For decade upon decade, the Palestinian terrorist groups and the Palestinian leadership have been masters of both propaganda in general and psychological warfare in particular. It it wasn’t for that fact, they would probably have very few sympathizers in the West. But they have many – especially among people who think themselves compassionate and loving – and this despite the fact that the terrorists’ actions are barbaric, sadistic, and vicious.
So, how do they manage this feat? One basic way is by lying, with fake videos and photos in combination with what might be called victimhood appropriation. The messages: they’re not the Nazis; the Jews are the Nazis and they are the victims of Nazis. It’s the Jews who are genocidal, and they are the victims of genocide. They are starving, and not their Jewish hostages. The Jews fired a rocket and destroyed a hospital; it wasn’t their own rocket that fell short in the parking lot. The Jews dispossessed them; they didn’t leave voluntarily. Israel is an apartheid state, despite 20% of its population being Arabs, and “Palestine” having no Jews at all. And they are “brown,” which gives them special victim status, even though over half of Israelis are every bit as “brown” in actual color. But “brown” isn’t about color; it’s about victimhood.
This paradoxical effect began, at least to the best of my memory, with the horrific attack at the Munich Olympics. It made Yasser Arafat famous and, for whatever reason, sympathetic to many in the West. Two short years later he was addressing the UN, cleverly saying, “Today I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom-fighter’s gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand.”
Gun, you say? In the UN? Here’s the way the NY Times covered it back then [typos corrected]:
Head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, [Yasser] Arafat, told the United Nations General Assembly today that his Organization’s goal remained a Palestinian state that would include Moslems, Christians and Jews.
I read that now and it’s immediately apparent that he meant that Palestinians would have the right of return to Israel, and that the larger state of which he spoke would be ruled by Arabs, and that any tolerance of other religions would be as temporary dhimmis at best. The Israeli ambassador to the UN knew what Arafat meant, and pointed it out:
Israel’s delegate, Yosef Koah, said in rebuttal that this would mean the destruction of Israel and the substitution of an Arab state.
How many believed Koah? How many even cared? More:
Mr. Arafat was applauded by many delegates in the 138-country Assembly when he said he was dreaming of “One democratic state where Jew and Moslem live in justice, equality, and fraternity. [In] such a state, he said, all Jews “now living in Palestine” could become citizens without discrimination.
Sure thing. And of course, because there weren’t any Jews “now living in Palestine” – nor did Arafat have any interest in justice, equality, and fraternity – it was all a boldfaced lie. In the Middle East, only in Israel did Jew and Moslem live in relative justice, equality, and fraternity.
Arafat had already been schooled by his Soviet teachers in how best to turn the West against Israel, and so in his speech he called Israel “imperialist” and “racist” and referred to himself as a “freedom fighter.” As for the gun, did he or didn’t he?:
Cameramen and other people who were near Mr. Arafat noticed that he was wearing a holster under his bulging windbreaker. A spokesmen later denied that Mr. Arafat Had carried a gun into the Assembly hall and asserted that the holster, if there had been one had been empty. …
The Palestinian leader, who has seldom been seen in public without a holstered weapon, definitely wore a leather holster under his windbreaker, according to close observers, but there were conflicting reports about whether it contained a gun.
A United Nations guard said there was a gun, and one of Mr. Arafat’s bodyguards told The Associated Press that “it’s not only real, it’s loaded.”
However, a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization said that he had persuaded Mr. Arafat to remove the pistol before he entered the hall for his address.
Is that not somehow perfect in terms of propaganda? The showmanship, the sense of threat and danger and macho daring appealing to the romantic (small r) sensibility, the ambiguity, and the lies, all coupled with the rhetoric about wanting peace and equality and those things Arafat knew would ingratiate him with the West. These days, they’ve even dropped the peace and equality talk; they don’t feel the need to lie about that anymore and they’re quite successful without it.
By the way, Arafat was only the second non-head-of-state to address the Assembly; the first was Pope Paul VI.
Skipping to the present, the hostage transfers (including today’s) are staged as propaganda theater, designed to show Hamas dominance combined with kindness. See, we give them goodie bags! The Red Cross is here! We dress them in these nice track suits! The horror is hidden away, although some of it emerged at the transfer last week in the extremely obvious weakness and emaciation of the three hostages released. I don’t think Hamas will make that particular mistake again; they will fatten them up slightly if possible and if they have enough time, and the rest they will let die and say that Israeli bombs killed them.
But the real psychological torment they perpetrate isn’t just on the hostages. Nor is it just on the families, although those things do satisfy their sadism. It’s on the Israeli people in particular, as well as the Israeli leaders. That’s a big part of the goal, and it would be achieved even if the leaders of Israel were willing to sacrifice the hostages’ lives and go full steam ahead with the war. If that were to occur, the Israeli public would continue to be torn, and most would experience almost unbearable grief because just about everyone’s heart breaks for the hostages, who are considered like family.
The Israeli government is in a lose/lose position once hostages are taken, and that’s why the Palestinians are so very eager to take them. And one of the many many advantages of hostage-taking, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, is that it pits grieving families against grieving families: the hostage families who want prisoner exchanges versus those who don’t, the hostage families who press for prisoner exchanges versus those families whose loved ones were murdered by the very prisoners that are being released, and the present hostages versus future deaths at the hands of the released prisoners. What a cornucopia of riches for the terrorists!
When you take a hostage you are in a position of total power if, like Hamas, you don’t care if your own people are killed in retaliation. The terrorists and jihadis welcome such deaths as a propaganda point. They have no hesitation to kill the hostages if necessary, and have done so when they thought rescue was near, or maybe just for fun. They are in complete control. They can make Netanyahu squirm as the families pressure him and act as though he’s the one who took their loved ones captive. With the eyes of the world upon them, the terrorists know that many of those eyes approve of them as “freedom fighters.”
NOTE: Coverage of the hostage transfer that happened this morning can be found here, and elsewhere in Israeli papers as well as our own media. An excerpt from that link:
All three of the hostages freed today endured “very harsh captivity, including physical abuse.”
All three were very hungry when released. All three have learned Arabic in captivity.
Sagui Dekel-Chen and Iair Horn were held together, and with other hostages, in recent days. For most of their captivity, they were in tunnels.
They were held with other hostages and have returned with signs of life regarding at least three.
Both men were wounded when they were abducted and suffered abuse that exacerbated their injuries.
Sasha Troufanov was held alone.
All three were held in Khan Younis, from where they were freed today, mere hundreds of meters from their homes on Kibbutz Nir Oz.
Iair Horn has told his family that he and his brother Eitan were held together early in their captivity, but not recently.
Much more information at the link and elsewhere.
One quote from this article is a good example of what some of the demonstrating hostage relatives say:
“The prime minister has tried to thwart the agreement again and again and again.”
“One person stands between us and all the hostages,” she says, referring to the premier.
“Netanyahu — we’re sick of the procrastination,” she [the mother of man still held hostage] says.
This seems illogical to me, although I think it’s also understandable because of the depth of the grief and anger the hostage families must feel. For many, it’s easier to blame Netanyahu – and the correct blame is that he was Israel’s head when the hostages were taken, so he should be at least partly to blame for failing to protect against October 7 itself. But in my opinion, he’s not to blame – much less solely to blame – for the fact that many hostages are still in captivity.
It’s especially easy to blame Netanyahu for not freeing the hostages if the person never liked him in the first place. Blaming Netanyahu for everything is also a way to deny the tremendous power Hamas has over the hostages, and how relatively powerless Israel is in such a situation. The hostages were almost impossible to rescue without having them killed. Fighting back without reservation subjects some or perhaps all of them to death, as well. Hamas’ condition for the release of all has basically always involved Israel’s surrender.
There is no solution that doesn’t cause grave peril, and Netanyahu doesn’t hold the hostage cards – Hamas does. But it’s easier to ignore the bind and claim that Netanyahu can somehow cut the Gordian knot. Would that it were true.
