Netanyahu, Mitsotakis, Palestine [1]
Does who makes a moral statement matter? There is a line of thought that suggests that the validity of any statement should be kept separate from the speaker or writer of that statement – the statement is either true or false, it matters little who is supporting it.
Notice that this stance is often not observed in ordinary life. Consider for example a friend of yours, well known for his stinginess, who criticises you for refusing to give two euros to a homeless person that you have just past by. The response “who are you to criticise me” does not seem to be inappropriate. Notice that the response is separate from the issue of whether one should or should not support the homeless, of whether you were wrong not to be more charitable. In our example it may be the case that one should give support and that the person making the criticism is a hypocrite. Or consider a different example. A couple has had their only child kidnapped and they are deliberating whether to pay the ransom. The mother says I know paying encourages kidnapping, that even if we pay the ransom, we may not get our child back, but all things considered we should pay it because the value of our child is far greater than the sum of money demanded. We could debate the validity of this statement on several grounds, but we would respect the mother’s moral stance. But this would not be the case with respect to the kidnapper who said pay up or you will lose something more than the sum of money I demand. This statement has no moral worth whatsoever. It therefore matters who is making the statement.
The Israeli and Greek prime ministers have expressed outrage with respect to the actions of Hamas on October 7, 2023. I share that outrage. Does the story stop there. I think not. Let us begin with the case of Netanyahu. Both before and after the October massacre he has been indifferent to the lives of Palestinians. In Israel’s genocidal war tens of thousands of non-combatants have been murdered. Bombing a household where a Hamas leader is suspected of hiding, leading to the loss of ten other lives, including children, may not have been a direct intention, but it is still an outrageous act. Nor can Netanyahu even claim that Palestinians are entitled to struggle for their rights but must refrain from directly targeting non-combatants. We can say that, but he cannot. For the fact that the Palestinians have no option but to resort to armed resistance is a direct result of Israeli actions, the fact that all other means of resistance have been closed off. Now we could still say that it is terrible that the only recourse Hamas has is targeting non-combatants and still urge Palestinians not to plan morally outrageous acts – terrible because Palestinians could respond that we are asking them to reconcile themselves to their fate. But this hardly something that Netanyahu himself could say.
The same goes for Mitsotakis. While clearly not exactly in the same boat as Netanyahu, his moral authority to criticise Hamas is non existent. Like many other European leaders, he has supported Israel’s war against the Palestinians before and after the Hamas attack, has turned a blind eye to the ever-increasing number of settlements in the West Bank and has made it clear that he has no interest in doing something about Israel’s apartheid policies. The meeting with Netanyahu, and the prime minister of Cyprus, before Christmas was a deeply humiliating event for anybody that has been outraged by Israel’s genocidal war. It was in fact an ex-post legitimisation of genocide. To hear the three leaders discussing energy and security, with Mitsotakis adding that this is on the basis of international law, was to understand the depth of the moral abyss into which we have fallen. That Nikos Christodoulides, the prime minister of a country that has part of its territory occupied, sang to the same tune surely defies belief.
The argument that the Israeli response was an act of self defense after the Hamas attack is not convincing. Members of the Israeli cabinet have repeatedly made statements that what they are seeking is ethnic cleansing, an expansion of Israeli territory. And, of course, the history of the conflict did not begin in 2023. Years ago, some Israeli officials[2] argued that attacking soldiers is legitimate but not civilians. I’m not sure that Mitsotakis would accept even this – for some reason the Palestinians are seen to be the only people who have no right to fight against the occupation of their lands.
Mitsotaki’s critique of Hamas is hypocritical exactly because he does not seem to care about helping the Palestinians in their struggle for an independent state. Instead of an embargo on selling arms to Israel, he expresses the desire to deepen Greece’s relationship with a leadership that is facing war crime chargers. He could start by boycotting goods produced in Israel or curbing cultural exchanges. The first movement that I was involved was in solidarity with those fighting the apartheid system in South Africa. We were told that this would harm some of the poorer people, but we persevered because those fighting the regime (from the ANC to bishop Tutu) called for our solidarity and boycotts to isolate the regime. And although victory came from the struggle within South Africa, outside pressure did make a difference.
Perhaps university professors could start the process by preventing educational exchanges between European countries and Israel, with certain exceptions for those clearly working for justice for the Palestinians. This would not only put some pressure on Israel but also on the European leaders that are complicit in genocide. It would be a start.
PS This piece was written before Mitsotakis’ refusal to condemn Trumps actions in Venezuela on the grounds of international law. If you have turned a blind eye to genocide, then doing the same to kidnapping and an attack on another country could, I suppose, be considered a minor infringement.
————————
[1] I closely follow in this article the arguments of G A Cohen. See, for instance, Finding Oneself in the Other, Princeton University Press, 2013.
[2] Dr Zvi Shtauber, the Israeli ambassador to Britain, in May 2003 (quoted in Cohen op. cit, p.116.