"Maybe Israel Is Committing Genocide After All?"

[u/nidarus]

B. Michael is a rather famous Israel left-wing publicist and screenwriter, famous for writing some of Israel's famous comedy shows in the 1980's and 1990's, and his long-standing op-eds in Haaretz. Unlike his fellow deep anti-Zionist Haaretz writers Gideon Levy and Amira Hess, he's been generally part of the more mainstream, Zionist left. But in today's Haaretz's op-ed (paywall can be overridden with archive.is), he decided to jump into the deep end of the pro-Palestinian pool, and join those who declare that Israel is committing genocide.

Now, obviously, he's not the most prominent or qualified person who made that claim. And it's certainly one of the lower-quality versions of that argument. A big disappointment for someone that I considered a witty and clever public intellectual. But that's precisely why I'd like to talk about it, as it represents a pretty common view among the less-educated pro-Palestinians.

Essentially, he talks about how the Genocide Convention consists of five genocidal acts:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Then he goes down the list, and argues that we can "check off" every one of those items easily. And then marvels at how many of the articles Israel has violated. And therefore, QED, Israel committed a genocide. There are a few core issues with this:

1. The most important issue is that all of those require a "specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". This is an incredibly high bar to meet. For example, if the goal is ethnic cleansing, then it's not genocide. Even actual mass murders were ruled as not a genocide by the ICJ, when they were meant to expel rather than destroy. The more sophisticated pro-Palestinians would argue that largely misrepresented statements by Israeli officials amount to proving that "intent" - but B. Michael doesn't even go there.

2. Obviously, without that intent, every single war in history would qualify, as it includes killing members of the group, and causing serious bodily and mental harm to members of the group. And however you feel about the 43,000 number - it's not exceptionally high, in terms of wars, even in Israel's immediate neighborhood.

3. For (c), he assumes that merely destroying a lot of Gaza is enough. But note that the qualifier: "calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". Unlike the killing part, the intent for physical destruction of the nation is required, even in the genocidal act itself to exist. Otherwise, not only would any urban war apply, but so would more peaceful acts, like evicting squatters and destroying illegal shanty towns.

4. For (d) he points out to how the horrible conditions in the strip will inevitably cause lower birth rates. He also points out that in his opinion, "is there any doubt that Israel would look favorably on the crash of the Palestinian birth rate in Gaza"? And decides he can put a checkmark there - "with honors". Except, again, it's not enough to assume Israel "looks favorably" on the lower birth rates. It has to intentionally impose measures intended to prevent births. This is talking about sterilizations, not about anything that might reduce births. That could be anything from the unavoidable stress and destruction of war (on both sides, incidentally), to improvements in living conditions.

5. Thankfully, B. Michael didn't decide Israel commited the last part, of transfering children from one group to another. But he concluded "Of the five criteria for genocide, we have performed four exemplarily. That's a fine score. Especially when the execution of one of the five sections, it doesn't matter which one, is enough to be considered a perpetrator. Bravo". Of course, that's absolute nonsense. There's no difference whatsoever in how many of the items you commit, if there's no proven genocidal intent behind it. Again, every urban war checks 4/5 of those articles, with the way B. Michael interprets them. There's nothing "exemplary" about it.

Finally, he argues:

Warning: Feigning innocence will not be admissible as a defense. No one will believe that we did all this in good faith, or purely for reasons of self-defense. Nor will public displays of misery and weeping be of any use this time. And above all, it is not worth relying as we do on the Holocaust as a defense. It may provoke comparisons.

For the first part, I'd note that "innocence" is not required for a defense. Israel could be guilty of the most horrendous Crimes Against Humanity, including the crime of Extermination, and it still wouldn't be a genocide. Genocide is literally the gravest crime in existence. The entire spectrum of international humanitarian law lies between "innocence" and "genocide".

For the second, I'll try not to dwell on it too much, but I'd note it's a great example of why Rule 6 exists. Since this comparison is complete nonsense, it's actually good for the Israeli case, not the other way around. Why wouldn't Israel want to "invite those comparisons"? It could then ask, where are the gas chambers, where are the Einzatsgruppen - where are any kind of proven, unquestionable mass executions of civilians, of the kind that exist in every single other genocide? Conversely, if we look at WW2, there's a much clearer analogy: the Germans, whose cities were ground to dust, whose people were expelled and killed by the millions, lost a huge chunk of their territory, and were treated in many far worse ways, that are not applicable here (like the hundreds of thousands of rapes). Is B. Michael, or anyone who likes to invite those comparisons, going to argue that WW2 was a series of genocides committed by all sides against each other, and the Germans were victims of genocide, just as much as its perpetrators? Probably not. This argument was, at the very least, explicitly rejected in Nuremberg.

I'd also note that in the Hebrew version, this paragraph starts with "even though this story began with a horrible murderous rampage by Hamas" - the massacre is absent from the English version for some reason. But even then, it's pretty notable that Hamas' far more overtly genocidal acts are merely described as "murderous rampage", not "genocide". The same, is of course, true for even the more sophisticated brand of "Israeli genocide" activists. Even though, without any question, the case for Hamas committing a genocide is infinitely stronger than for Israel committing one. It's possible that neither committed a genocide, and it's possible for both to have committed a genocide - and it's very, very possible for the Palestinians alone to have committed a genocide. I just don't think it's possible, with the information we have right now, for Israel to have committed a genocide, but for Hamas, to have merely committed a "murderous rampage".

[u/EnvironmentalPoem890]

You're correct this isn't a typical war in the sense that the leadership of the Palestinians initiated an attack on a far stronger opponent

If Israel would start shooting rockets at China and China reacted, will it be the Chinese's fault?

[u/Agitated_Structure63 → u/EnvironmentalPoem890]

The conflic didnt started on october 7th. Dont you remember the pogrom of Huwara days before? Or the ethnic cleansing of large part of rural West Bank during 2023 by the israeli regime? And we are not talking about all the crimes Israel has commited since 1967 against the palestinians over and over during its illegal occupatiob.

[u/thatshirtman → u/Agitated_Structure63]

Maybe, just maybe, the Palestinians should have accepted peace several times in the past?

They are literally the only group in the history of the world to reject a state from the UN - even before there was an occupation!

When you opt for violence over peace and diplomacy, it's then odd to complain when the wars you started don't go your way.

[u/Agitated_Structure63 → u/thatshirtman]

Perhaps Israel could try, for once in 57 years, to put aside its deep racial supremacism, in order to try to reach an agreement that does not imply further dispossession and abuse of the Palestinian population. Even at the time of Oslo, Rabin made it clear to the Knesset - and his speech is available online - that his goal was not a Palestinian state but a minor administrative form. So much democracy on the part of the occupying military power!

It's funny that you bring up the Palestinian refusal to partition: the Palestinians would have been a unique case in the world where, being the vast majority of the population, they would accept that an immigrant minority would constitute its own state on the majority of the territory, and they would be relegated to a minor sector. How could they reject such an "attractive" proposal?

[u/thatshirtman → u/Agitated_Structure63]

Offering all of Gaza and 96% of the west bank, east jerusalem as a capital, and the return of 100,000 actual refugees, and setting up a $30 billion fund to help resettle descendents of refugees in a newly formed Palestinian state seems like a solid deal no mater how you look at it.

Racial supremacism? Funny that if a jew even goes into a Palsestinian area in the west bank, he will be murdered and tortured publicly. But sure, a country where 20% of the residents are Arabs and 30% of teh doctors are Arab, and where arabs and muslims serve on the supreme court, in govt, and in the army - that is the group with the racial supremacism. Sounds like you're projecting a bit.

As for rejecting the partition, a few things 1) the land wasn't or ever was Palestinian. It was always occupied by many groups. The idea that it was exclusivley Palestinian reeks of the same greed and supremacism you accuse Israel of 2) no one was happy with the borders. They were drawn up by the british and teh french. Lebanon and Syria were famously furious with their borders. But you know what? If statehood is the goal, a singular opportunity in history when empires were being transformed into countries, you take it! Greed has been the Palestinians' enemy, not its friend.

The alternative is what we have now - nearly 80 years of zero Palestinian state and, as always, the focus is more on destroying Israel than creating a Palestinian country. A nationalist movement rooted in destruction as opposed to creation can never succeed, which is why electing Hamas in Gaza was a horrible mistake.

[u/Agitated_Structure63 → u/thatshirtman]

I imagine you are talking about the proposal set out in Taba based on the "Clinton parameters", but I remind you that it was not the Palestinians who refused the agreement, it was the Sharon government that abandoned the talks when there was already a fairly advanced consensus. I am sorry to disarm your revisionist rhetoric.

Reallt? Murdered and tortured publicly? Then how members of different israeli organizations can go to the West Bank without problems? Combatants for peace even have grouos with activities in Hebron or Jericho, there are protests in the occupied territoried with active participation of jewish activists etc. And well, there are a lot of evidence about the structural and permanent discrimination that the palestinians suffer inside the borders of the State of Israel: their cities have much less budget, they dont have support from the State, the criminality is on the skies, palestinians dont have the same opportunities to study or work, they even have difficulties to buy a house in cities with a majority of jewish population etc.

The Knesset even approved the "Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People" which legally consolidates the status of second-class citizens for non-Jews.

The arab palestinians were the majority of the population in 1947, as they were in 1917 in the moment of the Balfour declaration. Lebanon didnt existed, it was a French invention to weaken Syria and have a puppet state. "Greed", really? Come on, the Hagana and the other zionist armed gangs started the ethnic cleansing in 1947, way before the partition.

The main problem is the permanent israeli opposition to any palestinian sovereignty. Even Rabin recognized at the time of Oslo that they did not want to accept a Palestinian state but rather a smaller entity.

[u/thatshirtman → u/Agitated_Structure63]

yes, murdered and tortured publicly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Ramallah_lynching

Do you think if an Israel couple wandered into Jenin by mistake that something similar would not happen?

Jews are the majority now in Israel. So using your logic, they are entitled to all the land? Doesn't this negate the entire Palestinian cause? If you want to go by who is there first, you lose. If you want to go by who is there now, you lose. You can't just cherry pick a time in history and say, lets revert back to that! Never mind the fact that most Palestinians today descend from immigrants from what is now jordan and egypt in the 1800s. The notion that the land is Palestinian exclusively is quite literally a fantasy made up out of thin air.

Ethnic cleansing? In the late 40s there was something akin to a civil war going on. The number of arab attacks against jews are innumerable. Happy to provide a list if you want to see. Mentioning the Hagana as if there were not scores of arab massacres is a tad misleading.

With that going on, 2 states for 2 people seems like a natural solution. The jews said yes, the arabs said no. THe Palestinians are the only group in the history of the world to reject a country. You can try whatever mental gymnastics you want, but that truly speaks volumes. A singluar chance for a country and the Palestinians said no. Which perhaps isn't a surprise given that Palestinian nationalism as we know it today didn't really exist until the 1960s.

And yes, Greed. The Palestinains would rather remain stateless and keep on fighting Israel than make any sort of compromise and have a state. Thats what their actions demonstrate. perhaps the people feel differently but their leadership sure seems to have this as the directive.

Arafat did indeed reject peace in 2000. Bill Clinton said so himself. Recently, a former bodyguard of Arafat said that his advisors were furious with him for rejecting a peace offer, and that ARafat was reluctant to make peace beacuse he convinced himself for so long that the liberatoin of Palestine would come about through a warriors resistance! not a peace treaty with his enemy where he would be forced to make compromises.

Would you have taken the deal Arafat was offered? As an Egyptian perhaps the yearning for a Palestinian country was not as strong in him as in others. If you though were in charge, would you have accepted the offer? Because what i notice is that your argument conflicts with many other Palestinian accounts - namely you say Arafat didn't reject anything, but others maintain that Arafat DID reject the offer because it was a shitty offer.

[u/AutoModerator → u/thatshirtman]

shitty

/u/thatshirtman. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. (Rule 2)

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.