Hamas and the Israeli state: A ‘violent dialogue’

Abstract

Through an analysis of Hamas's suicide missions and Israel's strategy of 'shock and awe', this article advances a concept of 'violent dialogue.' Drawing on Gadamer's work, as well as some of the points that emerge out of the Gadamer-Derrida encounter, this concept is meant to explicate how acts of political violence create a certain type of communion between those engaged in violent conflict. It will suggest that the appearance of political violent acts does not represent the end of a dialogue between the violent actors, but rather the emergence of a specific form of dialogue under the subject matter of violence. It is argued that this communion takes place outside the intentions of the protagonists, and despite their attempts to separate from each other. This is significant for academic analysis of political violence in general, and for our perspective and outlook on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular.

The Post‐9/11 “Terrorism” Discourse and Its Impact on Nonstate Actors: A Comparative Study of the LTTE and Hamas

“…These themes are closely reflected on by Ayyash (), in his examination of political violence in the Arab‐Israeli conflict. In this, he argues that for the Israeli state, “terror” has become whatever they consider to be an outlawed use of violence; in this context, a “terrorist organization,” any group which resorts to acts of “illegitimate” violence intended to cause death or destruction, becomes an “outlaw” organization.…”

“…In this, he argues that for the Israeli state, “terror” has become whatever they consider to be an outlawed use of violence; in this context, a “terrorist organization,” any group which resorts to acts of “illegitimate” violence intended to cause death or destruction, becomes an “outlaw” organization. The concept of outlaw here is slightly different to that of the criminal in Hülsse and Spencer's () article; for Ayyash (), it implies a group which is so far beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior that it is not even worthy of having the laws of the state applied to it, thus allowing the state to treat their adversary without legal recourse. However, the physical, and more importantly, the symbolic effects of these two formulations are the same.…”

“…The ability of Hamas to remain active makes for an illuminating comparison with the LTTE as, in theory, being labeled terrorists could have ensured ultimate military defeat. The Israeli state believes that those whom they deem to be “terrorists” are not even deserving of any recourse to the law (Ayyash, , pp. 111–112).…”