In recent years, as well as throughout its history, the state of Israel has committed atrocities against the Palestinian people that vastly transcend the acceptable bounds of legitimate national defense. The continuing war against the people of Gaza in the name of fighting Hamas, marked by crimes such as the use of white phosphorus on the civilian population and a civilian casualty rate that surpasses that of Hamas terrorism against Israelis by a factor of over 100 to one, has been waged on a level that is increasingly described as genocidal.
In spite of these highly visible human rights abuses, the debate in the West over the Middle East crisis has framed these acts as unique policies of Israel, rather than a symptom of an existentially violent relationship with† the Palestinian people. The nature of this relationship is often skewed in the Western media as the struggle of a civilized state fighting an illegitimate insurgency. This double standard of the Palestinian terrorist versus the legitimate Israeli Army is absurd given the wildly uneven levels of retribution: during the 2006 War on Gaza, civilians killed by the Israeli Army numbered 976, resulting from just three Israeli civilian deaths by Hamas’ Qassam rockets.
In the past 10 years, the level of terrorism committed by the Israeli Defense Force has by any definition vastly eclipsed that committed by Palestinian militant factions. This double standard is reflected in popular acceptance of the nationalistic ideologies behind the two belligerents. Palestinian factions are widely portrayed as extremist religious ideologues, but the often religious dogmatism and irrational nature of Zionism tends to be widely accepted and deemed legitimate. Despite the relatively recent historical development of a Jewish state in Palestine, the discriminatory notion that Jewish people have an inherent right to occupy Palestine, more so than the Palestinians, has become mainstream political discourse.
Israel supporters who invoke anti-Semitism in response to these challenges fail to absolve the crimes that have been committed in the name of national preservation. There is a clear moral fallacy to an ideology which states that anyone who follows the Jewish religion is allowed to “return” to a ritual homeland, while the indigenous people who were ousted and oppressed as a result of Zionist occupation are denied this right.
The Jewish right to Palestine is a purely naive belief that derives from a backwards and tribalistic expression of a cultural identity. Those who practice Judaism, like any other religious community, have the right to practice their beliefs, but should never be permitted to force these beliefs upon others. Aside from this blind spot to its backwards cultural and religious roots, liberals who willingly denounce imperialist foreign policies tend to sorely miss the imperialistic nature of Zionism.
Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines imperialism as “the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas.” Since the end of the Nineteenth century, the political and economic self-determination of indigenous Palestinians has been in the hands of non-native Jewish Zionists.
Contrary to the claims of “liberal” adherents of the ideology, there is nothing just, peaceful or egalitarian about Zionism. Theft, occupation and genocide are not just actions of the state of Israel; they are the reasons it continues to exist. Israel has proven itself to be a dangerous rogue state unwilling to compromise and committed to the total destruction of the indigenous people dispossessed by its existence. The human cost of maintaining a sovereign and exclusive Jewish state in Palestine is plainly unacceptable.
Dan Hanson is a contributor to the Voice. He can be reached for comment at DHanson12@wooster.edu.