By Prof. Satishree Dhulipudi Pandit
The reaction of those supporting Hamas is cognitive-dissonance reduction. This requires vilifying the victim to uphold one’s prejudices.
The banality of evil initially used by Hannah Arendt for Nazism and Fascism seems to fit well for the present crisis inflicted by Hamas terrorists on 7 October 2023 against the state of Israel and its people. The characteristics she brought out fits so well for Jihadi terror. The inhumanity is glaring and the silent majority for whom they claim to fight for don’t have any say, as they don’t live in a democracy in Gaza ruled by the Hamas. Those far away, culturally identify with the Hamas. The enemy then and now are the Jews. Truth is to be found in killing and dying for a fairy tale that claims to replace history. We need to see the terrifying similarities between Nazism and Jihadi terrorism. Hence all people need to wake up and support those fighting against this terrorist peril and not be apologetic for it. If we don’t learn from history, we are condemned to repeat it. One needs to remember the words Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) a prominent Lutheran pastor in Germany, “Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
7 October 2023 freezes all humanity and the civilized world order. This is the worst killing of Jews after the Holocaust unleashed by Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist party. The terrorist organizations complicit in this crime refuse to accept democracy, difference, diversity, dissent and deliberations. It is necessary for us to see through this Jihadi terrorism that wants only its way and rule by its fascist policies of uniformity.
Drawing on audiotapes of interviews with Eichmann by the Nazi journalist William Sassen, Stangneth shows Eichmann as a self-avowed, aggressive Nazi ideologue strongly committed to Nazi beliefs, who showed no remorse or guilt for his role in the Final Solution—a radically evil Third Reich operative living inside the deceptively normal shell of a bland bureaucrat. Far from being “thoughtless”, Eichmann had plenty of thoughts—thoughts of genocide, carried out on behalf of his beloved Nazi Party. On tape Eichmann admitted to a sort of Jekyll-and-Hyde dualism. In “The Origins of Totalitarianism” (1951), published well before the Eichmann trial, Arendt said: “It is inherent in our entire [Western] philosophical tradition that we cannot conceive of a ‘radical evil’… One saw it unleashed then and now.”
Instead of using the Eichmann case as a way forward to advance the tradition’s understanding of radical evil, Arendt decided that his evil was banal, that is, “thought-defying”. By taking a narrow legalistic, formalistic approach to the trial, she emphasised that there were no deeper issues at stake beyond the legal facts of Eichmann’s guilt or innocence—Arendt automatically set herself up for failure as to the deeper why of Eichmann’s evil. The death cult of Jihadi terrorism is legitimized by the power of denial, the faith of exclusion.
In “The Origins of Totalitarianism”, she argued that the evil of the Nazis was absolute and inhuman, not shallow and incomprehensible, the metaphorical embodiment of hell itself: “[T]he reality of concentration camps resembles nothing so much as medieval pictures of Hell”, the ideologically evil warrior. How Eichmann’s humdrum life could co-exist with that “other” monstrous evil puzzled her. Thought-defying, his genocidal acts were not. In the final analysis, Arendt did see the true horror of Eichmann’s evil. In Eichmann in Jerusalem, Arendt claimed that there is a “strange interdependence of thoughtlessness and evil”, and that Eichmann’s testimony had revealed the “banality of evil”.
Both Islamic Jihad and Hamas are terrorist groups operating in Gaza that are united in their resistance against Israel and extermination of Jews. Both are also funded by and have close ties to Iran, though function independently, Khaled Meshaal designated Friday, October 13, as the “Day of Jihad,” asking Muslims to take to the streets and deliver a message of anger in support of Palestinians. Is Hamas the legal and official spokesperson of the Palestinians? It is important to understand the contemporary usage of the word “Jihad”. Scholar Olivier Roy considers Syed Ahmad to be the first modern Islamic leader to lead a movement that was “religious, military and political” and to address the common people and rulers with a call for jihad. Syed Ahmad is widely regarded as the founder of the subcontinental Ahl-i Hadith movement and his teachings are highly influential amongst its members. Another major group that carries his legacy is the Deobandi school of thought. Scholar Edward Mortimer believes Syed Ahmad anticipated modern Islamists in waging jihad and attempting to create an Islamic state with strict enforcement of Sharia. Syed Ahmad attained the exemplar status of shahid (martyr), one of the highest honours in Islam, and would inspire generations of militant Islamist ideologues and jihadi activists and the return to the pristine Islam of the Salaf, and the purifying of Islamic culture from Western and Shi’i influences through armed jihad. It is this reinterpretation that has blurred the text from its interpretation.
The reactions of those supporting Hamas need to be understood as cognitive-dissonance reduction. This requires vilifying the victim to uphold one’s prejudices. This involves four theoretic paradigms of cognitive dissonance, the mental stress people experienced when exposed to information that is inconsistent with their beliefs, ideals or values. The worst demonization of the Jewish state has typically followed the worst atrocities against it.
They have failed to recognize the Hamas cult of hate and death of the “other”. They are cowards who use civilians, especially women and children, as shields. They use holy places for their radical evil activities which negates the purpose of any peaceful religion. It is time that all the countries who claim to be peaceful and modern spoke against these fascist terror groups. The Palestinian Resistance has been hijacked by fascist terror with a religious adjective, “political jihad”. It vows annihilation of the “other”, who they term as faithless and a lie. This is nothing but dehumanization and desecularization of the Palestinian campaign. It is also a perversion of martyrdom and a rejection of human life that combines rage with hatred and senseless killing. It is time the civilized world spoke for order instead of terror.
Finally the words of W.B. Yeats, which bring out the moral dilemmas of the present extremely divided and polarised world: Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world; The blood dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.
Originally Published : The Sunday Guardian, 29th October' 2023
Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India