Introduction.
The global reaction to the horrific atrocities perpetrated
by Hamas on Israeli civilians on October 7th, 2023, has been
diverse. From pro-Israel reactions to anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian reactions. Some of the Pro-Palestinian reactions had been
called out as antisemitic. These are the glorifications of the atrocities,
denying them, and tearing down the posters of the abducted Israelis and those
of other nationalities. But that is not enough. Antisemitism will not be truly denounced
and ostracized if its more “civilized” and accepted expressions are not recognized
and pointed out.
In identifying antisemitism, we need to be aware that
there are many forms and levels of antisemitism. There is genocidal
antisemitism, one that denies Jews the ability to live, and/or sees the Jewish
identity itself as a crime. There is the patronizing approach. This has many
forms, such as tokenizing, bossing, preaching instead of conversating. There is
of course intolerance, bias, and conspiracy thinking. And many of these forms of
antisemitism find their way to accepted and respected forms of conversation and
social conduct.
Part 1: Practical language.
In today’s world genocidal antisemitism cannot simply
call for the eradication of the Jews. But it can use language to deny them the
ability to be alive. Think of the claim heard before October 7th,
that the blockade of the Gaza Strip was inhumane, and even illegal. Factually,
this accusation is incorrect. False. While there is no denying that a large
section of the Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip lived in impoverished conditions,
along-side them also existed a social elite and a consumer culture. As well as
a productive sector. As for the blockade, this was a military blockade, aimed
to prevent the very atrocities it failed to prevent on October 7th,
2023. It was legal because it was implemented on the Israeli side of the
border, where Israel’s sovereignty supposed to be undisputed. And because every
government on Earth has the duty to defend its territory and the lives of its
citizens. If these measures are illegal, cruel and inhumane, then the very lives
they had saved, those of ordinary Israelis, are cruel, illegal, and inhumane.
And nothing can be more genocidal than denying people the right to be alive. The
atrocities of October 7th become therefore the logical conclusion of
the illegal and inhumane blockade accusation. Because in cancelling and delegitimizing,
through falsehoods, the duty of the Israeli government and the IDF to defend
the lives of its citizens; they are also cancelling and delegitimizing the
right of those civilians to be alive. And again, that is genocidal.
This is even truer with the current accusations of
ethnic cleansing and genocide. Which again are false. Backing these accusations
with pictures of destruction from Gaza gives them the appearance of
credibility, but that is a propaganda ploy manipulating emotions. And not a fact-based
accusation. There are four facts that demonstrate why such accusations are
dubious and ill motivated. First, the act of genocide requires a tight control
of the ground by the forces of the exterminators. Not of the air above them.
The SS had no air wing. In the annals of the genocide that took place in Rwanda
in 1994, the Rwandan air force is not mentioned. Apparently, it was destroyed 4
years earlier. And the many genocides that took place throughout the 19th
century, before the inventions of airplanes, show that this horrific crime
against humanity has no need for air power. Massive air power can do a lot of
harm to civilian populations, including war crimes. But only ground forces with
total control of the ground can hunt down every person marked for
extermination.
Second, Images of massively destroyed cities came from
many modern wars. They all came with stories about huge numbers of dead
civilians. But they were never called genocide. Not the bombing of Mosul during
the war against ISIS. Not the massive American bombing of North Vietnam,
Cambodia, and Laos. Not the Russian’s actual carpet bombing of rebel held areas
in northern Syria. And not the allies bombing of German cities during WW2. They
all came with accusations of war crimes, but not genocide. All parties in the
debates around those actions acknowledge the existence of legitimate military
targets. And that technology has its limits, and therefore, collateral damage
is unavoidable. The debate in all those cases is on how much care was given to
differentiate between legitimate military targets and the surrounding civilian
population. When these are the borders of the debate, even the harshest critic must
acknowledge that there is a degree of legal and moral legitimacy to the air
campaign, unless the war itself is illegitimate. And yes, even the lenient of
critics must be open to the possibility that avoidable civilian deaths had occurred.
An accusation of genocide overdramatized
an already horrific situation. And there are never good motives to do that. It
attacks the legitimacy of the war itself, denying any legitimacy, even the
smallest, from the attacking side. And when that accusation is thrown so easily
at a side that defends its own civilians from war crimes aimed at them, as is
the case with Israel, there is a room to doubt the intentions of the accusers.
Remember Israel has been accused of genocide before. Even when the Arab
population in the West Bank, Gaza, and Israel grew several times over, Israel
was accused of genocide. Therefore, the third argument is that this accusation
already has dubious history.
|
Mosul 2017 |
Forth, a major component of the definition of genocide under international law says that genocide is also the act of creating
unbearable living conditions for the population targeted for extermination.
When Israel and the IDF called the 1.5 million residents of the northern Gaza
Strip, to move to the southern part of the Strip, this is the kind of genocide
they were accused of doing. The argument behind the accusation pointed to the
impoverished conditions that already existed in that part of the Strip. Saying
that there is no way they could support those extra 1.5 million people. The
problem with that argument is that it is not a very effective way to do this
kind of genocide. Here again, a total control of the ground is required to make
the genocide successful. With this kind of control, the genocidal forces can
deny any help from local sources. As well as any help from outside forces. They
can also nip in the bud any show of resourcefulness found among the people
marked for extermination.
Here on the other hand, Israel and the IDF told the
civilian population to move to the southern
border. The border with Egypt. It is an international border where there are very
few Israeli forces. This gives them access to outside help from all over the
world. With no Israeli forces able to impede or prevent any measure that helps
this population of evacuees to survive. While there is no denying that the lives
of these evacuees are difficult, there is a difference between war refugees and
victims of genocide. Victims of genocide are dead, annihilated, entire populations.
War refugees are alive.
What this analysis shows is that Israel is subjected,
yet again, to a double standard. What otherwise would have been treated as the
possibility of war crimes, is treated as definite genocide. And double standard
against Israel has already been recognized as antisemitism masquerading as critique of Israel. The difference between war crimes and genocide may seem
minor to some, but it is critical. War crimes can be committed by a party to a
war that fights a legitimate campaign. A genocide is inherently illegitimate.
And can never be justified. When the charge is made because of a double
standard, it is false, and therefore dehumanizing. Since Israel is engaged in a
legitimate campaign of defending its civilian population this dehumanization denies
them the right to be alive and is therefore a genocidal act.
What we see in this critique is the deadly use of
language. One that denies Jews the ability to stay alive against the threats
they face.
As this crisis worsens the lives of the displaced
Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are indeed in greater jeopardy. Especially from
hunger. But when reviewing the parties that have the responsibility to prevent
it, one must pay attention to the following factors. The ability of
international aid to reach the Gaza Strip. Entry into the Gaza Strip. And
distribution of the aid inside the strip. The first is the responsibility of
the international community and Egypt. The second is the responsibility of
Israel. And the third is the responsibility of Hamas, UNRWA, and other UN
agencies working inside the Strip. Putting the blame on Israel for the
shortcoming of other agencies will be more than just hypocrisy. It will reward
those agencies for their failures. And encourage them not to improve,
preserving their inefficiencies in the face of future calamities. Inefficiencies
that will certainly harm people in other parts of the world; that have nothing
to do with this conflict. Those that already misuse language in a way that denies
Jews the ability to be alive, will try to confuse the matters. As the UNRWA revelations
demonstrates, some of them will come from the UN.
Part 2: The depths of hatred.
What makes this false accusation worse, (yes, it is
getting worse), is that this is a spin and a blood libel. Political spins are commonplace in politics. It is the
act of taking a maneuver made by a political rivel and spinning it to one’s own
advantage. It can be done by exposing falsehoods or fallacies that may exist in
the rival’s plan or statement. Or it can be done by falsely associating it with
negative subjects. Spins are usually considered dirty politics. As the old Jewish
saying goes, “It stinks, but it’s kosher.” But when a good did is spun into the
opposite; portrayed falsely as something monstrous; that kind of a spin is a
blood libel. The fact is that Israel and the IDF are doing the outmost to keep
Palestinian civilians alive, WHILE keeping the mission of destroying Hamas
ongoing. Navigating between these two conflicting requirements is a nearly impossible
task. What can be done, has been done. And it has saved lives. The warnings
given to evacuate saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians by
simply keeping them away from a lethal war zone. The slowness of the ground
campaign, where it took more than 40 days to conquer just half of northern Gaza,
was also because of concerns for the civilians that had remained there. Look at
the pictures of ruins from Gaza and try to imagine what would have happened if
all those 1.5 million residents had remained there. There would have been multiple
deadly incidents of civilians caught in the crossfire. Alongside deaths and
injuries caused by collateral damage from explosives, misfires, and mistaken
identity, from both sides. There is no question that as war refugees they are
suffering. But the alternative is far more horrendous. In the context of
intense battles fought in densely populated urban areas, Israel’s measures give
them the most elementary thing required by international and humanitarian law
in times of war and chaos. The ability to stay alive. And that is a good thing.
Using their unavoidable suffering to make an accusation of a genocide is a
classical spin. A spin based on half-truth. The true part is that they are
suffering. The omitted part is that they had avoided countless horrific deaths.
Keeping people alive is the opposite of genocide. Calling it a genocide is
therefore false. This is also blood libel, since this is a very serious false accusation.
Those that oppose Israel’s evacuation order, (and do
so without suggesting their own alternatives, even when pressed to by
journalists,) give Israel 2 options. Do nothing and give Hamas a chance to kill
more Israeli civilians. Or engage Hamas while it is hiding among 1.5 million
Palestinians. As demonstrated earlier this will result in a much greater number
of dead and injured Palestinian civilians. The first option is a well-recognized
antisemitic fantasy; more dead Jews. The second one asks Israel to cause the
very brutalities it accuses Israel of doing. As a false accusation this is also
a fantasy. It is a demonic stereotype of a Jew on a killing spree. Those critics
condemn Israel for senseless killing but come up with critique that if listen
to and acted upon, would produce far more deaths and suffering among the
Palestinian civilians. This means that as far as they are concerned, Israel is not
living up to that fantasy, of killing more Palestinian civilians. These critics
are not stupid. They know Israel won’t act on their advice. This is a desire
they are expressing. The desire to see more dead Jews and more dead
Palestinians. Their fantasy image of the dead Palestinians is not a product of
the realities on the ground. For the bigots this stereotype is a part of their
world view. And when reality does not much their convictions, they fall into a
cognitive dissonance. When white supremacists find themselves in this
situation, by meeting successful black persons, they act according to their
standard operating procedure. Violence, and the more the better. For the antisemitically motivated critics of Israel, engaging in violence is not an option.
Their standard operating procedure is to argue for their convictions. They use
it unethically by using half-truths, misrepresentations of international law, and
distorted description of events. And sometimes outright lies. This is also how
they try to resolve their cognitive dissonance. Giving a seemingly legitimate
critic that if acted upon the results will be far worse than the situation that
is been criticized. Seeing this behavior in the current situation. When the
death toll among Palestinians is the highest it ever been per conflict,
demonstrate how deep that hate goes. No matter how many Palestinians we have killed
in-order to defend ourselves, these “critics” need us to kill more. If you
don’t believe me, and think that this is a farfetched interpretation, here are
3 more clearer examples of it.
The first one come from UN Special Rapporteur on the
Occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca P. Albanese. She was a guest of the
National Press Club of Australia on the 14 of November 2023. Her speech and the
answers she gave to questions from the host and the audience had plenty of
antisemitic components. Top among them were, omitting the facts there were
Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism prior to October the 7th.
She did acknowledge the horrors of that day but gave it “context.” The now usual
line “history did not start on October 7th”. Which is true, it did
not. But it also included a lot of Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism. A
selective memory like this is a known characteristic of racist practices. When
the victims are Jews, it is antisemitic.
The other top example came when the host pointed out
that the only way to know if Israel committed war crimes is to examine every bombing.
As he pointed out, it can only be done after the war is over. She avoided the
question by not giving a straight answer. Demonstrating that Israel’s “critics”
such as herself don’t need evidence or investigation to find it guilty of the
worse crimes possible. There is plenty of that in Jewish history.
Like all of Israel’s critics she opposed Israel’s
actions in the Gaza Strip. When asked for alternative, she suggested “using the
means of law & order.” She did not specify How. But given the fact that
during October the 7th Hamas was able to take over the police
station of the city of Sderot, it is amazing she was able to say that with
straight face. A police force cannot arrest a fully armed military or
paramilitary force. Only a better armed force can do that i.e. an army. She
literally demanded the IDF to engage Hamas while it is hiding in the densely
populated areas. And she is not the
first to demand the IDF to inflict more harm on Palestinian civilians.
An earlier example is provided by Joe Stork. He is the
deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa division in Human Rights
Watch. He has a problematic history with Israel, as pointed out by Ben Dror Yemini. He is also one of the people behind HRW report of October 2002,
denouncing suicide bombing as a war crime. It is one of 2 reports that came
after a long protest over the lack of such reports from the entire human rights
community of that era. In this short video he explains why Israel attacking an
electric plant that provides electricity for 43% of the population of Gaza is a
human rights violation. In the opening he acknowledges that electricity has
dual use, military and civilian, and therefore it is a legitimate target. A
recognition we won’t find today. So why in this case it is a crime? Simple, according
to him Israel had an alternative. Since it provided electricity to the
remaining 57% it could just pull down the switch and stop providing that
electricity. Somehow denying electricity from 57% of the population is more
human than denying it from 43%. It gets worse. He said it could take a year to restore
that plant into a working condition, true or false, Israel can shut down the
electricity it provided as long as it wanted. He pointed out correctly that
because of the attack the 57% had to share the electricity they received from
Israel with the 43%, creating a situation where everybody gets electricity for
only 8 hours a day. If this was the other way around, it would be 6 hours of
electricity each day. And somehow that is the more human option.
Seen this video when it was newer made me realize that
something this twisted exist in the culture of Israel’s critics. Since than I
have found it mostly on social media, but it is far more commonplace. And a few
years ago, it was center stage.
I hope, many still remember the debate in the US
congress about funding the replenishing of Israel’s Iron Dome air defense
system. This system needed replenishing after it thwarted over 1,000 rockets
and missiles aimed at Israeli population centers in May 2021. A faction within
the American Democratic Party known as the squad opposed this under the guise
of criticizing the Israeli government. This unique air defense system saved the
lives of Israelis without killing a single Palestinian. Whatever criticism one
may have of an Israeli government and its policies, if the intentions of the
critic are sincere, this weapon system should be their lowest priority. If
critics think that because of it, Israel allowed itself too much of a free
reign over Gaza, a claim I dispute, they should target its air offensive
capabilities. Not the air-defense capabilities. Without it, Israel’s air force
will have to hasten its response to such missiles’ attacks. This will increase
the likelihood of harm to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip. If it
wouldn’t, more Israelis will be hurt. As I said before, both possibilities are
antisemitic fantasies. And there is something very sadistic in forcing someone
to choose between the lives of its civilians, and the lives of enemy civilians.
NEXT