I’ve been struggling to find something to say about the unfolding horror in Gaza. What is happening there is not war, but murder on an industrial scale. It is a conscious effort to bring about the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of human beings, and to permanently drive millions from their homes. It is the deliberate destruction of a whole society. And it is happening in full view of the world, with the enthusiastic support of the governments of the United States and most of Europe. We can’t look away from this. We have to say something, whether or not our words have any effect.
But I think they can have an effect. Israel depends on support — material and moral — from the US, and from other countries whose governments are more or less vulnerable to public pressure. (Perhaps it’s less dependent than it used to be, but less does not mean not at all.) Right now they have a free hand, but they won’t forever. Public opinion is clearly shifting, and the costs to other governments of their complicity are growing. There is a limited window within which the killing and displacement can continue, a window whose size depends on world opinion. Anyone with a public platform, however small, can try to help close it. The most important thing now is to demand an immediate ceasefire by Israel. If you can say that anywhere where people will hear you, then, in my opinion, that’s what you should say.
So I was very glad to see the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) put out a statement on Gaza that begins by expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people, and calls for an immediate ceasefire as its first demand. URPE is as far as you can get from being an important geopolitical player. But it’s my own professional home, so it matters to me, and I’m sure to a number of readers of this. It’s also an organization founded on the principle that economists and social scientists cannot be dispassionate technicians and observers, but have a responsibility to take sides in the struggles of our times. It’s good to see that, after some initial hesitation, they lived up that commitment here.
The statement is below. It’s a good statement. I endorse all of it.
We stand in unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian people. Since October 7th, 2023, over two million people have faced a brutal onslaught by the Israeli military and state. They have been forced to flee with nowhere to go as homes, shelters, evacuation routes, border crossings, hospitals, places of worship and entire neighborhoods have been bombed.
We mourn civilian deaths in both Israel and Palestine. Israel’s retaliation for the October 7th incursion continues, however, and over 9,000 Palestinians have been killed in the ongoing assault so far. The estimated number of children among the casualties is over 3,000 and UNICEF estimates that about 420 children have been killed or wounded daily. Even reporters have been threatened with violence or killed.
Since the Nakba 75 years ago, the Palestinian people have endured profound suffering, forced displacement, and a brutal 16-year-long inhumane siege and blockade in Gaza. Human rights organizations have characterized Gaza as ‘the largest open-air prison’.
We also condemn the role of the U.S. state in supporting the ongoing siege in Palestine, its support for the horrors inflicted on Gaza, and its refusal to support a humanitarian ceasefire. It is imperative that we do not turn our backs on the devastating impact of this violence on people’s lives. The fight for Palestinian liberation and a fair, enduring peace in the region is intricately linked with the liberation and resistance efforts spearheaded by indigenous, colonized, and oppressed communities historically and worldwide.
We stand in support of efforts by the Palestinian people to sustain themselves economically through control over their land and their labor. We stand in solidarity with the anti-Zionist Jewish communities that have been raising their voices against the carpet bombing of Gaza, for the liberation of the Palestinian people, and who are working for a just, equitable, and durable peace.
We urgently call for:
(1) An immediate ceasefire
(2) Immediate restoration of food, fuel, water, and electricity to the Gaza Strip
(3) Cessation of all settlement activity and disarmament of all settlers
(4) Immediate delivery of humanitarian aid on the scale required
(5) Respect towards the Geneva Conventions by all parties concerned
(6) An end to apartheid and strident moves toward a democratic future for all people regardless of race, religion, gender identity and nationality
In addition, we strongly uphold the principle of academic freedom, especially in light of the current global climate where individuals in educational institutions worldwide face termination, doxing, and harassment for speaking up against the atrocities of the Israeli state and in support of the civilian population in Gaza. Neglecting this commitment would be a betrayal of our scholarly and moral obligations.
Oct. 7 incursion? That’s all it was? No calling for release of hostages? There was a ceasefire on Oct 6., I’m sure you know.
It’s great that we live in a connected society. You cannot make the Internet forget that you wrote this.
You have been marked. FAFO.
History didn’t begin on October 7. I welcome your hatred.
You know what’s missing from these demands?
1. A demand for the return of the hostages.
2. The end of Hamas rule in Gaza. Hamas is a regime that is homophobic, transphobic, does not tolerate freedom of speech, religion, right of assembly, the or press.
3. The disarming of Hamas so they can’t commit genocide again.
Apparently all of this is fine. Personally, I’m critical of Bibi and blame him for the lack of a Palestinian state by now. But there demands are out of touch with reality.
I don’t agree. Among other reasons, we as Americans and Europeans can only make demands on our own governments. The US is, in our name, actively supporting the violence committed by Israel, so we can and should demand that they stop doing so. Hamas is not acting in our name or with our support, so it is meaningless to make demands on them.
No, you’re abdicating responsibility. Gazans are dependent on the international solidarity movement now more than ever. They may listen to its demands.
And Hamas is definitely getting support from the pro-Palestine movement. Hamas is banking on international pressure to force a cease-fire before Israel defeats them. If the movement helps win a cease-fire, it has to accept that its actions have helped keep Hamas in power.
So it is very meaningful, and possibly effective, for the pro-Palestine movement to demand that Hamas surrender or take measures short of surrender. For example, Hamas could declare portions of Gaza an open city, withdrawing their forces so Israel can take control without fighting. This would be especially helpful in areas surrounding hospitals.
It’s also meaningful for URPE and you to vehemently denounce Hamas war crimes, and its program for a sectarian-nationalist dictatorship “from the river to the sea.” (I know you don’t mean to endorse Hamas maximalism with that slogan, but that’s how Hamas and many Palestinians interpret it, so I hope you will stop repeating it.) Gazans should get the message, especially from their friends, that their best path forward is to oust Hamas.
This doesn’t mean that you’re wrong in demanding a ceasefire. You’re doing that to save civilian lives, not to help Hamas. But you still have to accept the survival of Hamas as a consequence. Just as I have to accept that by not (stridently) calling for a ceasefire I bear a moral onus for Palestinian civilians killed in this war, you have to accept an onus for civilians killed by Hamas in the future (and by future Israeli retaliations). There are moral complexities and trade-offs here.
If you really want peace and justice for the Palestinians, you should take the problem of Hamas as seriously as you do Israel’s excesses.
–“(5) Respect towards the Geneva Conventions by all parties concerned.”
Good luck getting Hamas to respect the Geneva Conventions.
I would feel better about the URPE statement if it had a 7th point calling on Hamas to agree to an immediate unconditional surrender, lay down their arms and go into captivity as POWs. That would end the hostilities right away.
Hamas started the war with the October 7 atrocities, breaking a two-year truce. Israel had a right to declare war on Gaza for that, and her war aim of defeating and overthrowing Hamas is legitimate. Hamas therefore bears a heavy culpability for the war and attendant casualties, as well as for the war crimes it committed, and has a moral obligation to surrender to prevent further civilian suffering—one that’s at least equal to Israel’s moral obligation. To focus only on Israel’s culpability and moral obligations while saying nothing about Hamas seems biased and unrealistic.
Also, a Hamas surrender is a better outcome than an Israeli cease-fire. The latter would cement Hamas’s dictatorial rule in Gaza and lay the groundwork for future terrorist atrocities and Israeli retaliation. A Hamas surrender would remove them from power—which would substantially improve the prospects for peace, an easing of the blockade and a better life for Gazans.
Huh, I knew you had gone to the right, but I didn’t expect a defense of Israeli genocide from you. Ah well. Hope you’re making some money these days.
It’s not a genocide. It’s not good to use that word when it doesn’t fit; it just stokes extremism and more violence.
It fits. Read this. Or this.
Oy, Norman Finkelstein? The Israeli attack does not constitute a “textbook case” of genocide as your sources claim. Sorry to get pedantic below, but there is a very serious purpose to getting the definitions and concepts straight.
Military operations that kill civilians, even thousands of civilians, do not constitute genocide, nor does cutting off food and fuel to a besieged city. These acts might be war crimes, but war crimes aren’t the same thing as genocide. They might not even be war crimes; they could be legal under the Geneva Conventions if they are incidental and proportionate to a legitimate military aim like defeating Hamas. (If Hamas is storing rockets in an apartment building basement, it’s a legitimate target for Israeli bombing per Geneva.) There has also been talk in Israel of driving all the Palestinians out of Gaza. I don’t think Israel will go through with that, but if she does it might be a war crime, and certainly ethnic cleansing, but it’s not genocide because mass expulsion doesn’t necessarily kill anyone (or steal anyone’s children).
To be genocidal, such actions must be undertaken for the purpose of destroying Gazans as a group simply for their identity as Gazans (or Arabs, or Muslims) independently of legitimate military aims like defeating Hamas. Despite frightful rhetoric from some far-right officials, it doesn’t look like the Israeli government is really trying to destroy Gazans because of their collective identity (the “geno” in genocide).
It’s crucial to get these definitional niceties right because they convey the intentions behind Israel’s attack, and thus determine whether Gazans–Hamas or civilians–should keep fighting or surrender. If they are caught in a genocide then they have to keep fighting no matter what because the Israeli intent would be to keep killing them even if they stop fighting and surrender. But if it’s not a genocide they can quit fighting and surrender, because the Israelis would spare their lives. See the difference?
That difference is all-important. Israel is currently saying that Hamas is melting away and retreating south. If true, it’s great news because it means Israel can take control of Gaza City without much more fighting, halt the airstrikes and shelling, bring in humanitarian aid and hospital supplies, save the incubator babies, etc. My guess is Israel will do that: since they are not committing a genocide, they will stop killing noncombatants once Hamas leaves, and even render them assistance. I doubt Hamas soldiers take genocide rhetoric seriously, but if they do it could motivate them to fight harder, which is bad for everyone. (It could also motivate anti-Israel nuts to commit terrorism.)
Again, this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t call for a ceasefire or criticize Israeli actions. Just please don’t call it a genocide; that’s an inflammatory misuse of language that could get people killed.
Oy, Norman Finkelstein?
Do you think that sort of sneering proves anything? You used to be smarter than that.
What we have, on the one hand, is the use of all the tools of modern warfare indiscriminately against an entire population — homes, schools, hospitals, infrastructure of all kinds. And on the other hand, statements from the top leadership of the country that the goal is extermination. When Netanyahu refers to the Ameleks, you think, what, he’s just kidding? Poetic turn of phrase?
There are plenty of documented cases of surrendering Palestinians, with white flags, being shot point blank by Israeli forces. You don’t see it because you don’t want to see it.
At one point in your life, if you saw defenseless people being slaughtered by a modern military, your sympathies would have been with the victims. Now you are on the other side. I don’t know what happened to you, but I’m done. No more comments from you here, on this or any other topic.
It seems like you need this:
Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
If Israel is trying genocide, it is failing miserably. It is disingenuous to pretend to believe that Israel is trying to kill of a population of two million people. It is tragic that Palestinians are dying at such a high clip. It is also tragic that they are nationless and that the only way they see out of that situation is to destroy Israel. But when a group as Hamas uses places like Gaza City as a launching pad for horrific acts against another nation, it is the responsibility of the attacked nation to do the best they can to lower the probability that it will happen again.
It is bizarre to me how much of my fellow left wingers oppose Israel so virulently. It is inconsistent with the rest of our generally held values.
My impression is that both Hamas and the Israeli settler movement would most like all of “the other side” to leave Palestine/Israel in the manner that Ugandan Asians were expelled from Uganda. Idi Amin did not need to commit genocide because the Ugandan Asians were compliant and left and integrated into the societies they escaped to. I’ve heard/read some Zionists say that there is no such thing as a Palestinian, that they have no national identity as such and would be just as much at home if expelled to (supposedly “back” to) Egypt/Syria/etc. Likewise I’ve heard/read anti-Zionists say that 3rd/4th/nth generation Israeli Jews should go to (supposedly “back” to) Europe/America/Egypt/SouthAfrica/etc. There is a spectrum between what Idi Amin did and canonical genocides (eg Holocaust/Armenian/Rwanda/Rohingya). I suppose at one extreme the oppressors determine to kill every member of a people regardless of whether they are willing to emigrate or abandon their collective identity. The other extreme is where the oppressors merely threaten to severely persecute every member of a people unless they are willing to emigrate or abandon their collective identity and the people comply before violence is deployed. It seems to me that both Israel and Hamas are part of the way along that spectrum.
I should add that if two opposing sides each have genocidal tendencies towards one another, then it is hopeless to say each has a right to do whatever it takes to defend itself against genocide. The only hope is to work towards de-escalation and the very hard task of winding back from extremism. That is why I support the calls for a ceasefire despite that scuppering the understandable aim Israel has of destroying Hamas. My impression is that it is a mirage to imagine that Hamas or its successors can be defeated militarily. If the injustice and hatred are there, something like Hamas will always pop up.
Sorry, obviously “doing whatever it takes to defend itself against genocide” actually, in reality, entails peace-building, mutual trust and coexistence. What is hopeless is trying to kill and bomb a way to victory.
The post WWII reconstructions of Germany and Japan were such a success because the victors wanted post-WWII Germany and Japan to be successful and supported them towards that. If Israel were to occupy Gaza but then, in cooperation with the UN, open the seaports, encourage rebuilding, sort out the settlement situation in West Bank and ensure a viable prosperous Palestinian state, then my guess is that Hamas type movements would get about as much support as Nazism does in post-WWII Germany.
If Israel were to show any indication towards such an ambition, then I would view their Gaza campaign differently.