I was surprised to see the letter from Martin Thomas in Solidarity 691 taking issue with the headline in Solidarity 690. This is a concern Martin waited until the following week to express, and, as far as I know, one was not mentioned during the review of the previous paper, which takes place as part of our editorial meetings.
Still, Martin has the right to change his mind, and he has attempted to account for doing so as the author of the headline. As another editorial team member who “signed off” on the headline (as did Workers’ Liberty’s executive committee), I do not share his view.
Martin states that the headline could be read as “neither Israel nor Hamas”. Any headline could be misinterpreted, but most people capable of critical thought will surely understand that the reference to Netanyahu is his government and the political project he represents, not to Israel as a nation. There are many ways in which Netanyahu and Hamas are not equivalent; stating that we oppose them both does not mean we think they are the same. There is also a risk of misinterpretation “in the other direction”. If Netanyahu is the leader of Israel, and Hamas are the “resistance in Gaza”, then could the headline not be read as “neither Israel nor Palestine”? But indeed, there is no evidence anyone has read or will read it that way — except, apparently, the person who wrote it.
In Israel itself, before 7 October, there had been months of demonstrations calling for the removal of Netanyahu, and now even supporters of the current war are demanding he step down. It is false to imply that saying “no to Netanyahu” is a step towards the delegitimisation of Israel’s right to exist, any more than “no to Hamas” is a delegitimisation of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.
The reality is that the headline was clear and doesn’t draw an equivalence between, or conflate, the Netanyahu government, the state of Israel, and Hamas.
Martin says the headline could be read in a manner I have not encountered on any demonstration or public activity with the paper. The commentary in his letter about the leadership of the demos has been made before in Solidarity, and does not seem relevant to his case about the headline. Anyone who bought a copy of Solidarity 690 at one of the local demos on 18 November could not possibly have come away thinking that we were for the destruction of Israel. The front page also included the slogans “Ceasefire Now!” and “Two states”. Martin is keen for us to disavow the headline for a potential reading that could only be made by our most dishonest opponents.
Martin goes on to say that we would be in favour of Israel suppressing Hamas, although differing on method. But the Palestinians in Gaza cannot just be ignored in the removal of Hamas. There is no method by which Israel could fully “suppress” Hamas that we could support, as any possible attempt would inevitably involve the massive civilian death toll and devastation to infrastructure we are seeing now. The fact Hamas installs its military facilities amongst and beneath civilian infrastructure shows that Hamas sees a high level of civilian casualties as acceptable collateral for its cause. The fact that the IDF carries out devastating bombardments in full knowledge of the likely civilian casualties (even if they also destroy rocket launch sites and such like) shows that they think similarly. On both sides, Palestinian civilian lives are seen as expendable, sacrificed for Hamas’s martyrdom or Israel’s “self-defence”. We should take a different approach. “Neither Netanyahu nor Hamas” is a way of expressing that.
Abstract talk of Israel suppressing Hamas via some legitimately “self-defensive” military action — not the actual war currently taking place — does not help clarify the paper’s political line.
Solidarity has a difficult task as a weekly paper at the current moment. What we say, for now, does not change greatly week-to-week as, whilst influenced by events, our overall demands (ceasefire, two states, and workers’ unity) remain vital and current. The challenge is formulating a sharp headline for each edition that captures, ideally in an attention-grabbing way, some key aspect of our perspective. The “neither Netanyahu nor Hamas” headline did that.