Shelley Walia
THE new acts of unspeakable revulsion in West Asia are aggravated by the ‘ethnonationalist militarism’ that has underpinned the ideology of modern Zionism. The shock and anguish in Gaza are a reminder of the dark nightmares of the Warsaw Ghetto and Guernica. The Israeli guns are now turned on the south of Gaza, with the north fully devastated. And as Robert Fisk once observed: “We seem to have lost the sense of immorality that should accompany conflict and violence.” Passion of revenge supersedes the ethics of war or the concern for the lives of children.
The question before us is: When did we stop caring about civilian deaths? Apparently, catastrophic airstrikes on Gaza blatantly ignore the rules laid down by the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Principles. Any disproportionate military action that kills children and civilians is downright infringement of international law. An air attack on a thickly populated area would surely kill civilians, a fact that defines the Israeli military action as culpable of state terrorism. The second Nakba, indeed, is underway. And the danger of the crisis expanding into a regional crisis lurks on the horizon.
It must not be forgotten that in the context of the massive displacement of Palestinians in 1948, and then 75 years of hunger and misery of the people of Gaza, the conditions in Gaza have reached an explosive stage. Though it is Hamas which provoked the onslaught on Gaza this time, it’s Israel’s retaliation which has always been ferociously disproportionate to the loss incurred. More than 20,000 civilians died in Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and 2006. Almost 1,700 Palestinian civilians died in the Sabra-Chatila massacre; 106 Lebanese refugees died in the 1996 Qana massacre.
Relentless bombing continues in spite of the mounting pressure on Israel and the heightened international tensions, intensifying geopolitical volatility. Israel remains incorrigibly adamant, leaving a feeling among the Palestinians that a stage has come when someone, even if it is Hamas, has to stand up for them. Forceful occupation itself is an act of violence that demands retaliation. The continuous targeting of the Hamas leadership, notwithstanding the excessive collateral damage, has undoubtedly driven the inhabitants of Gaza to the end of the tether. The world must, therefore, view the Gaza offensive from the standpoint of long-term Israeli strategic objectives in the history of interminable Israeli authoritarianism. According to political thinker Michel Chossudovsky, Israel has been planning since 2002 to carry out a blitzkrieg against Palestine, using the ‘justified vengeance’ doctrine which propounds in no uncertain terms that (despite its limited military capabilities), “Palestine, rather than Israel, is the aggressor and that Israel has the right to defend itself.” Moreover, it is now known that the October 7 attack was a “false flag operation carried out by a faction within Hamas, in liaison with Mossad and US intelligence.” Therefore, it was not a failure of intelligence, but a plan to ensure a bloodbath in Israel and use it as a justification for the unscrupulous military attack on Gaza.
PM Netanyahu must know that the world is aware of his use of grief as a weapon to validate the escalation of war. He stands unmasked in his statement made in an interview: “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas… This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (March 2019 statement quoted by Haaretz, October 9, 2023). Israel’s move, therefore, is not a tactical military operation, but a strategic decision to continue massive pounding of Gaza and in all likelihood, instigate the second Nakba, this time in the Sinai desert. On the other hand, wishful thinking would suggest that the ensuing war may utterly discredit Israel politically and morally, and contribute to a shift in attitudes even in Europe and, most importantly, in the US. Already, the anti-Zionist Jews residing in the US and in Europe have expressed their resentment at the genocide in Gaza. Many intellectuals in Israel stand opposed to this human rights infringement. More than 300,000 people demonstrated in London the other day. Hannah Arendt and the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party strongly opposed the very idea of partition and the creation of an autonomous Jewish state based on the idea of political Zionism. This extreme right-wing ideology is rejected by many, including even the Holocaust victims’ descendants who stand against Israel’s colonial dominance. Surprisingly, even those whose dear ones are hostages of Hamas have shown resentment against such ruthless vengeance. This resistance to Netanyahu’s Nazi Zionism from within Israel has now resulted in the complete gagging of free speech. Ironically, the victims of the Holocaust have transmogrified into the victimisers.
In the meantime, those who are victims of disinformation have gradually begun to acknowledge that the horrors that are unfolding are not an attack on Hamas, but on the Palestinian society. The enemy is not Hamas but a captive population whose mosques, universities and even hospitals are not spared.
The fact is that Israel is guilty of causing more deaths than Hamas has ever perpetrated. The mass killing of innocent Palestinians will only multiply the anger against Israel. Wiping out Hamas, therefore, is not a problem.
It must be realised that a new resistance movement is bound to rise, and maybe this time bloodier than the militant Hamas. The vital starting point for a debate on this issue must go to the roots of the problem and strive to bring about peaceful coexistence in the region without dehumanising any race. Such a standpoint has the possibility of changing international opinion on the idea of enforcing an anti-apartheid-like embargo on Israel, thereby convincing her to come to the table with an assured commitment by Hamas to cease militant activity.
It’s a rather optimistic vision, but this seems to be the only way out if finally, the two-nation theory has a chance to expedite a solution in West Asia.
