PREAMBLE
Hamas’s October 7th cross-border “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” against Israel military operations,(Refer: Wider MENA War and Widening MENA War Part II, and the continuing intensified military conflict) may be associated with just a “typical act of terrorism” and Israel has “the right to fight back” against this”.
On the other hand, a reprisal that is disproportionate to the initial attack can itself become an act of terrorism or, worse, a crime against humanity.
According to the Middle East Eye on the Israel-Palestine war: Israel's claim of 'self-defence' has zero legal legitimacy.
It is obvious that Israeli leadership has no clear political objective in waging this war, beyond revenge for the civilian casualty toll and the humiliating military defeat of October 7.
Beijing’s reaction to Hamas’s attack has tried to strike a balance between morality and international law. It opposes Israel's disproportionate retaliation in Gaza and continues to support the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
Let's read to what Zhang Jiadong (张家栋) - director of the Centre for South Asian Studies, Fudan University - has to say.
SUPPORT FOR THE PALESTINIAN LIBERATION CAUSE ≠ SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM: TWO CONCEPTS THAT SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED (EXCERPTS),
Zhang Jiadong (张家栋)
Source:
The Paper (澎湃新闻) – 23 October 2023
“Many people are arguing [principally] about one thing: was Hamas's attack on Israel an unjust act of terrorism or part of a just cause to liberate the Palestinians? Different interpretations in this debate have led to a wide array of opposing and conflicting viewpoints around the world. The debate, in fact, confuses the dimensions and scope of [two] distinct concepts.”
“The rightness of the goal is not the same as the righteousness of the means”
“Terrorism is a strategy or tactic that refers to acts of violence, or threats of violence, that are deliberately directed against civilians or innocent people as a means of achieving a political end. Clearly, terrorism describes and identifies a pattern of violent behaviour. Both just national liberation movements and unjust colonialism or ethnic oppression might use terrorist tactics. People's opposition to terrorism is motivated by the universal goal of protecting civilians or innocent people. It has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the objectives of these [terrorist] activities.”
“In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Hamas's [recent] attack on Israel resulted in the deaths of more than 1,300 people [‘around 1200’ according to Israel’s latest estimate], the vast majority of whom were civilians or innocents. These people were almost all killed deliberately. They were not the collateral casualties of a war or conflict. Thus, this attack by Hamas in southern Israel was a typical act of terrorism [一个标准的恐怖主义行为]. To be sure, Hamas's actions also included some non-terrorist acts such as urban guerrilla warfare. Especially after the initial suddenness [of their attack] had dissipated, Hamas fighters engaged in a lot of street guerrilla warfare with the Israeli army. Such behaviour can no longer be considered as terrorist and falls into the category of armed conflict.”
“Reprisals are permissible under international law. However, if the Israeli army's retaliation against Hamas were to exceed a certain limit and lose its proportionality and immediacy in terms of time, space and degree, it might also be qualified as an act of terrorism, or even as a more serious crime against humanity [人道主义罪行]. This is why people in many countries are currently opposed to the Israeli army’s large-scale military operation in Gaza. Those who oppose Israel are not necessarily motivated by [a feeling of] support for Hamas. Hamas's acts of terrorism cannot provide legitimacy to the Israeli army's potential excessive reprisal. The unrighteousness of one's enemy is no excuse for engaging in wrongful behaviour [不义行为] oneself.”
“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a different matter, involving the right of both Jews and Arabs to exist and live along with their right to statehood in the land of Palestine. This has complex historical roots and drivers. It is a matter that involves the right of peoples to national self-determination. The rights and wrongs associated with this issue are not set in stone but are constantly changing.”
Distinguishing between the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Iranian conflicts
“Egypt's disengagement [from the Palestinian cause in the late 1970s] and the gradual neglect of the Palestinian Arabs by other Arab States led to two changes in the problems faced by the Middle East:
The scope of the issue was narrowed down from an Israeli-Arab conflict to an Israeli-Palestinian one.
Second, the Israeli-Arab conflict turned into a religious conflict.
Shortly before the signing of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel [in 1979], a major event took place in the Middle East – Iran’s Islamic Revolution. Iran’s new Islamic Republic changed the pro-Israeli stance of its previous regime to an anti-Israeli one, thereby taking over from the Arab states as the flag-bearer for the annihilation of Israel. This shift saw the Israeli-Arab conflict widen once again, moving from an ethnic conflict to a religious one between Muslims and Jews. The Iranians are not Arabs and cannot take up the banner of ethnic conflict.”
“This change has had two consequences:
First, Israel was [now] at an absolute advantage and the Palestinian Arabs at an overwhelming disadvantage in the conflict that opposed one another. The initiative in this conflict was now held by the Jews. More importantly, Israel's dominant position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict led to the rise of the Jewish religious right. These people were not satisfied with the 1967 ceasefire lines, preferring to establish a large State of Israel based on the Bible. These people were fanatical and opposed Israel's reconciliation with the Palestinians. In 1993, the Labour government of Israeli Prime Minister [Yitzhak] Rabin signed the Oslo Accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), recognising the Palestinians' right to statehood and handing over the administration of the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank to the Palestinians. This move was resented by many Jews. On 4 November 1995, Rabin, who had signed the peace accords and won the Nobel Peace Prize, was assassinated by Jewish extremists. Violence and reprisals between Israel and the Palestinians continued to rise and fall. On the whole, however, the Jews continued to squeeze [压缩] the Palestinians’ living space [生存空间].
Since then, the international community has been more concerned with the right to exist of the Palestinian Arabs than with the right to exist of the small and weak State of Israel. The international community’s sympathy [同情] has also gradually shifted toward the Palestinian Arabs. In recent years in particular, religious extremist forces have been rising in Israel and have had a tendency to hijack the country’s policies. These people have occupied a lot of land that should belong to the Arabs. They have established Jewish settlements, isolated and surrounded areas in which the Arabs live and turned the[se] Arab regions into de facto prisons. This has led to a large number of people in today’s international community, including some pro-Israeli countries [and regions] such as America and Europe, sympathising with the Palestinians and opposing Israeli bullying [强权] in Gaza and the West Bank.
Second, the conflict between Iran and Israel became a religious one, in which Israel was once again at a disadvantage [以色列又是弱势的]. Furthermore, Iran has been much more isolated within the international community than the Arab world has been. Thus, greater sympathy was lent to Israel in the conflict that opposed it to Iran. Iran's involvement led to the full involvement of the Shi'a Muslims in this anti-Israel movement. Islamic extremism replaced the secular nationalist and socialist ideologies of the past and became the new ideological source of opposition to Israel. Hamas arose out of this [new] wave, prevailed in the Gaza Strip over the PLO’s secular nationalist organisation [Fatah], thereby monopolising power in Gaza.”
“In this way, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians became a two-front war:
A politico-diplomatic war with the secular nationalist organisations represented by the PLO. Behind the PLO [在巴解的背后], there is a wide range of Arab countries, and even the United States, Europe and many other countries, including China.
An armed conflict with the religious extremist organisations represented by Hamas, which is mainly manifested in acts of terrorism and counter-terrorism. Backing these religious extremist organisations are mainly the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. Because the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran have long been enemies of such Arab states or governments as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, many Arab countries oppose [排斥] Hamas. Hamas and the Gaza Strip, which it controls, have been isolated by both Israel and [a number of] Arab States. The Gaza Strip’s deteriorating economic situation has [also] got a lot to do with Hamas' isolation. During this current round of conflict, Arab countries such as Egypt and Jordan have said they will not welcome refugees from Gaza [and that] Gaza's problems must be resolved on the ground in Gaza. These countries are concerned not about economic pressures, but about the risk of religious extremism and terrorist forces spreading from Gaza into their own countries. There is a historical precedent for this.”
“Thus, the position of the international community on these issues is determined on a case-by-case basis. There is no single criterion. More specifically, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it is a matter of a stronger people oppressing a weaker one. In the Israeli-Iranian conflict, it is a matter of religious conflict and Israel's right to exist [国家生存权]. In different problem areas, the sympathy of the international community is given to different actors. Even the same person can hold different attitudes on these two levels [i.e. issues].”
“Opposing terrorism and feeling sympathy for the Palestinians is not contradictory”
“Returning to terrorism. The issue of terrorism belongs to a different realm from that of the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Iranian conflicts. The issue of terrorism emphasises the legitimacy and rationale of the means and process, and underlines the need to protect innocents and civilians in the broadest sense of the word. Therefore, the fight against terrorism does not discriminate between religions, ethnicities or countries; it is universal and part of the world’s problems. As long as extremist organisations such as Hamas carry out attacks against Israeli civilians, it is terrorism, and Israel has the right to fight back against this [以色列就有权利来反恐]. International law stipulates that a state must guarantee that its own territory does not become a source of [malevolent] forces that could threaten other states. If a state cannot exercise control over its own territory by itself, other states, especially the afflicted state(s), have the right to control and administer it on its behalf. The inability or unwillingness of either a state or a government to fulfil its obligations under international law not to harm or endanger another state is itself a violation of international law.”
“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a different issue, emphasising the right to exist and to develop of the disadvantaged Palestinians. Although extremist organisations such as Hamas have not yet truly given up their goal of annihilating Israel and are unwilling to comply with international law, it is undeniable that they are incapable of posing an existential threat to the state of Israel and can only cause public security problems [社会治安问题]. Therefore, despite the frequent terrorist activities of Hamas and others, the international community's sympathy continues to be directed primarily towards the Palestinians, and sometimes even towards Hamas. [As the expression goes,] ‘love me, love my dog’ [爱屋及乌]. This is not necessarily due to discrimination against Israel or anti-Semitism, but mainly because of the human instinct to sympathise with the weak.”
“On this issue, the position of the Chinese government is utterly normative and within the rules [非常规范、标准的], allowing it to strike a balance between the principles of international law and the requirements of international morality and justice [国际道义需求]. From the perspective of international law, China continues to support the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians. From the perspective of international morality and justice, China opposes Israel's large-scale ground offensive against Gaza. That is because the Israeli army is more capable of causing a much bigger humanitarian crisis than Hamas [更有能力制造更大规模的人道主义危机]. However, China has not gone to support Hamas, but instead has made it clear that one must oppose all acts of terrorism. Chinese aid for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is channelled through United Nations agencies and is not handed over directly to Hamas. Although China does not identify Hamas as a terrorist organisation, it is in fact very wary of the terrorist elements within Hamas. [非常顾忌哈马斯组织中的恐怖主义成分].”
“In short, there is no contradiction between being opposed to terrorism and sympathising with the Palestinians. Terrorism can be practised by both the weak and the strong. The legitimacy of the objective cannot provide legitimacy to the unjust nature of the tactic. Even the righteous side is to be criticised if it uses terrorist tactics. Everyone appreciates that terrorist tactics are inappropriate, dishonourable and even illegal.”
“Even in the midst of a war or a conflict, civilised, normative and reasonable means cannot be abandoned. This is an important symbol of the progress made by human society. This civilisational achievement, which has taken human society a millenium to achieve, should not be discarded, nor should it be challenged.”
The Author
Name: Zhang Jiadong (张家栋)
Year of birth: 1977 (age: 45/46)
Position: Professor at the Centre for American Studies and director of the Centre for South Asian Studies, Fudan University
Previously: Second secretary, Chinese Embassy in India (2013-2015)
Other: Vice president of the Shanghai Institute for International Strategic Studies; Member of the Central Propaganda Department’s "Telling China's Story Well" group of lecturers (2015-present?); Member of an expert group at China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2017-present?)
Research focus: Counterterrorism; US-China relations; South Asia
Education: Vocational teaching diploma from Anhui Huoqiu Normal School (1993); Vocational degree, self-taught (1997); MA Yunnan University (2001); PhD Fudan University (2004)
Experience abroad: Visiting scholar in the US (2005 & 2007).
