What the Progressive Left Doesn’t Understand About Gaza

C. Gourgey, Ph.D.

If you get your news the way most Americans do, it is likely that all you know of the war in Gaza is the scenes of destruction broadcast over the evening news and other media, plus the very unreliable casualty figures from the Hamas-run “Gaza Health Ministry.” Outrage at such images is understandable.

Kamala Harris stated it well in her speech accepting the presidential nomination on August 22:

And let me be clear. And let me be clear. I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself, because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that a terrorist organization called Hamas caused on Oct. 7, including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival.

At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost. Desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, over and over again. The scale of suffering is heartbreaking.

The suffering on both sides should not be minimized. And if this is all one knows of the conflict, one can understand the outrage. Why should so many Gazan civilians have to suffer so much for the offenses committed by their terrorist government?

And so Israel has faced virtually unilateral condemnation from the international community as well as mass demonstrations here and abroad. In particular, progressives in this country have been vociferous in their anti-Israel rhetoric and have called for arms embargos and even sanctions. But this reaction is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the conflict. It is time we paid attention to “the rest of the story.”

It is not my intention to minimize Palestinian suffering. The war’s tragic consequences for Palestinian civilians are horrendous. Nevertheless, none of this justifies a rush to judgment. Those who have strong opinions about this war owe it to themselves to study it profoundly, with all its horrors and moral ambiguities. There are many parts to this whole that have not been widely reported, let alone carefully considered.

The first thing to remember about this war is how it started. Israel did not want a war. Unprovoked, on October 7, 2023 Hamas staged a massive attack against civilian Israeli communities living near the Gaza border, including many Israelis most supportive of Palestinian rights and aspirations. Over 1,200 were murdered and several taken hostage. Many women were brutally raped; many others including whole families were burned alive.

Attempts have been made to justify these atrocities by calling them “resistance” to an “occupation.” This is an intentionally deceptive use of language. Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967, a complicated situation that deserves its own extensive treatment. But the attacks of October 7 were not about that. When Hamas talks about “occupation,” it means the existence of Israel itself.

Hamas makes no secret of this. As horrible as those attacks were, Hamas has promised more of them until Israel is annihilated. Hamas does not hide this intention. It is found in the Hamas charter (1), and in the words of Hamas leadership:

Israel is a country that has no place on our land. We must remove it because it constitutes a security, military and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nation. We are not ashamed to say this.

We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do it twice and three times. The Al-Aqsa Deluge [the name Hamas gave its October 7 onslaught] is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth. Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.

We are the victims of the occupation. Period. Therefore, nobody should blame us for the things we do. On October 7, October 10, October one-millionth, everything we do is justified.(2)

The author of these statements, Hamas official Ghazi Hamad, said, when asked if this meant the complete annihilation of Israel, “Yes, of course.”

Israel was faced with an impossible choice: Do nothing, and allow Hamas to build itself up and repeat its horrendous actions. Do something, and risk harm to Palestinian civilians. Especially since Hamas admitted it is “proud to sacrifice” them.

Hamas has a long history of using its own civilians as human shields.(3) It stores rockets and fires them at Israel from schoolyards, mosques, and hospitals,(4)(5) knowing Israel will respond. Hamas intentionally puts civilians in harm’s way, because it knows its strongest weapon against Israel is international pressure. The organization is that cynical. Hamas’s strategy of using its own civilians as willing or unwilling “martyrs” has been wildly successful.

The harm to Gazan civilians in this war does indeed pose a moral dilemma. For Israel, it is an existential imperative to neutralize Hamas as a fighting force. A Hamas left intact poses a mortal threat to Israeli civilians. But does the end justify the means? I can’t give a clear answer to a situation that offers no good options. I can only call attention to the fact that Hamas placed Israel in this dilemma, yet only Israel has been subjected to substantial international pressure. This emboldens Hamas to create more moral dilemmas. Hamas has a vast network of tunnels spanning hundreds of miles, yet refuses to use it to shelter civilians. Hamas wants to force Israel to choose between harming Gazan civilians or exposing its own population to more deadly attacks. Pressuring only the Israeli side will therefore guarantee that this conflict will never end. This will become even clearer as we proceed.

Now for the part of the story not receiving as much attention. On October 8, just one day after the Hamas attack and before Israel even had a chance to respond, Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border began launching artillery and guided rocket attacks “in solidarity with the Palestinian people.”(6) Since then attacks have intensified, devastating northern Israel and making much of it uninhabitable, displacing tens of thousands of Israelis and effectively shrinking Israel’s border. Hezbollah has already tried to extend these attacks into central Israel.(7) It has not succeeded - yet. But the possibility of this war’s expanding into a major conflagration is very real. It very nearly happened - and still might.

And this is not all. The extent of the campaign against Israel runs deeper than was at first suspected. There is evidence, from Iranian sources, that Iran was behind the planning and execution of the October 7 massacre.(8)(9)(10)(11)(12) Iran even went as far as to claim that this attack was retribution for the death of Qasem Soleimani, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander assassinated by the US in 2020.(13) Soleimani was also the architect of Iran’s grand strategy for Israel’s annihilation.

Called the “Axis of Resistance,”(14) it comprises a number of Iranian proxies surrounding Israel on all sides. The principal ones are Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the south and Hezbollah in the north. In addition there are foreign militias in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, and pro-Iranian militias in Iraq. The strategy is for these proxies to chip away at Israel in a protracted war of attrition while Iran, the so-called “head of the octopus,” acts behind the scenes but does not become directly involved. This allows Iran to enact its aggression against Israel without paying a price for it. The intention is to make Israel an unlivable hell, driving out those Jews who are able to leave, and easily conquering those who are left behind. This, it is hoped, will spell the end of Israel as a sovereign state.

This strategy has been called Iran’s “Ring of Fire.”(15) Encircling Israel with hostile forces while remaining at a distance, Iran can conduct a slow-motion war against Israel to make it disappear without really suffering a cost. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has actually predicted that by the year 2040 the State of Israel will no longer exist.(16) Indeed, Iran already has the potential to carry out this threat. Hezbollah alone has enough missile capability to inflict devastating damage on all of Israel’s major cities.

And so what we usually call the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” is a misnomer. It is really an Israeli-Iranian war. And its opening salvo took place on October 7. Its defenders justify it by calling it “resistance.” Resistance against what?

Against the “occupation.” The word “occupation” is all over the place - but it is never clearly defined. Yet it is used even to justify the murder of children. The newspaper Kahan (”The Cosmos”), whose views reflect those of the Iranian government,(17) puts it this way:

All the Zionists who live in occupied Palestine are armed usurpers.... Israel is one big [military] base. Anyone living in this base is not a civilian but a soldier. In Israel there is no such thing as civilians.(18)

Note how “Israel” and “occupied Palestine” are used interchangeably. This is how the confrontation entities and their supporters define “occupation”: it refers to all of Israel, not just the West Bank. In numerous statements, including its charter, Hamas and its allies have made this abundantly clear. The West Bank is a separate issue to be considered below, but it is irrelevant to the present discussion. In fact, the ambiguous use of the word “occupation” is intentionally deceptive, meant to conflate Israel’s occupation of the West Bank with the real agenda of Israel’s current enemies, which is to end any sovereign Jewish presence anywhere in the Middle East. Israel’s harshest antagonists never talk about “57 years of occupation” since the Six-Day War and Israel’s control of the West Bank. It is always “75 years of occupation,” or “over 70 years,” referring to Israel’s founding, with the clear implication that all of Israel is illegitimate and rightfully belongs to the Palestinians. Thus the very fact that Israel exists is considered justification for the torture and murder of Israeli civilians including children.

Now what about the West Bank?

The West Bank cannot and should not be ignored. The situation is complicated. Israel gained control of the West Bank in a defensive war in 1967, in which the belligerent Arab states were summarily defeated. Initially Israel wanted to return the land in exchange for a guarantee of peace, but the Arab states unequivocally refused - this is all documented history.(19) In hindsight, perhaps Israel should have followed Ben Gurion’s advice to withdraw unilaterally from all captured territories save Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. But Israel refrained from doing that from fear it would only restore the status quo ante, making another Arab war of aggression possible.

As more conservative administrations gained power in Israel, policies of settlement expansion were enacted. This was and is a subject of tremendous controversy, even in Israel. Jordan illegally seized and annexed the West Bank, land originally intended for a Palestinian state, during the war of 1948. The international community accepted it; there were no mass demonstrations or UN resolutions condemning Jordan. Before 1967, while Jordan was still the occupier, there were no audible complaints, but Palestinians did not want to live under Israeli control, and so after the Six-Day War the conflict intensified, with an evolving movement toward achieving a Palestinian state.

Before October 7 I strongly supported the creation of a Palestinian state. I did not like the idea of Israel being in control of Palestinian lives, and felt that Palestinians as well as Jews have a right to the fulfillment of their national aspirations. I realize now how naļve that was. What is hardly ever recognized - and must be if this conflict is ever to end - is that under present conditions there can be no sovereign Palestinian state because it would pose a mortal threat to Israel.

The reason is simple. As long as Iran’s war for Israel’s annihilation continues, any independent Palestinian state on the West Bank would become another front in Iran’s Ring of Fire. Israel already has more than its hands full battling active aggression from Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north. Another front, right next door to Israel’s central cities, would be potentially overwhelming.

It is already happening. Iran is already smuggling weapons to Palestinians in the West Bank, just as it did to Hamas in Gaza.(20) In the absence of any Israeli control, the West Bank’s turning into another Hamas-style Gaza would become certain. Israelis are well aware of this reality, while nobody else seems to take it into account when wondering why this conflict is so intractable.

For this reason the notion that this conflict can be solved if only Israel could be pressured into accepting a “two-state solution” is incredibly misguided. And yet it is a staple of American policy in the region. The great mistake not only America but virtually the entire international community is making is to exert most, if not all, of the pressure on Israel to accept a Palestinian state at this time. While their national aspirations are legitimate, Palestinians must know that these aspirations cannot be fulfilled as long as they continue to ally themselves with Iran in their campaign for Israel’s destruction. Palestinians already have one state. It‘s called Gaza, and we see what Palestinians have done with it. Israel will not allow its duplication on the West Bank, where the danger is even greater. Israel, surrounded by mortal enemies bent on its elimination, cannot be expected to say, “You want to kill me? OK, let me make it easy for you. I’ll open the door, you just come right on in.”

I know this sounds harsh, but this is the Middle East. Harsh realities with no good options abound, where every choice is a Sophie’s choice. I want to see Israelis and Palestinians living side by side, each in their own state where they can determine the direction of their lives. But under present conditions that cannot happen for at least a generation, and perhaps not even then.

Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is not the issue right now. Iran and its proxies do not even mention it. To them, “occupation” means Israel’s existence, and “resisting the occupation” means engineering Israel’s obliteration. Unless the US and the international community soundly reject this agenda, their efforts to force a resolution of this conflict will only make it worse. I am hoping that sometime in the future it will make sense to work for an end to the occupation of the West Bank. But that time is not now, as long as Iran and its “Axis of Resistance” remain undeterred.

The Role of Antisemitism

As the new college semester begins, a report surfaced that pro-Palestinian demonstrators at one New York City campus have specifically targeted the college’s Hillel Jewish student club. They carried signs proclaiming “Bring the war home,” “Let the intifada pave the way for people’s war,” and “Hillel go to hell.” Also visible was the inverted red triangle, a symbol of Hamas. Students for Justice in Palestine, the group behind the protest, shared a post about this protest with other pro-Palestinian groups across the City University system.(21). Similar protests specifically targeting Hillel organizations have spread to several other campuses.(22)(23)(24)(25)

Bring the War Home / Hillel Go to Hell

(Notice the sign in the top left corner of the second image says “End the occupation of Palestine” and not “End the occupation of the West Bank.” To Hamas and its supporters, “Palestine” means the entire territory “from the river to the sea” including Israel. These demonstrators are effectively advocating an end to Israel itself.)

These demonstrations, whose participants frequently wear the type of face mask sported by Palestinian terrorists, are aimed not just at Israel but specifically at groups of Jewish students. The antisemitism behind this and similar protests across the country is palpable. Many of these demonstrations make no secret of their support of Hamas and the atrocities of October 7.(26) On a number of occasions they have degenerated not only into verbal but also physical abuse of Jewish students.(27)(28)

And yet pressure is being exerted on the Jewish community to stop talking about antisemitism. A term now heard with increasing frequency is that Jews are “weaponizing” antisemitism in an effort to cut off any criticism of Israel. The charge is obscene, and meant to take antisemitism out of the discussion. It is thrown at Jews for identifying antisemitism anywhere in this conflict, and intended to make Jews afraid to use the word at all. I don’t know of any Jews who are misusing it as alleged. The notion that Jews consider all criticism of the Israeli government’s policies antisemitic is absurd. Criticism of the current Israeli government is widespread in the Jewish community, and especially in Israel. While much criticism of Israel is truly antisemitic - and these campus demonstrations are only one example - much of it is not, and most Jews recognize this.(29) But that is a small part of the story. Antisemitism permeates this conflict at all levels, from the hostile forces attacking Israel on multiple fronts to the demonstrators who support them both here and abroad. Yet when Jews try to point this out, there is always the danger they will be accused of exploiting antisemitism to silence their opponents, when they are the ones being silenced.

Hamas and Hezbollah make no secret of their antisemitic motivations. Neither does Iran, which once sponsored a conference on Holocaust denial.(30) The Iranian government propagates antisemitism and sees its war against Israel as a sacred duty.(31) It is really not difficult to find evidence that antisemitism is rampant within the Muslim community.(32) Nevertheless, Jews are not supposed to talk about it.

Of course this does not mean that all Muslims are antisemites. Even in Israel, there are instances of Muslim and Jewish communities cooperating with each other and working together. Unfortunately, these efforts are often overshadowed by the religiously-inspired antisemitism driving the policies of actors dedicated to Israel’s extinction. The softening of relations between Israel and some Gulf states is a positive development, but motivated more by fear of Iran than any philosemitism. Before Iran became the threat that it is today, antisemitism was dominant in those countries too, and still is among much of the “Arab street.”

Islamic antisemitism is the driving force behind this conflict, and this is not difficult to see if one examines objectively the words and deeds of those who have fought to abolish Israel ever since its founding and have never let up, and whose efforts are experiencing a resurgence today. Hatred of Jews is even now preached in mosques(33) and taught in schools.(34) The Qur’an is often used to prove that Jews are less than human, the offspring of “apes and pigs.”(35) Whether Islam itself encourages antisemitism is a serious question. Certainly not all Muslims are antisemitic; there are groups of Muslims and Jews who work in cooperation (though many sorely tested by the events of October 7). Nevertheless, antisemitism runs very strongly in the Muslim world, and religion has been used to support it. The evidence is there, though many just do not want to see it.

The Progressive Left

At one time Israel received full bipartisan support in this country. In recent years this has started to change. Part of the responsibility belongs to Benjamin Netanyahu, who made an unfortunate point of favoring the Republican Party and particularly Donald Trump. But there are also much deeper reasons for the change, having to do with political trends in this country, to which Netanyahu’s gestures are partly a reaction.

Pro-Israel sentiment has deteriorated mostly among the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which has been trying to pull the party away from its traditional support for Israel. Biden’s unequivocal support for Israel after the October 7 attack was met with a progressive backlash, something we would not have seen one or two generations ago. An “uncommitted” voter movement arose in Michigan and spread to other states,(36) with the purpose of “teaching the Democratic Party a lesson” by threatening to tip the presidential election to Donald Trump. These pressures forced Biden to backtrack, resulting in a more equivocal message that, instead of achieving an immediate ceasefire, likely contributed to prolonging the war.

Progressive reactions against Israel run a spectrum, from calls to cut off military aid, to calls to cut off all aid, and even to joining the movement for boycott, divestment, and sanctions. The rhetoric is often strident and very one-sided. Israel is accused of “genocide” and “settler-colonialism,” the new buzzword in much left-wing speech and in the world of academia. In many cases, this sentiment expresses itself in support for Hamas and its atrocities of October 7.(37)

Let’s look at the language. True genocide involves an intention to liquidate every member of a population without distinction. Unlike the IDF, a genocidal army does not telegraph in advance where they are going to strike, thus giving up the advantage of surprise. A genocidal army does not make attempts, however imperfect, to establish civilian safe passage corridors. A genocidal army does not pause the fighting so that children can receive polio vaccines.(38) But a genocidal army does exactly what Hamas did on October 7.

In its charter as well as in recent declarations, Hamas has proclaimed its genocidal intentions. The purpose of this war, from Israel’s standpoint, is to prevent this program from being carried out. It is often forgotten who started this war, and what Hamas did that day. That does not matter to leftist protesters, many of whom support Hamas. One may debate the manner in which Israel has conducted this war, whether despite its efforts it could have done more to protect civilians when Hamas deliberately exposes them to danger, but in no way can Israel’s actions rightly be considered genocide. In every war civilians are harmed; that does not make every war a genocide. For a real genocide, you need the deliberate, sadistic, and wholesale targeting of every civilian within reach. And that is the specialty of Hamas.

This is not the first time Israel has been accused of genocide when defending itself against unprovoked Palestinian aggression, and it probably won’t be the last. And yet the accusation is made in total ignorance of decades of Palestinian attacks specifically targeting civilians. The accusation of “genocide” against Israel is an abuse of language and has rightly been compared to the blood libel.(39)

“Settler-colonialist” is a favorite slur that many progressive and academic activists love to throw at Israel. It conjures a picture of Jews as foreign invaders who came to kill Palestinians and steal their lands. This is fabricated history. Jews had been living in “Palestine” since before the Muslim conquests - perhaps the Muslims were the real “settler-colonialists.”

It is time to break the “settler-colonialist” myth once and for all. According to the Palestinian narrative, Palestinian Arabs were living in the entire region now occupied by Israel practically since time immemorial,(40) and then a horde of Jewish settlers invaded and drove them out. This is not what happened. As just noted, if one wants to play the game of “who was there first,” well Jews were, and had been there since ancient times. There was Jewish immigration later on, but there was Arab immigration as well. Immigration from surrounding Arab countries to the area of mandatory Palestine that eventually became Israel was considerable.(41) So if Jews are “settler colonialists,” then so are Arabs.

In truth, the phrase “settler-colonialist” is useless political cant. There are in fact two peoples living in the region, Jewish and Palestinian Arab, and both are entitled to their national aspirations. Calling Israel a state of “settler-colonialists” is no better than Jews claiming there is no such thing as a Palestinian people, and is a manifestation of antisemitism. Yes, there were displacements, but after a war started by the Palestinian side, and many Jews were also displaced in that war. And those so concerned about displaced Palestinians have not a word to say about the tens of thousands of Israelis displaced from their homes by Hezbollah’s devastation of northern Israel, let alone the Jews driven out of Arab lands.

So what would Israel’s accusers do with its “settler-colonialists”? Deport them? Where? Leave them at the mercy of Palestinian mobs who would perpetrate repeated October 7s? What do you do with “settler-colonialists” anyway? Labeling Israeli Jews “settler-colonialists” is itself an antisemitic slander.

Yet among some progressives Israel has become the poster child for any oppression of “indigenous” populations anywhere in the world. Israel/Palestine has been used as a standard of comparison for the exploitation of “black and brown bodies,” the subjugation of Native Americans, persecution of the homeless, mass incarceration, even air pollution and the climate crisis. Name the evil, and it can be compared to stuff that Jews are doing.(42)

The world has an obsession with the Jewish people. The United Nations has issued many more resolutions condemning Israel than any other country. Meanwhile the UN is silent while Muslims are slaughtered in Syria and Myanmar, Russia pursues an unprovoked war in Ukraine more brutal than Israel in Gaza and without any ceasefires, Iran tries to export its violent revolution, and the Chinese aggressively persecute Uyghurs and Tibetans. Imagine if it were Israel doing those things, how loud would be the uproar.

For some reason Jews seem to carry the shadow of much of the world’s darkness. Among American progressives, this typically expresses as a conflation of Israel/Palestine with the Black struggle for civil rights. The two could hardly be more different, as a careful study of their histories would show, yet often they are seen through the same lens. After October 7, some chapters of Black Lives Matter expressed solidarity with Hamas.(43) Students for Justice in Palestine have also used this false analogy to recruit campus protesters to their cause: “We believe the struggle for a free Palestine is interconnected with the struggle for Black liberation.”(44) All of this completely ignores the unrelenting campaign of Palestinian terrorism intended to undo Israel’s existence ever since Israel was created.

One notable progressive organization that arguably crosses the threshold from criticism of Israel into antisemitism is Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), “the largest volunteer-run, electoral organization committed to the anti-Zionist project.”(45) This group counts among its members many elected officials at federal, state, and municipal levels, and has been instrumental in trying to push the Democratic Party leftward. Here is what the DSA International Committee has to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

DSA’s International Committee stands in unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian people in their 75 year struggle for liberation from Israel’s settler colonial occupation, ethnic cleansing, and ongoing genocide....

The root of violence is Israel’s 75+ years of violent colonialism and mass killings of the Palestinian people.(46)

These bizarre statements turn history completely on its head. As noted earlier, “75 years of occupation” refers not to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank but to Israel’s founding. Palestinian activists no longer speak of the occupation of the West Bank. For them, all of Israel is occupied Palestinian land. Thus DSA’s and Hamas’s positions on the legitimacy of Israel are identical. In no way can Israel’s establishment be considered a “settler colonial occupation”; such labeling is racist and characterizes all Israelis as invading, white European Jewish interlopers. The only “ethnic cleansing” going on at the time was the Arab effort to obliterate the Jewish state - as well as driving Jews out of the Arab countries. Iraq, where my family comes from, once had a community of 150,000 Jews. Now there are no Jews left. But you won’t hear about that from the DSA.

The DSA considers Israel’s very existence illegitimate and supports those demonstrating for Israel’s destruction.(47) It opposes all funding to Israel, including and especially the Iron Dome, which is purely defensive and without which Israel would have been devastated by missiles from Hezbollah and Iran.(48)

The DSA also expresses its antisemitism by trying to deny it: The DSA “Publicly opposes all criminalization of Anti-Zionism, such as bills advancing the IHRA definition which conflates criticism of Israel with anti-semitism.”(49) This statement about the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) is a lie. Here is the IHRA definition of antisemitism in full:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.(50)

These are all valid points. And note well that the statement says explicitly: criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. So the statement emphatically does not “conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.” When Israel is singled out for condemnation that would not be leveled against any other nation, yes, that is antisemitic. But not criticism of Israel per se. Yet the DSA wants to invalidate this entire definition on the grounds that it allegedly confuses criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Once again, the charge that Jews deliberately conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism is used to imply that no criticism of Israel is antisemitic. And that indeed is antisemitic.

One further observation bears this out. There is much self-criticism in the Jewish community, and much division in Israeli society. And, unfortunately, there are many Jewish anti-Zionists. Yet only Jews are accused of deflecting legitimate criticism, calling it “antisemitic.” Meanwhile, self-criticism on the Palestinian side is virtually nonexistent. Palestinian self-expression is typified by self-righteousness and a sense of victimization, as if Palestinians had no agency and make no contribution to the conflict. Yet Palestinians are not accused of dismissing deserved criticism as “Islamophobia.” The notion that Jews “weaponize” antisemitism to neutralize any criticism of Israel is really an attempt to delegitimize any discussion of antisemitism at all, especially when it pertains to Palestinian society.

The Red Star Caucus, “a Marxist caucus in DSA,”(51) leaves no doubt about where its sympathies lie. This from a statement entitled “We Do Not Condemn Hamas, and Neither Should You”:

In order to make correct choices, we must correctly identify our allies and enemies. We want to see the end of the apartheid Israeli state in occupied Palestine. That means we want victory for Palestine and defeat for Israel. Note that this does not mean we want “equal rights in Israel” or “the fall of the Netanyahu regime.” It means victory for Palestinians, as determined by Palestinians themselves. From this, we can determine our alignment to other forces involved. All forces fighting alongside Palestine and against Israel and its allies are at least temporarily, and at least in this context, our allies. That includes the Palestinian resistance, the larger Axis of Resistance in the region, and all popular movements rising up to support Palestine.(52)

This is quite a loaded statement. In other words, no equal rights for Jews, and no more Israel. As we have seen, “as determined by Palestinians themselves” means obliterating Israel and imposing a Palestine in its place, “from the river to the sea.” Just as disconcerting, the statement expresses unequivocal support for the “Axis of Resistance,” which, as we have seen, comprises Iran and all of its proxies surrounding and attacking Israel from the “ring of fire,” whose agenda is unashamedly genocidal. The article also approvingly quotes a sign wielded by Columbia protesters: “Whoever is in solidarity with our corpses but not our rockets is a hypocrite and not one of us.”

Solidarity with our rockets

Rockets are not just falling now, in northern and southern Israel. Hamas has been firing them at Israeli civilians since it took over Gaza two decades ago. These demonstrations overtly support Palestinian terrorism, and a denial of any right of Jews to live independently in the Middle East, free from attacks by their Muslim neighbors.

This shows just how dangerous language can be, when misused and exploited for political purposes. Defining Jews as “settler colonialists” demonizes them and justifies atrocities committed against them, such as decades of rockets fired at population centers, mass murder, and violent gang rape. It is, after all, “resistance.”

And so the DSA, with its position that Israel’s very existence is racist oppression, its support for those who celebrate Hamas violence, and its disregard of the very real threats Israel faces, proves itself to be an antisemitic organization. And I don’t need to conflate anything to make that assertion.

Conclusion:

Recently some Israeli soldiers were accused of sexually abusing Palestinian prisoners. This incident has been used by Israel’s enemies to draw a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas, thus relieving Hamas of any particular responsibility. But there is a difference. An Israeli military court investigated the incident and held the soldiers to account.(53) But in Palestinian society, fighters who act this way are held up as heroes. For Israel, aggravated sexual abuse is an exception. For Hamas, it is a strategy.

And that strategy has one particular aim: the destruction of Israeli society. And on this point Hamas is very clear. In an interview noteworthy for its astounding ignorance, Jeremy Cohan, co-chair of the Steering Committee of the DSA, tried to obscure it. A favorite Palestinian slogan, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” is a clear call for Israel’s destruction. Yet Cohan states: “I don't think that that slogan means that.... When they say, ‘From the river to the sea,’ they're talking about full economic, political, social rights, democratic rights for everyone in the region.”(54) If Cohan had studied the history of that slogan more carefully, he would know better.

Here is what Khalid Mashal, the leader of Hamas abroad, had to say about the atrocities of October 7:

I would like to say two things about the two-state solution. First, we have nothing to do with the two-state solution. We reject this notion, because it means you would get a promise for a [Palestinian] state, yet you are required to recognize the legitimacy of the other state, which is the Zionist entity. This is unacceptable....

Obviously, the position of Hamas, and the position of the vast majority of the Palestinian people, especially following October 7, I believe that the dream and the hope for Palestine from the River to the Sea, and from the north to the south, has been renewed. This has also become a slogan chanted in the U.S., and in western capital cities, by the American and Western public. ‘Palestine from the River to the Sea’ - that's the slogan of American students, and the [students] in European capital cities....

The Palestinian consensus - or almost a consensus - is that we will not give up on our right to Palestine in its entirety, from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, and from Rosh HaNikra to Eilat or the Gulf of Aqaba....

I believe that October 7 has enhanced this conviction, has narrowed the disagreements, and has turned the idea of liberating Palestine from the River to the Sea into a realistic idea that has already begun. It is not something [merely] to be expected or hoped for. It is part of the plan, part of the agenda, and we are standing on its threshold, Allah willing.(55)

It could hardly be clearer. And Mashal is right about the Palestinian “consensus”: an overwhelming majority of Palestinians support the October 7 attack.(56) “From the river to the sea” is not an innocent call for peace. It is precisely the opposite. As we have already seen, Hamas has pledged to repeat similar attacks until Israel is destroyed.(57)

The progressive left sees the conflict through a distorted lens. It has a romanticized view of Palestinians, as the “indigenous” innocent victims of white colonialist intruders bent on wiping them out. This impression, given by much verbal and written expression from the left, bears no resemblance to reality. Ever since Hamas took control, instead of improving conditions for the people, it devoted all its resources toward building a military machine intended someday to ignite a war that would destroy Israel. There is no way Israel can tolerate an increasingly potent terror state on its southern border. Israel can hardly be expected to remain passive while Hamas steadily increases its military capability and executes its genocidal program. Yet Israel’s critics, quick to condemn Israel for its response, offer no coherent alternative.

We need to bear in mind the exact nature of the attack on October 7. Simply calling it a “massacre” does not do it justice. The physical and emotional torture inflicted before death were meant to cause maximum suffering, especially on children and on women. People were tortured before they were killed. The intent was to destroy their humanity before destroying their bodies. This is very reminiscent of the Nazis’ treatment of their Jewish victims. In fact, Hamas drew from the Nazi playbook, even circulating Arabic versions of Mein Kampf.(58) Anti-Jewish feeling, and not just anti-Israeli, runs deep in Palestinian society, and children are educated in it from an early age.(59)

There is no escaping the antisemitic purpose of Hamas’s agenda. Hamas makes no secret of it, so there is no point in anyone else trying to whitewash it. This is what campus demonstrators are supporting when they chant Hamas slogans and wear Hamas headbands and insignia - the violent dehumanization of Jews. And the hostility of these demonstrations toward Jewish students is impossible to miss.

And now a word about “occupation.” The charge that Gaza is still “occupied” is nonsensical. Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and evacuated all of its settlements there. Gaza has its own governing entity and professional army, and for all practical purposes acts like a state. Still they call it an “open air prison.” This odd phrase most likely refers to the blockade, which has actually been quite porous and not very effective. The purpose of the blockade is to prevent Hamas from using imports to build its military machine. Egypt also has maintained the blockade to protect the Sisi government, although anti-Egyptian campus demonstrations are very hard to come by. Israel has no interest in enforcing a blockade just to make Palestinians miserable. It is a response to actions by Hamas. If Gaza is in any sense a “prison,” then Hamas is the jailer.

The only sense in which the word “occupation” is still meaningful is the continuing occupation of the West Bank. But observe that Hamas and its supporters do not talk about the West Bank. By “occupation” they mean Israel’s very existence, and have made that abundantly clear. The West Bank occupation is indeed an issue, but its significance is obscured by the multi-front war now being waged against Israel.

I want to see the occupation of the West Bank ended. I think it is terrible both for Israel and for Palestinians. But it cannot end as long as that would risk the West Bank’s joining the “Axis of Resistance” and becoming another Iranian proxy threatening Israel. There are, to be sure, hardline factions in Israel that will oppose relinquishing the territory for a Palestinian state under any circumstances. They will have to be dealt with as they were when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 - but not until it becomes absolutely clear that the result will not be another confrontation state threatening Israel’s security. And I do not see that happening anytime soon, and certainly not within my lifetime. And definitely never, as long as international pressure is exerted only against the Israeli side.

As noted earlier, this conflict is not just between Israel and Palestinians. Iran is using the Palestinians as part of a larger war meant to end Israel once and for all. In the interview cited earlier, Jeremy Cohan stated that “you have to look at who has power and what power are you trying to influence. Overwhelmingly, in the Israeli-Palestinian situation, Israel has the power.” Once again this shows a profound misunderstanding of the conflict. Hezbollah even by itself has the firepower to decimate Israel’s cities. And behind it all is Iran, sworn to do away with Israel to fulfill its religious and hegemonic aspirations.

Israel is by no means in a dominant position, and is fighting a war for its survival. Hamas is just the tip of the spear representing that war. But progressives do not talk about Iran’s role in this conflict, as if Iran didn’t exist. Actually, that is not entirely accurate. The DSA does mention Iran - and takes Iran’s side. On April 1, 2023, Mohammad Reza Zahedi and other top members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard were killed in an airstrike, attributed to Israel, on Iran’s diplomatic mission in Damascus. In addition to other controversial activities including his association with Hezbollah, Zahedi had a key role in the planning of the October 7 attack.(60) DSA responded with strong support for Iran’s right to “self-defense.” Calling Israel “the Zionist project” (a Hamas term), they state:

The Democratic Socialists of America’s International Committee (DSA IC) affirms Iran’s right to self-defense in response to the illegal Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus.(61)

This can only mean that DSA supports Iran’s threatened retaliatory strike. There was no mention of October 7, Zahedi’s role in planning that attack, or even Israel’s own right to self-defense. And, as mentioned earlier, the Red Star Caucus, an organ within the DSA, expressed strong support for the “Axis of Resistance,” the network of Iran and its proxies surrounding Israel in a “ring of fire.” Clearly an odd set of values is operating here. The Democratic Socialists of America have lost their moral compass, if in fact they ever had one.

Given this background, certain conclusions are inevitable. Israel cannot afford to allow Hamas to continue building its military capability until the next promised attack dwarfs October 7. No country can tolerate a terrorist state committed to its destruction right on its border. Therefore pressuring only Israel to end the conflict is not only futile, it makes things worse by emboldening the Palestinian rejectionists and encouraging them to continue. Pressure exerted on Israel alone is a guarantee that the war will not end until the entire region explodes. Hamas started the war, Hamas can end the war, and that is where most of the pressure should be applied. Trying to force Israel to end a war Hamas started and still wishes to pursue is insane. No country, not even Israel, can be forced to sign its own death warrant.

If Hamas would give up its ambition to drive the Jews out of Israel and truly accept peaceful coexistence, there would be no reason for a war or for a blockade. But Hamas will not give up that aim, because it is its reason for being. The entire structure of Hamas’s Gaza was engineered to make war on Israel. Anti-Jewish feeling runs so deep in Gazan society that it will never disappear unless called out for the menace that it is. It is a force affecting the stability not only of Israel but the entire region. Therefore this should be the focus of international pressure, if interest in ending this conflict is truly genuine.

Islamic antisemitism is the major driving force behind this conflict, and has been since the beginning, when Jews accepted partition and the Palestinians refused. The Muslim world has never tolerated a sovereign Jewish presence anywhere within their midst, and the wars they fought against Israel were all instigated from their side. With weaponry becoming ever more sophisticated, each succeeding war becomes a greater threat to world stability. Israel will not just disappear, and Iran shows no signs of backing down. We can keep pursuing this course until mass destruction in the region brings down the world. Or we can start by applying pressure where it rightfully belongs: against the Islamic extremist anti-Jewish genocidal agenda. If that problem is ever solved - by no means to be taken for granted - then pressuring Israel to accept a Palestinian state might make sense. But that may really require, not just in Israel/Palestine but among the entire international community, “a new heaven and a new earth.”

September 2024