Meditation 11/17/23 - On Gaza no.1

Deliberating about the world's most relevant story and what we can learn from it.

This past month has been turbulent for the world, but especially for those who search for truth and clarity. More than that, intense pressure is put on those whose aim is to speak the truth rather than just send it to the mental stockpile.

Gaza is a perfect example. The situation within Gaza’s borders is not only attracting the eyes of the world but also the vengeful gaze of lurking tribalists.

There should be no “joining a side.” Justice and truth are the only virtues worth realizing. Rather than a simple division based on ideology, the calling out of injustice when it is present embraces no particular side, but all sides equally, and the necessity of such an objective is truly the key to the whole movement against the military actions of Israel. The ones who continue to stand in the way of truth’s constitution are the de facto enemies of progress. Israel is now posing as this de facto figure.

First, it is important to note that anti-Semitism and opposing the actions of Israel are not the same thing. It feels elementary to have to even mention this. Far too many people are attempting to equate these positions and thereby obfuscate the argument for their own gain. In turn, innocent and concerned people are labeled as Jew-haters, anti-Semites, and the most capricious insult of all (for anti-Zionist Jews), self-hating Jews.

Anti-Semitism, according to the IHRA’s (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) “non-legally binding working definition,” is a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews…”¹

This definition works, but some of the criteria are debatable with respect to Israel’s conduct toward the Palestinians. I have heard conservative critics such as Peter Hitchens, whom I greatly respect, posit the notion that Hamas did not commit their atrocities on Oct. 7 in response to “maltreatment” by Israel. In other words, Hitchens suggests it would be incorrect and ill-mannered to give Hamas the benefit of the doubt (which I agree with). If we do, it places no responsibility on Hamas but instead on the shoulders of Israel.

Hitchens continues to write:

“These murders and kidnappings were not, as their apologists claim, responses to oppression or maltreatment. They were vindictive acts of racist hate. They were driven by a high-octane version of a much wider anti-Jewish phobia which is still all too common in the world. It was this phobia which led to the desperate measure of creating a national home for the world's Jews, a place of last resort for those fleeing mass murder.”²

I would be lying if I claimed I hadn’t seen the rise in anti-Semitism, and I would be equally as deceitful if I didn’t agree that it has never really disappeared. However, I do not think this label should be tossed around to whoever advocates for the Palestinian plight. Recently, I discussed this with a professor at my university. There is constant talk of anti-Semitic behavior but the same concern never seems to be present when it comes to Palestinians. This, I believe, is causing a void that could be mended with a simple acknowledgment. What Hamas did on Oct. 7 was nothing short of cruel and disgusting. I think if people want to raise a genuine moral concern with Israel’s response, the basic condemnation of Hamas is a good starting point. This isn’t to say the context should be ignored, in fact, my position is the reverse. However, we cannot deny that Hamas intended to kill Jewish people because they were Jewish. Hamas’ actions are representative of an enduring passion for anti-Semitism that should be examined and then subsequently destroyed.

That being said, let’s continue to address the two criteria that I find debatable, not because they are falsely using the anti-Semitic label, but because it is interesting that Israelis in the high ranks would likely agree these criteria are anti-Semitic but would not make the same concessions if you change “Jews” with Palestinians or "Palestine” with Israel.

The two points are:

1. “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

2. “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

I can see the “Jew-hater” comments coming from a mile away, but I urge the serious reader to consider my points. I will start with point two and then circle back to the first.

The IHRA is absolutely correct that Jews should not be held collectively accountable for the actions of their government. Such an act, in effect, would not only reinforce anti-Semitic behavior but would also be a direct violation of international law; therefore, it would be a breach that would deserve prosecution. Implied is the necessity to hold Hamas accountable for their actions. From what I know about Hamas thus far, it is not obvious to me they hold the key to a successful Palestinian future. This should go without saying. After all, they slaughtered innocent people at a concert and in the kibbutz in what should be described as nothing other than a fanatical episode pumped and fuming with rage and excitement. These actions are indeed a form of resistance but not justified resistance.

But should the Palestinians be flattened and inflicted with petty torture in response to Hamas’ actions? Bombarding Gaza, whose civilian population lives densely and air-tight (half of whom are children), will undoubtedly be a form of collective punishment. At the time of writing, this threshold has already been passed. Additionally, the phrase “Israel’s right to defend itself” has become somewhat hijacked by deluded pundits and commentators to imply that the total destruction of Gaza is the only necessary condition to fulfill this pursuit.

Israel, it seems, needs to be re-educated on what happens when you continuously support the establishment of an “open-air prison” and what academic Norman Finkelstein calls (referring to Gaza) “the world’s largest concentration camp.”³ If it is not obvious, the notion that Israel would place people in a concentration camp given Jewish history (The Holocaust?) is hypocritical and a violation of the first [IHRA] criteria. I believe these claims against Israel are valid (see Finklestein’s work) and thus, it is not inappropriate to say that Israel behaves Nazi-like. The scale is clearly different, so one must tread lightly with this accusation. But if we cautiously listen to Kant, intentions reveal a great deal of moral worth. Look to the words of none other than Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu, who cited the Bible and equated Hamas and the Palestinians with Amalek. The nefarious suggestion that retaliation in Gaza has grounds in biblical scripture, and is therefore justified, is genocidal and Nazi-like!

How are we supposed to ignore this fact when schools, mosques, hospitals, and everyday homes are being bombed? How are we supposed to ignore this fact when innocent men, women, and children are treated as if they never existed in the first place? Israel cut off all food, water, electricity, and fuel into Gaza. Who could view such a thing and not regard it as a blatant case of collective punishment? How can anyone expect Hamas not to retaliate, even if it is through unjust means?

In reality, I cannot think of any group of people that has been historically oppressed, and at the same time, hesitated to respond with some act of violence. Most of us in the West readily support resistance if it is in the name of “democracy” and/or “freedom,” and due to the vagueness of these terms, it is impossible to clarify precisely what one means by “democracy” or “freedom.” We have our textbook definitions and well-regarded political theory, yet we are unable to implement them when we recklessly topple regimes and invade third-world countries. The latter point doesn’t fortify the moral position of the Western world, thereby enhancing the ignorant draw to Hamas. Does this mean that Hamas is absolved? Should their actions be regarded as solely an attempt at freedom? Absolutely not. I’ve disagreed with some of my peers on this point. Anyone who kills civilians in a reckless and indiscriminate manner, showing no concern for the taking of innocent life, should be denounced and condemned to the highest degree. I hold this point against Hamas AND Israel. It is not a contradiction to do so. Anyone who suggests otherwise, “are the ones who are effectively blocking a solution.”⁴

To reference Peter Hitchens once again, he recently noted in an interview that Israel’s current path in Gaza is “militarily useless and politically disastrous,” especially because it is impossible to terminate an ideology with brute force.⁵

In fact, it would appear that indiscriminately killing Palestinians would only embolden Hamas. This point was reinforced by Elon Musk in a recent interview with Lex Fridman. Musk poses a simple question: “For every Hamas member that you kill, how many did you create?” He adds that “if you [Israel] kill somebody’s child in Gaza, you’ve made at least a few Hamas members who will die just to kill an Israeli. That’s the situation.”⁶

Musk’s words couldn’t be any more truthful. Israel would not be losing support on the world stage (although it still maintains a large amount) if it took a different approach to Gaza. If anyone disputes the absolute horror occurring within the Gaza Strip, I would be more than happy to refer them to the overflowing amount of videos and photos of children with their heads peeled in half or eviscerated from their bodies completely. Newborns who are hardly more than a few pounds are violently jolted as care workers perform CPR. Currently, babies are dying due to the lack of incubators. This is all well documented, and I encourage anyone to scour the internet for this information. There is talk of Israel supplying incubators (who knows whether this is true), but surely, allowing the hospital fuel and electricity would be the most effective way to prevent infant death, right? What did newborns and children do to deserve this? (if one takes a pro-life stance on abortion, I pose the following question: how can you justify the indiscriminate death of children in Gaza, and at the same time be opposed to abortion? We often hear figures like Ben Shapiro saying “Life begins at conception” and therefore should be protected. However, where is this regard for the life of newborns? After all, they were already brought into this world and deserve a chance at life. An unrelenting regard for human life in the abortion argument does not seem to translate into war. These spent and wasted lives are mere collateral damage. A cost of doing business, right?).

Moreover, according to the U.N., around 55,000 Gazan women are pregnant with 5,500 set to give birth in the coming weeks.⁷ Surely, if Israel continues its wartime conduct, we can be sure some of these women will experience abortion by bombing. An abortion that takes out the child and mother. Pro-life right?

The usual question in response to everything I raised in this entry is: what is an appropriate response for Israel?

An alternate approach seems to be the moral approach. Israel should make an effort to do good in not only Gaza but also in the West Bank (where Jewish settlers and IDF soldiers have been continually harassing and killing Palestinian civilians). This would further aid Israel’s reputation and show the Palestinian people that they are not represented by a terrorist group (do not let anyone simplify the argument by claiming that Palestinians do represent Hamas because they elected them. Benjamin Netanyahu propped up Hamas because he knew they were not reliable partners; he knew he always had a scapegoat). If Israel (honestly) worked to mobilize the population against Hamas and offered Palestinian civilians genuine security, we may see a different society in front of us today. However, Palestinians will grow to hate Israel for killing their family members, and who can blame them? On 9/11, we hated those who took our fellow Americans, right? To put it in context: roughly four times the amount (and counting) of civilians have perished in Gaza than on 9/11. Given this alarming fact, I believe the previous question is the wrong one. Instead, we should be asking: when is enough, enough? When will the internationally recognized occupations end? When will Palestinians have their right to self-determination? If the Israelis do, so should the Palestinians.

As this war continues, I want to make sure that all sides are held accountable. An equal standard applied to all conduct is the only path to remain consistent. Anything else is propaganda and dangerous falsehoods, something we are dangerously immersed in already.

(Photo credit is to Nidal Alwaheidi on iStock)

1. https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism

2. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12656959/PETER-HITCHENS-Bombs-havent-worked-one-thing-Israel-avoid-trap-Hamas.html

3. https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/norman-finkelstein-gaza-iran-israel-jerusalem-embassy/

4. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/israel-palestine-hamas-and-hardliners-against-peace-by-slavoj-zizek-2023-10

5. “Israel & Palestine | The War Against Hamas | Peter Hitchens” - John Anderson

6. “Elon Musk: War, AI, Aliens, Politics, Physics, Video Games, and Humanity | Lex Fridman Podcast #400”

7. https://news.un.org/en/interview/2023/11/1143327