened proceedings with interesting comments on critical terrorism studies, arguing that the label of ‘terrorist’ is both unevenly assigned and politically charged in a way which serves to dehumanise not just Hamas but the entire Palestinian people, in doing so legitimising the Israeli genocide. Such statements are necessary in order to critically engage with Israel’s war on Gaza with academic rigour.
Yet while many of the arguments expanded upon in the talk were relevant and legitimate, it was the things that were not said which rendered the talk deeply problematic; these absences gave light to an evident apathy toward antisemitism which plagued the book launch, which LSE implicitly legitimised by organising the event. The talk called for countering the “disinformation” which has characterised the media’s depictions of Hamas, aiming to showcase a “corrective” narrative, reconstructing the way Hamas are presented. Accordingly, descriptors such as “anticolonial resistance group” were used repeatedly. Such labels are necessary and account for the contexts in which Hamas have come into being, borne out of a system of apartheid which has subjugated and dehumanised Palestinians since its inception.
But nuance is essential in these conversations, and the failure to account for complexity and contradiction easily turn an event from being constructive to being discriminatory. For while commenting on Hamas’ roots as an anticolonial resistance movement birthed from the Muslim Brotherhood, speaker Mr Mouin Rabbani failed to note neither the fervent antisemitism of Sayyid Qutb, the ideological figurehead of the Brotherhood who wrote a book named ‘Our Struggle Against the Jews’, nor the Jew-hate at the core of Hamas’ 1988 charter. None of the speakers mentioned antisemitism, and their recharacterization of Hamas abstained from any inquiry into the clear instances of hate and prejudice which hang over the group. Are they suggesting that when using the term “anticolonial resistance movement,” that the antisemitism demonstrably clear in the ideology and very plausibly the actions of Hamas is a justifiable and legitimate aspect of resistance? I will repeat once more, in this context the label of anticolonial resistance is in itself not prejudicial, but to brandish such a term while ignoring the racist views of the very movement in question works to support these views and reflects a contempt toward the Jewish people. The scholarly environment which a university holds the responsibility to uphold was compromised: during the book launch impartiality was squandered and an apathy toward antisemitism became a legitimised source of knowledge.
The talk continued in a similar vein when discussing the 7 October attacks. Responding to a question suggesting that the book served to whitewash Hamas, Ms Helena Cobban responded by putting into question the ICC’s ruling of Hamas leaders’ criminal accountability and followed by applauding the ICJ – whom she called a “much weightier organisation”- for its ruling of the plausibility of Israel committing genocide. Later, upon receiving a question concerning whether she would condemn the attacks of 7 October, Ms Cobban suggested that “I am prepared to condemn all attacks that violate International Humanitarian Law that happened on October 7th or any other day, however it is important to note that it has been very well documented that a lot of what the Hamas units were doing on October 7th was attacking military targets inside Israel.”
It is understandable that given the disproportionate death toll and suffering of the Palestinians, diverting focus away from Israeli war crimes would undermine the Palestinian cause. But in the context of a talk concerning Hamas and their representation, neglecting the massacres that took place in the Kibbutzim of Nir Oz and Be’eri represents a failure to adequately characterise Hamas. We cannot pretend they did not carry out these abhorrent acts, and we cannot ignore these crimes when seeking to understand Hamas as a movement; when we do, we squander any opportunity of reaching a peaceful state of coexistence that the speakers advocated for at the beginning of the talk. Holding Hamas accountable does not mean denying genocidal acts carried out by Israel and does not work to frame the state’s one sided siege on Gaza as a balanced conflict. Instead, it gives nuance to a discourse characterised by binary narratives, upholding the rights of Palestinians while being sensitive to the reality of antisemitism.
Organising a book launch of this nature is incredibly dangerous because it legitimises skewed narratives and overlooks necessary conversations about antisemitism and Hamas war crimes. Campus is already incredibly polarised and volatile. I have been vocal about my Jewishness at LSE, where I have been told I was out of place to do so because Jews were committing genocide. Antisemitism is real and active. By putting on this event, LSE only contributed to environments in which antisemitism is normalised, facilitating an event which was characterised by a contempt toward Jewish suffering.
Yet the event was not just harmful for Jews. Its simplistic narratives utterly compromised what is an essential conversation concerning Hamas’ political functions. We must refrain from characterising Hamas as a barbarous and evil terrorist group because doing so, as the speakers suggested, is central to opening up pathways to diplomacy and reaching a stage of peace. But to reach peace it is necessary that we engage in debate which is grounded in truth and which does not discriminate against a group of people. By facilitating the event on why Hamas matters, LSE only contributed to polarisation on campus rather than encouraging constructive discussion and critical inquiry. The responsibility of a university is to prepare its students to critically analyse the world around them. It is supposed to create environments in which uncomfortable conversation takes place in a constructive manner, not upholding discussion that turns a blind eye to war crimes and ignores antisemitism.
