It is redundant to keep repeating these figures. Similarly, it is endlessly debated whether what is happening in Gaza is genocide, whether it is ethical and humane for the civilian population to be harshly punished for a decades-long conflict over a complicated territorial issue and for the actions of a group, Hamas, responsible for the violence and killings of October 7 – over 1,200 Israeli civilians killed, young and old, women and children.
We cannot replicate the same things ad infinitum. Who’s who? Who is to blame? We can, however, contribute to the almost non-existent debate in Romania by offering a synthesis of at least some (credible) sources from the world press, for example, Anglo-Saxon, Israeli.
“It is impossible to rewind and replay history”
In an article from Boston Review entitled The False Messiahs, Barnett R. Rubin explains very concisely the history of the peregrinations of the Jews in the world, their exile from Palestine (Eretz Yisrael), (i) the first in the time of Nebuchadnezzar (the destruction of Solomon’s Temple) and the exile from Mesopotamia and Persia, (ii ) the second after the defeat of the Great Revolt against Rome (66 AD and the following period).
The author speaks in full about Herzl’s Zionist project (end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century), a movement for self-determination, for the independence of the Jews, who were in a permanent state of physical insecurity due to the centuries-old anti-Semitism of the peoples of Europe, all culminating in The Holocaust during World War II.
Of course, there’s no need to elaborate here, but Barnett R. Rubin then points out how the noble dream of Jewish liberation gradually became synonymous with colonialism, and that’s because of how the issue was framed for decades in Palestine and then in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Let’s quote from the mentioned author some ideas that are worth remembering:
“The current war in Gaza exemplifies some of the worst evils colonialism has to offer: (i) Israel’s indiscriminate massacre of civilian populations, justified as self-defense; (ii) The indiscriminate massacre of civilians by Hamas, justified as resistance.”
What does Rubin propose? Very simple: “Genesis is not destiny. Documenting the historical fact that Israel emerged in part through the collaboration of Zionism and colonialism does not mean that the only solution is a “decolonization”, one that destroys the state (it’s the state of Israel – my note) and expels its inhabitants.
What is questionable about colonialism is not the immigration or settlement of a population of different ethnic or national origin or people who are in some sense non-indigenous, but the dominance of one group over another. It is impossible to rewind and replay history.
But it is possible, and indeed very necessary, to build a future in which Palestinians and Israelis have equal rights.
Barnett R. Rubin, Center for International Cooperation, New York University:
It is a common sense solution, a historic compromise between Palestinians and Israelis. Is it counterproductive to ask endlessly whose side is justice, the side of the Palestinians or the side of the Israelis? Now, decades after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, another way that excludes death, in both directions, does not exist, it really does not exist. If we do not go in the direction of compromise, in the logic of inclusiveness, of citizenship for all and not just for some, we will have tragedies, dramas and death head-to-tail, until the end of time.
Likewise, as Veronica Lazar very well said, on a social media page, the side effects, separate from the catastrophe in Gaza, are no less important:
(i) “increasing censorship in states, the press, public and private institutions”, basically we are talking about incredible censorship and self-censorship, unimaginable years ago, and this here in Europe, the space of freedom of speech and pluralism of opinions.
(ii) “even denser militarization of the world” – the apologia of war is brazenly made, it is amazing to see how it is moving in the direction of proactive militarism.
(iii) “blackmail with the “apology of terrorism”, which can be applied to any form of criticism or insubordination, no matter how soft” – basically, the world is afraid of being immediately classified as xenophobia, anti-Semitism, etc. It is a direction that inhibits any form of polemic, debate, distinction and differentiation of ideas, opinions, etc.
(iv) “increased dehumanization of some ethnic groups”, visible everywhere in the media and social media. We cannot generalize indefinitely, we cannot decree essentialist truths about peoples, ethnicities, minorities or whatever they might be, to dehumanize them, to portray them as animals, is only the road to distinction and cheap Manichaeism, to violence and militarism.
The courage to cover taboo subjects: the case of the daily newspaper Haartez
And yet, silence, taboo are not the norm everywhere. Let us take, for example, the case of the Israeli newspaper Haartez. In this daily journal with a social-liberal, social-democratic slant, critical articles are numerous, there is nothing taboo.
1. “Palestinians wonder why the settlers who attack them still bother to hide their faces
The killing of Binyamin Ahimeir in the West Bank led to a wave of settler violence under the protection of the army. It was just an excuse to do what, on a smaller scale, settlers do all the time: spread fear, violently attack villagers and destroy property.”
2. “‘We were taught that genocide should never happen again’: Jill Stein vs. the State of Israel
In the 2016 US presidential election, Jill Stein garnered 1.5 million votes as the candidate of the Green Party, defeating Hillary Clinton, putting her shoulder to victory for Donald Trump. Today, with 4% in the polls, she could screw things up again. But now, after October 7, the Harvard Jewish doctor’s campaign slogan is the fight against Israel.”
There are many such articles, obviously, most critical especially against Hamas & co, but, as we see, also some extremely critical of the destructive policy of the Netanyahu government. But we are talking about Haartez, yes, an Israeli daily newspaper. Why is the media in many countries so conformist and hesitant to attack sensitive topics in war zones?
Both categories are infrequent, they are positioned against peace
In a novel by Amitav Ghosh (The crystal palacetranslated by Adina and Gabriel Rațiu, Bucharest: Litera, 2023), a family saga in a colonial (under British tutelage) and later independent India and Burma (now Myanmar), Daw Thin Thin Aye (in Romanian, writer and Burmese teacher) tells her husband, Dinu:
“- It’s ugly to use the past to justify the present, but it’s equally ugly to use the present to justify the past. Trust me, there are plenty who do that, we just don’t have to put up with them.”
Translated into today’s world we can read like this: 1. It is ugly to use the past of oppression (anti-Semitism), the Holocaust, to justify the present, the almost complete destruction of the Gaza Strip.
2. It is ugly to use the present, the destruction in Gaza, to justify the past – anti-Semitism with all its horrors – the Holocaust.
Amitav Ghosh, through the voice of the characters, tells us that we should not put up with either one or the other. Both categories are infrequent, they are positioned against peace.
Steven Youngblood, an American academic specializing in peace journalism, was in Bucharest last week. What Steven noticed is that Manichaeist, them-versus-us journalism glorifies violence. Is that what we want today? A glorification of violence? We cannot judge other than in the logic of ethno-nationalism, does it matter if he is Palestinian or Israeli?
As Miko Peled, former member of the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli writer, put it in a dialogue with Chris Hedges, Pulitzer Prize winner and former New York Times Middle East correspondent, well, that’s the sure way to war, to repeat the mistakes of history.
Photo: AP
Follow us on Google News
