Too complex, the relationship between Israel and Palestine? Few people can claim to fully understand this relationship from its genesis. But humans do not need a doctorate in geopolitics or history to recognize the most abject manifestations of violence and wish for peace.
When, on October 7, Hamas killed more than 1,400 people, the attack invited a simple reaction: immediate condemnation, because we understood the atrocity of the gesture.
More than 200 Israelis are being held hostage by Hamas. It doesn’t take an essay to convince yourself of the importance of their release either. But at the cost of killing more innocent people?
No, say some of the people most directly affected by the violence. At the funeral of his brother Hayim, an Israeli peace activist killed by Hamas on October 7, Noy Katsman said: “Don’t use our deaths and our pain to cause the death and pain of other people and others. other families. […] I have no doubt that even in the face of the Hamas members who assassinated him, he would continue to denounce murder and violence against innocent people. »
A message crying out for simplicity. Obviously, in response to Hamas, the Israeli government views the matter differently, while at the time of writing these lines, its army has killed nearly 10,000 Palestinians, including more than 4,800 children, according to figures released Monday by the Hamas.
Attacks considered war crimes are increasing at such a rate that they are becoming difficult to track.
Last Friday, the Israeli army attacked an ambulance convoy near Al-Shifa Hospital. A few days earlier, it bombed the Jabaliya refugee camp twice, killing at least 50 people. Fifty deaths under the pretext of killing a Hamas commander.
On this account, it is difficult to claim that the deaths of civilians are simple collateral damage of a war, or even the consequence of Israel’s right to defend itself. These deaths are part of the work that plunges innocent Palestinians into suffering with a blatant lack of discernment. This was already evident when Israel announced a complete siege of Gaza without electricity, water, food or fuel. A move, dropping some kind of nuclear bomb on the entire Gaza Strip, razing it and killing everyone? “It’s an option,” Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu said last Sunday.
This minister was disowned and suspended by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but he himself stands out for his use of biblical metaphors which can encourage the use of violence against all Palestinians.1.
More than many other catastrophes for humanity, images of horror are accessible almost live before our eyes, at our fingertips… and despite the 36 journalists killed in Gaza since October 7, let us remember. What can we say about this disaster? Craig Mokhiber, director of the New York office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, wrote a letter of resignation on October 282 which deserves to be read completely, and a paragraph of which is reproduced here:
“As a human rights lawyer with over 30 years of experience in this field, I am well aware that the concept of genocide has often been the subject of abusive political exploitation. But the current massacre of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethnonationalist colonial ideology, a continuation of decades of systematic persecution and purification, based entirely on their status as Arabs, and associated with explicit declarations of intent by government leaders and the Israeli army, leaves no room for doubt or debate. »
Are we actually facing a genocide? This is difficult proof to prove in court, but the facts are serious enough for experts to sound the alarm.
Everything calls for the obvious: let’s stop the violence. Common people spontaneously understand this option.
According to a poll conducted by Data for Progress on October 18 and 19, 66% of Americans are in favor of a ceasefire. An option refused by the American and Canadian governments. A semantic nuance which would be received with less skepticism if these States, in addition to having largely contributed to the arming of Israel, did not demonstrate flagrant laxity with regard to its violations of international law and fundamental rights.
Figures like Hillary Clinton say people calling for a ceasefire now don’t understand Hamas. “It would be a real gift for Hamas, because they would spend the time of the ceasefire rebuilding their weapons… to be able to repel a possible assault by the Israelis. The argument would be more convincing if Israel had demonstrated not an effort of revenge, but an action aimed at freeing its national hostages and defeating Hamas strategically.
Clinton’s argument fails for a more fundamental reason: violence fuels the cycle of violence.
Simplistic? Rather, it is the fear paradigm expressed by Clinton that is outdated. This is a view shared by Standing Together, a grassroots movement mobilizing Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel seeking to prevent escalation of violence. Alon-Lee Green, one of its leaders, could not have been clearer recently: “The only way to ensure safety and security is to end the occupation of millions of people in Palestine. And, yes, we need to deal with Hamas, we should not strengthen Hamas, and every time we kill more innocent children, it strengthens extremists like Hamas. »
What is too complex is to justify an ideal of peace by letting a State shed blood with impunity.