The Verdict Of History: How Political Calculations Betrayed Gaza
The report accused Israel of committing genocide, a conclusion reached after a detailed analysis of the military campaign's intent, the systematic destruction of civilian life, and the government-engineered famine. This finding is significant because it adds to the massive body of legal and testimonial evidence affirming the Palestinian position that Israel's actions in Gaza constitute a genocide.
Moreover, the fact that B'Tselem is an Israeli organization is doubly important. It represents an insider's indictment of the horrific massacres and the government-engineered famine in the Strip, directly challenging the baseless argument that accusing Israel of genocide is an act of antisemitism.
Western media were particularly interested in this report, despite the fact that numerous first-hand Palestinian reports and investigations are often ignored or downplayed. This double standard continues to feed into a chronic media problem in its perception of Palestine and Israel.
Claims by Palestinians of Israeli war crimes have historically been ignored by mainstream media or academia. Whether the Zionist militia's massacre of Tantura in 1948, the actual number of Palestinians and Lebanese killed in the massacres of Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon in 1982, or the events resulting in the Jenin massacre in the West Bank in 2002, the media has frequently ignored the Palestinian account. It often gains a degree of validation only if it is backed by Israeli or Western voices.
The latest B'Tselem report is no exception. But another question must be asked: why did it take nearly two years for B'Tselem to reach such an obvious conclusion? Israeli rights groups, in particular, have far greater access to the conduct of the Israeli army, the statements of politicians, and Hebrew media coverage than any other entity. Such a conclusion, therefore, should have been reached in a matter of two months, not two years.
This kind of intentional delay has so far defined the position of many international institutions, organizations, and individuals whose moral authority would have helped Palestinians establish the facts of the genocide globally much earlier.
For example, despite the ICJ's historic ruling on January 26, 2024, that determined that there are plausible grounds for South Africa's accusation of Israel of committing genocide, the court is still unable, or unwilling, to produce a conclusive ruling. A definitive ruling would have been a significant pressure card on Israel to end its mass killing in Gaza.
Instead, for now, the ICJ expects Israel to investigate itself, a most unrealistic expectation at a time when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promises his extremist ministers that Israel will encourage the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.
The same indictment of intentional and politicized delays can be attributed to the International Criminal Court. While it issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defense minister on November 21, 2024, no concrete action has been taken. Instead, it is the Chief Prosecutor of the court, Karim Khan, who finds himself attacked by the US government and media for having the courage to follow through on the investigation.
Individuals, too, especially those who have been associated with 'revolutionary' politics, the likes of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders, among others, have been reluctant to act. On March 22, 2024, Ocasio-Cortez refused to use the term genocide in Gaza, going as far as claiming that, while she saw an "unfolding genocide," she was not yet ready to use the term herself.
Sanders, on the other hand, who has spoken out repeatedly and strongly against Netanyahu, describing him in an interview with CNN on July 31 as a "disgusting liar," has had repeated moral lapses since the start of the war. When the term genocide was used by many, far less 'radical' politicians, Sanders doubled down during a lecture at a university in Ireland. He said that the word genocide "makes him queasy," and he urged people to be 'careful about it'.
These are not simply lost opportunities or instances of moral equivocation. They have had a profound and direct impact on Israel's behavior. The timely intervention of governments, international institutions, high courts, media, and human rights groups would have fundamentally changed the dynamics of the war. Such collective pressure could have forced Israel and its allies to end the war, potentially saving thousands of lives.
Delays born of political calculation and fear of retribution have given Israel the critical space it needed to carry out its genocide. Israel is actively exploiting this lack of legal and moral clarity to persist in its mass slaughter of Palestinians.
This must change. The Palestinian perspective, their suffering, and their truths must be respected and honored without needing validation from Israeli or other sources. The Palestinian voice and their rights must be truly centered, not as an academic cliché or political jargon, but as an undeniable, everyday reality.
As for those who have delayed their verdict regarding the Israeli genocide, no rationale can possibly absolve them. They will be judged by history and by the desperate pleas of Gaza's mothers and fathers, who tried and failed to save their children from the Israeli killing machine and the world's collective silence or inaction.
- Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His forthcoming book, ' Before the Flood', will be published by Seven Stories Press. His other books include 'Our Vision for Liberation', 'My Father was a Freedom Fighter' and 'The Last Earth'. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Negligible hope from Alaska summit
Sadly, there is little reason to be optimistic about the Donald Trump-Vladimir Putin summit in Alaska. Ostensibly, the meeting between the United States and Russian presidents is about ending the war in Ukraine, or at least securing a ceasefire. In reality, minimal good can be expected. Details of any potential deal remain undisclosed, though Mr Trump has said it would involve "some swapping of territories to the betterment of both". In other words, if — and it is a huge if — an agreement was reached, Russia's invasion would be rewarded. The principle that international borders cannot be changed by force would be permanently violated. This post-World War 2 consensus helps protect smaller nations such as New Zealand. Mr Trump has already blatantly disregarded it, and China would likely welcome a return to the more straightforward "might is right". One analyst has called the summit "the first more or less realistic attempt to stop the war". The emphasis should be on the "less". Mr Putin, pounding Ukraine down, seeks more than limited territorial gains. Ukraine, fighting for its life and soul, is in an impossible position. The invaded country was not even invited, although Mr Trump spoke of meeting Mr Putin "first", and now talks about the possibility of three-way talks. Mr Putin has refused several opportunities to hold direct talks with Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Mr Zelenskyy has no choice but to insist that any deal without Kyiv is a "dead decision", while continuing to avoid alienating Mr Trump. As he learned from that disastrous meeting in the White House, sycophancy towards Mr Trump is mandatory. The United States remains the key military supporter, vital for maintaining Ukraine's resistance to Russia's advances. Long term, Ukraine might have to live without Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, and slivers of territory in the east. That will be insufficient for Mr Putin. There are suggestions that Ukraine would have to cede the entire Donbas region. A parallel issue concerns guarantees for Ukraine against subsequent attacks, necessary for a "reliable peace", as Mr Zelenskyy's chief of staff said. Russia will not countenance what would be necessary: Western troops on the ground. Mr Putin is not to be trusted. A Hitler-Chamberlain-style "piece of paper" agreement would only play into his hands. Europe, bordering Russia and deeply entangled, has also been sidelined, even if US Vice-president JD Vance has been meeting European representatives. While Europe insists the talks must include Kyiv and Europe, Mr Trump does his own thing. The summit is already a triumph for Mr Putin. The policy of isolating him is damaged, and he has nothing to lose. Formerly characterised as an archenemy, he is accepted as meeting the US president on US soil. Instead of losing favour with Mr Trump through his obstinacy, as had begun to occur, he becomes the leader supposedly seeking peace. Whatever happens, he helps Mr Trump revel in his cherished international spotlight. Mr Putin has the chance to influence the US president one-to-one, a useful advantage given Mr Trump's susceptibility to the last person he speaks with. Remember, Mr Trump has openly expressed admiration for the powerful Mr Putin. Mr Putin can also encourage the growing division within the Western security alliance between the US and Europe. At a deeper level, Mr Trump cares little about Ukraine. Eventually, co-operation with Russia could become central to exploiting global resources, potentially drawing Russia away from China and closer to the US orbit. The summit gives Mr Putin additional prestige in the eyes of Russians, who also see little prospect of Russia having to give up anything. Given Mr Trump's comments about land swaps and his capricious nature, Ukraine must be dreading this summit as others contemplate its fate. The greatest fear, which Mr Putin will fuel, is that the demands on Ukraine will be virtually impossible to accept. If Mr Zelenskyy rejects them, the United States could withdraw its vital support. The better scenario is simply talk and bluster. Meanwhile, the killing and destruction grind on.
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Occupation And Slaughter: Netanyahu And Taking Over Gaza
To say that Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had lost the plot is to assume he ever had one. With a dearth of ideas as to how to come up with a 'final solution' to the Palestinian problem, he has received a majority approval from his cabinet colleagues to take over Gaza City. It took a late-night meeting with the security cabinet lasting some ten hours. A statement released on the morning of August 8 from his office mentioned a five-point plan intended to defeat Hamas and conclude the war. None of this is an improved version of what has come before: the intended disarming of Hamas, the return of all hostages, demilitarising the Gaza Strip, assuming security control of the territory and creating 'an alternative civil administration that is neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority'. There is also not much difference here from recent proposals made by the French President Emmanuel Macron, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, with one fundamental difference: the Israelis want no current Palestinian representative authority to govern the people they so loathe. What all the proposals share is a core belief that the Palestinians be reduced to subordinate status, forever policed and monitored by watchful authorities. Their representatives are to be vetted by the Israelis and any number of international partners. Genuine sovereignty can sod off. The Israeli military has announced that it 'will prepare to take control of Gaza City while providing humanitarian aid to the civilian population outside the combat zones'. Little change then given the current model of aid distribution that features daily massacres of the desperate and the starving overseen by trigger itchy personnel from both the IDF and the obscenely named Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. OHCHR, the United Nations human rights office, claims that at least 1,373 Palestinians seeking food have been killed since May 27, 859 in proximity of the GHF's distribution points. Another 514 have perished along the routes traversed by food convoys. The UN Human Rights chief Volker Türk has done his best to reiterate a certain ghastly obviousness in the plan. The military takeover 'runs contrary to the ruling of the International Court of Justice that Israel bring its occupation to an end as soon as possible, to the realisation of the agreed two-State solution and to the right of Palestinians to self-determination.' The takeover would entail further escalation, resulting in 'more massive forced displacement, more killing, more unbearable suffering, senseless destruction and atrocity crimes.' The IDF's chief of staff, Lt. General Eyal Zamier, is not a fan of the plan, concerned that it would do more to imperil the surviving Israeli hostages held in the Strip. The New York Times reports that the country's military leadership would prefer a fresh ceasefire, with the IDF suffering from the effects of attrition from the conflict. The head of Israel's National Security Council, Tzachi Hanegbi, is in furious agreement: such an operation would further endanger the surviving Israeli hostages. Mossad's director, David Barnea, also adds his name to the list of sceptics. Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid did not shy away from excoriating the cabinet decision, something he called 'a disaster' that would breed further disasters. The far-right figures of Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich had 'dragged' the Prime Minister into a strategy that would lead to the death of the hostages and Israeli troops while costing billions to the Israeli taxpayer. An announcement from Hamas proved suitably contemptuous of the latest Netanyahu gambit. 'We warn the criminal occupation that this criminal adventure will cost it dearly. It will not be a walk in the park. Our people and their resistance are resilient to defeat or surrender, and Netanyahu's plans, ambitions, and delusions will fail miserably.' The group also thought it fitting to name the United States as 'fully responsible for the occupation's crimes, due to its political cover and direct military support for its aggression.' In a turn up for the books for those opposing Netanyahu's blood-soaked adventurism, some of Israel's closest allies are going beyond muttering criticism. Modest as it is, Germany has announced that weapons exports to Israel for use in the Strip had been suspended 'until further notice'. (Between 2020 and 2024, the country accounted for a third of Israel's arms imports.) A statement from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, while acknowledging the usual proviso that Israel had 'the right to defend itself against Hamas terrorism,' expressed concern that 'even tougher military action by the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip' undermined prospects for releasing the hostages and pursuing negotiations for a ceasefire. Merz further warned that Israel 'not take any further steps toward annexing the West Bank.' For his part, Starmer called Israel's 'decision to further escalate its offensive in Gaza […] wrong, and we urge it to reconsider immediately. This action will do nothing to bring an end to this conflict or to help secure the release of the hostages. It will only bring more bloodshed.' Türk, if somewhat hollowly, demands an end to the war in Gaza with a rosy vision: an arrangement where Israelis and Palestinians are 'allowed to live side by side in peace.' Admirable as this aspiration is, optimistic in its transcendence, it misunderstands the currency of hate and vengeance currently traded in Netanyahu's cabinet and swathes of the Israeli populace. This is not a matter of side by side, but above and below, living in a state of permanent conflict, suppression and suspicion.
1News
10 hours ago
- 1News
Netanyahu defends new Gaza military offensive, says it will be wider than announced
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today defended a new military offensive in Gaza that's more sweeping than previously announced, declaring in the face of growing condemnation at home and abroad that Israel 'has no choice but to finish the job and complete the defeat of Hamas'. Even as more Israelis express concern over the 22-month war, Netanyahu said the security Cabinet last week instructed the dismantling of Hamas strongholds not only in Gaza City but also in the 'central camps' and Muwasi. A source familiar with the operation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to talk to the media, confirmed that Israel plans it in both areas. The camps — sheltering well over a half-million displaced people, according to the UN — had not been part of Israel's announcement Friday. It was not clear why, though Netanyahu faced criticism this weekend within his ruling coalition that targeting Gaza City was not enough. Netanyahu said there would be 'safe zones," but such designated areas have been bombed in the past. Late Sunday (local time), heavy bombardment was reported in Gaza City. Shortly before midnight local time, broadcaster Al Jazeera said correspondent Anas al-Sharif was killed in a strike. Rami Mohanna, administrative director at the nearby Shifa Hospital, said the strike hit a tent for Al Jazeera journalists outside the hospital's walls. Along with al-Sharif, three other journalists and a driver were killed. Israel's military confirmed it, asserting al-Sharif had 'posed as a journalist' and alleging he was with Hamas. Al-Sharif had denied having any political affiliations. The Committee to Protect Journalists last month said it was gravely concerned for his safety and said he was a 'targeted by an Israeli military smear campaign'. ADVERTISEMENT Netanyahu spoke with Trump about plan Netanyahu's office late Sunday (local time) said he had spoken with US President Donald Trump about the plan and thanked him for his 'steadfast support'. Rejecting starvation in Gaza as well as a 'global campaign of lies," Netanyahu spoke to foreign media just before an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, a platform for outrage but little action on the war. 'Our goal is not to occupy Gaza, our goal is to free Gaza,' Netanyahu asserted. The goals, he said, include demilitarising the territory, the Israeli military having 'overriding security control' and a non-Israeli civilian administration in charge. Israel wants to increase the number of aid distribution sites in Gaza, he said, but in a later briefing to local media, he asserted: 'There is no hunger. There was no hunger. There was a shortage, and there was certainly no policy of starvation." Netanyahu also said he has directed Israel's military to 'bring in more foreign journalists' — which would be a striking development, as they haven't been allowed into Gaza beyond military embeds during the war. He again blamed many of Gaza's problems on the Hamas militant group, including civilian deaths, destruction and aid shortages. 'Hamas still has thousands of armed terrorists," he asserted, adding that Palestinians are 'begging' to be freed from them. ADVERTISEMENT Hamas responded with a lengthy statement that summed up Netanyahu's remarks as 'blatant lies'. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including dire state of our heart health system, where unspent charter school money might go, and thieves make off with a pricey haul of Labubu dolls. (Source: 1News) US defends Israel at Security Council meeting The United States defended Israel, saying it has the right to decide what's best for its security. It called allegations of genocide in Gaza false. The US has veto power at the council and can block proposed actions there. Other council members, and UN officials, expressed alarm. China called the 'collective punishment' of people in Gaza unacceptable. Russia warned against a 'reckless intensification of hostilities'. 'This is no longer a looming hunger crisis; this is starvation,' said Ramesh Rajasingham with the UN humanitarian office. 'Humanitarian conditions are beyond horrific. We have frankly run out of words to describe it.' ADVERTISEMENT Israel faces growing action even by its closest allies. Netanyahu said Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany had 'buckled under' the growing international criticism by stopping exports of military equipment to Israel that could be used in Gaza. Merz, for his part, told public broadcaster ARD that Germany and Israel were talking 'very critically' but Berlin's overall policies of friendship haven't changed. More Palestinians killed as they seek aid At least 31 Palestinians were killed while seeking aid in Gaza, hospitals and witnesses said. The Associated Press spoke to witnesses of gunfire in the Israeli-controlled Morag and Netzarim corridors and the Teina area in the south. All accused Israeli forces of firing at crowds trying to reach food distributions or waiting for convoys. Fifteen people were killed while waiting for trucks near the Morag corridor that separates the southern cities of Rafah and Khan Younis, according to Nasser hospital. The situation is a 'death trap,' said Jamal al-Laweh, who said Israeli forces opened fire there. 'But I have no other choice to feed the kids.' Six were killed while waiting for aid in northern Gaza near the Zikim crossing, according to Gaza's Health Ministry and Shifa hospital. In central Gaza, witnesses said they heard warning shots before fire was aimed toward crowds trying to reach a distribution site operated by the Israeli-backed and US-funded Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. The AP could not independently confirm who fired. Awda hospital said four people were killed by Israeli gunfire. ADVERTISEMENT Six other aid-seekers were killed while trying to reach GHF sites in Khan Younis and Rafah, Nasser hospital said. The GHF sites opened in May as an alternative to the UN-run aid system, but operations have been marred by deaths and chaos. Responding to AP inquiries, the GHF media office said: 'There were no incidents at or near our sites today.' Israel's military said there were no incidents involving troops near central Gaza aid sites. Hunger death toll among children hits 100 Israel's air and ground offensive has displaced most Palestinians and pushed the territory toward famine. Two Palestinian children died of malnutrition-related causes on Saturday, bringing the toll among children to 100 since the war began. At least 117 adults have died of malnutrition-related causes since June, when the ministry started to count them. The hunger toll is in addition to the ministry's war toll of 61,400 Palestinians. The ministry, part of the Hamas-run government and staffed by medical professionals, doesn't distinguish between fighters or civilians, but says around half of the dead have been women and children. The UN and independent experts consider it the most reliable source on war casualties.
