Before ’28

Standard

Eighty years is too long to wait. Free Palestine before ‘28.

I am not Palestinian and I cannot claim to speak for Palestinians, but I give this work as a mere offering. I can only hope that it rings true in the minds of the people who must live the horrors we seek to end. To silence myself in deference to an identity would serve no purpose.

I am not Israeli. I see the issue of Palestinian freedom as an issue of oppressor and oppressed rather than as a two-sided conflict, yet I still acknowledge the humanity and inextricable interests of Israeli people in the issue and it’s necessary solution.

The only solution is a one-state solution. This is known to any who are honest and uncompromised by vested interests. A two-state solution would never have resolved issues such as the rights of Palestinian refugees whose origins lie in present-day Israel. These rights were recognised in UN General Assembly Resolution 194. Records of refugee status have been maintained through the decades. No political solution can erase the inalienable human rights of these refugees.

The two-state solution stands revealed now for the nonsense that it has always been. There is no plan to force Israeli settlers from the occupied territories. There is no hope for a Palestinian state with territorial integrity. The people of this state would have no protection from Israeli strikes and incursions. Western nations can not be trusted to respect any political autonomy in a Palestinian state because they freely delegitimise and sanction factions whose politics they dislike, labelling them “terrorists”.

Supporters of a two-state solution do not explain how they will establish justice by giving only 22% of the land of mandate Palestine to the Palestinians – they seem instead to think that because Palestinians are suffering they should be grateful to accept less than is their due.

The two-state solution has always been a false hope that is exploited by those who perpetuate a system of apartheid and perpetrate a genocide. The two-state solution has also been cynically used by supporters of Israel’s genocide. The two-state solution has been embraced by cowardly political leaders throughout the world who wish to pretend that they support peace and justice while throwing their energies into ensuring the continuation of violence and injustice.

From the inception of the Zionist project by the British Empire there has been a calculated strategy of keeping Palestinians and their allies on the back foot. They created a racial hierarchy of reporting and of policy. Despite the indigenous residency of Palestinians and the migrant status of most Jews, Jewish rights became something that were presumed and had to be argued against, while Palestinian rights were assumed to be null and had to be argued for.

Our leaders fear the consequences of opposing genocide and seem to think that they will never pay a price for supporting genocide. Such people obey lawless power and spurn powerless law, but true law is an instrument of the people and an expression of their power. When the people awaken, the leaders will rush to have been always against the genocide.

The racist double-standard continues. If a Palestinian commits a crime or atrocity it is taken as evidence of Palestinian terrorist barbarism, yet the very same act could be carried out by Israelis ten or one hundred times and the explanation is that it is a response to Palestinian terrorist barbarism.

As I write we have just witnessed weeks of stories of the brutality, torture, rape, starvation and medical neglect evident on the faces and bodies of those released from Israeli captivity. Our news media have greeted this with silence. Yet when three prisoners of war were released from captivity in a besieged and deliberately starved territory there is an international outcry over the fact that they are gaunt and weak. History will know and judge this reporting for the pro-genocide propaganda that it is.

We can no longer accept this racist framing. We can no longer try to meet disputants halfway when their minds are full of evil racist hate. We can no longer pander to the misapprehensions of the misinformed public. We must strike back mercilessly. Nonviolence does not mean that we will leave people with the comfort of their self-serving lies. If reality causes people pain the real culprits in their suffering are those who convinced them to live in the zone of genocidal fantasy.

Palestinians have been shackled ever since 1948 with the cruelty of having to negotiate for rights that were declared “universal” for everyone but them. They were made stateless in a Zionist settler colonial project that only took root because it was also a British and US imperial project.

The very people who made them stateless have used their own crime as a justification for treating Palestinians unfairly in negotiations. Their statelessness was used to defer recognition of their human rights as if they had somehow not yet achieved the status of human. Though framed as temporary this state has lasted generations and now the very same people treat the historic offences against Palestinian rights (which are still causing harm today) as a mere past grievance to be tutted about and shrugged off. The reaction to oppression that is framed as the problem, not the oppression itself, and the victims are expected to be penitent for their “terrorism” and offer recompense.

The Oslo “Peace Process” was a process leading to no possibility of peace, and the two-state “solution” is no solution. No matter how much Palestinian officials have offered to sacrifice they have been condemned invariably as intransigent for not agreeing to relinquish rights which they have no power to relinquish. Meanwhile Israel is trapped in a web of extralegal entanglement, shackled to the Palestinian people and their ultimate emancipation. The phrase “final status issues” was left hanging in the air after Oslo as a direful reminder that Israel can only exist in its current form by continuing a genocidal conflict indefinitely, or by seeking a brutal final solution of mass death and ethnic cleansing.

As long as Israel continues to insist on being a majority Jewish state controlling the majority of the former Mandatory Palestine they will be inimical to Palestinians. This has nothing to do with conflict, nor any action of resistance by Palestinian groups. Palestinians are enemies of the state of Israel merely by existing. The inalienable human rights of Palestinians cannot be realised while Israel exists on the terms its political leaders insist upon. Thus Israel has long been engaged in a slow but intensifying genocide that seems to be heading inevitably towards the logic of extermination.

For Palestinians the situation becomes ever more horrific. The violence keeps increasing in tempo and magnitude. Officials documented over 60,000 deaths in Gaza from October 2023 to January 2025. The vast majority of these were from the direct trauma of armed violence and they represent only a fraction of those who died prematurely through the total effects of war, including undocumented violent deaths as well as preventable deaths from health conditions, exposure, neglect, poisoning, and malnutrition.

Along with the shocks of armed mass violence, Palestinians face an ever more oppressive web of apartheid control. In Hebrew this is known as hafrada which, as with the Afrikaans word apartheid, can be translated as “separateness”.Like the Indian Pass Laws of California, the Nuremburg Laws, and South African Pass Laws these practices make a false pretence of serving a security purpose.

Apartheid practices cannot serve as a counter-insurgency strategy as they deliberately create a monolithic group based on ethnic identity, not on insurgent activity. Such a strategy seeks to incapacitate resistance rather than ending it, and because its oppression provokes the very resistance it claims to oppose, the ultimate logic is that security only comes from complete enslavement or extermination. Apartheid is inherently genocidal.

Enhanced by technology Israel’s apartheid tactics are ever more pervasive. The controlling electronic presence began by taking streets and public spaces then moved into homes as mobile phones were turned by spyware into bugs, trackers and hidden cameras. Through biometrics the techno-apartheid has invaded people’s bodies themselves. The digital world is full of paranoid spies and aggressive guards who pose real world danger. A post merely expressing a wish for Palestinian freedom can lead to time in a brutal political prison system under “administrative detention” or after being found guilty by a military court of “incitement”.

The control and fear is everywhere. Violent death can come from an innocent misstep. On February 10 2025 a woman who was 8 months pregnant was shot dead because she looked at the ground in a manner considered suspicious. Terror and coercion are constant and inescapable.

Israel also uses automated systems to control the bodies of Palestinians physically. The high technology approach of “frictionless” automated control is a dystopian abomination. It strips all autonomy from subjects, making all life a prison sentence of constraint and insecurity.

For both Israel and the US any challenge to a self-appointed imperium beyond their legal territory is to be met with fetishistically robotic forms of control and killing. The proponents become ever more murderous and inhuman by cultivating a fixation on clinical, sterile, detached “precision” killing. The victims die screaming in bloody chaos, in fear, and in agony, but we privilege the perspective of distant operators and their superiors who call this abomination “surgical”.

“AI” near instantaneously generates death lists of any required number of targets. This is death by datafication. Those deemed terrorists are “proven” to be terrorists by the fact that a computer programmed to designate them as terrorists did so. It is a closed loop; a deadly tautology. In Gaza it is clear that the “AI” system was simply a fast way of producing “signature strike” victims based on phone movements, rather than any sightings of individuals. They use the phrase “artificial intelligence” as if conjuring magic, invoking a sophistication that doesn’t exist. These are just signature strikes produced with great rapidity. They probably produce far more false positives among civilians who haplessly carry unshielded mobile phones than positives among armed resistance members who evade such detection.

The self-fulfilling datafication that defines “terrorists” follows in a tradition of racists, fascists and other megalomaniacs. Those who used phrenology and physiognomy to “prove” low intelligence, criminality, and racial inferiority have been succeeded by racist digital heirs. A whole science is being developed to create a body of knowledge in which “Palestinian” is a subspecies of “terrorist”. This comes to predominate in the crafted and truncated epistimologies that dominate in bureaucratic, journalistic, political, criminological and (above all) military milieux.

The fascistic minds of the oppressors view all Palestinians as actual or potential monsters. They create cruel rituals to cement in their own minds the supernatural evil of their chosen enemies. Prisoners are stripped, blindfolded and bound hand and foot. They are forbidden movement and speech.

In WWII, Germany’s most fanatical SS troops were merely led in columns by scarce Allied soldiers, yet even a Palestinian child is treated like Hannibal Lecter. This is humiliation. This is often painful torture. This is dehumanisation that makes human victims into mere objects, and often obstacles, to those who have power over them. Yet the most important function of this ritual is to reify in Israeli minds the animalistic violence that they choose to see in Palestinians. The ritual sends a message that each Palestinian is like a lethal poisonous animal and could at any time choose to explode in an action-movie frenzy of homicidal/suicidal rage.

The weapons used to kill, maim, incapacitate and poison Palestinians; the technology used to monitor and control Palestinians; and the self-fulfilling racially-informed “science” that defines Palestinians are all developed in a dynamic discourse with other jurisdictions and with other target populations. We know that whatever we allow to happen to Palestinians will come to us in time.

Like the rules of the Jim Crow era in the former slave states of the USA, the rules of hafrada are the formal tip of an iceberg of wider ideology of violent racial supremacy. Among those in uniform the fanatical, the callous and the overly obedient can be equally deadly. Inevitably the disparity in power creates opportunities of impunity for rapists, sadists, and murderers. Palestinians have no meaningful protection from Israelis in uniform.

Out of uniform, civilians exercise nearly as much control enjoying nearly as much impunity as their official compatriots. The selfish and greedy take property, including people’s land and personal homes, with sanction and protection from the state of Israel. In this they act outside of their recognised territory and in ways that blatantly violate its own laws and constitution, with the two wrongs somehow combined into a grotesque legalistic parody of a right.

Settler fanatics inflict cruel harm for reasons beyond material gain. Out of hatred and fervour for the cause of a Greater Israel, they attack people, vanadalise homes, burn trees, kill or steal livestock, cut water lines and even poison wells. Israeli soldiers provide protection for them even when they are committing blatantly criminal and morally indefensible acts.

The complexity and diversity of the oppression of Palestinians cannot be summarised here. The historical nature of the Palestinian genocide is such that it has always sought to cloak itself by denying the existence of Palestinians as a people and by the outright erasure of important historical events such as massacres. As the lies of Zionist historiography were exposed, and as the Palestinian people fought successfully to show the world that they existed as such, the cloaking of the genocide shifted to the pretence of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism.

After the First Intifada the genocide began to hide itself increasingly through a proliferation of trivialities. This is an expected part of genocide, which Lemkin first defined as encompassing everything from censoring poetry to the “organized murder” of millions of Jews. In genocide “different actions” are used to a single end. The slow and longstanding nature of the Palestinian genocide, and the requirements of Israeli hasbara (propaganda) dictate that its intensification came first came in the form of petty injustices creeping into every aspect of life, making simple existence a painful struggle.

Stolen land and homes, destroyed infrastructure, and demolished houses are made irreplaceable by Israeli authorities. Life is deliberately calculated to be intolerable and it has become clear that Israel is using this banal torment as a way of coercing young Palestinians into migrating away.

As the genocide intensifies the violence exceeds the bounds of pogrom and becomes a periodic Holocaust. There is no longer a credible pretence that the pauses between the massacres are opportunities to work towards a peaceful solution. That scam is played out. The era of plausible denial of genocidal intent is gone and we are in an era of implausible denial. Vanishingly few ordinary people believe Israel’s lies about its peaceful aims, but the international leaders need to pretend to believe the lies. (When the tide turns and reality finally pops the bubble of hallucinogens that enwraps the Western world, they will wring their hands and proclaim “nobody could have known”.)

As the genocide becomes ever harder to deny, the anti-Palestinians in all parts of the world have decided they will not concede a millimetre. They have doubled-down on embracing brutal and murderous bullying while becoming ever more histrionic about antisemitism and Israeli victimhood. They have backed themselves into a corner. There is no reasoning with them. They can only be defeated and forced to accept peace.

It may seem hopeless to coerce the 16th most powerful military state on the planet when it has nuclear weapons and the apparently immutable support of the 1st and 6th most powerful military states, yet Israel lives by its international legitimacy. To survive it needs Western backing. We can, however, force Western governments to end their support of Israel’s genocide.

The legal and scholarly consensus has already been settled. The International Court of Justice may be subverted to rule against it, but the fact of the genocide is already established beyond reasonable doubt. At this stage the fight for formal recognition of the genocide has effectively become a litmus test of whether international law is real or merely a mask for the exercise of raw power.

The problem of the illegitimate exercise of power is nothing new. By nature, those with power do not respect the rule of law and are only constrained by the fear of arousing the power of the masses. International law has largely evaded democratic constraint and has been twisted into a system of imperial tyranny. This too is a spreading cancer.

If we do not win the fight to stop the Palestinian Genocide we will lose the most important battle in the fight against creeping global fascism. The US will continue to accelerate its claims to exercise universal jurisdiction beyond its borders, indicting and extraditing people who have never set foot in US territory. Moreover, given that Donald Trump has already claimed that he can ethnically cleanse Gaza under “the authority of the United States”, this means that the executive would not even be constrained by US law. Those countries too weak to resist will become zones of lawless power in the mould of the occupied Palestinian territories, or Iraq under occupation.

Meanwhile the fascist creep into domestic politics will be emboldened. Executive branches will increasingly rule through decree. Legislation will become codified tyranny by enacting “laws” that cannot be reconciled with justice. The police and judiciary will increase the level of colluding obeisance they make to plutocratic power expressed in ever more racist, sexist, classist, transphobic, and homophobic reaction.

The political conversation is the real battlefront that we need to fight on. Genocide apologists hide behind a mask of uncertainty that must be ripped away. The code of journalistic silence has to be broken and politicians must be made to show their hands, choose their side, and see who wants to vote for them once they admit that they support oppression and slaughter. Once the stampede starts, no moderate will want to be the last mainstream political hopeful to be cheerleading a genocide. The remaining fanatic anti-Palestinians will be left with their yapping constituents, revealed as the hateful fringe that they are.

In order to maintain a level of truthfulness we cannot allow the political conversation to be dragged back into the thickets of prevarication. The reality is stark and we cannot tolerate people finally acknowledging the simple morality of ending genocide only to then obfuscate the issue with manufactured complications about implementing the end of that genocide. We have to be sensitive to the human rights of Israelis, but we must accept that some people will pay a price. There is no reason, for example, that any settler who moved to occupied Palestinian territory as an adult should have any right to retain real estate or receive compensation. They are due only humane treatment and welfare provisions that are commensurate with their needs.

Along with many other facts in its favour, a one-state solution provides the clarity that will be needed to end the genocide and restore peace and justice. It is a simple matter of giving equal rights to all of the residents of the territory of Mandatory Palestine. Everyone equal. It may not be easy to achieve, but it is simple to understand and it is simple to demand. There is no other choice.

The rights of current citizens of Israel must be respected, but the resources of the state must be turned away from war and oppression and harnessed to act in recompense for everything that has been taken from Palestinians.

The new democratic state should not be expected to stand alone. The UK and the US owe a massive debt for all they have wrought and they can afford to pay in money and in construction. Those states who voted to partition Palestine also owe a special debt, but all UN member states owe something (if only for allowing Israel to exercise the rights of UN membership when it never even attempted to fulfil the conditions under which it was admitted by complying with UNGA Resolution 194). A revitalised and relegitimised UN can take on the project of building a new Palestine.

Respect should be paid to religious and cultural Jews, to the Hebrew language, and to the name Israel. The new Palestine will be a land that celebrates indigeneity and immigrant culture as complementary. Palestine will be both a bicultural land with intrinsic “Palestinian” and “Israeli” characteristics, and a multicultural land that has always been a fabric woven of many changing threads.

I am not being idealistic. These seeming ideals are just a framework, and within that framework there may be many injustices. Without this framework, however, there will only be endless strife and suffering. Without this both peoples face a future that is bleak. Israel has already become a pariah in much of the world. It cannot resolve its problems with the methods it is currently pursuing. All it can do is fall off the cliff of madness that it teeters on. If Israel’s thought leaders had real freedom of thought they would know this. The world will never forget the Gaza Holocaust, and they will never forgive the next such slaughter. Once Israel becomes too much of a liability the US will no longer protect it or its people. The time to move towards real peace is now.

I have watched events descend into worse and worse violence and destruction. Each time I think this can’t go on; this is too much; the world will not stand for this any longer. And then it just goes on. Most Westerners don’t even get to see the horrors that we see in our social media. The genocide must inevitably end, but if we don’t end it – if we don’t wake the world’s outrage – then the alarm that finally wakes the world will be body count so big that even the Western media and Western politicians cannot ignore the stench of the mass graves. How many people have to die before the world accepts the inevitable?

At each point of new unprecedented horror the anti-Palestinians, in Israel and beyond, have shown that there is no limit to their genocidal thinking. It should be clear now to everyone that there is no crime too ghastly for them to justify, there is no line that can not be crossed. It should also be clear that Israel will only increase its violence over time. Without Palestinian liberation another holocaust is inevitable. It is the global public that must decide that this cannot continue. The people of the West in particular must have a culture change towards democracy and accountability.

We must internalise this struggle, then externalise it.

Gaza’s “Safe Zone” is a Concentration Camp

Standard

Al-Haq, the oldest and most established Palestinian human rights organisation, released an important report about genocide in Gaza, but it should not be important at all. Everyone should already understand that genocide is an established fact. Al Haq should not feel any need to further state that obvious fact. The report should be a matter of academic interest, detailing a grotesque aspect of the deadly campaign in Gaza. There should be no official or scholarly doubt over the gravity, lethality, unjustifiability, and criminality of Israel’s acts in Gaza; and above all there should be no denying their intrinsically genocidal nature. Instead there is yet another powerful and heartrending report trying to break through the wall of equivocation that our media, politicians, scholars and civil society create. (By “equivocation” I mean the practice of portraying the most unambiguous issue of our time as being a quagmire of uncertainty and controversy.)

Al-Haq’s report details a practice of displacement and concentration. It is important to note here that 20th century history revealed the crucial and baleful role that population concentration plays in oppression and mass violence. This was recognised by theorists like Hannah Arendt and Giorgio Agamben, but also by Raphäel Lemkin. Lemkin invented the term “genocide” and later explicitly linked the idea to “concentration camps”, but he did not mean the term in the rigid sense of institutions that were explicitly labelled as such by the states that created them. He wrote, for example, of “concentration camps” used in the genocide against Plains Indians in 19th century USA. The name itself is not important, it is the concentration of a population in areas without the normal collective autonomy and social functions that is important, whether they be named “camps”, “reservations”, “ghettos”, “strategic hamlets”, or “safe zones”.

These concentration zones are always extreme and intense sites of structural violence. Normal structural violence is described by Dr Paul Farmer as “social arrangements that put individuals and populations in harm’s way…. The arrangements are structural because they are embedded in the political and economic organization of our social world; they are violent because they cause injury to people….” In concentration zones structural violence is intensified by the destruction of normal social arrangements that allow for mutual aid and collective self-defence. Victims in concentration zones are stripped naked of all but the most primitive protection and reduced to a status akin to that of livestock unable to resist being herded or separated or ultimately culled.

All structural violence is created and maintained through acts and threats of physical violence, but in a concentration zone these acts are far more frequent and they are by nature omnipresent. It could be towers, wires and guards; or it could be drones, airstrikes, snipers, and threatening texts. The people within the zone cannot escape the heavy weight of potential death that is laid upon them. With or without barbed-wire the result is an entire population confined to a place where ordinary life is abolished. Mimicking the situation of displacement camps, concentration zones make the temporary vulnerability and loss of autonomy of refugees into a permanent twilight of contingent life. Left to their own devices people in refugee camps will reconstitute a way of living (however immiserated) but these concentration zones are kept in hellish condition of dysfunction. Concentration zones are a product and producer of dehumanisation, making extermination ever more thinkable, ever more practical, and ever more proximate.

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide prohibits both “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” and “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. Clearly these are outcomes intrinsic to the creation of concentration zones. By nature such acts of concentration are genocidal on the surface, but can it be merely an allowable expedient of war? In short, no. It can never be justified as “unintentional” (though you would think otherwise from the way our legal, political, journalistic, and scholarly institutions have repeatedly and reliably whitewashed Western genocides). As I will explain, the logic of concentrating a given racial, ethnic, national or religious group as such en masse (i.e. on the basis of their belonging to the group) is genocidal and justifications of military necessity do not and can not withstand scrutiny.

Mao Zedong said that “The guerilla must move among the people as a fish moves in the sea”. He was only saying what imperialist counterinsurgency leaders have believed for a long time. The first acknowledged “concentration camps” were those arising from the Spanish “reconcentration” programme. The stated aim could validly be put in terms of drying the sea in which the guerillas swam. Equally validly, though, it can be seen as an aggression against the people themselves, an expression of animus from a hostile military overlord.i Needless to say these first concentration camps imposed cruel imprisonment conditions that led to mass deaths from starvation and disease. Soon afterwards the British replicated the process, the counterinsurgency rationale, the unspoken animus, and the cruelty, deprivation and mass death. The Germans used concentration camps in both its West African and East African colonies with the same horrific outcomes with the added atrocity that celebrated Nobel Laureate Robert Koch murdered thousands in medical experiments.

Ignoring the peculiar (but also illuminatingii) example of concentration camps in the German Third Reich, there is a clear pattern established here. These early examples alone serve to elucidate the current case in Gaza. Clearly concentration practices cause harms constitutive of genocide as outlined above. Intent is baked into the practice because the harms are intrinsic and it is not possible to undertake coordinated actions such as building camps, violently forcing unwilling masses into those camps, and manning those camps without clear intent. If the concentrated group is a protected categoryiii (assuming this is not merely a short-term displacement), then the acts are therefore genocidal. The Al Haq report details many ways in which, without actually constructing a camp in the “safe zone”, Israel has taken equivalent and even more elaborate measures to concentrate the people into an area where normal life is abolished in every practicable way.

The claim throughout history is always one of military necessity, but it must be made very clear that the existence of a military rationale does not preclude genocidal intent. Quite apart from the fact that these practices have a long history of being militarily counterproductive, even if there were military benefits the genocidal nature is undeniable. The intent is to take actions that cause harm to the protected group, therefore the harm is intentional. The analogy sometimes used is that if I shoot someone dead in the street I cannot then claim that I did not have intent to murder because I didn’t specifically want them dead (e.g. I wanted their sneakers and the expedient I chose was to shoot them in order to facilitate the acquisition). If the act is wilful then motive is immaterial to the criminal intent of the act. If proscribed harms are being done to a protected group in order to achieve a counterinsurgency goal the acts are still genocidal even if the military goal is furthered by those acts. It is actually worth taking a second to think about the moral bankruptcy of those people who suggest that it is okay to commit these acts and they are not genocidal by reason of having a military motive.

Concentration is inherently genocidal and I think there is an illuminating parallel here with the use of economic sanctions that target entire populations. Like many genocidal practices, such sanctions are normalised to the point where anyone suggesting that they constitute the crime of genocide has traditionally been treated like a lunatic, but the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s changed that to some extent. In reaction the US and its minions such as the UK have of late been very careful to stress the “targeted” nature of contemporary sanctions. In the past, however, it was openly stated that “pain” was to be inflicted on national populations in order to induce them to act against their governments. This “pain” translates to serious suffering, premature deaths and sometimes mass deaths amongst individuals who suffer this purely because of their membership of the national group. Only a despicable racist would think it acceptable that the US government and its Western cronies could inflict such suffering for their own ends. And only a despicable racist would lend any credence to the galling arrogant claims made in these circumstances that the suffering is inflicted in the best interests of the victim group. This sham of benevolent intent towards the victims is a ghoulish habit seen often in genocides, where even the desire to exterminate may be couched in terms of humane euthanasia.

The Al-Haq report contains many chilling and sickening details of the humanitarian pretences adopted by Israel during repeated acts of forcible displacement. The report links these to ongoing genocidal acts, but for me the fact of continued concentration is in and of itself a clear indication of genocide. It almost becomes a problem that there are too many ways in which Israel’s action in Gaza have been clearly genocidal since October 2023. The Gaza Holocaust should be understood in similar terms to that of the Nazi Holocaust. Even though the scale is much less, they are both overdetermined as genocides. Genocide is manifold by nature, but current actions far exceed the norms of genocide. It must be understood that there is no “Gaza Genocide”, there is a Holocaust arising from an ongoing Palestinian Genocide.

The Palestinian Genocide itself has happening for 76 years at a minimum. It is easy to infer the existence of genocide from the circumstances which make the Palestinians enemies of Israel by dint of their mere existence. If Israel wanted to end the genocide it would have to seek a political solution that returned sovereign autonomy to all Palestinians and settled legitimate grievances. That would mean complying with, among other things, the part of UNGA resolution 194 which reads “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” The only way that would leave a “Jewish State” would be with massive compromise and expense. (Massive, that is, except by comparison to the endless billions that have been poured into the genocide by Israel’s international sponsors who clearly do not want an end to the genocide. The US and UK seek to dominate the Middle East by using Israel to permanently destabilise the region and have done since the Balfour Declaration).

Without according rights owed to all Palestinians, actions taken by Israel to control Palestinians in 1948 borders (recognised Israeli territory), 1967 (occupied territories), or diaspora settings (such as Lebanon) are unavoidably inclined to be genocidal. Legally Palestinians have considerable leeway to take action in self-defence and against occupation. This includes armed attacks against Israeli forces even in recognised Israeli territory. By nature Israel’s responses are certain to cause serious harm to Palestinians as such because ultimately it is the continued existence of Palestinians as such that is the source of the problem for Israel. Zionist leaders have always claimed that Palestinians have a choice to act a certain way that would end Israeli violence, but that was never the case and the growth of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory in the last 20 years makes even the pretence a transparent mockery. Apart from leaving their homeland, there is nothing conceivable that Palestinians can do to end Israeli violence against them, so the violence of the occupation itself is intrinsically and inescapably genocidal.

Concentration such as we have seen in Gaza is an act of genocide, one of numerous instances. Of late there have been some who say that “genocidal acts” may somehow exist as a technical truth that does not justify saying that “a genocide” is occurring. I cannot think of a more evil twisting of thought. The basis of this perversion is that the victims cannot possibly be considered worthy of being labelled victims of “a genocide”, so if the law literally enumerates multiple ways that they are victims of genocidal acts, it all must in some manner be a less meaningful, less condemnable thing – something (not coincidentally) that our leaders do not feel obliged to act forcefully to stop.

The Gaza Holocaust is an extreme and overdetermined instance of genocidal acts occurring in the circumstance of a long extant and historical genocide. Concentration in the “safe zone” is just one of the many acts in this Holocaust that we should recognise immediately as being genocidal. Al Haq’s report almost seems redundant, yet we need to break through. We need to support those who write such unambiguous works and do not undermine them with qualifications, equivocations or false equivalences. Sadly this is not just about our ongoing unsuccessful attempts to end the slaughter in Gaza. When a ceasefire comes that will not end the suffering and death. We must realise that we are also fighting for the lives of the survivors and to prevent future victims of the next onslaught in Gaza, or in the West Bank, or in southern Lebanon, or ultimately perhaps anywhere in the world.

Notes:

i I want to be very clear that animus is not a requisite of genocidal intent. You do not need to harbour a personal hatred of a group to commit genocide against that group. Hitler himself would affect a dispassionate view of the “Jewish race” in order to fit genocide into the faux-ethics of social Darwinism. Notwithstanding this there is a very important misunderstood role for animus in genocide. Genocide is generally a product of militarism. In all empires, in times of armed conflict, and in times where an internal enemy is portrayed as a military threat (circumstances which cover the vast majority of genocides) decision-making often devolves to racist, chauvinistic, or otherwise hateful military leaders. Even under norms of civil control once the military is involved in state action it is military leaders that make decisions over whether people live or die. They decide what is militarily expedient even if there is civil control over strategy and those tactical practices may be the most deadly part of a genocide. We have been widely remiss in our failure to incorporate into analyses the psychological tendencies of military commanders who, (by selection and through the reinforcement of culture) are aggressive, domineering, authoritarian, and ideologically chauvinistic regarding nation, branch, regiment etc. (I would be very surprised if there were not also a bias towards racial, religious, ethnic, political and cultural chauvinism that is significantly more pronounced than among the general population).

The importance of military decision-making is that it feeds into a dynamic that inclines towards genocide. Even if we ignore, for the moment, considerations of genocide there are other serious matters of illegality and immorality. Tactics of concentration or other military responses that either displace risk onto non-combatants (e.g. use of human shields or disproportionate use of firepower as under the US “force protection” doctrine) or inflict collective punishment, are all morally and legally invalid. The only legal and moral way to deal with an insurgency (assuming it enjoys some level of popular political support) is a political and policing approach. This does not necessarily preclude the involvement of military personnel, but history has shown repeatedly that the normal military response to insurgency is to treat the associated civilian population as the enemy.

The dynamic that needs to be understood very clearly is that treating civilians as hostile is predictably and inevitably counterproductive in counterinsurgency (Malayan Emergency notwithstanding) and blended political/military approaches (such as the US employs) tend only to produce an illegitimate and hated collaborator class. On the other hand the typical military approach to counterinsurgency is very functional in committing genocide. Thus, when such things stretch on for years and even decades the genocidal intentionality is writ large.

ii It is fascinating that the Nazi regime instituted a prison camp system for those considered political and social enemies of the Reich and from the first (Dachau) referred to these camps as “concentration camps”. It is one of many facts demonstrating that Nazi ideology was overtly based on prior imperial practices, but adapted for a greater totality. In the long run the concentration camp system would actually function in much the same manner as its imperial forebears (though admittedly at a larger scale and within an extensive complex of ghettos, labour camps, death camps, POW camps and death squads). The Nazi innovation of rounding up the internal enemy in concentration camps wasn’t entirely unprecedented (e.g. the Tsarist and Soviet use of penal colonies for political dissidents, or equally the British and French use of penal colonies for political crimes and class repression), but the clear identification with the imperialist practice was new. Equally this innovation did not die with the Third Reich. During the Cold War US client states would also use camps for internal enemies, especially immediately after right-wing coups, and authoritarian socialist regimes (especially China) have used comparable camps in different forms and times.

The Nazi concept of the Konzentrationslager was that of a zone of lawlessness and naked power. They saw the innately genocidal aspects of concentration camps (whose harms stem like night follows day from the radical disempowerment of individual and society) and decided to harness that mode of oppression for wider purposes. A lesson that must not be ignored is that this mode immediately began expanding and permeating society.

iii In contrast political groups are not under the supposed “protection” of the genocide convention. Politicide, however, is not a lesser evil. The evil of these practices is in how much suffering they cause. The crucial thing to bear in mind is that neither is ever never morally justifiable. To inflict harm on someone because of their intrinsic group identity or because of the political beliefs they hold is always wrong and condemnable. You might want to think of that next time you come across people justifying lethal action because the person was a “communist” or “Hamas” or even “terrorist” without some realistic indication that they were an actual combatant.

UNSC Draft Resolution on Palestine: Aotearoa Dances the Whisky Tango Foxtrot

Standard

2013-Limbo

This is an unscripted commentary about the abysmal and cowardly draft resolution circulated by Aotearoa/New Zealand at the UNSC. The resolution purports to encourage and to bring closer a “two-state solution” to the occupation of Palestine.
This resolution is founded on delusions and lies that can no longer be excused.
Apologies for the uneven audio quality in the first 10 minutes