 |
| A flag of Israel flying in Jerusalem | photo by Taylor Brandon (Unsplashed) |
The first point is that, unlike the many extremists who view Israel as the source of all evil and disrespect its people and history, I firmly believe in Israel’s right to exist—in the Jewish people’s right to have their own state. For me, this point is non-negotiable.
Unlike many other Zionists, however, I advocate for an Israel different from the one that exists today. The Israel I envision is a secular and progressive country, free from the ethnic and religious divisions of today’s Israel, which many compare to an apartheid state.
My Zionism is, therefore, a liberal Zionism, faithful to the values of justice and equality and far removed from the reality of today’s Israel.
Given the gap between the Israel I hope will one day exist and the Israel of today, I have no hesitation in condemning Israel’s response to the heinous attacks of October 7, 2023.
The collective punishment inflicted on Gaza since those attacks, the statements made by Benjamin Netanyahu, Bezalel Smotrich, and Yoav Gallant during the war—such as Netanyahu’s comparison of Palestinians to the people of Amalek or the obstacles placed on humanitarian aid entering Gaza, which have resulted in International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant—are unforgivable and representative of the disproportionate nature of Israel’s response. I addressed this in my earlier article.
This brings me to the second point left unaddressed in my previous article: how did Israel and Palestine reach this point?
There are numerous factors and events I could point to in response, but I feel that any answers would always be incomplete and biased toward one side or the other. However, taken together, these examples point to the heart of the problem perpetuating the violence: neither side has chosen moral superiority. Each atrocity by one side is met with its own atrocities by the other, a pattern that has defined the history of these two peoples since the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
On one hand, there was the mass expulsion of Palestinians in what came to be known as the “Nakba.” On the other, during the Holocaust, the Mufti of Jerusalem not only demanded that the United Kingdom halt the immigration of Jews to the territory now divided between Israel and Palestine but also met with Adolf Hitler in 1941 to express support for the Nazi regime’s objectives, including the defeat of what the Nazis referred to as the “Judeo-Communist empire.”
One act does not justify the other. Both are atrocious, but their juxtaposition illustrates that neither side has clean hands—a necessary argument against the most fervent (or even fanatical) supporters of either side.
In addition to supporting Israel’s existence, I support the creation of a Palestinian state through negotiations and as the result of a process of peace and reconciliation. Israel’s actions in Gaza, as well as the settlements in the West Bank, are obstacles that make the already difficult two-state solution even harder to achieve. Returning to my January article, this might be the true intention of Netanyahu and his allies—not genocide, but the deliberate impossibility of a two-state solution.
Beyond the local consequences, Israel’s operations in Gaza following the October 7 attacks triggered a response from Hezbollah, which launched rockets into northern Israel. This regional escalation, which lasted for months, resulted in a recent but fragile ceasefire, highlighting how local conflicts can quickly spiral into regional crises and perpetuate instability.
Currently, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is evaluating South Africa’s genocide accusation against Israel. Regarding this accusation, I maintain the position I expressed in January.
Faced with bombed schools and hospitals, decimated cities, blockades cutting off access to electricity and clean water, the use of starvation as a weapon of war, bombings of designated safe zones and refuges, and the aforementioned statements by Israeli officials, I cannot conceive of another definition. Normally, the most difficult element of proving genocide is intent, but the numerous public statements by members of the Israeli government make this task easier, even though it is uncertain whether the ICJ will issue a conviction for this crime.
Regardless of the ICJ’s ruling, it is imperative that the international community address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and ensure accountability for the severe violations of international law. This includes guaranteeing unrestricted access to humanitarian aid, alleviating the suffering of affected populations, and holding all leaders involved accountable. Failure to act not only prolongs the suffering of millions but also undermines fundamental principles of global justice and the credibility of international institutions.
The Need for New Leadership
To overcome this impasse, profound changes are necessary. Leadership must prioritize dialogue over violence and human dignity over suffering. As long as Netanyahu and his allies insist on policies that deepen divisions, and as long as Hamas continues to use violence as political language, the path to peace will remain blocked.
Just as Hamas’s heinous crimes do not define the legitimacy of Palestinian aspirations for an independent state (especially since the West Bank is governed by the far more moderate Fatah), Netanyahu’s actions do not define the unquestionable legitimacy of the State of Israel.
To achieve peace and prosperity for Israel and Palestine, we need better actors on both sides of this conflict—leaders capable of breaking the cycle of violence and recognizing the mutual justice of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples’ claims. Peace, like justice, will only be achieved when both sides recognize each other’s right to exist with dignity and security.
Comments
Post a Comment