In this four part series exclusive to the Huffington Post, novelist and essayist Douglas Anthony Cooper examines the accusations of genocide that have been made against Israel by its critics.
Might Israel be an evil nation? It is a question I admit to asking myself. Am I on the wrong side of history? Liberals tend to question themselves -- they question their ideas and their allies. I have always considered Israel a friend. Might I be wrong?
Well-meaning people have been wrong before. Peter Handke, a writer whose early work was important to me, somehow convinced himself that Slobodan Milosevic was falsely accused of war crimes in Bosnia. Ingmar Bergman admitted in "Laterna Magica" that, "For many years, I was on Hitler's side, delighted by his success and saddened by his defeats."
Truly decent men on the left cheered for Stalin, then awoke to realize that they had been applauding butchery. (Some never woke up. Few sights are more pathetic than a famous American academic insisting well into the 21st century that "Stalinism worked.")
I do not want to be one of them. One quotation in particular sticks with me, from an academic often cited by Liberals who despise Zionism: "Sometimes I feel that Israel has come out of the boils of hell, a satanic state." That is Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish academic who has spent much of his life analyzing this issue. He has called the nation: "Genghis Khan with a computer." I wanted to know whether he was right.
Normal Finkelstein's hypothesis -- echoed by thousands, including many in the Huffington Post community -- can in fact be tested. If you are Jewish -- if you are human -- you want to know whether he is right.
I did research. I did not go down into the pits to count bodies, but there are reputable scholars of genocide who have devoted their lives to scouring the morgues and the graves and the archives. Their findings are easily accessed. The tallies are used by propagandists on both sides of the debate, but everyone respectable agrees on the approximate numbers. We know how many have died.
When it came to Israel, in particular, I wanted to look into the very worst: the ugliest that modern Israeli history can offer. If I had been averting my eyes from atrocities, I wanted to know. I am not a fool and I am not corrupt -- if I were looking full into the face of evil, I would know.
I have my answer.
People tend to misuse the word "genocide," because it is the only common term we have to describe unimaginable slaughter. Other words have been proposed, unsuccessfully: "democide," for instance. Strictly speaking, genocide is the deliberate effort to erase an entire people. History offers very few examples. You can murder millions, yet not be guilty of genocide -- it is a question of intent, not mathematics.
The Holocaust was an effort to erase not simply every individual Jew, but everything associated with the people. Their entire being. Their "genus:" class, or kind. Hence, "genocide." It was a proposal to eliminate Judaism on every level: physically, culturally, theologically. If there had been only a thousand Jews in the world, murdering them with this intention would have been genocide. Since there were millions, it required the slaughter of millions.
Many people, including those commenting on the Huffington Post, are not especially careful in their use of the term. We hear this, for instance, from Canadian Randy Ragoonanan who writes:
"What people dont [sic] understand is that Israel's goal is for colonization of the Middle East towards Iraq, their genocide of the Palestinians is one of the goals but they would like to wipe out entire region, look at their war with Lebanon and Golan Heights. Israel wants to murder millions more ethnicities."
This kind of language is epidemic, but it is possible to address the basic charge without being pedantic every time the word comes up. Note that "genocide" in the strictest sense presupposes "genocide" in the less precise sense: In order to commit genocide, you must at the very least aim to murder an entire people. On top of this, your intent must be the eradication of their nature.
In short, no matter how you define the word -- and academics argue this point fiercely -- the genocide of the Palestinians, who number in the millions, would involve at the very least Israel's concerted effort to commit murder on an unspeakable scale.
If you do not know the actual figures pertaining to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, I urge you to stop reading now. Try to figure out what you believe them to be. Write down the numbers that come to mind. Especially if you are one of the many who believe that Israel is a genocidal nation. Done? Good. It will be interesting to see where your perception lies in relation to the truth.
A Huffington Post reader named "Macready" knows where he stands. He writes in the comment forum: "the only suicide bombers I have ever felt sympathy and empathy with are the Palestinians . . . make no mistake Israel is committing genocide."
Macready participates a great deal in the Huffington Post community: 17,289 comments to date. Many of them are in fact benign, even thoughtful. So we ought to examine this accusation.
It is best to begin with the familiar: modern genocide, in the looser sense of the term. By this we mean slaughter on a scale so vast that an ordinary homicide seems almost trivial by comparison. Prodigious butchers rarely keep perfect books, but a consensus has slowly formed among scholars. Timothy Snyder has done important work regarding Stalin's death toll: a particularly difficult business because you must determine if and how famine should be taken into account. He settles on a relatively low number for Stalin: nine million, if you take into account foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and incarceration.
Mao's regime of murder is also notoriously difficult to calculate. You can weigh scholars and get close: "If we line up the 14 sources which claim to be complete, the median falls in the 45.75 to 52.5 million range." If you discount the Great Leap Forward, and focus simply on deliberate slaughter, he remains responsible for the murder of 10 million Chinese. I shall ignore Hitler here, because those figures are said by critics of Zionism to figure in propaganda used to whitewash Israel's crimes. Finkelstein has famously called it, "The Holocaust Industry." You can dig up those numbers on your own.
Here are approximate figures for just some of the 20th century's other mass murders, leaning heavily on necrometrics.com, which is a solid meta-source. The Belgian Congo: eight million. Fascist Japan: four million (very approximate). Pol Pot's killing fields: 1.65 million. Kim Il Sung's purges: 1.6 million. The Turkish massacre of the Armenians: 1.2 million.
When you include nations responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, the list is mind-numbing. Here is a very partial list of current regimes guilty of murdering at least 100,000 unarmed civilians: Pakistan, Rwanda, Iran, Somalia, Vietnam, Liberia, Burma, Sudan.
And then there is Israel.
Most people are aware that Israel has not murdered tens of millions of Palestinians. I am sure that some consider the number to be over a million: innocent Palestinian women and children, murdered by the Jews. The more historically aware will realize that this probably could not be the case, given the region's population, but surely Israel is responsible for hundreds of thousands of fatalities? If not the death of civilians, then at least the death of armed combatants. Here we must be on solid ground. In 1948, the Arab population under the British Mandate was close to 1,200,000 people. A genocidal nation -- correction, the genocidal nation -- must have undammed a river of blood. Huffington Post user AlexLiveFree warns us, urgently: "Israel's genocide of Palestinians needs to be stopped."
Those of you who took me up on my challenge earlier, to write down the figures you associate with the Israeli massacre of the Palestinians, might now wish to compare numbers.
Tomorrow Part II: Murder by Numbers.
Follow Douglas Anthony Cooper on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dysmedia
Douglas Anthony Cooper: Part 4: Hatred Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry
Satpal Singh: Shatter The Silence: An Undeclared War On Women
Shai Baitel: The Race for Primacy in the Middle East
Beirut-Lebanon-Breaking-News | News
Israel Risks Turkish Ire with Recognition of Armenian Genocide ...
Israeli Massacre of Palestinians from March 29, 2002
Jew Watch - Jewish Genocidal Murders of Others - Palestinian
Israel Debates Whether Armenian Killings Genocide - ABC News
There. I said it.
When Stalin died, Grieving Russian women were throwing themselves into his grave. The very same women who's husband's were taken away in the middle of the night to never be heard from again!
We should be using the UN definition of genocide to give a solid basis for an argument in this article for either side. The definition the UN adopted in 1948 states, "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:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
If we look at the author's claims through this framework, it begs for a more nuanced look into Israeli-Palestinian relations. The author focuses heavily upon the actual number of people killed. From this legal definition we see that the number of people that are killed does not make or break the case for genocide. It can be a group in whole or in part. The group does not have to be killed, non-lethal means can be used to lessen their viability.
I just can't get over the fact of what an amazing writer you are! please don't disappear and continue to post. I am very much looking forward to reading all the installments!
As to Macready, I'm astounded that you actually found a post of his that something else other than:
'Fanned X10000000"
1. emotions are key in every decision making process...just ask this leader in neuroscience research:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wup_K2WN0I
2. there are facts and then misrepresentations / opinions stated as facts:
Israel has repeatedly made efforts towards a lasting 2 state solution based solely on seeking peace even though their main partner, namely Hamas, has a charter committed to the eradication of the state of Israel, see for yourself, nobody mentions this ever (east to find: just search HAMAS on google)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter
3. finally Israel is an incredibly progressive democracy in the most brutal authoritarian (read: fundamentalist) region in the world and though it is certainly has its flaws (just like the US/UK) freedom of speech, religion, press, sexual orientation, political / social organization are all championed there additionally its a global leader in R&D and innovation...you should visit this so called "hell-hole"
cant wait for your "emotional" response.....jeez louise
2. I agree, and I've said so repeatedly.
3. I agree, and I've said so repeatedly.
You assumed that I was saying exactly the opposite of the point I was actually making. That happens on the Internet. I'm passed emotional responses
I have, had a wonderful, memorable time. My Purser and I drove from Haifa to the Sea of Galilee, south to Nazareth, walked around there for a while, then further south to Jericho, had lunch there, then to Jerusalem where we hired an Armenia kid to guide us on a tour, then on to Tel Aviv. Picked up a hitchhiking Israeli soldier on the way and she invited us to meet some friends. Had a great time, then finally got back to Haifa late that night. For the rest of the visit, I was fighting with the longshoremen and stevedore.
*People have been killed.
*Land has been taken away from people.
*People have been persecuted and treated with great indignity.
*Both peoples have elements that hate the other respective people and both want to eradicate the other from their physical location.
*There is no progress in bringing both peoples to recognize the sovereignty of the other people, although both peoples must.
Comparing other historical happenings and numbers and qualifications for certain words need not further muddy the already opaque waters. There is hatred, covetousness, violence and killing. Period. Both sides need to stop and make peace -- but neither can find the way to make it happen. That's all we need to know. Now, where's the *something that finally changes that?
What an interestingly anti-intellectual position to take. I wonder what the History Departments at our universities would become, under such a regime. No history!
What about their occupation of Golan Heights?
What about the millions of Palestinian refugees, huddled in tents, subsisting on a bare minimum?
What about the guns fired on a Turkish ship that was on a humanitarian mission?
It may not be genocide, but it is definitely an extremely harsh policy that does not care if innocent people die. Israel is heading down a cruel and lonely road and genocide might be 5 stops down.
*What about the 'occupation' of the Golan Heights? Life is good there and Israel doesn't lob missiles at Syrians...and the Syrians aren't allowed to menace Israel's north from there anymore. Win-win.
*"Millions of Palestinian refugees"...all descended from the ones forced into squalid, UN-run camps over six decades ago by the Arab League. Kept there to this very day by Arab leaders. Look up what Abu Mazen himself, among others, has to say on this matter. Those who didn't flee Israel are citizens today, and have multiplied.
*That "peace and human aid" flotilla was a total media circus and need not be reexamined here.
*Israel will NEVER commit "genocide." Some among our neighbours, however, have called for that very thing to be done to Israelis.
Now, if you have mentioned that occupied Golan Heights supply 1/3 of water that Israel uses, or that there is substantial revenue from 3 million turists
http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#America
I had to fav this comment because I think the real argument should be - "When the hell are these people going to grow up and get along?" Whoever has the biggest guns wins, so get over it and learn to get busy making the best out of what you have. This is not just a land dispute, it is an ideological quagmire based on religious beliefs. This has been going on since the beginning of time. For more recent news look to Nigeria.
http://handke-yugo.blogspot.com/2010/05/links-page-for-pages-of-this-blog.html I comment on Mr. Cooper"s: "Well-meaning people have been wrong before. Peter Handke.... somehow convinced himself that Slobodan Milosevic was falsely accused of war crimes in Bosnia. " Handke who knows is way around that part of the world [1] objected to the one-sided blaming of the Serbs; he objected to the moronic one-devil theory ; he never denied any war crimes, since he seemed to say "war is war", and if one one wanted to assign blame to the various nationalists -Tjudman, Izebetgovich Milosevic; or the chieftain of the Kosovo Albanians; it would be difficult to do so. If serious about checking the whys of the disintegration it helps to know about Ottoman, Austrian Empire, 1st Yugoslav Federation; German WW II occupation and aftermath; and history of Yugoslavia, as uncommitted third way during the Cold War, tanks facing east. One must be mindful of the economic warfare Reagan waged vs. the USSR and East Europe as factors in the economic standstill that allowed the tribes to think there might be something in reverting to those identities. Mr. Handke' championing the defense of the Serbs is something to be proud of, even though the way he went about it was indeed quite odd.
"Most people are aware that Israel has not murdered tens of millions of Palestinians. I am sure that some consider the number to be over a million: innocent Palestinian women and children, murdered by the Jews. The more historically aware will realize that this probably could not be the case, given the region's population, but surely Israel is responsible for hundreds of thousands of fatalities? "
I don't know. Is that question the answer?