It’s now six months since that horrific morning when Hamas terrorists entered Israel and carried out a brutal atrocity, a violent spree of kidnap, rape, mutilation and murder. Israel’’s response was to launch an extensive military operation into the Gaza strip with two stated aims, the return of the hostages and the complete and permanent elimination of Hamas.
Since then, a number of things have happened, I suspect most of them predictable. First, there has been a heavy death toll in Gaza, a significant humanitarian crisis. Second, this has drawn swift and staunch condemnation from many people including notable celebrities, sadly the same people seemed often unable to condemn the Hamas violence. Western Governments and politicians started out staunchly supporting Israel’s right to self defence but as the casualty count has increased, resolve has weakened. Major cities including London are disrupted each weekend by marches, ostensibly calling for a ceasefire but vary clearly endorsing the Palestinian side in the conflict and tainted by antisemitic banners and slogans. British Jews have expressed a sense of growing fear in the face of rising antisemitism. The fighting continues with no end or successful outcome obviously in sight.
Six months in, here are some reflections.
- On dropping the G Word
The accusation of genocide against Israel dominates social media and the marches. South Africa have even brought a case against Israel into the International Court making this allegation formerly.
It is important to understand what genocide is and what it isn’t. Genocide is defined as:
“the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.”
The International Convention on Genocide states at article III
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/genocide-conv-1948/article-2?activeTab=undefined
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Note that again, this requires specific intent to be in place.
So far in this conflict, it is reported that 33,000 Palestinians have lost their lives. It is worth noting that these figures come from Hamas themselves and so may not be reliable. However, if we accept them at face value, we can observe that this is out of a population in Gaza of 2 million, a total Palestinian population in both Gaza and the West Bank of 5.35 million and 14.3 million Palestinians worldwide. It is also the total number and so includes combatants.
For comparison, the Holocaust saw the loss of 6 million Jewish lives out of a European Jewish population of 9.5 million and worldwide of 15 million. In other words, more than half of European Jews and 30% of the world Jewish population were killed by Nazi Germany. The Khmer Rouge killed about 2 million Cambodians between 1975 and 1979 under Pol Pot (25% of the population). The Rwanda genocide in the 1990s was estimated to have resulted in the death of over half a million Tutsis. Each of those three cases are recognised as genocides, firstly because a high number of people were killed both in absolute terms and proportionate to the population as a whole. However, not only were large numbers killed but the killing was deliberate and with the intent of destroying people groups.
It is clear that the loss of life, whilst significant and horrific in Gaza simply doesn’t compare either in absolute terms of relative to the population overall. More than that, the case has not been proven either that the loss of civilian life is deliberate or with the intent to destroy the Palestinian population as a whole. Rather, what we are observing is sadly what happens when a conflict takes place in urban, densely populated areas. The question then, is who is responsible for that?
The difference between blame and responsibility
It is important to note the distinction between blame and responsibility and to realise that someone may be responsible but not to blame or both to blame and responsible. Blame suggests a level of direct moral culpability. You are to blame if you directly cause evil. So, in this case, it is important to ask why civilian lives have been put at risk. The answer is simple, Hamas have chosen to actively fight from densely populated areas, to launch rocket attacks into Israel from Gaza city, to develop a network of tunnels under the cities and to use hospitals and humanitarian centres as bases. Additionally, Hamas whilst in power in the Gaza strip have habitually syphoned off humanitarian aid and resources for military purposes and even now are reported to take control of aid going into Gaza, selling it to the people in order to fund their war effort.
Hamss, whose founding charter stated their aim as to wipe out Israel and to destroy the Jews ( a clear statement of genocidal intent if ever there was one) must clearly be seen as to blame for the horrors inflicted on the civilian population. It is directly because of Hamas that women and children are suffering and dying.
However, it is possible to be responsible even if not directly to blame. I believe that others must share some responsibility too. It has often been said that Hamas ruled below ground, leaving the care of the population above ground to the UN and relief organisations. The result is that we see permanent towns and cities, that have been in place for decades with third generation families, described as “refugee camps.” That can’t be right. All the time, those agencies on the ground were aware of Hamas’ actions. They must surely share some responsibility.
Finally, Israel herself must carry a level of responsibility. Whilst I argued for caution from armchair soldiers about critiquing the operational tactics of the IDF, I still did, indicate from the beginning, my scepticism and concern about the strategy of essentially attempting to defeat Hamas through conventional military tactics in an urban warfare context. Israel may not intend high civilian casualties and may even take steps to try and mitigate against them but it has seemed obvious from day one that this campaign would not eliminate Hamas but would lead to high levels of suffering. Continuing the conflict in this manner as the humanitarian crisis increases, without a clear strategy both to bring the war to a successful conclusion or a strategy for looking after the civilian population may be seen as reckless. Israel must carry responsibility and indeed there is specific responsibility when IDF units are accused of warcrimes.
Not only that but I would argue that whilst Hamas may be seen as the more immoral, the greater evil and directly to blame, Israel as the recognised legitimate state and as a liberal democracy should be judged more strictly. We might argue that Hamas bears the greater blame but Israel the greater responsibility. We rightly expect more from a democratic state than a gang of terrorists.
What are the marches achieving?
Every weekend, huge parts of London are shut down by protestors and to what end. They call for a ceasefire but who is going to listen to that. Is Israel going to back down? I doubt it and even if governments feel pressurised into withdrawing support from Israel would it be really a cease fire if the IDF pulled back. The answer is “no”. It takes two to tango and are Hamas likely to listen as well? I might also note that the taking of hostages is itself an act of aggression and that a true ceasefire must therefore begin with the freeing of hostages rather than being a precondition for their release. As long as the hostages are in captivity, Hamas are actively at war with Israel.
So, what is the campaign achieving? In terms of middle east peace, absolutely nothing. All it serves to do is to disrupt the lives of people here, add to the policing bill and by giving a platform to antisemitism, act as a form of intimidation towards the Jewish community here. These marches need to stop.
What is really needed?
I continue to believe that defeating Hamas and bringing about peace requires a sophisticated long term strategy. It does require counterterrorism operations by Israel but it also needs a battle for hearts and minds. This does mean that self-determination for the Palestinian people is vital and a legitimate, state that the people of Gaza and the West Bank can recognise. Israel and other nations need to commit properly to making this a possibility. Furthermore, Hamas must be defeated ideologically as well as militarily through the battle of ideas. People need to take on and refute their propaganda.
I am, I am afraid to say, deeply pessimistic about this outcome in my lifetime. However, there are many other, seemingly intractable conflicts around the world, without an end in sight. We need to put aside any romantic notion that peace must magically happen in the Middle East due to its historic connection to the Gospel. There will always be wars and rumours of wars and that applies as much to the place where Jesus came to and where he will return to as to anywhere else.
Ultimately, what is really needed is Jesus. The conflict will only end either through people turning to Christ now or through his return.
Faithroots 