Violence sometimes has cultural and ideological reasons, which are detached from a concrete conflict between two sides.
It should be noted, for example, that the Nazis hated the Jews and established an annihilation mechanism not because of some religious or national dispute, but because the Jews were part of a wider goal: Destroying the non-Aryan Western culture.
In other words, the Holocaust was the result of a distorted ideological code, rather than a conflict which could be settled through negotiations and compromises.
Because the radical left refuses to see Hamas' war as a cultural war, it tends to ignore the ideological and organizational common denominator between the Gazan fundamentalism and the global fundamentalism.
According to the radical left's perception, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are local terror organizations with local goals – in other words, national – rather than an extension of a global network of evil. Their war is perceived as part of a legitimate struggle for national liberation.
And then came Operation Protective Edge, and for the very first time threw a glaring spotlight on the radical left's delusion. It suddenly became more difficult to cut corners, to bash Israel and to disregard the sensibility and morality of its leadership, its army and most of its citizens.
Unfortunately for the radical left, Hamas also launched the missile offensive, and in fact started the conflict even earlier with the kidnapping and murder of the Israeli teens; Hamas also revealed a huge weapon arsenal it has been piling up in order to murder masses of Israelis, while wasting billions of shekels which were supposed to be used to improve the standard of living in Gaza; Hamas also demonstrated its irrational considerations to the point of insanity and suicide – because, after all, it's clear that it's impossible to defeat Israel with missiles, and it's even clearer that the response will take a heavy toll on the aggressor; and Hamas also showed that its conditions for restoring the calm fail to include a single section about peace negotiations.
But the most painful thing for the radical left is seeing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, its bitter enemy, acting moderately and with national and moral responsibility, accepting every international call for a ceasefire and postponing the ground invasion to the very last minute, while firmly facing his internal critics.
The difficult dissonance the dogmatic left has found itself in produces the "but" arguments: Hamas is indeed misbehaving – but the occupying and jailing Israel is to blame for that; they really are a bit violent – but why refer to them as a "terror state"?; we are allowed to defend ourselves – but why kill so many innocent people?; You are only good with wars – but what about peace?; today you attack – but what will happen tomorrow?; you can kill enemies – but why gloat?; an airstrike is okay – but why add a ground operation?; Hamas really does hate Jews – but what about all the moderate Palestinians?
The fact that the picture of the "good" and "evil" in this war is so clear – why even the Egyptian president condemned Hamas – makes it particularly difficult for the left's radical margins.
They are so distressed in light of the reality striking them in the face, that they are forced to create an artificial symmetry between us and the Hamas and Jihad fighters. Israeli pilots are likened to the missile launchers and terror attacks from Gazan and are slammed with the defamatory slogans "the bad ones join the Air Force" and "the murderers join the Air Force."
The radical left's response in this war exposes the lack of intellectual integrity it is characterized by. The integrity to recognize the cultural reality in the Middle East and the nature of the forces operating in the arena.
The radical left is refusing to acknowledge its mistake, not just because it is generally difficult for people – mainly people filled with ideological enthusiasm and hatred – to admit their mistakes, but because it knows that this war exposes its moral disgrace.