The silence about the genocidal situation in Gaza is striking. How can we explain the double standards when we compare the – legitimate– indignation caused by the Russian bombings in Ukraine and the code of silence on those targeting the Palestinian civilian population subjected to a blockade? The drama is unfolding around a cocktail of feelings of guilt, cultural solidarity, fear of Islam or even hostility towards this religion, presented as a societal and security threat, poorly digested colonial memories and adherence to the concept of the “clash of civilizations.” In the media and among politicians, such a mixture of factors has led to almost universal support for the Israeli government’s actions. License to Kill analyzes the motives and consequences of the denial of the risk of genocide. Those who denounce it are labeled anti-Semites or accomplices of terrorism. Yet the reality is that we are facing a moral bankruptcy; and we cannot say that we did not know.
Please consider purchasing a copy of this excellent and timely book.
“It’s becoming necessary to draw the attention of European governments to a fact so small, it seems, that governments don’t seem to notice it at all. The fact is this: a people is being murdered. Where? In Europe. Does this fact have any witnesses? One witness: the whole world. Do governments see it? No.
The time has come to raise our voices. Universal indignation is rising. There are hours when the human conscience speaks and orders governments to listen. Governments stammer an answer. They’ve tried this stammering before. They say: We exaggerate”.
We could leave this text unchanged, simply changing “en Europe” to “aux portes de l’Europe”. This text was written by Victor Hugo on August 29, 1876, and referred to Serbia. If he used the same words today, he’d be accused of importing the conflict to France and blowing on the embers.
We have watched impassively as our people have been bombarded daily since October 8, 2023, while being subjected to a blockade. Bombing civilian populations is strictly forbidden under international law. Unfortunately, it has happened in the past. But this is the first time we’ve bombed people who have nowhere else to go.
These bombings have been actively supported in the public debate by some, but more often than not they have been invisible. Very little has been shown of this horrific reality. Those who supported them, or those who made them invisible, cannot be accused of participating in genocide. But they will have to answer to history for having denied it.
My personal view of the conflict is based on very simple principles: upholding international law and the right of peoples to self-determination. This means the right of Palestinians to have their own state alongside Israel, especially as they have agreed to build it on only 22% of Mandate Palestine. I’m not pro-Palestinian. I’m pro-international law, pro-right of peoples to self-determination. I’m also pro-Israel, since I’m in favor of the two-state solution, i.e. the existence of Israel and Palestine within secure, recognized 1967 borders. Some of my opponents say I’m anti-Israeli. I’m not anti-Israel. I’m just not for the same Israel they are. I’m for Yitzhak Rabin, Avraham Burg, Elie Barnavi, Amos Gitaï B’Tselem, they’re for Benyamin Netanyahu, Jabotinski, and now Ben Gvir and the supremacist movements. I’m not anti-Zionist, since I’m in favor of the existence of two states.
The double standard in this conflict has always seemed to me to be an intellectual heresy and a moral error. And working on strategic issues, I saw this double standard very quickly. The same people who justified military intervention against Yugoslavia in 1999, so that it would stop oppressing the Kosovars, who mobilized in favor of the Chechens, had not a word for the Palestinians.
The occupation of one people by another, already abnormal in the 20th century, is even more unacceptable in the 21st. Especially since, after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the peace process was moribund. Hamas certainly bears a great deal of responsibility for this state of affairs, but the Israeli government and society are drifting very much to the right, even to the extreme right. I denounced this back in 2001, and had already weathered a cataclysmic storm.
But things have got much worse since the turn of the century, becoming truly apocalyptic after October 7, 2023. Ariel Sharon, then Benyamin Netanyahu, who had demonized Rabin, patiently made any prospect of a just peace impossible, with the help of Hamas. The human, political and material situation of the Palestinians is worsening daily, and the racism of many Israelis is becoming unbridled. The moral figure Stéphane Hessel was indignant about the situation of the population of Gaza, subjected to a blockade since 2007 that leaves life without any horizon: “What is life like in Gaza, subject not only to the dictatorship of Hamas, but also to the blockade? What’s life like in the West Bank, where settlers continue to commit crimes with impunity, and the army humiliates and even kills people?”
October 7, 2023 led to a truly hellish situation. Of course, I immediately condemned the attacks. Terrorism is a moral and political dead end. Israel practiced it successfully before it was created, and the man who assassinated Rabin is one of the few terrorists who succeeded in derailing the peace process. Hamas has committed unacceptable, unforgivable horrors. But there was no justification for Israel’s disproportionate response, which was directed not just at Hamas leaders, but at an entire population. Bombing civilians is a moral ignominy and, from a legal point of view, a war crime. When they are committed against a population that is also under blockade, all bounds are crossed. At least for those with a modicum of ethics.
All the more so as these events occurred at a time when, for the past year and a half, all the French media and political leaders have rightly condemned the war crimes committed by the Russian army against the Ukrainian civilian population, and the violation of international law involving the acquisition of territory by force. There was a broad consensus on this point. I was already surprised that these criteria were not used to assess the Palestinian situation, where there was also an illegal occupation of territory acquired by military force. But the scale of the destruction in Gaza, once again the massive bombardment of a population with nowhere to flee, made the “double standards” even more shocking. I was quite scandalized by the hypocrisy of those who wrung their hands in sorrow at the plight of the Ukrainians, while at the same time vigorously justifying the bombing of the Palestinians in the name of the fight against terrorism, a terrorism which can only be stimulated by this type of exaction.
The situation over there seemed scandalous to me, and so did the way the subject was treated in France.
I found it abnormal that many commentators took up the arguments put forward by the Israeli state, equating any criticism of Israel’s war crimes with anti-Semitism.
And I thought we could fairly quickly brush aside the argument of those who claim that it was curious to take an interest in this conflict without taking an interest in all the others: Sudan, DRC, Yemen, Ethiopia, Myanmar, etc. For them, wasn’t this particular interest motivated by an anti-Semitism as deeprooted as it is ill-concealed? For them, wasn’t this particular interest motivated by an anti-Semitism as deep-rooted as it was poorly concealed? Wasn’t it motivated more by questioning the Israelis than by protecting the Palestinians? Why were the same people who had never been interested in these conflicts before, who had never spoken about them, suddenly so passionate about Sudan? It was easy enough to understand that it was to keep quiet about Gaza, which is, after all, the height of cynicism. To talk about the victims of Sudan—who in reality we don’t care about, while feigning compassion—in order to conceal those of Gaza is quite simply disgusting. It was easy enough to demonstrate the absurdity of this argument. It amounted to comparing the country that defines itself as the only democracy in the Middle East with authoritarian and often bloodthirsty regimes. But neither Sudan nor the two warlords, who massacre the population and use rape as a weapon of war, are allies of the Western world, unlike Israel. They are subject to an arms embargo, while the West continues to deliver arms to Israel, despite the cease-fires they demand! The behavior of an ally commits us. You can’t want to belong to the family of Western civilization and yet behave like the ultra-repressive leader of a dictatorial country. You can’t advocate the universal values of the Western world and then free yourself from them by massacring women and children.
Even if most mainstream media avoid showing them, images of the suffering of Gaza’s civilian population are circulating. No one interested in current affairs, and therefore no politician, can say “we didn’t know”. They are unbearable. They despair of humanity.
Can we talk about genocide?
For Alain Finkielkraut, “Whatever one thinks of the Israeli riposte, the word ‘genocide’ is crazy and despicable. It allows us to Nazify the Jews, to make them lose their victim credit and thus tip them over into the camp of the executioners.” “Victim credit,” an admitted argument. In what way do the sufferings endured by the Jews, in what way does the Shoah give them a credit that they could use against the Palestinians, who would become the debtors of a debt they did not contract? Can the Shoah be considered as a guarantee of absolute impunity?
Bernard-Henri Lévy and others made the rounds of the TV studios, hammering home ad libitum that there had been no genocide. And it was those who denounced this genocide who were accused of anti-Semitism. An extravagant situation in which those who denounce a massacre are accused, while those who commit it are protected. Historians, and above all international justice, will decide whether or not genocide took place. At the very least, there are war crimes and crimes against humanity, which is already too much.
And we can evoke a situation of genocidal risk right before our eyes. The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide concerns the prevention of genocide. This means that signatory states undertake to act before genocide occurs. The risk of genocide in Gaza has already been widely documented by UN bodies and numerous NGOs, precisely in order to prevent it. Silence, because it comes from an ally, makes us collectively guilty. Remaining silent for personal convenience is not dignified.
But I’m aware of the implications of speaking out on these issues. You are in the extreme minority in the media. Accusations of anti-Semitism will fall like Gravelotte. It’s more comfortable to keep quiet. What can we do about it? Why take risks with your personal and material comfort? Why put yourself at the center of a polemical debate? I know the precautionary reflex shared by many.
I know from experience the price to be paid for not respecting the rules of caution that lead to silence in the face of the unacceptable. And I can see how fear is the common thread running through public expression on these subjects. I can’t accept it. I want the unruly teenager who rebelled against injustice that I was not to be ashamed of the older adult I have become. Even back then, I found cowardice hard to bear.
Besides, what’s the risk? You can’t be imprisoned, let alone tortured. All you risk is a little of your material comfort.
I still have great difficulty understanding the cowardice that leads some people to close their eyes, cover their ears and silence themselves. They can’t say “I didn’t know”. A civilian population under blockade has been bombarded indiscriminately. Shredded bodies, mutilated children, constant fear of being bombed, no housing, no education, no health care, untreated wounds, amputations without anesthesia, no hygiene.
All in the name of civilization? Moral ignominy is also an insult to intelligence.
No, I won’t shut up.
So yes, I know that I may be ostracized in certain circles, that this will lead to pressure to cancel conferences or events to which I may be invited, and that standing aside is less risky, that it’s not good to appear as divisive, etc. I know all this, it’s the price to pay, and it’s not a heavy one. I know all this, it’s the price I have to pay, and it’s not a heavy one.
