I condemn Hamas’ terror. Nothing in this text is intended to justify their atrocities.
It’s difficult to write about the war in the Middle East. More than four weeks ago, water and electricity were cut off to 2.3 million people in Gaza and imports of food, medicine and fuel were at least partially blocked.
I would like to formulate a simple position on this issue, but the situation must be contextualized: the siege of Gaza is Israel’s response to the horrific Hamas terrorist attack on October 7, in which at least 1,400 people were murdered and more than 240 kidnapped . . It is understandable that Israel is reacting.
Gaza has been bombarded non-stop for more than four weeks. There were more than 6,000 rockets in the first six days. Civilians cannot escape; all borders are closed, with some exceptions.
Condemn terrorist attacks
I would like to formulate a simple position on this matter, but first it is important to condemn terrorist attacks: this is so obvious that it seems strange to write it. As if you would condone mass murder if you didn’t explicitly stand against it.
I condemn Hamas’ terror. Nothing in this text is intended to justify their atrocities.
The scale of Israeli bombings exceeds even the most intense waves of attacks that the US, for example, carried out against IS in Iraq in 2017. The rockets hit a strip of land that is one of the most densely populated regions in the world. Since the bombing began, more than 10,000 people have died in Gaza.
I want to go crazy, but here too there is some context to add: the number of victims is so high because Hamas hides its military installations in residential areas and uses civilians as human shields. Furthermore, the number of deaths must be critically examined, as the Gaza health authority is under the control of Hamas.
It’s obvious: anyone who wants to point out the mass deaths and the catastrophic situation of civilians in Gaza in the current debate will hardly be able to avoid relativization. Some more examples:
• Israel has the right to defend itself.
• The Israeli Air Force warns residents before the bombs hit.
• There is a difference between people who are victims of a terrorist attack and their death as collateral damage.
• The Palestinians should have revolted against Hamas a long time ago.
The arguments presented illustrate how natural it is to contextualize thousands of civilian victims. Always communicating the Israeli perspective is, so to speak, the default mode of debate. Otherwise, you will quickly become a Hamas supporter or an anti-Semite. You can also see this with Greta Thunberg after she held “Stand with Gaza” on camera. The central charge: She didn’t say a word about Hamas terror.
Similarly, the German government faced criticism after abstaining from voting on a UN resolution: Germany should have voted against it because the condemnation of “any violence against Israeli and Palestinian civilians” did not mention Hamas by name.
The orientation of the speech outlined here focuses on the rejection of the word “but”: After the terrorist attack, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz proclaimed full solidarity with Israel and stated: “Every ‘yes, but’ is out of place.” “NZZ” generally announced that “when it comes to Israel there can be no ‘yes, but’”, “FAZ” and “Tagesspiegel” carried headlines to that effect.
“I’m so sick of this ‘yes, but’! […] There is no ‘yes, but’, Israel has the right to defend itself”, emphasized the Federal Vice President of the FDP, Strack-Zimmermann.
They overshot the mark
The scandal that surrounded Slavoj Žižek’s opening speech at the Frankfurt Book Fair fits into this framework: Žižek declared a “ban on analysis” with regard to the background to the conflict in the Middle East. He clearly condemned Hamas, but also criticized the Israeli government. There were protests during his speech and several prominent politicians left the hall. Hesse’s anti-Semitist commissioner came on stage and interrupted Žižek. Immediately after the talk, the head of the German Book Trade Association announced: “I am opening the 75th Frankfurt Book Fair by rejecting the word ‘but’.”
We surpassed the mark. The one-sided nature of the debate makes it difficult for humanist points of view to be heard.
Yes, there can be no “buts” when condemning Hamas terrorism. The same applies to Israel’s right to exist and the rejection of anti-Semitism.
But Israel’s war requires a colossal “but.” Even taking into account all the arguments that explain, relativize and contextualize Israel’s actions, the suffering inflicted on the Palestinian civilian population cannot be justified.
Israel is bound by international humanitarian law, which requires the greatest possible protection of the civilian population. The extent of the bombings and the blockage of vital supplies for a week show that there can be no question of “sparing”.
The simple position I would like to formulate on this: Israel has the right to defend itself. But what is happening in Gaza is the collective punishment of more than two million civilians.
René Rusch (*1976) is a political scientist, TV director and anti-racism leader.
Reactions to: [email protected]