HANIYEH MARTYRED BY ZIONIST FORCES | WHY WE REPORT ON THE RESISTANCE | SHAFIK STEPS DOWN
Contents:
I. ISMAIL HANIYEH MARTYRED BY ZIONIST FORCES
II. READER RESPONSE: REPORTING ON THE RESISTANCE AS PROGRESSIVE
III. SO LONG, SHAFIK
IV. ATTENTION: YOU’RE BEING SURVEILLED
V. CONNECTING THEORY TO PRACTICE: WHAT FANON TEACHES US
VI. CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
ISMAIL HANIYEH MARTYRED BY ZIONIST FORCES
On July 31st, the Zionist entity assassinated Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas's political leader and chief negotiator. With this brazen killing, the Zionist entity has yet again clarified that it is not interested in peace, only the destruction of Gaza and the continuation of its colonial project. While they seek to escalate with impunity, the US government countenances this escalation and supplies the weapons that Israel uses to commit genocide against Palestine.
Haniyeh was beloved by the people of Gaza and met death with open arms on the road to liberation. Belying propagandists' claims that Hamas leaders enjoy lives of luxury at the expense of Palestinians in Gaza, 10 members of Haniyeh's own family, including his grandchildren, were killed by the Zionist entity in strikes on northern Gaza. Haniyeh had demonstrated his revolutionary resolve in his response to the slaughter of his family by stating, "The blood of my children is not more valuable than the blood of the people of Palestine and all the martyrs in Gaza are my children."
Haniyeh's death is the latest in the well-documented Zionist strategy to squash liberation through targeted assassination. The Zionist entity has killed other key figures throughout the years, including Abu Iyad, Abu Ali Mustafa, Abdul Aziz Rantisi, and Ahmad Yassin. However, the strategic decentralization of resistance factions ensures that the killing of one leader does not cause the collapse of the wider movement. Indeed, the unified outpour of support by other resistance factions in response to Haniyeh's death bring to mind the words of Black revolutionary Fred Hampton: "You can murder a liberator, but you can’t murder liberation."
The martyring of Haniyeh is yet another example of the Zionist entity's increasingly hysterical provocations that reveal their weakness. They're losing—control, support, and the war. They cowardly martyred Haniyeh, who was not secretive about his location and traveled openly. Now, Yahya Sinwar has been appointed in his place as the new political chief. Sinwar, who helped establish al-Qassam Brigades and is believed to be the architect behind Operation al-Aqsa Flood, has been a prime target of Zionist aggression. Sinwar's appointment demonstrates the continuity of leadership, the internal unity of Hamas, and the resilience of resistance forces.
Haniyeh's assassination came hours after the Zionist entity killed Fuad Shukr, a Hezbollah commander, along with three others in an airstrike on south Beirut. Among those killed were two children aged ten and six years. The Zionist entity claimed that the strike was in response to a rocket that killed 12 Druze. However, Hezbollah has denied responsibility and there is evidence that the strike was the result of a misfired Iron Dome munition. The Druze are not Israeli Civilians, having refused Israeli occupation and the offer of colonial citizenship after Israel invaded the Golan Heights during the Six-Day War.
READER RESPONSE: REPORTING ON THE RESISTANCE AS PROGRESSIVE
A comrade emailed us with criticisms in response to our last few publications in which we reported on the military advances of Hamas and Ansarallah. Their main criticisms were that 1. our assessment of Hamas and Ansarallah as progressive forces is incorrect, and 2. we risk splintering the movement if we report on these resistance groups positively. Recognizing that other readers may share similar criticisms, we respond to them here.
We disagree with the comrade's first criticism that our assessment of Hamas and Ansarallah as progressive forces is incorrect. Assessing whether a military force is progressive or reactionary requires an examination of whether it is advancing or impeding the destruction of imperialism, respectively, which correlates with the strengthening or weakening of the national liberation and working class movements internationally. We reported on Ansarallah's successes in weakening US imperialism in last week's publication. Through their maritime operations, Ansarallah has made it impossible for US and allied countries' shipments to use the Red Sea, and Ansarallah has recently developed a drone that penetrated through Israel's US-funded radar systems undetected. These successes have weakened imperialism by disrupting its profits, so much so that the economies of countries such as Italy and Israel have been profoundly impacted. It has also educated the oppressed people of the world that it is possible to attack and weaken imperialism through armed struggle despite how well-funded and well-armed the imperialists and their lackeys may be. Hence, Ansarallah is assessed as principally a progressive force.
The question of whether Hamas is a progressive force can be assessed in the same way. Hamas's indisputable role as the leading force of an anti-imperialist struggle is reflected in its popularity amongst the Palestinian people, with surveys indicating substantial increases in support for Hamas among Palestinians since October 7th. At the funeral of Hamas’s martyred leader, Ismail Haniyeh, thousands attended amidst the scorching 115 degree heat, and Palestinian refugees gave speeches commemorating Haniyeh as “the best leader of Gaza” and “a patriot who struggled to free Palestine from Israeli occupation.” The Palestinian masses’ support for Hamas is observed in the consistent strengthening of Hamas’s forces despite Israel’s killing of many of the group’s leaders and fighters. Almost half of Hamas’s military units in northern and central Gaza have recovered their fighting capacities in spite of Israel’s genocidal aggression, and the IOF has consistently been met with greater resistance when they invade areas for a second time after claiming that the area is “clear” following their first offensive. Hamas’s quick recovery can be attributed to its broad support in the Palestinian masses, who join their units due to their successes in leading the struggle. As the leading force of the anti-imperialist struggle backed by the Palestinian people, Hamas is assessed as principally a progressive force.
The assessment of Hamas as a progressive force is also supported by the successes of the Hamas-led Palestinian resistance in weakening US imperialist-backed Israel materially and morally. The IOF has admitted that they have lost a substantial number of tanks, that many of their remaining tanks are too damaged to be used in combat, and that no new tanks can join its forces for the foreseeable future. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who had pushed for the invasion of Lebanon earlier in the war, has now assessed that such invasion will backfire, as “current conditions are opposite from the beginning of the war.” Most ostensibly, the resistance’s military advances have made it impossible for Israel to achieve its goals of releasing prisoners of war and destroying Hamas. Only 3 prisoners of war have been released since the prisoner exchange last November, and as stated above, Hamas’ size and capabilities have only continued to grow. Israel has failed in getting anywhere close to achieving its goals, despite the billions of dollars in military equipment it regularly receives from the US. Not only is the resistance undermining US influence in the region, but the undeniable victory of the resistance in this war has also confirmed imperialism’s inevitable downfall. The successes of the resistance, led primarily by Hamas, have exposed that it is the unity and militancy of the masses - not the imperialists’ genocidal money - that determine the course of history.
Assessing Hamas and Ansarallah as principally progressive forces in an anti-imperialist struggle does not mean that one has to agree with every aspect of the nature of these forces, or that they have always been or always will be principally progressive. These other aspects are secondary to the issue at hand, which is their role in carrying out a national liberation war against their oppressors.
The comrade’s second criticism is that we may risk splintering the movement if we report on these resistance groups positively. We agree with an aspect of this criticism: that upholding unity and uniting broadly are crucial in strengthening our ability to win our demands. Campus movements in the past have been able to win divestment with the organized participation of students, faculty, staff, and the community in their thousands. We must struggle to unite with everyone who will sympathize with our demand for Columbia to divest from genocide.
We disagree with the other aspect of this criticism: that one way in which we should preserve the unity of the movement is by not reporting on the advances of resistance groups like Hamas and Ansarallah. Readers of The Barricade have subscribed due to their interest in supporting the campus movement demanding Columbia to divest from the US-backed genocide of the Palestinian people, and we are all united around this demand. The Palestinian armed resistance is carrying out a national liberation war against the perpetrators of this genocide. The Barricade must report updates on the Palestinian resistance and the US-backed genocide, as our movement cannot be separated from these changes unfolding on the ground in Palestine.
Monopoly media outlets report these changes in distorted ways which blur the differences between the interests of the imperialist ruling class and of the oppressed masses. For example, monopoly media has characterized Killer Kamala as a savior bringing peace to the horrors inflicted by the uncontrollable Netanyahu, leaving out the fact that she has been second in command of an imperialist administration sending billions of dollars to the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians over the past 10 months. At the same time, monopoly media has demonized Hamas and the armed resistance forces by either reporting outright fabrications about them, or, when these are debunked, by bringing the secondary aspects of the resistance forces to the forefront. In this way, monopoly media protects imperialist interests by diluting people’s antagonism against the ruling class and repressing people’s support for the anti-imperialist armed resistance.
Our goal at The Barricade is to report news about the unfolding war that depict the truth because understanding reality is what allows us to participate in changing it. The facts of the imperialists indicate that their decision-making is done on the basis of protecting and expanding their profits, regardless of whichever figurehead takes place of the previous one. The facts of the Palestinian armed resistance indicate that Hamas is principally a progressive force leading the struggle for Palestinian liberation and the destruction of imperialism. These facts expose the truth that the interests of the ruling class and the masses are diametrically opposed, and that armed resistance rooted in the masses effectively destroys imperialism.
Hiding this truth from our readers goes against our core principle that the campus movement for divestment must simultanouesly serve as a means of political education. Political education is necessary for us to be able to win our demands and to connect our movement to larger struggles. Education is not a one-way process: for example, responding to the comrade’s criticisms in this way allowed us, as writers of The Barricade, to also develop a deeper understanding of why we are reporting on the advances of Hamas and Ansarallah. We cannot develop our unity and consciousness by hiding facts out of fear that they may be met with disagreement, especially when these facts are hidden in monopoly media to serve imperialist interests. To hide our views is to concede to the dominant views of monopoly media, and such an orientiation promotes conciliation and capitulation to those in power rather than cultivating our own independent movement founded on our independent perspective.
While we agree that it would be wrong to require agreement with such views as a precondition for supporting and taking part in the movement for our demands, we do not agree that we should therefore hide our views in an effort to cultivate unity, as this would ultimately be a false unity and therefore would actually lead to splinters in the movement. It is by struggling through and resolving disagreements that we can continue to reach higher consciousness and unity as a movement, and we encourage readers to continue raising questions and criticisms. Having a deeper understanding of what we are fighting for and how to best achieve it allows us to better organize around it. In this sense, disagreement does not hinder unity but serves to expand it, and a necessary precondition for struggling for unity is being open and upfront about what we stand for and what we oppose.
SO LONG, SHAFIK
Minouche Shafik has left us. But when one door closes (like the gates to campus), another opens. She will be returning to Britain's House of Lords, advising on "international development." She wants us all to know that this position will allow her to "return to... fighting global poverty," which is a bold claim from someone who worked at the World Bank, which is just a thinly veiled mechanism for imperialism. Though that is also an apt description of "Columbia University." Maybe she forgot to include "for" between "fighting" and "global poverty."
While she said her time at Columbia was an "honor," she is stepping down, she says, because her time here has "also been a period of turmoil where it has been difficult to overcome divergent views across our community." One would be forgiven for not being able to glean that here she is referencing siccing the piggies on students protesting against Columbia's direct ties to the genocide of Palestine.
Lost in her letter of resignation was what students were actually protesting. Outrage at funding incalculable slaughter is instead reduced to "divergent views," in a twist of language so common from empty shells of neoliberalism like Shafik. It is clear that Palestinians don't matter to her. What matters are profits.
But it has been such a hard time for her and her family, she claims. Seeing students come together in solidarity must be really scary from the vantage of a sixteen-million-dollar mansion, alas.
What was so scary about this? One can look to her congressional testimony to see what, specifically, bothered her: "I find those chants incredibly distressing," she said, fumbling and cowardly before Congress's premier McCarthyites, referring to chants of "Globalize the Intifada" and "From the River to the Sea."
But possibly, maybe even likely, her resignation wasn't because she grew tired of enduring all the indignities that fighting to continue investment in bomb companies and a genocidal regime entails. Maybe this is actually just a ploy to satiate donors, the ones who froth at the mouth when they hear any criticism of their beloved imperial project and threaten to withhold their millions of dollars if protesters don't get the skull cracking Robert Kraft and the others feel they deserve. To them, no amount of platitudes substitute for the language of force, and no force is adequate enough for those who dare try to demand their institutions end their support for the genocide of Palestine.
Quoting Lincoln for some reason, Shafik ends her letter of resignation by stating that "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Maybe this is what really upsets her about calls to globalize the Intifada — she recognizes the fundamental division between those of us who seek to end colonialism and those (including herself) who seek to continue it. Perhaps she is disturbed because she knows that those of us who seek to end the systems that continue this exploitation will not stop until the ties between Columbia and colonialism are extinguished.
She would be right to think so. No matter who the president of Columbia is, as long as it funds genocide, we will not let it stand.
ATTENTION: YOU’RE BEING SURVEILLED
In yet another campus policy reminiscent of 1984, Columbia administrator David Greenwell admitted to using “social media scanning software” in a faculty senate meeting to monitor the activity of students and student organizations to “assess threats on campus”. When student and faculty senators asked for clarification, Greenwall was tight-lipped but admitted to relying on NYPD intelligence, well known for being racially biased, to “make campus safety decisions”. What is this software and why should you care? Administrators are using software like Social Sentinel to monitor keywords found in student posts such as “Gaza” and “Genocide” with biased machine learning algorithms that target students of color. These algorithms fail to account for common slang, emoji references, etc. that are present on social media yet Columbia still relies on these algorithms for decision making.
CONNECTING THEORY TO PRACTICE: WHAT FANON TEACHES US
In our latest reading group, we delved further into The Wretched of the Earth, focusing on the third and fourth chapters.
We struggled over the role of the national bourgeoisie in national liberation movements. Fanon critiques the national bourgeoisie for often replacing colonial powers without destroying underlying capitalist structures. He argues that, while mobilizing the masses with slogans of independence, they tend to defer economic questions, leading to a situation where capitalist oppression persists even after colonial rule ends. One comrade highlighted the need for national consciousness to evolve into a broader political consciousness to prevent the reproduction of capitalist systems.
Naturally, our discussion turned to the practical implications of Fanon’s ideas within CUAD. Fanon argues that intellectuals who have acquired knowledge through colonial education systems must bring these skills to the masses, rather than pursuing the selfish interests of the bourgeoisie, who ultimately betray the people and uphold oppressive structures. As students living in the US, we recognize that we must work hard to weaken US imperialism. We discussed the methods of political education and active participation in support of the struggles of workers and oppressed people to achieve this end. One of our organization’s demands is to get Columbia out of Harlem, an effort rooted in resisting displacement and fighting against land grabs.
Fanon teaches us that true political education means relentlessly and passionately instilling in the masses the understanding that everything depends on them. Imperialists and their lackeys work diligently to isolate us, pitting our struggles against one another in an attempt to weaken our collective power. As students committed to fighting against imperialism, one of our tasks is to reveal the interconnectedness of our struggles and, consequently, the strength we derive from that unity through our active participation in them. Students alone cannot bring down imperialism. The participation and leadership of the working class in particular—which produces everything, has the most direct relation with capital, and has nothing to lose and everything to gain in the struggle against imperialism—is a necessary condition for the realization of our anti-imperialist aims. As students, we are able to play an energetic role in participating in the various struggles of the working and oppressed people and help link the struggles together to activate their enormous weight.
One comrade emphasized the importance of practical work in instilling confidence among the masses. By applying our theoretical knowledge to concrete actions and achieving tangible victories, we foster a sense of agency and collective strength. This comrade highlighted our successes at Columbia, including the impact of our encampments in disrupting admitted students' weekend and the university-wide graduation. We agreed that celebrating these wins and analyzing the conditions that led to our victories would strengthen our resolve and support us in making correct decisions moving forward.
Furthermore, Fanon stresses the importance of labeling the African continent Africa as a whole—not in part. He polemicized the logic of a North Africa, West Africa, and sub-saharan Africa as a colonial invention taken directly from the "settler's mouth." A comrade emphatically agreed with this point, and cited Malcolm X and his work to build the Organization of African Unity, which united the entire continent of Africa with African Americans in an effort to build an unprecedented degree of radical, internationalist, Pan-African unity that could fight imperialism's grip the world over.
Understanding our friends and enemies is the first question of a revolution. Our cause is with the oppressed and exploited people across continents and nations, while Zionists, colonizers, and the big capitalists that back them are our enemies everywhere. Revolutionary theory allows us to better understand and support the international struggle against imperialism and its proxies, taking on our role as active agents of social change.
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
We would love to hear your comments, critiques, and perspectives! If you would like to contribute to The Barricade, please email cuadthebarricade@proton.me.
DIVEST AND BOYCOTT THE GENOCIDAL APARTHEID STATE OF SO-CALLED ISRAEL
GRANT COMPLETE AMNESTY TO STUDENT PROTESTORS
LONG LIVE THE STUDENT INTIFADA
LONG LIVE THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL RESISTANCE
FREE PALESTINE FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA WITHIN OUR LIFETIME
GLORY TO ALL OUR MARTYRS