Jay Michaelson wrote a provocative piece last week in the Forward, taking much of the progressive world to task, “especially…those organizations pressing Israel to pursue peace with Palestine,” for their silence following news of another tunnel being dug from Gaza to Israel.

The article references not only the newly discovered tunnel, but a New Yorker piece from February that describes the three-tiered approach Hamas takes to tunnel construction: One set of tunnels is designed to smuggle materials from Egypt, another to move weaponry and people through Gaza, and a third to reach into Israel proper for battle, kidnappings and the like.

Michaelson’s premise is that progressives and self-proclaimed peace groups such as J Street, Peace Now, Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now should be explicitly condemning these tunnels, which are created for the purpose of future attacks, and which will undeniably lead to more injuries and death, more counterattacks from Israel, and ultimately, more war. We agree with him.

And he also points out that no matter how squarely groups or individuals support forms of resistance from the Palestinian side, there is no basis for supporting actions resulting in violence toward the general populace: “Even if resistance to occupation may be justified, the targeting of innocent people must never be, regardless of who practices it. It is immoral, no matter what.”

This is not coming from a hawk or a state apologist, but rather from one who expresses sympathy for at least some of the criticisms leveled against Israel. As Michaelson says, “As vocal as the left is in correctly calling out Israeli provocations, land grabs, anti-democratic laws and rejectionism, so, too, it should be calling out Hamas’s acts of terrorism, every single time they are discovered.”

He’s right, of course; no matter what your position on Israeli government policy, how can you fail to condemn the construction and use of tunnels specifically designed to engage armed combat against Israel?

You can’t, really, if you’re a true believer in peace. So the real question is, What’s to be gained from a passive approach? Why do these groups seem to clam up in the face of obvious provocations like the tunnels?

We don’t know for sure, but we can speculate as to why some actions by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists are met with a subdued response by these groups:

1. They undercut the narrative. If the story is “supposed” to be about the plight of Palestinians having to cope with the mighty Israeli sovereign, then speaking forcefully against Palestinian-induced violence or tactics (like tunnels) might undercut the story.

2. Others are doing the heavy lifting. Some of the peace groups and their supporters see a wide variety of large, institutional Jewish and Israeli groups speaking loudly and forcefully about Hamas’ ugly methods, and simply don’t see a reason to occupy that speaking space.

3. They are fearful of looking like their political enemies. Groups could be concerned that they would be labeled traitors to their cause if they are seen as agreeing with more centrist or right-wing pronouncements. Better to stay quiet and hope it blows over.

4. They are fearful of letting Israel off the hook. If groups admit that Palestinian leadership isn’t acting with moral courage, but rather with immoral animus, then they may believe it’s harder to hold Israel accountable for the issues on the ground.

The problem with each of these purported rationales for silence and inaction, in the face of Hamas’ patent ugliness, is that they suffer a simple and critical deficiency—terrorism and acts to support it are always wrong and merit condemnation. There is no legitimate reason to stay on the sidelines.

It’s not fair to extrapolate from Michelson’s article that all “left wing peace groups” are defenders of Hamas’ terrorist practices, or never speak up. If you go to J Street’s website, for instance, you’ll find a variety of public statements in which the group has condemned actions such as Hamas rocketing of the Negev, killing of Israeli soldiers, bus bombings and more. 

But his point about the failure to loudly and roundly chastise the tunnel construction and activity, which is so blatantly geared toward future attacks against Israelis, is a wholly legitimate one. All those who eschew violence and wish for peace should be loud and clear as to their opposition to deliberately incendiary tactics intended to kill innocent civilians. The tunnels fall squarely in that realm.