If it is portrayed as a war crime; genocide—the methodical, malicious murder of the many—can be dismissed as incidental to battle; a mere case of, “Oops, bad things happen in war.” You hear the last phrase all the time from Israel’s supporters, as they gush their enthusiasm for the state’s crimes.
The genocide-as-a-war-crime conceptualization provides cover and lends imprimatur for criminals and criminality. You mitigate and minimize genocide when you call it a war crime.
This is precisely the point of Israel and its co-belligerents: The purpose of framing Israel’s ongoing extermination of Palestinian society in Gaza as a byproduct of war—the same having commenced in the West Bank and East Jerusalem—is to give the impression that industrial-scale mass murder is often incidental to war. Bad things happen in the butcher’s shop of war.
But genocide—legally and morally—is a stand-alone crime; it is not a crime attached to a set of mitigating or explanatory circumstances. The Israeli State, gleefully engaged in methodical, indiscriminate mass murder, is thus a criminal entity. Perhaps not a common criminal, but, nevertheless a criminal country, a threat to the comity of nations. It doesn’t take a Carl von Clausewitz, famed Prussian general and war theorist, to figure this out.
Disquieting though this is, a better source of metaphor for Israel than von Clausewitz is Truman Capote. He is the originator of the true-crime genre, in which a real event is treated with fictional techniques and turned into a literary work of art. That Capote’s In Cold Blood certainly is.
The State of Israel, to commandeer and paraphrase Capote, is that “rarity, a natural killer—absolutely sane, but conscienceless, and capable of dealing, with or without motive, the coldest-blooded deathblows.”
In the crime he anatomized, Capote encountered the “single-killer concept” and “the double-killer concept.” Israel comes under the nation-killer concept, given that the nation, with thumping majorities, backed the killing of Gaza. Currently, it is by a preponderance of 71 percent that Israelis support a war on Lebanon.
In any event, because it is an indefensible crime for which there are no extenuating circumstances or traditional defenses—genocide is not a war crime.
The manifestly willful attempt to destroy a society and its people is a crime for which the death penalty—execution of those involved—has, historically, been meted. The exculpatory agents of Israel’s crimes against humanity are, alas, incapable of reasoning from fact, ethics and logic. Like programmed automatons, they therefore recite a counterfactual storyline, an ideological meme.
HASBARA AND A FLORET OF BABY FLESH
Israel’s odious excuse-making has come to be known as Hasbara.
In Hebrew, hasbara is the name of the verb to explain (lehasbir). It means explanation. Exculpatory constructs, assorted Hasbara, serve to coat Israel’s corporeal crimes against humanity with ideological respectability, to give these some imagined purity of purpose.
Think of Hasbara as providing cretins with bogus constructs with which to rape reality.
The facts of mass murder have been undercounted so far in a 649-page list of every Palestinian recorded killed in Israeli attacks. Two hundred and twenty-six pages of these, list the names of children 18 years and younger, including 14 pages of newborns and babies under a year old. Each name corresponds to a body, identified and interred. The last 11 pages list Palestinian elders, ages 77- to 101-years-old, all older than the country that killed them. (Via The Electronic Intifada.)
This carnage is being dismissed as a byproduct of war, executed within the matrix of Israeli “self-defense,” as Hasbara has it.
Hasbara to what end? To propagandize international audiences into sympathizing exclusively with Israel and demonizing Arabs. (+972 Magazine.)
Hasbara to frame the specter of baby flesh peeled away to expose gleaming white bone—little bodies and minds shattered for life should they live—as the doing of a third party. “I didn’t do it,” jokes Bart Simpson in that all-American parody, The Simpsons. Hamas made me do it. CNN’s Hasbara, which ascribes an almost-attractive raffishness to IDF criminals, has it that the Occupation made Israeli soldiers commit their crimes.
Hasbara to help leave refugees with no redoubt, and nothing to their name but a nylon dome above their heads. Gaza’s homeless must wait to parry whatever next thrust Israel will deliver in… “self-defense.”
In-the-heat-of-battle Hasbara greases the skids for a Jewish Taliban and his posse of soldiers, whooping it up, as they explode one more mosque among the hundreds they’ve already vaporized.
Hasbara explains away another IDF demon grimacing maniacally while reciting The Shmah, our “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one” prayer. He then levels a mosque. “Have an explosive Sabath,” roar these particular IDF, before bursting into popular song, “The Nation of Israel Lives,” and sharing that they had just wired up a house of prayer in Khirbet Khizaa, Khan Younis, in the central Gaza Strip. Next I want to see their faces, scores of them, appear on our screens from the Hague. But will Hasbara tools like Matthew Miller, ensconced in the State Department, allow it? Rhetorical.
Israel’s Hasbara facilitates “Israel’s conceit of invincibility,” in Mouin Rabbani’s words. It has marred the West’s morality, but will never contaminate the natural law, and has yet to fundamentally change the common law.
Civilizing systems of ethics still stipulate that no one has the right to kill a single innocent human being, directly or indirectly, let alone hundreds of thousands of them—for by the time the Israeli serial killers are cajoled into stopping the carnage, there could be, in my informed opinion, between 250 to 500,000, maybe more, Palestinian deaths by Israel.
Easily—that is if the Lancet, the medical journal of record, and the human rights community don’t lie. The scholar Norman Finkelstein, author of Gaza, An Inquest Into Martyrdom (2018)—an exegesis of fact and law—has strongly suggested that they, too, have been compromised.
MINARCHIST, ANARCHIST OR STATIST: GENOCIDE IS FORBIDDEN!
International law is not at odds with the natural law or the libertarian law on the matter of industrial-scale mass murder. For reasons obvious, there should certainly be no difference between how classical liberals or anarchists understand the non-aggression axion in this context. Minarchist or anarchist; genocide is verboten in libertarianism.
Craig Mokhiber, one of this country’s most principled specialists in “international human rights law, policy, and methodology,” explains:
‘International law does not allow a claim of self-defense to justify crimes against humanity and genocide. Nor does it magically overcome the international humanitarian law imperatives of precaution, distinction, and proportionality, or the protected status of hospitals and other vital civilian installations.
In addition, the presence of people associated with armed resistance groups (even if proven) does not automatically transform a civilian location or protected structure into a legitimate military target. If it did, the common presence of Israeli soldiers in Israeli hospitals would equally render those hospitals legitimate targets. Attacking hospitals is not an act of self-defense. It is an act of murder and, in systematic and large-scale cases, of the crime of extermination.
A claim of self-defense does not justify collective punishment, the siege of civilian populations, extrajudicial executions, torture, the blocking of humanitarian aid, the targeting of children, the murder of aid workers, medical personnel, journalists, and UN officials- all crimes perpetrated by Israel during the current phase of its genocide in Palestine. And all shamelessly followed by claims of self-defense by Israel’s defenders in the West.’ (Via Mondoweiss)
Having figured out, over this pixelated page, that genocide must be addressed as a crime, not a war crime, I humbly discover that I stand on the shoulders of “Raphael Lemkin.
Lemkin was … first …to put forward the theory that genocide is not a war crime and that the immorality of a crime such as genocide should not be confused with the amorality of war.” Genocide is “the gravest and greatest of crimes,” and thus dubbed “a crime against humanity,” wrote Lemkin, a Polish, Jewish human rights lawyer.
“‘The term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that,’ Lemkin explained in a 1945 article. ‘More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations’—cultural institutions, physical structures, the economy—’of the life of national groups.” (Via Mother Jones.)
Much like any good libertarian, Lemkin was a natural-rights thinker, whose reasoning about genocide—the intentional murder of the many—was derived from reasoning about the crime of homicide. Mass murder, essentially, is when “the natural right of the individual to exist” has been sundered many times over.
As to the offender: If the individual may not gratuitously and serially kill people; neither may the collective, the state, exterminate a class of people. It should make no difference as to whether the felon is a lone criminal or the “common force,” to use Frédéric Bastiat’s natural-rights nomenclature. In The Law, Bastiat writes this:
“Since … force by an individual cannot legitimately be… used against the person, freedom, or property of another individual, by the same argument, the common force cannot legitimately be used to destroy the person, freedom, or property of either individuals or classes.”
WHEN MONEY MEDIATES MURDER
If words matter, then boy! does money matter.
The Israel Lobby, AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee), is an almighty fifth column which ought to have long since come under corruption investigations and dismantled (ditto the ADL). At the very least, AIPAC, a blatant Israel operative, ought to have been forced to register as a foreign agent and scrutinized.
The first such endeavor was attempted by William Fulbright decades back. In 1963, by Wikipedia’s telling, Fulbright—academic, statesman and politician—had implicated AIPAC in laundering five million tax-deductible dollars “from philanthropic Americans,” by ostensibly sending the money to Israel “and then recycle[ing] it back to the U.S. for distribution to organizations seeking to influence public opinion in favor of Israel.”
On April 15, 1973, Fulbright told Face the Nation, a current affairs television program, that “Israel controls the U.S. Senate. … [and that we] should be more concerned about the United States interest rather than doing the bidding of Israel … The Senate is subservient to Israel, in my opinion much too much.”
That was the end of Fulbright’s campaign.
Fulbright’s reality, underscored in 1973, has reached its nadir in 2024. On July 23, American law-makers-cum-Israel-lap-dogs leap to their feet some 50 times, with cheers and deafening applause, to express adulation for mass murderer Benjamin Netanyahu, who is named as an offender by the International Criminal Court.
From Fulbright whose re-election bid AIPAC helped torpedo in 1973, to Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, two charismatic Americans with grassroots support, who’d refused to do Israel’s bidding, in 2024: AIPAC (track it) continues to buy influence, and to subvert Americans whenever they attempt to exert their popular will against that of the Israel donor-class.
Progressive representatives Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Cori Bush of Missouri dared to voice disgust for Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians of Gaza. That was the end of the Bush/Bowman bids for office.
While we’re deconstructing Israel’s lexicon of crime, do please quit calling its “Operation Swords of Iron” in Gaza a war. It’s not.
GENOCIDE IS NOT WAR
Israel’s onslaught on Gaza—from my diligent daily tracking, the Israelis have comfortably settled into massacring between 30 to 100 individuals, each day—is not a war by any definition.
In Gaza, there are no armies arrayed one against the other. This is no war between equal, opposing warrior forces. There is no parity on the battle field, only, for the most, the bullyboy’s aerial blitzkrieg carried out against a trapped civilian population. In terms of matériel, not the quality or morality of its men, the Middle East’s most powerful army is also among the world’s top 20 military forces.
The IDF’s extermination campaign against a population of cornered civilians has indeed been disrupted by pockets of asymmetric guerilla warfare from non-state resistance fighters. Their exploits are available on the X platform of military analyst Jon Elmer.
Gleaned from my close observations over 11 months; the Gaza-based Hamas fighting brigades are no fat cats; they are skinny young Ghazzawi men, some in sandals, slinking among their ruined homes, darting in-and-out to defend what is left of their communities. These fighters are indubitably of the Palestinian people and for the people, as Palestinians see them.
And the way Palestinians see things is all important. The art of getting along, differences and all, is imperative in conflict resolution. Realpolitik demands not dominance, but that dueling perspectives be taken into consideration. Israel and America should not foist their reality on their opponents.
At any rate, let us try to avoid a dialogue of the deaf, and remember that words matter. They mediate action. Use them accurately: Genocide is the kind of crime that stands alone; no mitigation or extenuation attach to genocide. By extension, Israel is waging genocide, not war, and … Americans want it stopped.
For all their initial stated eagerness; most of our countrymen (61 percent now) want Israel’s genocide halted. Americans, moreover, want to stop arming Israel, as a June poll from CBS showed (via The Intercept). This includes 77 percent of Democrats and nearly 40 percent of Republicans.
Beholden to donor-class dominated politics, the regnant villains of the Stupid and the Evil Parties are, nevertheless, refusing to end the genocide in Gaza. Yet it must be stopped. Actively and urgently so, given that, in an attempt to bury the crime of all crimes; Israel has shifted the focus to its northern front, to Lebanon.
How to stop the genocide, in my next instalment.
