genocide Archives - Writeside.com

No Good Outcome

The dreaded 2024 U.S. Presidential Election is nearly upon us, and many Americans report heightened anxiety. U.S. voters are right to be anxious, but perhaps not for the reasons they think.

There is a widespread narrative that casts this election as a battle between authoritarianism on the one hand, and democracy on the other. That is a superficial, black-and-white fairy tale that bears little resemblance to the truth. It would have you believe that, if the Democrats can manage to win, America will be saved and reason will prevail.

But consider: the country is intractably divided, almost 50-50. The election will not change that. Voters are divided largely on the basis of educational attainment, and the U.S. educational system has performed poorly in recent decades (hence the divide). The election will not change that, either.

Consider, too, that the world is becoming an increasingly dangerous place. Vicious, genocidal campaigns are occurring in the Mideast and Africa, and they are simply background noise in the West. Climate change is accelerating more rapidly than anticipated, and the powers that be ignore that, too. Will the 2024 election change either of those realities? Will it result in a more equitable and peaceful human society, even in the United States?

Of course not.

In this context, why should one even bother to vote?

The answer to that question summons the old hope vs. despair argument—i.e., you can either give up, or you can try to make things better in some small way.

One could argue that, over the course of millennia, humanity has made gradual advances and improvements.

One could also argue the opposite.

If you believe in incremental progress, then you should vote for Kamala Harris and the Democrats. Such a vote is less likely to result in immediate chaos or increase human rights violations and/or climate disasters. (Although all of these certainly remain possible.)

Just realize that your vote, and the election, will improve nothing by themselves. Change for the better will remain up to those willing to undertake it, after the votes have been cast.

A Sick Relationship

The anniversary of the October 7 attack on Israel is rapidly approaching, so this seems an appropriate time to take stock of what, if anything, has changed in the never-ending Mideast horror show. The answer, unfortunately, is not much.

After October 7, there was a rightful condemnation of Hamas for the savagery and scale of its attacks on Israel citizens, and for the taking of Israeli hostages. Some 1,200 Israelis were killed, and around 250 were taken hostage. While some Arab and Muslim-majority countries (and some American college students) blamed Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories as the root cause of the attack, most global observers described the Hamas attack as terrorism.

Enemies of peace—U.S. & Israeli burning flags. — Enemies of peace. Source: independent.co.uk.

Almost immediately, though, Israel returned to the lopsided violence it has displayed from the time of the Nakba. Roughly 41,000 Palestinians have been killed to date, of whom nearly 18,000 were women and children. The actual number is probably higher. These people, mostly innocent civilians, were not just killed, they were killed with a vengeance—2,000-lb. bombs dropped on hospitals and shelters, in a campaign of indiscriminate destruction which has virtually leveled the entire Gazan infrastructure. And now the contagion of Israeli violence has spread to the West Bank, where “settlers” are murdering Palestinians with impunity. It is an old, old story: brutal force prevails. And it is a story in which Americans are strongly complicit.

(Americans, so far, have not been identified as complicit in the exploding pagers incident in Lebanon, a particularly sadistic example of Israeli belligerence.)

There is little doubt that Benjamin Netanyahu and his corrupt, right-wing government are guilty of numerous war crimes. Netanyahu is widely viewed as perpetuating the “war” (an inappropriate term for such a one-sided conflict) to avoid criminal prosecution, with no regard for Israeli hostages (or humanity in general) whatsoever. Regular Israeli citizens have repeatedly protested his government’s actions, to no avail. Netanyahu is doing what he is doing with American-supplied materiel and support, but this is not the only instance of the sick relationship between the two countries.

It is sickening to see Secretary of State Antony Blinken shuffling ineffectually back and forth, mouthing pieties about Israel’s right to self-defense and gently tapping Netanyahu’s wrist for various atrocities. It is sickening to see the elderly President Biden refusing to modify his support of Israel or significantly modify the American flow of weapons to the country, despite growing evidence of genocide in Gaza. And it is sickening to watch U.S. college students being arrested and punished for calling attention to that same genocide.

The U.S. presidential election occurs not long after the Oct. 7 anniversary. A Trump victory would only solidify America’s blind support of Israel. A Harris victory, though, might just tilt the relationship ever so slightly in the direction of justice.

The ultimate goal, as so many have said forever, is a two-state solution, where both nations are free and equal and Israel is no longer an apartheid state and an oppressor. That is the only way that Israel will ever be truly secure. This dream scenario seems as distant as ever, though. But that’s no reason why a new American president can’t nudge things toward the goal, by taking a firmer diplomatic stance with Israel and implementing a more rational policy of support, one which hinges on Israeli behavior.

Genocide in Gaza

Where to begin? Let’s start with the oft-cited justification for the atrocities Israel has committed in Gaza since the Hamas attack of last October 7: “Israel has the right to defend itself.” What does that actually mean?

In practice, it seems to mean whatever the Israeli government says it should mean. It means well over 30,000 Gazan deaths so far (over 32,000, according to Al Jazeera), including a shocking number of children. It means indiscriminate bombing and reducing homes to rubble. It means mass displacement and it is beginning to mean starvation.

Yazan Kafarneh, 10, died of severe malnourishment on March 4. Photo: Hatem Ali/Associated Press.

Many Western figures, in government and media alike, seem to accept this “anything goes” rationale as a logical extension of Israel’s “right to defend itself.” President Biden basically endorsed this stance after October 7, before his more recent cosmetic, slow-moving retreat. And David Brooks, a supposed compassionate conservative, exemplifies the tortured logic behind Israel’s supposed need to obliterate Gaza in the process of defeating Hamas in a recent column entitled, “What Would You Have Israel Do to Defend Itself?”

“So where are we?” Brooks asks. “I’m left with the tragic conclusion that there is no magical alternative military strategy.” The rest of the column duly notes Israeli discrimination against Palestinians and the need for a more equitable future (but without endorsing a two-state solution).

Let’s illustrate this thinking in blunt terms. Mr. Brooks, do you believe it was necessary for Israel to kill more than 32,000 people, including more than 13,000 children; to destroy more than half of Gaza’s homes (some 360,000, Al Jazeera estimates); to implement mass displacement and withhold shipments of aid to create starvation for use as a weapon, in order to defeat Hamas? Answer: yes (tragically).

More than half of Gazan homes have been destroyed. Photo: Mohammed Hajjar/AP.

By this same rationale, it was necessary for Hamas to attack Israel on October 7 and kill more than 1,100 Israelis in order to fight injustice, strike a blow for freedom and underscore the Palestinian cause. If you’ve been oppressed for more than 70 years, had your land stolen and your rights taken away, doesn’t the end justify the means? Many American college students believe exactly that, which is why the leaders of Harvard and Penn were deposed, after a self-righteous and hypocritical hearing in the House.

The truth, it should be obvious, is that no one has the “right” or the justification to murder innocents. Yet Israel and its defenders insist on precisely that right. At times, they employ the memory of the Holocaust or Shoah, to underscore their need to have this right. If you’d like to take a closer look at how the Holocaust is employed in service of Israel’s murderous policies, this article in the London Review of Books does just that.

South Africa has brought a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, the United Nations’ highest court, arguing that Israel is committing genocide. Most Western countries will reject this claim, but it appears Ireland is about to file an argument in support of South Africa’s case.

We believe genocide is occurring in Gaza, and that Israel and its leaders have committed numerous war crimes. We also believe Israel’s current actions have provoked a spike in antisemitism worldwide and have imperiled the country’s future security.

Ideally, an ICJ verdict in support of the genocide charge would be a first step toward justice and, hopefully, change. But change remains unlikely, especially if the U.S. continues its unequivocal military and financial support of the rogue Israeli state.