We Can’t Pick and Choose Which Genocides to Defend Against
An excerpt from Theodor Herzl’s “The Jewish State” (1896) in which he promotes the Zionist cause by the forceful expulsion of people on whatever land the Zionist leaders would choose to be the new home for (some of) the Jewish people. See the section “The Jewish Question” from the Jewish Virtual Library.
Editor’s note, before reading: What follows is an editorial opinion piece written by one of our editing staff. An editorial represents the stance of the publication, rather than being a standalone opinion representative of only the author’s view. In this piece, the author argues for an immediate ceasefire — the complete pause of military aggressions by both sides — and for international actors to step in, as both Hamas and the Israeli government cannot be trusted to adhere to international law. Furthermore, the author makes the point to not view calls for justice for Palestinian rights as mutually exclusive to calls for justice for the rights of all, including Israelis, and that such a turning of the narrative begins with us — Americans — who wield great political power through our voices. We at the CPR affirm these claims.
For weeks the brutal conflict between Israel and Hamas has raged in Gaza with a staggering loss of life and a death toll that continues to mount. On October 7, Hamas’ surprise terrorist attack killing 1,400 Israeli settlers and taking 200 hostages resulted in the Israeli government’s bombardment of the Gaza strip and an escalation of Palestinian-Israeli tensions to heights not seen since the Second Intifada and the 2014 Gaza War. At the time of this piece's publishing, an estimated 9,257 Palestinians have been killed, and almost 23,516 injured. In Israel, 1,400 individuals have been killed, and upwards of 4,629 injured – mostly reflecting Hamas’ attack on October 7.
While the conflict in the region is decades old and frustratingly complicated, media coverage of the events along with the rhetoric and actions of the Israeli government have lacked the appropriate nuance that the conflict deserves. Supporting Palestine and calling out the disproportionate response of Israel is not mutually exclusive of supporting a just and peaceful end to this conflict. We need to listen to Palestinian voices and those who support Palestine, rather than dismissing them. If tomorrow, every Hamas militant was eliminated and the organization itself ceased to exist, this would still not bring about the peace that is desired. Moreover, a truly honest conversation about Palestinian grievances must acknowledge the ongoing hazards associated with the current occupying apartheid regime, for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Firstly, in the strongest of terms, the recent actions taken by Hamas must be unequivocally condemned. The targeting of civilians in any way is morally unacceptable and is prohibited under international law. Just as well, Israel has the right to protect its citizens, exact retribution on Hamas, and recover those taken hostage. However, this retaliation cannot be unbridled and must also be bound by the parameters of international law. One people's civilians cannot be valued, while another group’s civilians are seen as collateral damage. The foundations for our collective legal and institutional frameworks are intended to be grounded in the mutual recognition of all humanity, and, as such, must be applied equally to all states and peoples. No person nor government is above the rule of law and permitted to act without impunity. Secondly, the events currently unfolding did not happen in a vacuum. The contemporary situation in the region can only be understood through the historical contextualization of past events, not as a justification for the heinous acts of Hamas but in honest awareness of how we arrived at this unhallowed situation.
The disproportionate military response by Israel in Gaza not only stretches the bounds of the international rules of war, but the rhetoric of Israel’s government displays an alarmingly heartless and arrogant disregard for these rules as well as for the Palestinian people. Despite Gaza being one of the most densely populated areas in the world, Israel has reportedly dropped almost as many bombs on Gaza in a week than the US used in Afghanistan in one year – nearly 6,000 bombs. Notably, the Israeli military confirmed that it had launched over 400 airstrikes on one day in particular. Given the small size of the Gazan land mass and the far inferior nature of Hamas’ military capabilities, Israel’s disproportionate response seems hard to justify given the immense death toll of civilians.
The narrow strip of Gaza, while being a mere 25 miles long and 7.5 miles wide, is home to over 2 million Palestinians – around 48 percent of whom are under the age of 18, with upwards of 70 percent living in poverty. In the onslaught of Israeli airstrikes, entire residential neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble, along with medical facilities, schools, and markets. There have been multiple reports of collapsing buildings killing dozens at a time, and large swaths of whole families being killed. One building that was sheltering around 100 evacuees in Khan Younis, a city in southern Gaza, was hit by an airstrike killing at least 32 people, including 13 members of one family. In one of the most unsettling events of the conflict, the Jabalia refugee camp was struck by Israeli airstrikes two days in a row. Details about the magnitude of casualties are difficult to determine at the moment, but initial reporting suggests an immense loss of life.
In the conflict so far, Israeli authorities have downplayed indiscriminately targeting civilian infrastructure or civilians themselves, while also denying responsibility for other actions. For example, Israel has denied responsibility for bombing the Al-Ahli al-Arabi Hospital, yet many remain skeptical of the evidence put forward. Some point to discrepancies regarding the details of the Israeli’s account and past incidents of Israel’s obstruction and later admissions of responsibility. The killing of the famed Palestinian-American journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, is one such similar incident where the Israeli military was begrudgingly forced to admit its responsibility for deliberately targeting the known journalist. No matter the circumstances, the fog of war makes indiscriminate death more inevitable, and precision that much more unattainable.
The increased airstrikes in the central and southern regions of Gaza are particularly problematic. Early in the conflict, Israel ordered the complete civilian evacuation of Northern Gaza to the south within 24 hours. Many rightly pointed out the infeasibility of this given the already precarious infrastructure and the sheer number of Palestinians in the area. Even the United Nations warned of the dire result of such an order – “The United Nations considers it impossible for such a movement to take place without devastating humanitarian consequences.” Adding insult to injury, multiple airstrikes have hit the area surrounding the southern Rafah crossing bordering Egypt even though Israel instructed Gazans to go there to avoid the IDF’s bombs. This has stirred greater outcry as Israel itself stated it would restrict its attacks to the northern area where Hamas is believed to operate. The crossing is one of only a few ways out of the tightly controlled Gaza strip and is the only such crossing that is not controlled by Israel. For a population already so densely confined, to be forced into an even smaller area with no way out and intensifying airstrikes, the results can only be disastrous.
What is apparent, is that Israel’s government is enacting a brutal collective punishment on the entire Palestinian population. Whether this is an explicit goal or merely an unintended consequence, the results are the same. Just days after Hamas’ terrorist attack, Israel moved to completely cut electricity and other necessary means of survival from Palestine in retaliation. Defense minister, Yoav Gallant, offered no ambiguity as to effectively moving to starve out a civilian population, stating, “We are putting a complete siege on Gaza… No electricity, no food, no water, no gas – it’s all closed.” Not to mention the moral implications of such an act, both the Hague and Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit collectively punishing an entire people. More recently, the UN Secretary General stated that Hamas’ attacks cannot be used to “justify collective punishment,” and the EU’s foreign affairs chief likewise echoed the illegalities of cutting off vital resources from a civilian population. Now, as most aid into the region has essentially halted, the situation grows ever more precarious as the humanitarian crisis worsens.
While recent events certainly speak for themselves, rhetoric by Israeli government officials and leading political leaders display a concerning intensification of dehumanizing language towards the Palestinians enabling such a disproportionate response. In Minister Gallant’s comments about cutting off resources to Gaza, he contended, “We are fighting animals” and “We will eliminate everything.” This direct and explicit conflation between all Gazans and Hamas is deeply troubling and is an all-too-common tactic used to justify violence towards targeted groups. Israel’s president Isaac Herzog has likewise attempted to legitimize the targeting of civilians in Gaza, “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true, this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved… They could have risen up.” The institutional gaslighting present in these comments is difficult to deny. Suggesting either the lack of will or outright culpability on the part of all Palestinians, while failing to recognize that a majority of them live in poverty, under a brutal Israeli occupation that severely restricts almost all aspects of daily life, requires an obfuscation of rationality. One member of the Israeli parliament has even called for a second Nakba (‘catastrophe’ in Arabic) in Gaza, referring to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine during the creation of Israel in 1948. Yet another lawmaker has argued for “flattening Gaza” with nuclear weapons.
It should be noted, however, that Hamas has likewise made incendiary comments towards Israel. Its 1988 charter, for example, calls for the explicit destruction of Israel. Nevertheless, we must be careful not to conflate the views of Hamas with those of all Palestinians. For one, Hamas’ control in Gaza stems from the 2006 elections in which the party won a surprising 44 percent of the vote. This vote, following the death of Yasser Arafat and the bloody Second Intifada, represented a particular point in time and the failure of years of attempts at lasting peace. It is also worth noting that since the election was held in 2006 and with almost half of Gaza’s population under the age of 18, a majority of those in Palestine have never voted for Hamas. Thus, it is unconscionable to inflict such a collective indictment on all Palestinians. Lastly, it is also important to contextualize the rise of Hamas itself as, partly at least, a project of the Israeli government. As far back as 2009, Netanyahu advanced the strategy of strengthening Hamas in an effort to undermine the influence of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank to “preserve the diplomatic paralysis and forever remove the ‘danger’ of negotiations with the Palestinians over the partition of Israel into two states.” In fact, between 2012 and 2018, the Israeli government helped facilitate funding of upwards of half a billion dollars to Hamas through Qatar.
In the same manner, the Israeli government does not speak for all Israelis nor for all Jews around the world. Many in the Jewish diaspora outside of Israel have led anti-war demonstrations and have called for solidarity with the Palestinians, often with the cry of “Not in our name!” In Israel, calls for a ceasefire have increased as well. Notably, Israeli journalist Gideon Levy has connected the degradation of Israel’s democratic institutions–recently sparking massive demonstrations–as a byproduct of the ongoing maintenance of the apartheid occupation. An openly segregated system based on ethnicity and religion inevitably leads to, and requires, antidemocratic means of perpetuation. Historians of the American South will find this parallel all too familiar.
At this point, it is irrefutable to say that Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine only serves as additional fuel for continual violence for the foreseeable future. Even Israel’s Haaretz newspaper has made similar arguments – one opinion piece contending that the occupation of Palestine is the greatest threat to Israel’s security while another argues similarly, connecting the occupation to recent antidemocratic trends in Israel. For decades, Palestinians have sounded the alarm that violent flashpoints are inevitable in the face of an oppressive settler-colonial ethno-state, while mainstream analysts of the region seem to now be bewildered by the most recent escalations. We must remember that history did not begin on October 7. Prominent Jewish cultural critic Noam Chomsky has similarly argued for decades that nothing endangers Israel’s security more than its policy of occupation, and that those who are “supporters of Israel” are in fact putting the whole population at risk by “preferring expansion to peace.”
This occupation, its moral as well as corporal hazards, and aggressive settlement expansion have not been sufficiently acknowledged by the international community – and, bearing the greatest of consequences, not by the United States. For 75 years, Palestinian refugees have been forcibly removed from their homes and land, condensed to mostly the West Bank and the Gaza strip, and have lived under restrictive military occupation. While the Middle East has been the site of varying historical conflicts, Jews and Muslims have lived relatively peacefully beside one another for centuries in the region. The creation of Israel, which violently displaced 700,000 Palestinians in 1948, was largely a product of European Zionist-colonialism, which itself was the result of European antisemitism. At the heart of the occupation’s brutality is the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and the continual dispossession of Palestinian land, predominantly in the West Bank. Through the combination of judicial rulings and brute military force, Israeli security forces confiscate land and homes to then give to Jewish Israeli settlers. Most countries now contend that this clearly violates international law.
There are very real and valid grievances from the Palestinian people that have been silenced or dismissed for far too long. Quite literally, Israel controls every aspect of the land, sea, and air that is Palestine, while the Palestinian people are left with insufficient legal representation. The creation of a state for one people did not simultaneously create the same for another set of people – unfortunately, another was left stateless. What is lacking from most discussions of the conflict in Gaza is the acknowledgment of these grievances. Over the course of the last three decades, largely nonviolent attempts to garner international solidarity and a commitment to address the needs of Palestinian concerns have either been disregarded or deliberately misconstrued. Nonviolent protests and marches are violently repressed, and the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (BDS) movement has been labeled antisemitic by critics. In 2018, Palestinians in Gaza mounted the Great March of Return, walking to Israel’s military fences to protest what can arguably be called the world’s largest open-air prison. Israeli IDF forces then proceeded to shoot at the crowds with live ammunition, killing 214 and injuring nearly 30,000 people.
As the crisis in Gaza grows more acute by the day, we in North Carolina, the UNC community, and the U.S. must push for an immediate ceasefire to all indiscriminate military operations. It is beyond time for sane caution and accountability to prevail. What is power, if it cannot act? What are values, if they are not difficult? The only available option cannot simply be constrained to the mass death and displacement of civilians. No, we cannot repeat the same historical mistakes that have occurred too often in the past – watching a genocide take place, to then, decades from now, ask how such a catastrophe was permitted to transpire.
A ceasefire is vital to allow significant humanitarian aid to get into Gaza, recover the remaining Israeli hostages, guarantee security for Palestinians and Israelis, and form an international coalition tasked with investigating potential war crimes in the region. Moreover, there is an element of asymmetrical power favoring Israel in its capacity to levy such sustained mass destruction. In many ways, even calling this conflict a war conceals this fact. Here, there is no parity of power: Israel is one of the best-equipped and well-funded military powers in the world, with virtually unconditional backing by the United States. Additionally, and most importantly for any prospect of lasting peace, the Israeli government must end and dismantle the repressive militarized occupation of Gaza and the West Bank that is a modern reincarnation of apartheid rule. This is not only the optimal moral decision moving forward, but it represents the only avenue capable of addressing mutual grievances.
Every day that Palestine remains under Israel’s military apartheid rule is a persistent provocation. More bluntly, allowing the occupation of Palestine to continue will always threaten peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. Those who wish for a safe and respected Israel must likewise seek a safe and respected Palestine. Moreover, the rhetoric and disproportionate actions by Israel only serve to destroy any goodwill and sympathy that they could have received following Hamas’ horrible terrorist attack.
The shadows of the past do not absolve the culpability of Hamas. At the same time, it would be wise to distinguish between rightfully acknowledging the root causes of broader interconnected events, from that of justifying terrorism. The lives of innocent civilians depend upon it. It is past time that the American public had a difficult and necessary conversation about the roots of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As the United States is the greatest political authority on the world stage, the American people hold inordinate potential and power in directing the course of this conflict. Alarmingly, however, the political climate at the moment fails to see the plight of Palestinians in the same light as Israelis. Support for Palestine and their grievances have wrongly been labeled politically incorrect and antisemitic. The chilling effect in the media and public discourse has stigmatized support for Palestine and conflated supporting Palestine with supporting terrorism. Thus, incorrectly, it makes support for Palestine seem mutually exclusive to calls for peace.