Resistance and Terror
Which war is just? Which armed action is terrorism, and which is an act of resistance?
A clear definition based on the criteria by which political violence should be evaluated, and how one should respond to it.
Reminder: The words marked in red are links leading to corresponding critique articles.
Preface
In our article “Contradiction: Combating Resistance”
we described Hamas as a “resistance group”, and wrote the following about our formulation:
“Regardless of how one characterizes the individual groups fighting against the occupation in Gaza, they can be understood as ‘resistance groups’ if one understands Israel as the aggressor.
‘Resistance’ is a neutral description and is not meant to glorify or demonize the character of individual groups.
Of course, simply classifying a group as ‘resistance’ does not make it progressive, as its role as a ‘resistance group’ does not inherently reveal its internal character (ideology).
The internal character of a group, however, is closely linked to its external actions, since the internal character legitimizes (or not) its methods and operations – and vice versa.”
The thesis of the text was that the manner of warfare used by Israel against Hamas contradicts the nature of an organization that, among other things, legitimizes itself through the ideal of revenge.
“Especially a resistance that derives its internal legitimacy primarily from its understanding of revenge for 76 years of harassment, oppression, and occupation, cannot be militarily broken.
It functions like Hydra in its fight with Heracles; when one head is cut off, two more grow back.
Heracles famously defeats Hydra by burning the severed necks, thus fighting the problem at its root.”
Our article, especially the formulation of “resistance,” received a large amount of criticism; both productive and unproductive.
A commenter writes:
“Every SS soldier killed results in two new ones. Like Hydra, the Third Reich will rise again. The path of the Allies is wrong, and the Axis powers must be crushed. Fighting the enemy only makes them stronger”
Another*:
“‘Resistance’ in connection with Hamas – does this seriously imply glorifying terrorism here?“?
To address this criticism, in this article we will examine the terms resistance and terror, and critically illustrate why Hamas, despite its reactionary nature, can be seen as a resistance organization, and also critique the bourgeois understanding of terror (& resistance).
Just War
In 1938, Mao wrote in “On Protracted War” that there are just and unjust wars.
“All wars that serve progress are just, and all wars that hinder progress are unjust.”
A typical, simplified Maoist definition of a complex issue.
“We communists are against all unjust, progress-hindering wars, but not against progressive, just wars”
Mao thus states that communists are not pacifists.
“An unjust war was, for example, the First World War. It was waged by both sides for imperialist interests and was therefore resolutely fought by communists worldwide.”
So Mao says that whether a war is just or not depends on whether it serves a progressive or reactionary cause, and that this, in turn, determines how Marxists should respond to war.
But even when the progressiveness of a matter is not clearly definable, an unjust matter can still be distinguished from a just one:
Of course, the Red Army used brutal means in its resistance against fascist aggression, means that in no way served the cause, but its resistance was still progressive because it served the just cause (victory over Nazi Germany).
A war or armed action is just if its goal is a cause that is more just than the current situation or the one to be fought against.
Important: A more just cause, not necessarily the just cause.
The Just Cause is socialism and the liberation of humanity from the bondage of capital and wars – but this cannot be the sole criterion.
If we dogmatically consider only socialist causes as just, we are not basing our judgment on the development of societies historically.
Die Französische Revolution führte nicht zum Sozialismus, sondern zum Übergang der alten feudalen Ordnung in die neue bürgerliche Ordnung.
Die bürgerliche Ordnung, der Kapitalismus, ist nicht die gerechte Sache, aber sie ist ein Fortschritt im Sinne des historischen Materialismus.
Ein Krieg oder eine bewaffnete Handlung ist dann gerecht, wenn ihr Ziel eine bessere oder befreiende Sache ist, als die bestehende oder die zu bekämpfende.
Wichtig: Eine bessere Sache, nicht die gerechte Sache.
The Just Cause is socialism and the liberation of humanity from the bondage of capital and wars – but this cannot be the sole criterion.
If we dogmatically consider only socialist causes as just, we are not basing our judgment on the development of societies historically.
Die Französische Revolution führte nicht zum Sozialismus, sondern zum Übergang der alten feudalen Ordnung in die neue bürgerliche Ordnung.
Die bürgerliche Ordnung, der Kapitalismus, ist nicht die gerechte Sache, aber sie ist ein Fortschritt im Sinne des historischen Materialismus.
Ein Krieg oder eine bewaffnete Handlung ist dann gerecht, wenn ihr Ziel eine bessere oder befreiende Sache ist, als die bestehende oder die zu bekämpfende.
Wichtig: Eine bessere Sache, nicht die gerechte Sache.
The Just Cause is socialism and the liberation of humanity from the bondage of capital and wars – but this cannot be the sole criterion.
If we dogmatically consider only socialist causes as just, we are not basing our judgment on the development of societies historically.
Intersection: Terror and Resistance
A group can perform terrorist acts and still be considered a resistance organization.
Example: The Jacobins under Robespierre fought resistance against the threat of monarchist neighboring states that wanted to crush the revolution.
Within this resistance, which served the progress of historical materialism, they resorted to violent methods, which contributed nothing to the cause, namely terror.
In order to approach the Palestinian cause, an organization like Hamas is very capable of being regarded both as a resistance organization and as engaging in terrorist acts.
Character of an organization cannot be judged based on individual actions, but rather on context and overarching goals, naturally in reverse as well:
The US intervention in Afghanistan (2001) was not just; its legitimacy was based on destabilizing the region, expanding geopolitical interests in the Middle East, and eliminating capitalist enemies – it did not serve the objective progress, i.e., the improvement or liberation from oppressive structures.
Nevertheless, some temporary consequences of the NATO mission were just; for example, universities like AUAF in Kabul allowed women to pursue higher education for the first time since Taliban rule.
Throughout the country, women’s centers, vocational training programs, and other institutions emerged that notably improved the situation of women in Afghanistan compared to Taliban rule.
Can we then say that the US intervention in Afghanistan was just? Of course not.
Hamas is a reactionary bourgeois organization, which represents the largest actor in the resistance against Israel.
Resistance because Israel or Western capital in the region is responsible for the oppressive structures that make life in Palestine a hell.
Israel serves as a foothold for Western capital, which, through the state of Israel, consolidates its influence in the region, especially against the bourgeois state of Iran.
According to our definition, an armed action that, measured against the relevant historical conditions, supports an improvement or liberation from existing oppressive structures, is an act of resistance – i.e., the events of October 7th were not an act of resistance, but a terrorist attack.
The “Al-Aqsa Flood” did not have a positive impact regarding liberation from Israeli oppression.
It was not a military operation aimed at weakening the enemy specifically; it had no value for the Palestinian people’s independence struggle.
Therefore, for example, Judith Butler is mistaken when she refers to October 7th as “an armed resistance.”
Because October 7th was not an act of resistance; it was a terror act, close to Lenin’s idea of adventurism. [3]
The death of 695 Israeli civilians did not contribute to Palestinian liberation; it served as a loose act of revenge and was not in the interest of national liberation.
Nevertheless, Hamas, or the Qassam Brigades, is currently the most significant actor in the resistance against the genocide in Gaza.
Without Hamas, there would currently be no capable resistance against Israeli aggression in Gaza.
Resistance insofar as the national liberation from external influences, in this case Western capitalist aggression, is necessary for the development of the internal character of a state.
“Only through the armed victory of resistance against the occupation can the foundation be laid for the ongoing struggle for a socialist Palestine,” a DFLP spokesperson stated [4] after the massacres of October 7, 2023.
The national liberation is necessary for the development of the internal character of a state; under colonial slavery or amidst genocide, no social, political, or economic progress is made.
Conclusion
One can (and should) call Hamas a resistance organization while also recognizing its internal character as a bourgeois reactionary organization.
A group can be considered resistance and still responsible for terrorist acts that have nothing to do with resistance.
It always remains the question: Does this armed action, measured against the relevant historical conditions, serve a cause that aims at improving or liberating from existing oppressive structures?
Is this action a direct response to the causes of its violence?
If the answer is no, as in the case of October 7th, then this act is a terror attack.
If the answer is yes, as in the case of direct combat against Israeli occupation in Gaza, then this act is an act of resistance.
If a group’s proclaimed goals, within the context of current conditions, aim at improving or liberating from existing oppressive structures, and they regularly carry out attacks that could be justified as retaliation for existing repression, and use their violence specifically against those directly involved in the oppressive structures, then this organization is a resistance organization, and should at least be supported situationally by Marxists.
If not, it is a terrorist organization, and should never be supported by Marxists.
The same applies to war (just/unjust war = resistance/terror).
Resistance is ongoing and can only be ended through socialism, the just cause.
The questions must always be asked repeatedly: once a goal is achieved, but the oppressive structures are not fully eliminated, new resistance or terror will emerge—that is the nature of capitalism and injustice.
