Introduction
I find it fascinating how many with doctorates or Ph. D.s fail to question their own assumptions. I have experienced this situation numerous times. I just came across another example of this lack of critical thinking in the case of Alan Slusky, a psychologist living in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Hamas’ Attack on October 7, 2023 Vastly Underestimated the Israeli Government’s Reaction
I have referred to Alan Slusky, a psychologist living and practicing in Winnipeg in an earlier post (see A Worker’s Resistance to the Capitalist Government or State and Its Representatives, Part Ten). For whatever reason, on Facebook, he goes by Alan Brian (Brian is his middle name). On October 24, 2024, he posted a 11-minute video by Konstantin Kisin (see https://www.facebook.com/alan.slusky) who defends Israel’s response to Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023 according to so-called “first (logical) principles” (I am not going to defend Hamas’ actions–they likely vastly underestimated Israel’s reaction, and many Palestinians do seem to criticize such actions. From Raja Khalidi (January 20, 2025), How Trump Could Reshape the Middle East: An Unpredictable President Could Surprise Israelis and Palestinians Alike (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/how-trump-could-reshape-middle-east):
Hamas no longer exists as an organized military movement or government in Gaza and is blamed by many Palestinians for not foreseeing how brutally Israel would respond to its attack.
A somewhat similar situation occurred in Guatemala, where leftist guerrrillas vastly underestimated the reaction of the Guatemalan military, which led to genocide. Of course, there are differences between the two situations (such as the extent of Hamas’ attack compared to attacks by Guatemala leftist forces), but we should not take likely strategic errors that lead to massive violence by a government’s military forces.
Slusky’s Agreement with Kisin’s Argument Hides an Unstated Assumption that the United States Government and the Israeli Government Are Not Terrorist Governments
Slusky commented as follows:
Logical and very persuasive.
One person, Thomas Wolstencroft, commented:
Broken down with stats and similar historic situations demonstrates that Israel’s response is not as cruel as it appears or as Hamas would want you to believe.
Slusky’s response:
yep. Feel free to spread the word.
I am not going to comment on all the points that Kisin makes since his basic arguments and assumptions are flawed. He assumes, without question, that governments are legitimate and not themselves terrorist organizations. He states, for example, that Hamas’ attack on Israel was a terrorist attack which, proportionately killed 12 times the number of people than the terrorsist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001.
He does not mention anywhere any government as possibly being a terrorist government, but the United States has been a terrorist government for decades. Thus, through the CIA the Guatemala government of the elected government of Jacobo Arbenz was overthrown, ushering in various military dicatorships which culminitated in the genocide of mainly Mayan indigenous Guatemalans in the early 1980s (my wife was born in Guatemala).
I asked Artiticial Intelligence the following (chatgpt.com) the following:
List 10 countries that the United States government terrorized in Central and South america in the last half century and briefly describe the circumstances.
Ai’s response:
Here are 10 countries in Central and South America that the U.S. government has terrorized over the last half-century, often through coups, military interventions, economic warfare, and support for repressive regimes:
1. Chile (1973–1990)
- The U.S. backed the coup against democratically elected socialist President Salvador Allende in 1973, supporting General Augusto Pinochet’s brutal dictatorship. The regime tortured, killed, and disappeared thousands under “Operation Condor.”
2. Argentina (1976–1983)
- The U.S. supported Argentina’s military dictatorship during its “Dirty War,” in which tens of thousands of leftists, activists, and workers were disappeared, tortured, and killed. The Reagan administration furthered military cooperation with the junta.
3. Guatemala (1954–1996)
- After overthrowing Jacobo Árbenz in 1954, the U.S. continued backing military regimes responsible for a genocidal campaign against Indigenous Mayans and leftist insurgents, particularly in the 1980s under dictator Ríos Montt.
4. El Salvador (1980s)
- The U.S. funded and trained the Salvadoran military during its civil war, supporting death squads that massacred civilians (e.g., El Mozote Massacre, 1981). The Reagan administration provided billions in aid to prop up the repressive government.
5. Nicaragua (1980s)
- After the Sandinistas overthrew the U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship in 1979, the Reagan administration armed and financed the Contra rebels, who committed widespread atrocities, including rape, torture, and assassinations.
6. Honduras (1980s–present)
- The U.S. used Honduras as a base for Contra operations against Nicaragua and backed right-wing paramilitary forces. In 2009, the Obama administration tacitly supported a coup against President Manuel Zelaya, leading to increased violence and repression.
7. Panama (1989–1990)
- The U.S. invaded Panama in 1989 under the pretext of removing Manuel Noriega (a former U.S. ally). The invasion killed thousands of civilians, destroyed neighborhoods, and reasserted U.S. control over the region.
8. Colombia (1980s–present)
- The U.S. funded the Colombian military and right-wing paramilitaries under “Plan Colombia,” fueling mass killings of unionists, Indigenous people, and civilians accused of being guerrilla sympathizers.
9. Venezuela (2002, ongoing)
- The U.S. backed a coup attempt against Hugo Chávez in 2002 and has since imposed severe sanctions that have devastated Venezuela’s economy, exacerbating humanitarian crises and undermining its sovereignty.
10. Bolivia (2019–2020)
- The U.S. supported the 2019 coup that ousted Evo Morales, Bolivia’s first Indigenous president. The post-coup government, led by Jeanine Áñez, carried out massacres and repression against Indigenous and leftist protesters.
These interventions have led to mass suffering, repression, and displacement, all in the name of maintaining U.S. dominance in the region.
Kisin obviously did not consider the possibility that the United States government could be a terrorist organization. The United States, a terrorist government, supports Israel in many ways. Kisin–and Slusky–do not even think about the possibility that the Israeli government could itself also be classified as terrorist.
Another argument made by Kisin pertains to no need to look for historical conditions. He tries to refute the argument that Israel is a settler colonial state who settled illegally on Palestinian lands and kicked out Palestinians from their homes. Most people now are colonizers who live due to the forced displacement and massacre of the indigenous population of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (he omits any reference to Europe, interestingly enough). He also claims that requiring the 9 million people who now make up Israel to give up Israel is absurd. Note that Kisin fails to refer to the Israel government as a terrorist organization–just like his implicit assumption that the United States government is not a terrorist organization.
He claims that the United States government would not tolerate missile strikes or terrorist rampages from Native American reservations. Neither would any government of any country under any circumstances. He further claims that peace will not be achieved in the Middle East by undoing many decades of history.
This argument forgets that the Palestines also identify themselves as a country–in the same land as where Israel is now located (or some variation, such as the two-state solution). Oppresssion and exploitation of the Palestinians is not in some distant past but is ongoing. He obviously ignores this fact to prop up his own bias towards “legitimate or recognized governments”–as if they cannot be terrorist governments.
Note also that Kisin forgets to mention the following facts (again derived from Chatgpt.com):
As of the end of 2024, the global Jewish population is approximately 15.8 million, with about 7.3 million residing in Israel.
In comparison, the global Palestinian population stands at approximately 14.9 million, with about 5.5 million living in the State of Palestine (comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip) and 1.8 million residing within the 1948 territories, which are areas that became part of Israel following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
Within Israel’s total population of approximately 10 million, Jews constitute about 7.7 million, while Palestinian citizens number around 2.1 million.
In the State of Palestine, the population is approximately 5.5 million, predominantly Palestinian.
These figures indicate that the global Jewish and Palestinian populations are of similar sizes, each numbering between 14 and 16 million people worldwide.
Kisin’s impicit assumption is that Palestine is neither a nation nor has no government at all, and by defintion such a people that uses force is terrorist whereas only if a people is a nation and has a government is it legitimate; such a government, if it commits acts of retaliation, is legitimate, whereas Palestinian peoples who use force are terrorist.
Kisin does briefly refer to the oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli government, then he conveniently shifts the issue to whether Hamas really acted to weaken Israel militarily. He completely sidesteps the issue of Israeli oppresison, exploitation and massacre of Palestinian people before October 7. Such a view is really a justification for continued oppression, exploitation and massacre of Palestinians by the terrorist government called Israel.
What are the Palestinians to do in the face of oppression, exploitation and military actions by the Israeli government? If the Israel government is a terrorist organization in relation to Palestinians, then, by Kisin (and Slusky’s) own logic they should not tolerate terrorist attacks by the Israel government–which occurred in various ways before October 7. How then should the Palestinians respond? They should respond by retaliating–according to Kisin’s and Slusky’s own logic.
Conclusion
The hidden assumption of Kisin’s argument is that governments in general cannot be terrorist governments and the United States government and the Israel government in particular are not terrorist organizations. Such a view ignores completely the role of the Israeli government in oppresssing, exploiting and massacring Palestinians before October 7.
People with doctorates by no means are free from biases. The working class should not be intimidated by such professionals and their views. When looked at critically, their views often cannot stand up to scrutiny.
The Abolitionary 