Violent Boomerang: Hamas and the Question of (Uncivil) Disobedience

On October 7, 2023, Hamas attacked Israel, killing 1,200 civilians and soldiers and capturing 250 hostages, many of whom have not yet been released. This surprise attack achieved no military purpose. Indeed, in exploiting flaws in Israel’s defense, the attack has certainly prompted corrections and foreclosed possibilities that might have been beneficial in the event of future conflict. It also appears to have served little political purpose. The leadership of Hamas has been decimated. Although Gazans rallied under Israel’s retaliation, support for Hamas may weaken over the long term given the devastation of the territory. At most, the attacks delayed the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. What then was the purpose of the attack?

We cannot know for certain what Hamas intended given the secrecy around the event and the deaths of Hamas’ leadership. But it appears that Hamas was making a brutal and deadly attempt to build global support for the Palestinian cause, if only to secure its position as the vanguard of Palestinian independence. In this, it appears to have been at least partially successful judging by the protests in support of Palestinians and against Israel on college campuses and elsewhere around the world in the first half of 2024.

In seeking public support, Hamas engaged in a violent variant of two common strategies for political change: disobedience, in which protestors become victims and structural oppression is revealed; and manufacturing a “boomerang,” wherein activists who are blocked politically at home mobilize foreign publics to pressure their governments to pressure the home government—in this case Israel. What Hamas added to these strategies, however, was a violent assault on the perceived oppressor to initiate the process. To describe Hamas’ actions is not to justify or condone in any way the violence at its start. To deal with the aftermath of the attack on October 7 and to prevent similar violence in Gaza and elsewhere, however, we must understand how these strategies came together and with what effect.

There is perhaps no better recognized figure in nonviolent resistance than Martin Luther King Jr., who successfully deployed the strategy of civil disobedience. King led Black Americans to engage in peaceful protests fully anticipating that white-dominated authorities, especially in the South, would respond forcefully to suppress the demonstrations. In marching, King did not wish to put protestors at risk of death or injury, but he expected law enforcement officials to respond with some degree of violence against the marchers. The purpose was to reveal to the broader public the structural oppression of Black Americans. Attempts to express grievances and demand rights peacefully would be shown to invoke forceful repression.

The Birmingham campaign in 1963 demonstrated the point with particular force. Children were recruited for daily marches to the mayor’s office, many of whom were arrested. On May 3, with more than 1,000 students on the march, the police turned water cannons on the children, injuring many. When bystanders began to throw rocks and bottles at the police, dogs were unleashed to counterattack the crowd. The police violence was caught on camera and televised into living rooms across America. The unprovoked attack on children had a profound effect on public opinion and changed the dynamics of the civil rights movement. Through civil disobedience, fully within the law, the precarious position and rights of Black Americans were revealed for all to see.

* * *

Hamas orchestrated a violent analogy to King’s strategy, one in which we can abhor the violence but discern a similar effect. Key was knowing that Israel would respond disproportionately to any attack—long-established policy in Jerusalem aimed to deter future attacks. In provoking Israel, Hamas likely attempted to reveal the structural oppression of Palestinians and transform Palestinians from attackers into victims.

The term disproportionate must be assessed carefully in this context. Under international law, proportionality is defined by the use of military force relative to the end to be achieved as assessed by commanders on the ground. Israel has strict procedures for making such assessments and it appears to have followed them, the indictments of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and (former) Defense Minister Yoav Gallant by the International Criminal Court notwithstanding. In the realm of public opinion—at least outside Israel—the military response to Hamas’ attack on October 7 has been assessed as intuitively and impermissibly disproportionate, with more than 45,000 casualties in Gaza, the displacement of the population, and the destruction of much of the housing and infrastructure of the territory. To publics around the world, Israel’s response—even if consistent with international law—feels disproportionate. In the eyes of many outside Israel, the Palestinians have become victims of the October 7 attack rather than its perpetrators. The vulnerability of Gazans at the hands of Israel, in this view, reveals the structural oppression of the Palestinians. King would not have countenanced the violence used by Hamas—and indeed strongly opposed violence carried out by extremists within his own movement—but he would have recognized the effect.

The most widely known example of the boomerang effect is the case of South Africa. Scholars Keck and Sikkink persuasively showed how anti-Apartheid activists, blocked politically at home, mobilized foreign publics to their cause. Unable to influence their own government to repeal Apartheid, activists turned to sympathetic audiences abroad, who took up the call. These now-mobilized foreigners pressed their governments to press South Africa for repeal, eventually resulting in boycotts of and disinvestment from the Apartheid state. One should never underestimate the efforts of South Africans themselves, who were always the driving force, but these inspired international efforts certainly contributed to the repeal of Apartheid in 1991.

Hamas may or may not have fully intended this result, although it appears a logical explanation for the initial attack. But there is little doubt that Israel’s publicly perceived disproportionate response generated a significant boomerang effect, especially in several countries that have been traditional supporters of Israel. By spring 2024, college campuses in the United States and Europe were awash in pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel protests. Arab Americans—concentrated in the key swing state of Michigan—protesting the Biden administration’s continued support for Israel may have contributed to Kamala Harris’ loss in the U.S. presidential election. Although there is hardly a consensus on the rightfulness of the protests, the boomerang changed public sentiment toward Israel and Palestine.

The boomerang has not yet been effective in changing policy, at least in the United States. The pro-Palestinian protests generated a pro-Israel backlash, with many university presidents who were deemed insufficiently active in repressing protestors forced to resign. Campuses were once again quiet in fall 2024. Having voted against Harris in frustration, Arab Americans helped elect Donald Trump, who is expected to be even more sympathetic to Israel. Nonetheless, the politics of United States policy towards Israel and Palestine has certainly changed. Previously near universally attentive to Israel, policymakers must now tread more carefully among a public with more polarized views.

* * *

It is unclear if the violent boomerang thrown by Hamas in October 2023 will help Palestinians achieve the ultimate goal of an independent Palestinian state. But the attack has drawn new attention to the stalemate over Palestine and sidelined moves to normalize relations between Israel and Arab states. The violence at the center of its strategy of disobedience, however, prevents Hamas from presenting itself entirely as a victim of Israel’s response. After all, they “started it,” and in a particularly abhorrent way. The violence thus enables Israel and its supporters to sustain a narrative that Jews and not the Palestinians are the true victims. Violent disobedience is unlikely to ever be as effective as civil disobedience. But it did have some effect that will not be forgotten by Hamas and others.

Violence is always abhorrent, nowhere more so than in the terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. The international community does and should always regard violence as illegitimate. Yet, the question is whether civil disobedience would have accomplished similar ends in this case. King could march peacefully through Birmingham and, by provoking the local police, call attention to the plight of Black Americans. With Gaza sealed off from the rest of the world, would a march through Gaza City have the same effect? If such a march occurred, it would certainly fall “below the fold” in the international press. In turn, what other non-violent options do the Palestinians have to bring global attention to their cause? Give another speech at the United Nations? Been there, done that. We can and should condemn the attack on Israel but still recognize and aim to understand the tragic logic behind it.

Today, Gaza lies in ruins and the headlines are peppered daily with news of yet more casualties and suffering. Although talks are reportedly underway to negotiate a ceasefire and possibly return the hostages, no progress appears to be forthcoming—although all sides appear to hope for some “breakthrough.” The public perception of disproportionality in Israel’s response created a boomerang that has galvanized public opinion against Israel yet brought the conflict no closer to being resolved. What a state can do legally and what it should do to ensure public support may not be the same thing. In this case, Israel may be winning the battle against Hamas, but it is at risk of losing the war for public support abroad. Israel or any state facing a violent boomerang should think clearly about what the end goal really is.

David Lake is a distinguished professor of the graduate division at UC San Diego, previously the Jerri-Ann and Gary E. Jacobs professor of social sciences and a distinguished professor in the department of political science, and senior fellow at the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC). 

Thumbnail credit: Wikimedia Commons