On 18 October 2023, the Workers’ Party (“WP”) issued a media statement on the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas. That statement makes Israel the target for criticism and contempt – it accuses Israel of disproportionate action, disregarding international law and norms and engaging in collective punishment of innocent civilians.
Leaving aside the accuracy of these accusations, these are effectively pro-Hamas talking points and do not in any way acknowledge the cause of the present conflict – terrorist acts perpetrated by Hamas culminating in the deaths of 1,400 civilians and kidnapping of over 200 more on 7 October 2023.
It is imperative that we call a spade a spade, and to ascribe responsibility when it falls due. In matters like these, a principled approach is demanded, and any attempt to exploit the ongoing conflict to mine for political capital must be called out.
WP’s tacit legitimization of Hamas
WP asserts that “[p]revious military action in the Gaza Strip undertaken by the Israel Defence Forces in response to militant operations including by Hamas have been marked by overwhelming disproportionality”.
The phrase “militant operations” is a wholly inadequate characterisation of Hamas’ acts, especially those committed on 7 October 2023. This somewhat euphemistic characterisation of Hamas’s acts veers close to whitewashing and may have the effect of clothing acts of terrorism with undeserved legitimacy.
We must remember that the so-called “militant operations” undertaken by Hamas on 7 October 2023 involved raids conducted on peaceful settlements known as kibbutzim and a musical festival attended by young fans. Neither of these can legally be designated as permissible targets and become the proper subject matter of an “operation”, especially not one that involves killing, maiming, and kidnapping of civilians.
Hamas’ acts are heinous acts of terrorism. There is simply no two ways about this. We need to question WP’s motivations for resorting to euphemisms when moral clarity is an absolute imperative at a time like this.
Downplaying Hamas’ role in the conflict
Another effect of WP’s media statement is that it tacitly establishes a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. This is accomplished in two ways. First, by presenting a lopsided critique of the conflict which emphasizes the alleged wrongdoing of Israel and omits direct criticism of Hamas’ terrorism. Second, by refusing to acknowledge the atrocities of 7 October 2023 perpetrated by Hamas and recasting the conflict as essentially a continuation of a longstanding tit-for-tat battle. This has the effect of exaggerating Israel’s present response which is then painted as disproportionate because Israel’s responses in past altercations involved less extensive military action.
However, when we confront the fact that Hamas had committed atrocities on 7 October 2023 – that being the factual starting point of this ongoing conflict – we would realise that that there can be no moral equivalence between a state acting in self-defence and armed terrorists who kill and kidnap innocent civilians. Terrorism does not metamorphose into lawful conduct just because it is conducted in the name of a cause. Terrorists who commit acts of terror against states should expect states to respond resolutely in defence of their citizens and their sovereignty.
What is WP’s or Sec-Gen Pritam Singh’s agenda?
WP’s problematic media statement begs the important question of its motivation. Simply put, is WP pro-Hamas? Well, it must be recognised that WP is an organisation, and any position it adopts naturally reflect the views and agenda of its human leaders. In this regard, WP’s position is aligned with the views expressed by its Secretary-General Mr. Pritam Singh.
Ever since the beginning of the conflict, Sec-Gen Pritam had reposted news articles and commentaries on Threads, Instagram’s new text-based app. In almost all these posts, he would extract a portion of the article to accompany the shared link to the article. Several of his threads (a) suggest a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas, and (b) criticise Israel or its allies. Some of Sec-Gen Pritam’s threads, which are publicly accessible, are nevertheless reproduced here:
Threads suggesting moral equivalence
Threads criticising Israel and the United States
In fact, in one of Sec-Gen Pritam’s threads where he reposts an article from Der Spiegel, a German news website, a user by the username “shariffyep” replied to Sec-Gen Pritam’s thread with the following hashtags “#freepalestine #israelterrorists #prayforpalestine”.
The reply by “shariffyep” is troubling, to say the least. “shariffyep” is equating Israel with terrorists. Sec-Gen Pritam is a trained lawyer, and he ought to know that there is no basis for such an equation. “shariffyep”’s reply therefore presented an opportunity for Sec-Gen Pritam to correct an objectively inaccurate characterisation of a sovereign state. Sec-Gen Pritam’s response? Silence. That silence is deafening.
So, what is Sec-Gen Pritam’s agenda, which appears to have been co-opted by the WP? It seems that this lopsided media statement was a clumsy attempt to appeal to Singaporeans sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. The trouble is this – expressing solidarity with the Palestinians is different from supporting (even if only tacitly) the actions of Hamas. Any fair-minded individual would agree that support of the Palestinian cause or the establishment of a Palestinian state would not prevent or preclude condemnation of acts of terrorism undertaken by Hamas. Furthermore, it must be remembered that Hamas does not possess the political legitimacy it purports to wield, and the Palestinian Authority has come forward to state expressly that Hamas do not represent the Palestinian people.
In any event, the wisdom of using such a fraught situation overseas to garner votes must be questioned. When we do not remain clear-eyed about what is objectively right or wrong, when we choose not to label certain acts as acts of terrorism because it is not politically expedient to do so, we run the risk of creating fault lines and fracturing the racial and religious peace we have worked so hard to achieve.
In truth, WP and Sec-Gen Pritam may not be pro-Hamas; they may simply see this as an opportunity to appeal to voters who are inclined towards the Palestinian cause. But such a callous political stratagem engenders serious risks to the peace and stability that has made Singapore the envy of so many nations.
Furthermore, Sec-Gen Pritam has the added responsibility of being the Leader of the Opposition. He needs to appreciate the weight of the office, and that he is not just a member of parliament. In this regard, Sec-Gen Pritam would do well to study carefully the ways of his predecessor, Mr. Low Thia Khiang. Mr. Low appreciates that politicking has no place in weighty matters of foreign affairs, and he graciously accepts the lead of the Government when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Even so, no one in the WP would (or could) question Mr. Low’s ironclad credentials as an opposition member of parliament.
What is Singapore’s approach?
What then, should our approach be to the present conflict? In a media doorstop interview with Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law conducted on 29 October 2023, he summarised Singapore’s position as follows:
Singapore’s position was made clear by the Prime Minister some days ago. This resolution is consistent with the position we have taken over 50 years, in UN resolutions from 1967. This resolution was sponsored by Arab countries, it’s titled “Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations”. It is a very major vote. We voted in support. The resolution:
- Expressed grave concern at the escalation of violence since 7 October;
- Called for an immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce, leading to a cessation of hostilities;
- Called for immediate, continuous and unhindered provision of essential supplies to the civilians in Gaza;
- Called for Israel to rescind its evacuation order in the Gaza Strip;
- Rejected forced transfer of the Palestinians; and
- Reaffirmed that the solution to the conflict, should be through a peaceful two-state solution.
We took a clear stand, expressing our concerns on the grave situation on the ground. But, while we voted in support of the resolution, we did not think it comprehensively set out the whole picture. So we explained our vote, and we said that there are two areas in principle which the resolution should have mentioned – (1) we must still condemn the terrorist attack by Hamas on 7 October, which cannot be justified; and (2) we need to note also Israel’s right to self-defence, but that right to self-defence cannot include indiscriminate killing of civilians, and it must be done in accordance with international law.
The present conflict should not be exploited for political gain. This is a time for all Singaporeans to come together to reaffirm our diversity, recommit ourselves to racial and religious tolerance, and celebrate our plurality in beliefs.