Thread by @shadihamid

If you missed it, here's my latest in @TheAtlantic. This is my attempt to carefully outline my position on Gaza and lay out the broader context that brought us here. There are two conflicting narratives. I try to make sense of where they diverge.

[Thread]
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

If you look at the Gaza crisis in a vacuum—as if there is no history and as if context is irrelevant, you'll come to certain conclusions, but they will be based on misleading premises. The question has to be: why now? And what are the "sources" of the conflict?

There is a danger in talking about "root causes." People will accuse you of justifying Hamas' actions. But it should be possible to do two things—to believe Hamas is committing war crimes, while also recognizing that the current crisis didn't appear from the sky unannounced.

I know for a fact that many who want to speak out about Israel's bombing campaign are reluctant to do so for precisely this reason: the fear that harshly criticizing Israel's actions will be perceived as apologetics for Hamas, a terrorist organization.

If we want to prevent violent conflict or terrorist activity from happening in the future, then we have to understand what drives violent conflict or terrorist activity. This is close to an article of faith among those of us who study violent extremism. And for good reason.

This isn't some leftist thing. Even George W. Bush was a proponent of the "root causes" approach to addressing violence. Instead of saying these are a bunch of crazies who hate us and have to be blown up, he and his top aides began focusing on a different set of questions.

As for Hamas, we know why they're doing this. It isn't some mystery. Hamas is following a traditional rational actor model. That's the tragedy—the various belligerents are acting precisely as we might expect. And that's what proving so destructive.

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…

I'd bet that a lot of people who are saying Israel has a right to defend itself by any means necessary (even if it leads to considerable "collateral damage") weren't even aware of what was happening before the Gaza conflict actually started.

The narratives on Gaza diverge most starkly on self-defense and the occupation. If you see Israel's right to self-defense as the only truly salient issue, this will lead you to certain conclusions.

If, on the other hand, you recognize the centrality of the occupation—and all the tragedy that has flown from it—this will lead to a different set of conclusions. It's not clear to me how anyone can analyze the current Gaza crisis without taking into account the occupation.

Ultimately these two conflicting narratives are irreconcilable. Make of that what you will.

Read the whole thing in @TheAtlantic here: theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…