NEW DELHI: On August 6, 1945, President Harry Truman informed the world that the ‘war against fascism’ was over.

“Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base. The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold, and the end is not yet. It is an atomic bomb. It is a harnessing of the basic power of the universe. The force from which the sun draws its power has been loosed against those who brought war to the Far East.”

Hiroshima contained an important army base, where perhaps 25,000 troops were quartered. The bomb, however, had not been aimed at the base. It struck the center of the city consisting of approximately 350,000 civilians. Moral constraints compelled Truman to subvert the truth from the American people – asking them to celebrate America’s triumphant victory rather than feel complicit for the destruction of an entire city. Truman needed to maintain the illusion of American concern for civilian life. On the evening of August 9th, an American B-29 dropped a second bomb over Nagasaki, frequently described by US officials as a “naval base”.

From Truman to Benjamin Nethanyahu, leaders of every nation-state understand the need for providing moral illusions that conceal broader interests of power in order to maintain the support of its citizens. This citizen, as Hans Morgenthau explains, is then in solidarity with an idea, a set of principles, a way of life, for which he claims a monopoly of truth and virtue, the consequence being that those whom the fight is against are perceived as evil and immoral. The creation of this ‘other’, has been instrumental in the justifications of war and oppression; from the British colonization of the Indian-Subcontinent to the occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel.

Today, globalization requires the warring nation-state to justify its actions not only to its own citizens, but also to the global population – at-least to those living in influential countries. There are 4 common statements that deter us from critically assessing the historical and current causality of the Israel-Palestine dispute, and justifying Operation Protective Edge.

1. Israel is acting in self-defense against Hamas terrorists:

The theater of war today is laden with non-state actors threatening the internal security and stability of nations. The context under which these militant groups are borne and flourish varies. Many arise out of discontent and dissatisfaction with their socio-economic status and their marginalization for which they hold the State accountable. Others may take the shape of violent cartels whose ultimate aim is power and profit. Regardless, these organizations are clubbed together and categorized by the States in which they operate as ‘terrorist’. Hamas is one such organization. Regarded as terrorists in political discourse, they are grouped with Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah etc. The ‘language of terror’ and its various connotations allow Israel’s narrative of self-defense to flourish regardless of which side of the relative political spectrum one falls upon. It obfuscates context entirely, successfully producing the savage, demonic ‘other’ the State needs to justify its previous and current acts of oppression and aggression. Personal perception can determine whether Hamas is a terrorist organization – I will not dispute that in this piece. The terror narrative, however, allows us to be ambivalent towards the policies and actions of Israel that have created conditions that allow for militancy to foster.

Baitullah Mehsud, the now deceased leader of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), relied on collateral damage from US drone strikes in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) for recruiting volunteers. The reason; he capitalized on destitute individuals whose family members had just been killed by US drones. Palestinians have lived as second-class citizens under Israeli occupation since 1967. Despite Israel’s unilateral ‘withdrawal’ in 2005, it still controls Gaza’s airspace, coastal waters, and land borders (rendering it an occupying force under International Law), allowing Israel to control the socio-economic lives of the Palestinian workforce within the strip. The ban of exports and specific imports during the 2008 six-month Egyptian brokered cease-fire between Hamas and Israel that led to a sharp decline in employment opportunities is a case in point. 38% of the Palestinian population in Gaza was below the poverty line prior to this operation. Now, 20% of the population has been displaced, and 1.8 million people have seen 3 destructive Israeli operations in 6 years. Israel may be successful in debilitating Hamas, but it cannot bomb Gaza into peace. It is planting more seeds for militancy and violence.

Unfortunately, the ‘terror’ narrative is so potent that those that do critically examine the reasons behind individuals enrolling in militant groups are branded ‘apologists’ for terrorism. The war is presented, as all wars are, as a battle between good and evil.

2. What would you do if rockets were fired at your house?

The creation of the ‘other’ compels the global citizen to empathize with those affected by the actions of the ‘other’. It not only allows for the elimination of context, but also for ‘selective empathy.’ We are asked to think of the families in Sderot; a town 0.62 miles from the Gaza strip that has been inundated with rocket attacks courtesy of the Al-Qassam Brigade and Islamic Jihad since the second intifada. The echo of a code red siren means that residents in this town have 15 seconds to reach a shelter or concrete bus stop before the alarm ends. Sderot’s streets are often empty during confrontations between Hamas and Israel due to the constant barrage of rocket fire, though the threat of rockets is a daily concern for its residents. According to the Israel Center for Victims of Terror and War, 75 to 94 percent of Sderot children aged 4-18 exhibit symptoms of post-traumatic stress.

We absolutely should empathize with residents of this bordering Israeli town, and with those across Israel that are impacted by the very real threat of potential rockets raining down on them. However, selective empathy strengthens the already skewed narrative produced from the creation of the ‘other’. We imagine one affected population to be like us – individuals that desire peaceful lives with basic freedoms guaranteed to them under the a democracy. Even those that lend their voice to most global liberation struggles are muted or even hostile when it comes to discussing the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. The terrorist is made to represent the antithesis of modern day values and political struggles; those for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, freedom of speech and expression etc.

Empathy with everyone affected allows us to critically analyze the conflict in ways that selective empathy can never allow for. While empathizing with the residents of Sderot, we must lend our imagination to those suffering in Gaza; not only during Israel’s frequents bombardments, but also from besiegement by Israel. The hatred fostered in this conflict that compels some citizens of Sderot to watch Gaza’s destruction from hill-tops is not different from that which compels Palestinians to cheer the efforts of militants, whom they may believe are fighting against the normalcy of occupation and for the right to Palestinian self-determination. Only then, can we move on to at-least have a constructive debate about how to move forward based on historical and current factors.

3. Hamas is to blame for all civilian deaths in Gaza.

In this operation in particular, intrepid reporters from many news networks have brought us the stories of suffering in Gaza that cannot be ignored. Israel has been asked to justify the massive collateral damage incurred, and they have done so by passing the blame solely on to the other. With Hamas’ image solidified in the imagination of many, people have bought into this justification.

“I feel terrible for a Palestinian child who dies. But if it’s your father, your brother, your uncle who’s firing those rocket into Israel, whose fault is it really? Do you really expect the Israelis not to retaliate?”

– Bill Maher

Thus, selective empathy allows for ‘selective blame.’ Hamas’s ominous charter is often cited at this juncture, as we are asked what Israel is supposed to do with an organization that wants the destruction of its people. It’s a relevant question, as Hamas’s charter does read threateningly for the citizens of Israel. Yet as with selective empathy, selective blame allows us to discard the language used by those wielding political power in Israel.

Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Knesset and member of Netanyahu’s Likud Party, Moshe Feiglin, has written an op-ed that calls for the expulsion of the Palestinian population from Gaza to the Sinai Peninsula and the absorption of the Gaza strip into Greater Israel.

“Gaza is part of our Land and we will remain there forever…. it will become part of sovereign Israel and will be populated by Jews”

Aleyet Shaked, another member of the Knesset representing the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home Party has issued statements that are nothing short of a call for genocide.

“Behind every terrorist stands dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism…. Now this also includes the mothers of the matrys, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.”

Appalling rhetoric is not isolated to Hamas. However, such statements spewed by Israeli politicians are discarded by an Israeli narrative bent on portraying itself as a cornered nation left with little options but to defend itself by being aggressive.

Israel further justifies collateral damage incurred at its behest by stating Hamas’s penchant for using children as human shields. This hackneyed statement has been reverberated by Israel’s politicians and supporters despite the mounting evidence that Israel’s actions are equivalent to war crimes under International law. The UN has criticized Hamas and other militant groups for storing ammunition in a couple of their schools, but has denied that any militants were using yielding active fire from their school premises. As people have been asked to evacuate their homes, UN schools have provided shelter to many. At-least 7 UN schools have been hit in the past month, killing many innocent civilians and injuring hundreds of people. Chris Gunness, spokesperson for the UNRWA has stressed that Israel has been provided with coordinates of these schools. The recent shelling of a UN school located in the Jabaliya refugee camp that killed 19 people prompted strong words from Gunness;

"I condemn in the strongest possible terms this serious violation of international law by Israeli forces. I call on the international community to take deliberate international political action to put an immediate end to the continuing carnage."

The selective blame narrative blinds Israel’s supporters to the consequence of the nations actions, regardless of the confirmation of unsolicited collateral damage, which also includes video evidence of 4 children being killed on a beach in Gaza.

4. Why don’t you stand up for the deaths of people in Syria?

We come to the last line of defense, where comparisons to other oppressive regimes are an almost subconscious admission of one’s own violence. Pro-Palestinian supporters are questioned on their condemnation of Israel by being asked why they don’t protest against atrocities occurring in Syria, Iraq, etc. Cries of anti-Semitism often follow, as once again language is effectively utilized to discard the sentiments and concerns of those protesting against Israeli aggression; a subsequent ‘other’ is created.

There have been disgusting incidents of anti-Semitism in Europe, particular in France. These deserve the vitriol they receive, and significantly hamper the movement for Palestinian rights. However, It’s not anti-Semitism that has fueled these widespread protests, its global complicity.

In response to Bashar Al-Assad’s crackdown, the United States, the EU, and the UN imposed heavy sanctions on Syria. President Obama signed executive orders 13572, 13573, and 13582, broadly prohibiting all new investment in Syria by a U.S. person, the provision of any U.S. services to Syria, and any transaction in or related to petroleum products of Syrian origin. The list of sanctions implemented by the European Union is endless; ranging from a ban on exports of luxury goods and of additional dual use goods to Syria to an export ban on arms and related material or equipment that can be “used for internal repression”. Earlier this year, the UN Security Council released a strongly worded statement warning nations of trading with ISIS or Al-Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front after news emerged of these militants capturing oilfields and pipelines in Syria and Iraq respectively.

These are just a few examples of diplomatic action taken against stakeholders in Syria and Iraq that have been inundated with almost unanimous global condemnation. Conversely, since 1976, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of direct US economic and military assistance, and the largest total recipient since World War II. The United States provides Israel with approximately $8.5 million each day, amounting to approximately 3 billion dollars a year. A few days ago, the US agreed to resupply Israel with grenades and mortar rounds, which it stores inside Israel as part of a program called War Reserves Stock Allies-Israel.

The situation in Israel incites widespread protests as their violations are given cover by the major world powers. While imposing heavy sanctions action against Syria, ISIS, etc, there is a hesitancy to even reduce aid to Israel.

In his critical assessment of the period between the two world wars, EH Carr explores how the ‘great powers’ (England, France, USA) adopted a utopian doctrine known as the ‘harmony of interests’. The doctrine assumed that any nation that wishes to disturb the peaceful world order is both ‘irrational’ and ‘immoral’. Carr explains this attempt to maintain the status quo as “unconscious reflections of national policy based on a particular interpretation of national interests at a particular time”. The great powers were blinded by their own doctrine; their insistence on maintaining their international dominance by labeling those who challenge it as immoral deterred them from addressing the conditions under which such ‘immorality’ can breed. The narrative of terror, just as the utopian doctrine did for the great powers, deters Israel from addressing their role in fostering conditions that have historically bred, and currently breed violence and militancy.

Israel is the dominant power in the Middle East, with unmatched financial and military backing. This assistance comes despite their most magnanimous donors acknowledging the illegality of their policies, most notably their settlement expansion, which diminishes the thought of Palestinian everyday. The right to Palestinian self-determination must be the core of Israel’s diplomatic efforts if they truly wish to protect their citizens from violence.

Palestinians will not accept occupation as the status quo.

(Avik Roy graduated from Hampshire College, USA, in May 2013, with a major in political science, and a minor in music and theatre.)

Latest News