Judith Butler is intentionally giving Hamas’ terror legitimacy
In recent comments, the American Jewish gender theorist labeled the Oct. 7 attack as ‘armed resistance’
Judith Butler receives the Golden Medal at Circulo de las Bellas Artes on Oct. 27, 2022 in Madrid, Spain. Photo by Aldara Zarraoa/Getty Images
American Jewish philosopher Judith Butler recently insisted that the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas should not be dubbed as “terrorism,” but rather “armed resistance.” This articulation, argued the public intellectual, famed for theorizing gender as no more than a social construct, reveals nothing about one’s opinion regarding the attack. It is merely the “honest” and “historically accurate” definition, they explained, which in turn allows for “an open debate.”
Judith Butler describing the October 7 massacre as armed resistance: “We can have different views about Hamas as a political party, we can have different views about armed resistance. But […] the uprising of October 7th was an act of armed resistance.[…] This was an uprising” pic.twitter.com/YWqak847lx
— Joseph Hirsch (@josephhirsch5) March 4, 2024
Butler’s emphasis on precision in discourse, even amidst such an emotional topic, is commendable and befits their role as a public intellectual. It is incumbent on academics to uphold the integrity of language, especially in public discussions. Accurate language serves as the cornerstone of proper academia, and using it to articulate rational explorations of our reality is essential for finding order and meaning in the world.
However, their comments during a March 5 panel discussion appearance on French television reframing Hamas terrorism as armed resistance were actually an example of pseudo-intellectualism at its worst. Butler abused their scholarly reputation, and the trust inherent in their position, when they misled their audience to believe the words “terrorism” and “armed resistance” mean something else than what they actually mean.
Butler, cognizant of their status as a respected thinker, was attempting to say to their sympathetic audience something along these lines: Trust me that as an intellectual I am now setting my personal opinions aside. Trust me when I say that the proper term for what occurred on Oct. 7 is “armed resistance” and not “terror.” Trust me that those using the term terrorism are being dishonest. We — those of us who truly have a grasp on the most complex geopolitical conflict on earth — are above that. We will use the proper term, and then we will have proper grounds for an “open debate” on “whether they [Hamas] did the right thing.”
Butler, a member of the anti-Zionist organization Jewish Voice for Peace’s academic council, exemplified nothing close to intellectual honesty in their gross mischaracterization of Hamas’ actions on Oct. 7. They can offer nothing in any relevant field of scholarly knowledge that supports their assertion that “armed resistance” is the proper term for the monstrous Oct. 7 massacre. While there is no legal definition of “armed resistance,” it is normally considered a violent action subject to international humanitarian law (as pointed out among others by international law scholar Marco Longobardo in his book The Use of Armed Forces in Occupied Territories).
No reputable definition of the term applies to breaking into civilians’ private homes on a Saturday morning and slaughtering them and their children. Hamas never bothered to even pretend it cares about any legal framework, forfeiting the opportunity to enjoy the status of potential legitimacy Butler aims to confer on its actions.
Terrorism additionally has no agreed-upon legal or political definition, but reviews of the variety of available definitions widely find the view that, at its core, terrorism is “calculated, demonstrative, direct violent action without legal or moral restraints, targeting mainly civilians and non-combatants.” How does Oct. 7 not meet that definition? There is simply nothing “honest” or “historically accurate” in Butler’s statement.
People assume an intellectual of Butler’s stature would speak about matters for which they are well informed, and are an expert on constructive discourse and methods of truth seeking. Yet Butler’s claim that they are merely setting the ground for an “open debate” is disingenuous. What brings a highly intelligent person, who clearly can know better, to so egregiously twist the simple meaning of language under the guise of intellectual sophistication?
Butler’s comments in Paris are a blatant attempt to shape the discourse about Oct. 7 in a manner that will lend Hamas’ attacks a more legitimate status. They say they “did not like the attack” and praise themselves that they “have gone public saying it was for me anguishing.” But this does not change their clear attempt to lend Hamas’ attack a more legitimate status by misrepresenting its nature. They are entitled to their opinion, shameful as it may be. They are not entitled to masking it as one that is obviously factually correct, when it is not.
The skepticism that Butler went on to express in the same conversation toward numerous, well-documented reports of heinous sexual violence committed on Oct. 7 was of a similar, disingenuous quality. They graciously conceded that if the documentation of sexual assault is true, “we deplore that,” but went on to frame the matter as one where evidence proving sexual violence is not yet documented, when in fact it has been widely confirmed, most recently by the U.N.
“Whether or not there is documentation for the claim … we want to see … and we want to know that it is right,” they said. On the surface, it sounds like a commendable plea of an academic for evidence and fact-based discourse. In truth, it was a very selective perpetuation of a culture of disbelief.
Through these comments, Butler continues a dubious postmodern tradition that divorces reality from language and factual evidence. Forget about the established meaning of words like “terrorism.” Forget about facts such as Hamas’ declared goals from conception not to end Israel’s occupation of the West Bank or siege of Gaza, but to secure exclusive Islamist control of the region to these days when its leaders vow to repeat Oct. 7 over and over until they annihilate Israel altogether.
A serious discussion of the war between Israel and Hamas triggered by the Oct. 7 massacre demands room for a thorough discussion of history and context. But that does not mean allowing a commentator to deliver an obvious mischaracterization of the attack.
Butler does not promote honest inquiry or constructive debate doing so. Instead, they reveal themselves as a dishonest and morally bankrupt intellectual, attempting to blur the clear reality of Oct. 7 behind academic pretense, undermining the truth for ideological purposes.
A message from our Publisher & CEO Rachel Fishman Feddersen
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.
We’ve set a goal to raise $260,000 by December 31. That’s an ambitious goal, but one that will give us the resources we need to invest in the high quality news, opinion, analysis and cultural coverage that isn’t available anywhere else.
If you feel inspired to make an impact, now is the time to give something back. Join us as a member at your most generous level.
— Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO
