https://forward.com/opinion/613603/israel-gaza-revisionist-zionism-war-netanyahu/ May 15, 2024 As the Gaza war drags into its eighth bloody month, opinions have hardened as to what it’s all about. And most of them are wrong. On the pro-Israel side, the war is a necessary response to Oct. 7. Hamas must be wiped out for Israel to have security, and the job is still not done. The civilian casualties and dislocations are tragic, but also unavoidable given that Hamas has embedded itself in population centers. And Israel has done all it can to minimize them. On the pro-Palestine side, the war is genocide. Israel has carpet-bombed and invaded this small territory, causing widespread death and devastation. This cannot be explained by some strategic goal, but is the logical extension of 80 years of Zionist oppression of Palestinians. Neither narrative describes reality. Left side first. No matter how many times the word “genocide” is chanted at a protest, no matter how much it is taken as a given by progressives, the Gaza war is not a genocide. As I discussed back in October — when the term was already appearing in protests — genocide does not mean “an intensely horrible event in which one group kills many people in another group.” It means, under international law, lethal actions taken with “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” This definition was created in the wake of the Holocaust, in which Nazi Germany clearly stated this intent and carried it out with ruthless efficiency. Since then, three genocides have led to actual court trials: Rwanda in 1994, Bosnia in 1995 (particularly the Srebrenica massacre), and Cambodia in 1975-79. Others have been recognized but not prosecuted, including Myanmar’s murder and expulsion of over 700,000 Rohingya Muslims (half the population), China’s murder and displacement of nearly 1 million Tibetans (17% of the population) in the 1950s and 1960s, and the atrocities in Darfur in 2003-05 which killed 400,000 civilians and displaced nearly 3 million (nearly half the region’s population). Still others remain controversial, such as the Armenian genocide of 1915. In all of these cases, there was not merely horrible carnage (as there has been in Gaza); there was also a clear intent to destroy the targeted group, and policies that carried it out. Significant portions of each population were either murdered or permanently expelled. This is not present in Gaza. The deaths of 35,000 people (or 25,000, excluding Hamas fighters) is an appalling tragedy, but that number reflects only 1.5% of the total population and is commensurate with civilian death rates in other conflicts. Israel has frequently warned populations to get out of the way of pending attacks, and (inadequately) allowed humanitarian relief to be distributed. And while some extremist members of the Israeli government have indeed made genocidal statements, official government policy shows no “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” On the contrary, plans have already begun for the rebuilding of Gaza (bitterly opposed by Israel’s genocidal far right) after the war is finally over. It is entirely understandable that the horrors in Gaza have ignited protests around the world, and as the recent International Court of Justice opinion rightly noted, there may be evidence of genocidal intent that has not yet been uncovered. But the horrors themselves do not constitute genocide. Israel’s official explanation of the war is also at odds with the facts on the ground in Gaza. After seven months, the goal of eradicating Hamas hardly seems a sufficient explanation of the level of warfare we have seen. Of course, we do not have access to the Israeli intelligence behind every strike, and Israel’s defenders continue to insist that each action has been strategically necessary. But is that really tenable? Over 65,000 tons of explosives, at least half of which (according to US assessments) were contained in “dumb bombs,” unguided and imprecise? Entire neighborhoods leveled? 31,000 discrete targets in four months of war? Delays in the delivery of humanitarian aid, to the point where there is a serious threat of famine? Even if eradicating Hamas is an articulable goal — and even if it should be prioritized above the return of hostages, for which millions of Israelis have protested — the massive scope of the war belies that it is the only, or even the primary, one. But if the war isn’t genocide and isn’t solely about eradicating Hamas, what is it? The answer dates back 100 years — and in part to Benjamin Netanyahu’s father, Benzion. In the early days of the state, there were two main schools of Zionist thought. Mainstream, labor Zionism held that coexistence and compromise with Arabs was possible. Jews and Arabs would divide the land, international support would lead to the flourishing of both populations, and the groups would find some way to reconcile their competing land claims, ideologies and cultures. Revisionist Zionism, openly influenced by European nationalism, said this was a naïve delusion. The Arabs will never accept us, revisionists said, and we must take the land by force. In a 1998 interview with the New Yorker, Benzion Netanyahu said that the Arabs “would end Jewish existence in the country if they had the chance to do it. Only the fear of retaliation keeps them back.” This is the justification of the Gaza War. For a century, revisionist Zionists have argued that the only way to achieve peace is to dominate Israel’s enemies, to crush them militarily until they are finally forced to accept the reality of the Jewish state. Compromise is impossible and concessions are signs of weakness; in Israel’s “tough neighborhood,” Israel must be tougher than its enemies if it is to survive. This ideology has ruled over Israel for most of the last thirty years, and is now quite common; you can hear it in taxicabs and around Seder tables, in rabbinic homilies and political speeches. Its tenor varies. Some on the Right, perhaps animated by messianism or racism or even hyper-masculinity, seem to relish this role of dominator. Others ruefully accept it, since, they say, there is simply no alternative — indeed, this has been the mood of many Israelis in the last several months. But either way, says this ideology, dominance is what Israel must exercise, and show. This is what explains Israel’s “shock and awe” tactics. The scenes of carnage are intentional. They are meant to teach the world a lesson: Attack us, and you will pay dearly. But revisionism is wrong strategically (as well as morally), since it fails to account for the rest of the world. In a basically bipolar conflict, revisionist deterrence has a brutal logic to it. But this is not a bipolar conflict. Israel depends on international support, especially American support. The Arab world, itself divided along Sunni/Shiite lines and other cleavages, exists in a shifting international context with China, Russia, and other strategic players. The United Nations, loathed by Israeli leaders, still plays a critical role in mediating among these different influences. And while “shock and awe” may deter some of Israel’s enemies, it has now alienated most of Israel’s friends. Obviously, revisionist Zionist ideology is not the only motive behind the war. Netanyahu’s political survival depends on placating his coalition members, and the brutality serves that goal. Hamas’ rejection of several Israeli peace offers suggests that they think they can get a better deal, thus prolonging the conflict — and of course, Hamas started this round of violence in the first place. Israel, meanwhile, has had great success in wiping out much of Hamas, having killed between 10,000 and 15,000 Hamas fighters. As is always the case in Israel/Palestine, there is no single, simple explanation. But just as the war isn’t genocide, neither is it a purely military campaign. The brutality is part of the point; Israel is teaching its enemies a lesson. Unfortunately for the Jewish state, it has taught its friends one as well.
Obviously, I was referring back to the sentences that you quoted but didn't bold, that even after Hamas was wiped out, the people left in Gaza would just become the new Hamas. Anyone that became the new Hamas would be Hamas and thus subject to killing. If that ended up being the entire population (and I suspect it could be), that would be the state of things. It isn't that everyone in Gaza is currently Hamas, it is that everyone is potentially future Hamas, and as and when each person becomes Hamas, they are a legitimate military target. My suspicion is that the number of people who would never side with Hamas (the peacenik would be friends of Israel) is something approaching zero. I would imagine very few Americans in total are "in league with Hamas". They are not personally sending them RPGs or AK-47s or even cash. The number on this board is likely zero. There are those who clearly support Hamas, but it isn't all leftists. Gaza had no real economy to speak of. Despite billions and billions in foreign aid and investment, they chose to focus on weapons and defensive works. They could have easily developed into a tourist destination (see Abu Dhabi or Sharm El Sheikh or Dubai). They didn't want to, they wanted to attack Israel. What does that have to do with Gazans choosing to attack Israel? If Israel had more effectively blockaded them (not allowed Qatari money to reach Hamas), would Gazan have been more peaceful? Somehow both blockading and not blockading make Israel responsible for the choices made by the people in Gaza?
Jay Michaelson (born May 5, 1971) is an American writer, journalist, professor, and rabbi. He is a commentator on CNN, and a columnist for Rolling Stone, and other publications, having been the legal affairs columnist at The Daily Beast for eight years. He is the author of ten books, and won the 2023 National Jewish Book Award for scholarship and the 2023 New York Society for Professional Journalists Award for Opinion Writing. It's a different perspective than the one's we are hashing out on here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism The Wikipedia article backs up his points.
If the current trajectory is that the entire population would likely "become Hamas" and therefore be subject to wholesale killing, and you truly believe that, then the sane thing would be to find a different trajectory. The end goal should be to secure Israel by eliminating Hamas (or, equivalently, making them powerless and irrelevant), but in a manner that can still bring about a peaceful coexistence with the existing non-Israeli population and other neighboring countries and avoids Israel becoming a pariah state. Instead, you favor paying no attention to that latter part, and killing off the entire population if need be while sacrificing existing alliances and isolating Israel on the global stage. And you think this somehow makes Israel and Jews more secure in the long run.
The different trajectory is for the people in Gaza to turn on Hamas and reject their terrorist ideology wholesale.
What is an acceptable way for Palestinians to protect its territorial integrity in the face of Jewish settlers who do not recognize that Palestinians rights to live in Greater Israel?
This was basically the justification of British Colonel Dyer during the Amritsar Massacre. He justified firing into a dense crowd of Indians protesting that included children that even if they weren’t violent extremists they likely would become so. Except they couldn’t do that if they wanted to because trade and movement of people was blockaded by Israel. That was why they didn’t have an economy to speak of in the first place. As such what economy they had was literally underground. Further given that the IDF would still launch incursions and attacks it’s no surprise that they would focus on defense. You’ve argued that Israelis will defend themselves do you think Palestinians shouldn’t defend themselves? It has to do with that Likud didn’t want to work with moderate factions that had already agreed to recognize and make peace with Israel. Palestinians aren’t monolithic in their views or political beliefs yet you treat them as though they all are. Essentially the justification of collective punishment policy. The Israelis could’ve instead chosen to work with moderate groups like the PA and some things like help develop a Palestinian economy in both the West Bank and Gaza but instead chose to undermine the moderate while strengthening the extremists.
This is the point I’ve been making. The Palestinians of the PLO did recognize Israel and was willing to make peace. They didn’t pay off for the Palestinians as settlements have kept expanding, Gaza’s economy and borders blockaded, and a policy of collective punishment. I absolutely agree that the PA is corrupt and that leaders like Arafat could’ve done more To not only clean up the PA but work for peace. That doesn’t mean that Israel hasn’t greatly hampered the prospects for peace and made it impossible for self determination of the Palestinians. Yet the argument we are hearing from many is completely one sided as though the Palestinians are completely responsible. It’s a completely simplistic argument and such arguments are why it’s so hard to resolve this situation.
Israel has yet to ever offer a serious relationship with viable peace solution with a sustainable Palestinian state. Part of it might be because of a corrupt PA or militant Hamas. But even when they were serious the best that anyone could come up with were the Oslo Accords which would have left an unsustainable Palestinian state. The PA was correct in walking away from it.
Didn't the IRA engage in guerrilla warfare tactics, including bombings targeted at military, police, economic, infrastructure, and symbolic sites, as well as civilian locations, for over 40 years in their efforts to end British occupation in Northern Ireland? This conflict was ultimately resolved through the Good Friday Agreement, a political solution, not through genocide. Similarly, didn't the British successfully end the guerrilla war with the pro-communist Malayan Liberation Army using the Briggs Plan, which included forced relocation of rural populations to 'New Villages' to isolate them from the insurgents, as well as economic and social initiatives like infrastructure development, education, health services, and ultimately granting autonomy and self-governance to Malaya? This approach provided an alternative to communist rule and achieved success without resorting to genocide-like activities.
And if he had waited to shoot them until after they became violent extremists (if they did), that would have been fine. They managed to get billions of dollars and thousands of rockets in. Also, it was figuratively underground. The markets weren't in the tunnels, Hamas was. Generally in response to Hamas rocket fire. If you keep smacking someone and getting knocked out, it is stupid to double down on smacking them because they knocked you out. Launching rockets at civilian populations and attacking music festivals is in no way self-defense. Let's pretend it is for a minute, how is it working out for them? Did they suffer less because of their attacks on Israel? Do they control more territory? Are they winning a war of attrition, killing Israelis at a rate that Israel cannot sustain in the long term? Hamas, as a military, has not been effective. Their only accomplishment is convincing western morons that the Gazans are the victims of Israel. Israel didn't work with Hamas to make peace either. So, once again, how does Israel not working with the PA (ignoring the fact that they worked extensively with the PA under Likud as well as other ruling coalitions) have to do with Gazans choosing to attack Israel. Great. Maybe the fantasy is correct and there will be a peace loving, Israel friendly Gaza after Hamas is eliminated. They did extensive work with the PA. Israel sends money to the PA, they allow workers from the Palestinian territories to work in Israel every day, they provide security from outside attack, etc. It also isn't like the PA are some shining beacons of light. There West Bank isn't friendly to Israel either. Israel has chosen to rely on Israel, and it has worked out pretty well for them. How has opposing Israel worked out for the Palestinians. Just looking at the situation from the outside, it seems like the Palestinians probably didn't make smart choices.
Has anyone found a live ticker for the thread that counts Palestine civilian deaths so fans like @AroundTheWorld can celebrate milestones as it increases?
