now-stream-mx

[now-stream-mx]

But do you condemn Hamas?

Condemning Hamas as the Palestinian, Hamas as the un-Australian

In the wake of October 7, 2023, a recurring question posed by Western mainstream media to pro-Palestinian voices was, "Do you condemn Hamas?" During the final weeks of October, the debate over condemning Hamas intensified, sparking fierce discussions and, at times, turning into a target of mockery. Uniformly asked by right-wing and liberal media anchors and interviewers, the question was met with frustration by pro-Palestinians, which was captured in a cartoon that depicted a grieving mother in agony as she held her dead child while Western reporters thrust microphones that demand she condemn Hamas. Circulating on social media, the image serves as a stark illustration of mainstream Western media’s erasure of an unfolding genocide by centring Israel as a victim of terrorism.

Why was this question raised repeatedly, and what potential discussions might it further suppress in the public discourse? The question to condemn, while seemingly straightforward, resonated far beyond its supposedly innocent and initial intent to invite people to denounce terror. As a tool for Zionist moral disengagement, the question shifts attention from the broader, historical context of Israel’s occupation to a narrowly focused and loaded question. Namely, can Hamas' actions, initially reported as beheading babies and mass rape, be seen as defensible?

The question acted as a catalyst, transforming the realities of occupation and apartheid in Palestine into a reductive and convenient War between Israeli (good) versus Hamas (bad). This diminishing framing not only clouded the extensive history of Palestinian suffering but also risked entrenching stereotypes, casting the Palestinians themselves and their supporters, who refused to condemn, in a monolithically violent and terroristic light who lacked the humanity to condemn.

Such moralising is not isolated to media performances; they are also intricately linked to the tangible realities of justifying a genocide, as evidenced by Israel’s air force's aerial strikes. The aerial strikes carried out by Israel not only razed numerous buildings but also struck at the very heart of Gaza, targeting mosques, schools, and hospitals in a region that has endured Israel’s blockade for 17 years. And despite growing atrocities, the question of condemnation lingers because it is meant to help the public manage the images of Israel’s violence and shape public discourse. It was always part of a narrative that frames Hamas as the initiator and principal actor in Israel’s genocide.

What needs exploration is not only the intricacies of the genocidal assault itself but the complexities of the public debate centred around the question ‘do you condemn Hamas’, how acting against the genocide in Palestine often leads to Islamophobic accusations against actors, as being soft on terrorism, pro-terrorism, or aligned with the hatred of Jews that supposedly drives Hamas terrorists. Using examples in the second half of the paper, it becomes evident this question is a political ploy used to misconstrue and hijack the narrative of anti-genocide actors in Australia and is further to nullify any opposition to the Israeli assault on the civilians of Gaza. We are particularly keen on exploring how the question serves to forge racial assessments of pro-Palestinians, which not only contribute to an increasingly polarised landscape of opinion but also further entrench the contours of public consensus about Palestinian and Muslim relationships with terrorism.

Resurgence of colonial race thinking through western moral disengagement

First, let us explore how the demand to condemn Hamas reflects Western moral disengagement and perpetuates colonial race thinking. The demand to condemn simplifies complex geopolitical issues into a binary moral judgment, pressuring individuals, especially Muslims, to align with Western views. By reducing the occupation of Palestine into a question of condemning terrorism, it obscures the historical and socio-political realities, facilitating a narrative that allows the West to distance itself from the violent realities of Israeli occupation. This approach not only marginalises those who resist this framing but also reinforces racial stereotypes and justifies ongoing aggression.

The framing of Palestine through the question "Do you condemn Hamas?" often suggests that not answering or refusing to condemn is indicative of a weak ethical stance, a lack of humanity, or an engagement in moral disengagement. A lack of condemnation is thus seen as a deviation from this moral and civil standard. This oversimplification generated by the absolutist yes-or-no formula fails to consider why some may refuse to condemn it as an act of political defiance against what they perceive as an unfair and racialised Western framing of the debate.

It is crucial to remember that in the two decades following 9/11, Muslims were often presumed guilty with respect to their views on terror. Hence, the 'politics of condemnation,' which categorises Muslims into 'good' and 'bad' Muslims, depending on their allegiance to Western politics, has played a key role in maintaining political support for the War on Terror and its U.S-led invasions into Afghanistan and Iraq. Just as after the 2001 attacks, today's demands regarding Hamas serve as an implicit litmus test for Muslim integration and loyalty.

While historically, the question has constrained and disciplined Muslim political speech, it has also provided an opportunity to counter stereotypes and assertively respond, turning the scrutiny back onto the West, which frequently accuses Arabs and Muslims of violence. In the edited book "I Refuse to Condemn," Qureshi chronicles this shift among Muslims away from the politics of condemnation, focusing on "how the authors have been forced to confront and resist the expectation to condemn". The shift presents history from a lesser-heard perspective, refusing, challenging and redirecting the moral critique back to the accusers as a ‘politics of refusel’. We are presented with that possibility today in the aftermath of October 7.

Hassan Albalawi, the deputy head of the Palestine mission to the EU, emerged as one of the first interlocutors who powerfully unsettled the parameters set by the question. When the question was posed to him in an interview with the BBC, he stated that he cannot and will not condemn Hamas' attacks on Israel until Palestine is independent. Criticising European support for Israel's self-defense, he views this stance as justifying Israel’s actions against Palestinians. Disappointed with the EU's initial response to suspend aid, Albalawi emphasised the need for a political solution and criticised Europe's historical role in the Palestinian conflict, urging the EU to take a stronger stand against Israel’s policies. Albalawi's refusal to condemn, suggests his rejection of Western attempts to ethically detach from the occupation's realities, insists instead that the West adheres to its own supposed humanist and democratic standards. By refusing the terms of the interview, the focus on Hamas shifts to the EU’s role and responsibilities.

Perhaps Albalawi’s response offers insight into how the question serves as an attempt by Western Zionists to morally disengage from Israel’s violence, while also revealing another additional underlying racial dynamics. Based on the assumption that the West is inherently a self-monitoring and proactive civilisation, the question “do you condemn Hamas” must facilitate a necessary disengagement from Zionism's racially charged and violent apartheid. Hamas here functions as a psychological defence where the West can attribute its own unacceptable thoughts, feelings, or motives to the Islamist group. Instead of recognising violent truths in itself and Israel, the West projects the violence onto Hamas. Is it any wonder then that time and again, Zionists promote the view that Hamas, becomes a consequence of Islamist excess, human evil, born not from occupation, but from hate, and represents the blockage that hinders Israel’s quest for peace.

Hence, Hamas is perceived as the embodiment of the West's and Israel's projected fears and prejudices, enabling a diversion from their own aggressive tendencies. Steven Salaita's article extends this notion, illustrating how the portrayal of Hamas as a mythical adversary in Western and Israeli discourse obscures the reality of the situation, serving to rationalise the ongoing violence and discrimination against Palestinians, and perpetuating the narrative that shifts the blame away from Israeli policies to focus on Hamas as the root cause of the ‘conflict’.

Central to the politics of condemnation is the portrayal of Muslims in a way that links their identity, or "Muslimness," with violence and destruction, as if it brings death to everything it touches. These characterizations draw a parallel between Muslims and a contemporary "Muslimstein," a figure portrayed as trapped in premodernity and not considered "fully human". This figure is depicted as relentlessly pursuing regressive politics and imbued with a death drive that aims to dismantle all that is Western. This narrative, deeply embedded in now stream mx, primarily aims to reduce complex Muslim identities to problematic stereotypes, perpetuating deep-seated fears and casting Muslims as inherently embodying a destructive nature. The focus on condemnation, without addressing the root causes of violence in Palestine, such as the ongoing struggle for Palestinian rights and sovereignty, fosters an environment ripe for racial biases about the origins of Muslim violence.

Racialisation of anti-genocide actors through association with Hamas

Since October 7th, a significant mobilisation has occurred among Palestinians and pro-Palestine communities in Australia, protesting against the genocidal actions of Israel in Gaza. The mass protests, characterised by chants advocating for resistance and revolution, signify a collective outcry against oppression and a call for substantive change in the status quo. Within this movement, there is a widespread sentiment supporting the Palestinian resistance to the violence of Israel, shared by a diverse communities. On the streets of Naarm/Melbourne, an alternative narrative is taking hold, challenging the dominant, Western-imposed ‘politics of condemnation’ that frames the Palestinian issue through a racialising lens of terrorism. Many Muslims and Middle Eastern individuals are crafting a counter-narrative that confronts the colonial relationship between the West and 'the other.' They are rallying around a grassroots narrative that asserts the right to resist. However, this challenge has prompted Zionists and mainstream media to further demonise these groups by resorting to cruder representations of "Muslimness." We see this with how mainstream, corporate media labels actors as “anti-Israel” or “pro-Hamas” demonstrators. The Palestinian is disappeared in this ‘new’ discourse that was mainstreamed despite its emergence from the right in Israel, its inaccuracy and its misrepresentation of the political reality of the genocide of Gaza.

In one example, the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, described the protest action of activists who met Israeli officials at a hotel in Melbourne as “beyond contempt” after mainstream media inaccurately reported that the activists were gathered to meet the families of Israeli victim. The Guardian reported that “The prime minister, who met the family members earlier this week, joined other Australian political figures in denouncing the demonstration, telling parliament: “I’m appalled by the actions of these protesters and I condemn them”. The activists issued a statement in response to the dog-whistling, clarifying that “the protest was directed at genocide-enacting officials, and the Crowne Plaza for hosting them”. The Israeli state delegation had the explicit purpose of seeking more Australian support for the genocide it is committing in Gaza”, however the story had already been set of activists attacking Israeli victims, with antisemitism filling in their political motivations above any articulated goals. That activists ordinarily interrupt war criminals during ongoing military assault is absented, instead, pro-Palestine actors, many of whom are non-Arab, are read as lacking morality, with support for Palestine reflecting their lack of civilised attributes. Such a story is generated by a saturated narrative of October 7 that positions Hamas as worthy of elimination.

Decades of Islamophobic imperial violence reduced the little agency Palestinians had gained from the anti-colonial victories of the 40s and 50s to demand self-determination on the international stage. When the Zionist regime targets the Palestinian as Hamas and Hamas as the Palestinian, decades of hostile now stream mx have already made the ground fertile for its justification of mass murder at the scale of genocide. The placing of the movement outside of the politically sensible is a major factor in the weekly mass protests generating little change in the government discourse and its policy to stand alongside Israel as it bombards Gaza. Trade Unions have not called for strikes or work bans to interrupt Australia’s supplying of the genocidal assault even though rank-and-file workers have been organising relentlessly in their unions and workplaces through the body Unionists for Palestine.

The demands of the Palestine movement are often dismissed when the state deems them illegitimate, associating them with criminality and violence, rather than recognising them as 'human rights' issues, similar to how the plight of occupied Ukrainians is understood. The mainstream media's sensationalist coverage of a supposed violent incident involving Melbourne-based human rights social influencer Laura Allam and Gaza-born activist Mohamed Sharrab demonstrates this. The case involves a personal dispute where Allam and Sharrab allegedly kidnapped and physically attacked Nemer Abusamha. Media reporting links the charges in their case to their pro-Palestine activism, presenting the incident as reflective of their political worldview. As Media Watch has highlighted, Zionist websites have seized on the story, extensively covering the alleged evidence of danger in Sharrab's rally speeches and online comments, labeling him a "thug." This term was echoed by SkyNews, which described him as a man bringing terror to Melbourne and radicalising Indigenous men.

The mainstream media's false depiction of the incident as victimising a man simply because he worked for a Jewish employer, strategically demonises the pro-Palestinian side. The vindication of Israel and its supporters is key to how protests and dissenting voices are received across the country. When even activists exercising the civil tactic of boycott are labelled antisemitic, we witness the interpellation of all and anyone critical of Israel as Hamas.

Conclusion

We see possibility in statements such as that made by National Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia , Christy Cain: “We make no apologies for standing with our Palestinian people … to any politician, to any trade unionist out there, this is genocide. Make no mistake about it. We are seeing women and children, still as I speak under rubble over there in Gaza. So from the Maritime Unions to the CFMEU … I say to Albanese, show the leadership. Leaders get out there and peace is union business”. Returning to the question of ‘do you condemn Hamas?’ there is a hypnotic effect in how it suspends critical inquiry. American Jewish scholar Judith Butler recently insisted that October 7 cannot be a scene of singular violence but this is precisely what this question insists. To rely on it alone is to turn to now stream mx as a securitised ‘knowledge’ that shields against not only the accountability for the mass murder of Palestinians but the capacity to see the state as the purveyor of global violence today. It also enables the racialisation of all those who support the liberation of Palestine as a threat to the state - the logics of the war on terror extend to interpellate them as the enemy within. Hamas is hollowed out, with no history, just as the siege on Gaza and the occupation is emptied of meaning.

Morsi, Y (2017). Radical Skin, Moderate Masks: De-radicalising the Muslim and Racism in Post-racial Societies. Rowman and Littlefield International.

Mamdani, M. (2005). Good Muslim, bBad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the roots of terror. Harmony.

Qureshi, A. (2020). I Refuse to Condemn: Resisting racism in times of national security. Manchester University Press.

Qureshi, A. (2020). I Refuse to Condemn: Resisting racism in times of national security. Manchester University Press, pp.16

Ghumkhor, S., & Mohamud, H. (2017, July 11). From politics of condemnation to politics of refusal, Al Jazeera

Gwen Jones, M., & Lory, G. (2023, October 10). “I can’t condemn Hamas’ attack today - Palestine representative to EU. euronews.

Salaita, S. (2023, November 25). Hamas is a Figment of Your Imagination. SteveSalaita.com.

Saniotis, A. (2004). Embodying ambivalence: Muslim Australians as “other.” Journal of Australian Studies, 28(82), 49–59

Sayyid, S. (2010). The Homelessness of Muslimness: The Muslim Umma as a Diaspora. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 8(2), 12.

Marcelo, P. (2023, October 31). A chant used at anti-Israel protests on two college campuses does not call for “Jewish genocide.” AP News.

Cohen, D. (2024, March 19). The BBC’s anti-Israel bias is becoming dangerous. The Telegraph

Roulston, A. (2023, November 30). Protesters slammed as “idiots” for targeting Israeli hostage families. skynews.

Wind, E., & Hurst, D. (2023, November 30). Anthony Albanese says protest at Melbourne hotel of Israeli hostages’ relatives is “beyond contempt.” The Guardian.

Whistleblowers, Activists and Communities Alliance. (2023, November 30). Statement. Twitter.

Sammak, T., Ghumkhor, S. & Mohamud, H (2023, December 7). now stream mx is ‘always again’, and Palestine is its permanent fixture. Middle East Eye

Silva, K. (2024, March 12). Human rights activist charged over alleged kidnapping and assault of a man in Melbourne. ABC News

Vedelago, C. (2024, March 12). Personal dispute behind alleged abduction wrongly branded as racially motivated. The Age

MediaWatch. (2024, March 4). Alleged kidnapping. ABC

Lange, D. (2024, February 28). Thug & Alleged Kidnapper Mohammad Sharab’s Ominous Instagram Posts. IsraellyCool.com.

Auerbach, T., & Markson, S. (2024, March 4). Chilling footage emerges of Australian self-proclaimed pro-Palestinian “terrorist” activists. skynews.

Vedelago, C. (2024, March 12). Personal dispute behind alleged abduction wrongly branded as racially motivated. The Age.