The Fallacy of Victimhood: Hamas' Claims of Disproportionality and Refusal to Accept Responsability For Thier Actions

We are now almost two months into the Israeli response to the terror attacks in Israel and already the common debate in the West centers on whether Israel should be forced by the international community into a cease-fire. According to Hamas, Hezbollah, and a few other Islamic nation-states, Israel's response is somehow disproportional to the October 7, 2023 attacks that were perpetrated and focused on civilian populations by Hamas [by the way, these claims were being made before Israel took any action at all against Hamas]. Historically this is very much akin to the position that was taken in September of 1864 by the Mayor and City Council of Atlanta Georgia when it had become readily apparent that their actions in starting the war and conducting it up to that point were coming back to haunt them. Both the Confederate South and Hamas claimed that the responses from the Union North and Israel, respectively, were disproportionate. This claim of victimhood or disproportionality is a completely illegitimate argument.

General Sherman, in his letter to Atlanta, denounced the Confederacy's attempt to portray themselves as victims. He argued that initiating war and then claiming victim status was a despicable tactic. Sherman's viewpoint here is very relevant to the current conflict. It's important to point out that four days before entering Atlanta he had asked the city officials to evacuate the city and they had refused to do that.

Here is how he made this point:

"...the South began war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds of thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands upon thousands of families of rebel soldiers left in our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes home to you, you feel very different. You depreciate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds of thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance."

Of course, his point here is absolutely correct, it is completely disingenuous for a belligerent to play the victim. The same is true today, Hamas knew exactly what it was doing when it chose to attack Israel and attacked civilians. They also knew what they were going to do after it happened. They knew that they would play the victim, and were actually doing so before the Israelis had even developed a planned response.

PragerU posted a video this week on YouTube which is an amazing interview with Victor David Hanson professor emeritus, esteemed historian, and learned commentator on current events. We would recommend that you listen to the entire interview however this particular link has been qued up to the segment where he talks about General Sherman, his advance on Atlanta, and how important his words are for us today. Mr. Hansen then goes on to explain why it is important that Israel react in a judicious but decisive way.

In evaluating Hamas today or the Confederate States of America in 1864 it shows clearly that the fallacy of victimhood claims in situations where one party initiates hostilities is illegitimate and falls flat. General Sherman's insights on September 12, 1864, inform us today and should also inform a belligerent who feels their grievances are so egregious, in the case of Hamas, as to justify in their own minds a terrorist action against civilians. However, once those actions are taken the reaction is likely to be far worse than the grievances that were held in the beginning. Claiming ignorance of this reality is not an intellectual argument it is simply a predictable age-old tactic of those who have to face the consequences of their actions.