Throughout this whole atrocious attack by the Israel government and IDF against Gaza beginning in October 2023 and still ongoing, several obvious questions have arisen, that just cannot be ignored anymore. Tonight’s piece asks several of these questions and raises the question of whether US complicity in Israeli genocide and war crimes has become active participation in genocide and war crimes or whether there is a danger that it will if US military and financial assistance continues despite the attack on Rafah. The US government acknowledges that this has become a serious issue and we need to discuss that as well.
The US has repeatedly blocked demands for immediate ceasefires in Gaza in the UN. This has been constant; they have effectively enabled the Israeli military and government to pursue and continue a genocide against Gaza. While the Israel government and the IDF insist this is against Hamas, the reality is (and continues to be) that their bombs and the violence, the refusal to allow humanitarian aid to be widely distributed and the deliberate starvation of Gazans (both due to their dependence on food coming from Israel and the refusal to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza during their attacks), the concentrating of refugees fleeing the North of Gaza had already created a humanitarian disaster as the areas where people sought refuge could neither house, feed, or ensure water (and medical care) for that number of people. So, the creation of the situation is completely due to the actions of the Israeli military and government. It is important to note that this is an elected government and which still holds the support of the broad majority of Jewish Israelis. Anyone arguing that this is a “defensive” war on the part of the Israeli military and government is deeply delusional unless they truly believe that the whole of the population of Gaza is Hamas and there is absolutely no evidence for this claim.
Why would the US throw out all its pretence around human rights, international humanitarian law, the convention on genocide for Benjamin Netanyahu and a far-right Israeli government? Both the military and financial aid packages went to purchase weapons that have been used by the Israeli government and military to commit genocide and war crimes. It cannot have taken Biden this long to understand that what is happening in Gaza is genocide (do we really need to wait 7 years for the ICJ to declare the obvious?); nor can he deny the obvious war crimes that have been committed and continue to be committed – deliberate starvation of a civilian population is a war crime.
That is why the issue of the Israeli government and military hampering the delivery of US aid was raised, but that is the wrong question. While the murders of the humanitarian workers of World Central Kitchen (WCK) sparked world outrage; the fact is that humanitarian aid workers had already been killed by the IDF (over 196 before the deaths of those from WCK), the fact that doctors and health care workers have been killed and hospitals targeted and destroyed are obvious war crimes. The fact that US weapons have been used in the attacks on protected persons (i.e., civilians, religious leaders, humanitarian aid workers, doctors and medical personnel – Al Shifa and Nasser hospitals destruction and bodies found at the hospitals) already implicates the US in complicity to commit genocide. If they recognise that they have a responsibility about how their military aid is used, why have they stayed quiet until now? How many have died while the US stymied demands for an immediate and permanent ceasefire?
This week a State Department report about the use of US weapons in a violation of international humanitarian laws was sent to the Congress. In this report which was required due to National Security Memorandum 20 (NSM-20), it was acknowledged that the Israeli government and military had probably used weapons from the US in the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and numerous war crimes.
The release of the report follows President Biden’s sudden turn-around putting a hold on certain weapons (specifically heavy bombs 3500 lbs, over 2000 pounds and 500 lbs) being send to Israel under the pretext that they would be used in Rafah. What makes Rafah different? Is it the fact that at least 1 million additional refugees (beyond the regular residents) are living there with insufficient food, water, housing? Is it the displacement of 1.7 million people who honestly have no place to go and which is disproportionately impacting women and children? Is it that hospitals cannot cover the additional inevitable injuries following another attack given the destruction of hospitals. Perhaps it has something to do with the discovery of mass graves at Al Shifa and Nasser Hospitals? There is no question that manufacturing starvation is a war crime; certainly the US and its allies, do not want that added to their complicity as well. Or is it the fact that the genocide and war crimes cannot be ignored anymore and the US government feels the need to cover their collective arses? Certainly, they cannot deny that the college encampments and the protests calling for an immediate ceasefire as well as the fact that the US is in a general election period have certainly had an impact. The Democrats need the youth vote, the Democrats need the votes of Arab Americans and they also need the vote of Jews that have been demanding a ceasefire and if these voters stay home (they will not support Trump for the most part) that could be very expensive for the Presidential election.
I ask again the same question above which I have been wondering for the past 5 months. Why would the US throw out all its pretence around human rights, international humanitarian law, and signing the convention on genocide for Benjamin Netanyahu and a far-right Israeli government? Why would they undermine all that hard work and wonderful propaganda which they have used against so many countries and governments that they saw as threats to US interests? What role does Israel serve for the US that they have allowed 75 years of repression and oppression of the Palestinians; no one could actually believe that this whole nightmare started in October 2023 – while we are certainly used to cognitive dissonance, this is a new high. The Israel-Palestine problem started after the UN divided up Palestine and the Israeli military and government moved to seize the rest of Palestinian territory forcing Palestinians into exile around the world and into refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan (and then the occupied territories after 1967).
Given there is no question that US weapons had already been used on the attacks against Gaza resulting the deaths of 35, 034 and wounding of 78,755 Palestinians, the destruction of protected buildings (hospitals, religious places of worship, schools), the deaths of doctors and humanitarian aid workers, one cannot help asking, why the sudden change? Israeli government calls for people to relocate to Gaza which does not have the resources necessary to house a large number of refugees (300,000 are said to be on the move according to the NY Times, and despite the Israeli government designating Al-Mawasi as a “safe-zone” the reality is that it is not only military attacks that determine what is a safe-zone or not for large numbers of refugees. Moreover, Israel has previously attacked designated safe-zones earlier in the war.
4 days ago, Israel’s government and military has started its offensive on Rafah ignoring the demands of its remaining international governmental supporters. Netanyahu has stated that he will do this offensive against Rafah if they have to fight with fingernails following Biden’s placing a hold on heavy bombs. Their first moves closed down both gates into Gaza (Rafah and Kerem Shalom gates) so that will certainly impact the possibility of bringing humanitarian aid into Gaza (remember it is not only US aid that needs to get into the country) and the floating pier is still not open yet. That means that the demand of the International Court of Justice that Israel ensures the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Palestinians consistent with international human rights law and international law is not being fulfilled. The Israeli government has said they have opened another humanitarian gate; but we must note that the attack on Rafah has started in earnest and that they are also involved in miltary operations east of Gaza City as well as in Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya and people are fleeing Rafah to get away from the Israeli attack on the city fleeing towards a non-existent and non-guaranteed safety.
This leads to yet another question, is Biden’s hold on some offensive weapons for IDF use in Rafah or the state department report examining whether Israel has used US weapons in a way that is inconsistent with international law and international humanitarian law are only a smokescreen to cover for US complicity in war crimes and genocide. The report does say that Anthony Blinken insisted that currently there was no evidence that the Israel government and the IDF is hampering the delivery of US (that is important, only US aid is mentioned) humanitarian aid currently despite the UN’s and humanitarian organisations accusations borders on the absurd.
While the US was the largest contributor to UNRWA, it is sending far less now. Moreover, why only examine US aid only, there are other contributors and many governments who ended their support of UNRWA, have now continued it, while the US has still refused to reinstate aid to UNRWA; UNRWA is the oldest organisation and has the largest network to ensure that aid is actually distributed in Gaza. The suspension of their financial assistance on the word of unproven Israeli accusations of complicity of some of their workers in the October 7th attack again demonstrates the reality of the US acting first without confirming action. Moreover, if there has not been a problem with humanitarian assistance distribution, why did the US see the need for creating a “floating port” in Gaza to get humanitarian aid in at all? The attempt somehow claim that you have no idea whether US weapons have been used in the ongoing genocide against Palestinians borders on absurd; it conveniently also places the blame on Israel for not providing information about the usage of US purchased weaponry rather than acknowledging their culpability – the use of the really large US made bombs are responsible for much of the destruction in Northern and Central Gaza. So actual complicity in the genocide and war crimes is evident; the issue now becomes one of active participation. If both military and financial aid continues when a country is clearly implicated in war crimes, then we need to discuss active participation. The same holds for genocide. The provision of humanitarian aid to Palestinians will not erase the stain on the US and other countries that are still providing military assistance to Israel continuing genocide and war crimes.
This then leads to another obvious point that somehow bizarrely needs to be made; Netanyahu is not the only problem that exists; politicians (e.g., Senator Chuck Schumer) and many commentators that are dismayed by the Israeli government and military’s actions keep insisting that he must be removed from power (sometimes this is argued to be a first step, but I am curious as a first step to what?).
While I certainly detest Netanyahu, I am also cognizant of the fact that he is an elected Prime Minister and that he is the leader of a far-right government which includes hard-right racists in Likud and Kahanists and religious Zionists and this is serious as they have also been elected by Israeli Jewish voters (it is doubtful that Palestinians who can vote have voted for this lot).
What is fascinating is that it seems that those arguing for this position of getting rid of Netanyahu have forgotten that Israeli Jews have voted for this appalling government and they still have broad support among their voters. Just like the appalling Law and Justice party in Poland (not responsible for genocide and war crimes, but also far-right), elections led to them being thrown out of power. What also needs to be asked, since Netanyahu desperately wanted to stay in power to avoid going to prison on corruption charges, will you insist that he be provided asylum in the US? Would that asylum include ignoring charges on war crimes and genocide? Hmm … Another obvious point is that Benny Gantz (who lost the last election) is also no great progressive if that is whom they want to replace Netanyahu and his government with, shall we say the alternatives are also not great. What to do if the Kahanists and religious Zionists actually do far better in upcoming elections? They openly advocate genocide of Palestinians. Will you attempt to overthrow them as well. Regime change has rarely worked well for the US and using it against a so-called democracy which is an ally probably will not be successful; you run the risk of an even worse nightmare.
While the US has often engaged in regime change throughout its history, it is usually against politicians and regimes in countries that are seen as “threats” to US interests either economic (e.g., control over natural resources, preservation of foreign control over natural resources, threats to the capitalist economic system as a whole). Then, there are of course, military and geopolitical interests that the US government has and that, of course, is one of the reasons that successive US governments have supported various Israeli governments irrespective of which party is in power. So, Israel is not seen as a threat, but rather an ally – doing regime change against an ally will also, shall we say, raise additional issues about the US’s support of democracy and elections.
Getting Netanyahu out of office, moreover, while being necessary, is not a sufficient condition to addressing the catastrophe that we are watching. What we are seeing now derives from the fact that Israel is a colonial settler state; while there were certainly Jews living there (both indigenous and settlers when Israel was created) they by no means were the majority of the population. Historically, either the indigenous population is turned into refugees in their own country, or flee elsewhere, eliminated (see the US, Canada, Australia), if the population is too large to exterminate (think of South Africa, Rhodesia), then apartheid is introduced and the indigenous population is placed in Bantustans (again, see the US, Canada and South Africa. Historically and currently, Israel has done both; Palestinians in the 1948 borders, the Occupied Territories and Gaza live under apartheid and both the creation of Israel resulted in a massive dispossession and dispersion of the indigenous Palestinian population as well as the current genocide we are witnessing.
Having been called an antisemite for saying that Israel is a colonial settler state, here is a definition on settler colonialism from Global Social Theory:
“Settler colonialism is a distinct type of colonialism that functions through the replacement of indigenous populations with an invasive settler society that, over time, develops a distinctive identity and sovereignty. […]
[…] Settler colonialism can be distinguished from other forms of colonialism – including classical or metropole colonialism, and neo-colonialism – by a number of key features. First, settler colonisers “come to stay”: unlike colonial agents such as traders, soldiers, or governors, settler collectives intend to permanently occupy and assert sovereignty over indigenous lands. Second, settler colonial invasion is a structure, not an event: settler colonialism persists in the ongoing elimination of indigenous populations, and the assertion of state sovereignty and juridical control over their lands. Despite notions of post-coloniality, settler colonial societies do not stop being colonial when political allegiance to the founding metropole is severed. Third, settler colonialism seeks its own end: unlike other types of colonialism in which the goal is to maintain colonial structures and imbalances in power between coloniser and colonised, settler colonisation trends towards the ending of colonial difference in the form of a supreme and unchallenged settler state and people. However, this is not a drive to decolonise, but rather an attempt to eliminate the challenges posed to settler sovereignty by indigenous peoples’ claims to land by eliminating indigenous peoples themselves and asserting false narratives and structures of settler belonging.”
Israel is literally the definition of a colonial settler state. Arguing that Palestine was a land without people for people without a land is ridiculous; the land has been inhabited for a very long time by the indigenous population of various religions despite being under Ottoman control, and then a British Mandate. The Balfour Declaration was a statement of support for creation of a Jewish state; understanding that antisemitism was the reason for the declaration (“send the Jews there rather than let them remain in Europe”) is very relevant to this discussion. Denying that Jews have statehood in the countries where they hold passports falls into this form of antisemitism; the view that Jews are not members of the societies in which they live and have foreign interests instead is an old form of antisemitism; remember, the accusation of dual loyalties is antisemitic. Moreover, not even the odious Balfour called for the removal of the indigenous population to achieve this.
If we are relying on some biblical justification for a colonial settler project, we need to remember a few things while we are at it:
- First, initially political Zionism was a secular Jewish project; the fact that a group of secular Jews who do not follow the religion itself are relying on the Pentateuch to justify their presence in the Holy Land is wonderfully cynical as well as ironic.
- Second, understanding that in religious Judaism, the Jews are not supposed to return to the Holy Land until the Messiah comes back means that political Zionism is disputed and seen as antithetical to the Jewish religion itself by some Haredi Jews; that is why The Satmar and Naturei Karta oppose Israel’s existence as well as political Zionism.
- Third, political support from Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians because the Jews must be in the Holy Land for Jesus to come back is actually antisemitic as the role of Jews in this religious view is to fight and die at the Battle of Armageddon to be allowed into heaven (which Jews do not believe in btw).
- Fourth, in this day and age, justifying something on something written in the bible seems farcical; calling for the separation of church and state is something that we have fought for in the US and is currently under vicious attack by fundamentalist Christians. Why is the bible somehow relevant for Israel while we are fighting against the spread of politically empowered religious leaders? And as I have said repeatedly, Jews do not agree politically, nor religiously in terms of their adherence to halacha (Jewish Law), there are many sects of Judaism and many Jews are secular and even atheists.
The attacks on freedom of speech and the right to protest in the US
The situation in the US where there are student encampments demanding divestment at _ universities and the usage of police to break up these protests (e.g., Columbia University) is actually shocking. The fact that at UCLA a peaceful encampment was violently attacked by pro-Israelis who were allowed to rampage for hours with the police doing nothing was shocking itself; that the police were then used to break up the encampment at UCLA is just the cherry on top. These attacks have led to added calls on the rights of freedom of speech and protest added to the original ones specifically demanding divestment from Israel by their universities.
The adoption by the US House of Representatives of the Anti-Semitism (sic) Awareness Act (HR 6090) which utilises the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. The IHRA working definition is a problematic and unclear working definition addressing antisemitism and whose own authors argue that its purposes were not meant to adjudicate antisemitism in the way that it is being used both arising from the vagueness of the definition and then the examples it provides has meant that many discussions around the Israeli government and military’s actions can lead you open to charges of antisemitism. Why the Congress decided to use the IHRA working definition which is highly contentious rather than the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism a definition put together by scholars on the Holocaust and the Middle East whose purpose is to help adjudicate antisemitism and which is very clear in defining antisemitism is yet another attempt to undermine open discussions that are not antisemitic and has had a chilling effect on academic as well as political discussions. The fact that the far-right in the House (who are upset because they will not be able to accuse Jews of killing Jesus) as well as those concerned about the attacks on civil rights (see the ACLU letter to Congress) around the discussion about the actions of the Israeli state and military only adds to the absurdity of the situation.
As Michael F Brown writes:
“Before the House vote, the American Civil Liberties Union noted, “This bill directs the Department of Education to take the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s working definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ into consideration when determining whether alleged harassment was motivated by anti-Semitic intent and violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
Senior Legislative Organizer Bethany Zaiman with Jewish Voice for Peace Action warned on Thursday that the Senate legislation would “direct the Department of Education to consider the incredibly dangerous and controversial IHRA definition of anti-Semitism when investigating Title VI (discrimination) complaints. The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism conflates criticism of the Israeli state with anti-Semitic hatred of Jewish people, in order to further repress the Palestine solidarity movement.
The ACLU advised House members that the legislation “would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism.”
Inevitably, given the political situation in the US, this vote has of course led to accusations that this is yet another attempt to shut down student protestors demanding their universities’ divestment from Israel, attacks on the right of freedom of speech, and the right to protest in general comes as no surprise. The refusal to recognise that anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are not the same as antisemitism comes as no surprise; the fact that this is antisemitic in itself as it assumes that all Jews support political Zionism and the Israeli’s government and military is just an added irony that despite evidence to the contrary (large numbers of protestors on Universities as well as in protests demanding an immediate ceasefire are Jews) – no other group of people are viewed as monolithic; yet somehow the nonsense that Jews protesting this genocide and war crimes are antisemitic is accepted as truth despite the reality that Jews are like every other group of people divided on adherence to religious law and have different politics. So, the question that needs to be asked is whether this bill which proposes to fight antisemitism actually will lead to increasing antisemitism:
Brown continues:
“By 10 May, more than 1,000 Jewish professors had signed a letter to political leaders urging them “to reject any effort to codify into federal law a definition of anti-Semitism that conflates anti-Semitism with criticism of the state of Israel. This includes ongoing efforts to codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism, which has been internationally criticized for conflating anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of Israel.”
They added, “If imported into federal law, the IHRA definition will delegitimize and silence Jewish Americans – among others – who advocate for Palestinian human rights or otherwise criticize Israeli policies. By stifling criticism of Israel, the IHRA definition hardens the dangerous notion that Jewish identity is inextricably linked to every decision of Israel’s government. Far from combating anti-Semitism, this dynamic promises to amplify the real threats Jewish Americans already face.”
Even an opinion piece in the NY Times by Michelle Goldberg (a proud liberal) has argued that this piece of legislation needs to die in the Senate and has called on Chuck Schumer to end it due to the dangers of limiting freedom of speech and escalating the situation:
“We’ve already seen administrators like Columbia’s Minouche Shafik crack down on protesters in response to congressional coercion, which only inflamed the movement, leading to the spread of encampments nationwide. As disturbed as I am by mounting left-wing illiberalism, it’s hard to demand that pro-Palestinian activists submit to the rigors of open dialogue while the government is decreeing their views verboten.
Should the Antisemitism Awareness Act become law, there’s no reason to believe that only those views that liberals find most objectionable will be targeted. Stefanik and her allies, after all, are currently attacking Harvard for having the heroic Filipina journalist Maria Ressa, winner of the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize, as a commencement speaker, because Ressa’s publication called for a cease-fire in Gaza and because she signed an open letter about the killing of Gazan journalists. As Israel’s war moves into a brutal new phase, so do efforts to stifle those speaking out against it.”
The additional important issue beyond this attack on the right to protest and freedom of speech relates to the police and their actions; both in UCLA where they initially stood aside when the encampment at UCLA was violently attacked by a mob of Pro-Israel supporters on April 25th and then the violence when the Police moved against the encampment and then there was the violence of the removal at Columbia University. As is often the case especially against those perceived to be holding a minority position, the use of the police against protestors actually increases the violence as well as ensures that the protests will continue as a response to the police violence. The demands of the encampments concerning the divestment of university endowments from Israel have been successful previously. The accusations against the students and university staff that they are out of line are absurd; divestment of professor’s pensions have been successfully won. The concern that university endowments are sustaining a country which is engaged in genocide and war crimes is a legitimate concern and should not be lightly dismissed. At least 4 American universities (Brown University, Middlebury College, Evergreen College, and Rutgers University) have agreed to meet with students to discuss divestment from Israel and Trinity College, Dublin and Queen’s University (Belfast, North Ireland) have decided to divest. This is not antisemitism, it is a call for a peaceful response to an appalling situation, that of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).
What needs to be done (some thoughts)
It is a repeated complaint about articles on Israel/Palestine that no one says what they think needs to be done. Here is what I think needs to happen, some of these are immediate demands, others will require time to achieve. Many of these are obvious given the situation; others may be less so; you don’t have to agree, but think about what they are saying. I don’t have any answers, in fact, I have only just some ideas about what needs to be addressed. This is not an exhaustive list by any means, just some thoughts.
1) The US has to cease military and financial aid to Israel to force them into an immediate ceasefire and bring both the Israelis and Hamas into further negotiations. The US is already complicit in genocide and war crimes by the Israeli government and IDF.
2) The US has to support and immediate and permanent ceasefire and stop blocking it at the UN Security Council. We cannot allow this atrocity to continue; further genocide and war crimes must be stopped immediately. Moreover, if the US supports a two-state solution, why are they opposing the recognition of a Palestinian state? Palestinian political prisoners and Israeli hostages must be released. The Israeli government and military cannot remain in Gaza, they must withdraw. The people of Gaza must be allowed to determine its own political future, through constitutional conventions and elections. That is what is meant by the right of self-determination and we must support that right for the Palestinians.
3) Funding must be restored to UNRWA, they are the only ones with the experience and a network on the ground and can ensure the most efficient distribution of humanitarian assistance
4) Gaza must be rebuilt; the UN has estimated that this will cost something around $30-40 billion and Palestinians must be a party to the rebuilding of Gaza to ensure the needs of its population are met, that is essential. It is not up to either the Israeli government to determine how Gaza is rebuilt.
5) The Palestinian right of return must be addressed and supported; this is not only relevant for the immediate period where people have fled Gaza due to the invasion and where children have been taken to hospitals outside of Gaza for urgent medical treatment which they cannot get in Gaza due to this attack. The children have to be allowed to return to Gaza if they want to as do those that have been able to flee Gaza during the invasion. In the more intermediate period, the same offer has to be extended to Palestinians who have been forced out of their homeland since 1948.
6) A long-term solution to the situation must begin to be addressed. It is essential that Palestinians have input into this; it has become routine that no one ever asks them what they want. A constitutional convention to actually ask them what they want would be an excellent start, neither the Palestinian Authority nor Hamas represents the people; elections have not been held for a very long time. Palestinians need to be able to speak for themselves and be a part of constructing their future. Israeli Jews must also be an essential part of that conversation as well; how a future can be built means that those who this affects the most must be consulted and their opinions respected.