Far-right Israeli government minister Ben-Gvir believes that Israeli soldiers must shoot Palestinian women and children in Gaza to stop ‘another October 7’.
Far-right Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir demanded the army shoot Palestinian women and children in Gaza during a cabinet meeting, according to the Israeli media on Monday.
“We cannot have women and children getting close to the border… anyone who gets near must get a bullet [in the head],” Ben-Gvir said during a debate with Israeli military chief Herzi Halevi on the army’s “open-fire” rules at the cabinet meeting on Sunday.
Ben-Gvir, who heads the extreme right Jewish Power party, told Halevi that Israel’s rules of engagement in Gaza were too lenient and ought to be broadened out to encompass civilians.
“You know how our enemies operate… they will try us,” Ben-Gvir said according to The Jerusalem Post.
“They will send women and children as undercover terrorists. If we continue like this, we will reach another October 7.”
Halevi did not argue with Ben-Gvir over the ethics of shooting Palestinian women and children, but rather claimed that it might lead to more “friendly fire” incidents.
read more: https://www.newarab.com/news/ben-gvir-says-israeli-army-can-shoot-women-children-gaza
He’s not exactly wrong — why won’t the West realize that terrorizing the terrorists doesn’t make them less radicalized? To justify one heinous act of violence with another is an investment in more of the same.
Obviously it’s a big messy situation that’s too complicated for simple blanket statements (and what do I know?), but it seems fair to say that history repeats itself unless we can reject this flawed zero-sum premise that my suffering can justify yours.
Do I condone Hamas? Absolutely not. Would I condone attacking Israel if they bombed my home and murdered my family? I bet I would…
It’s easy to espouse aggressively simplistic moral principles from the privilege of safety. Much harder and more important to root those principles in a foundation of empathy.
It’s easy from the privilege of safety to say that Israel has no choice but to keep Palestinians locked up in their open air prison, because you imagine that they might take revenge when they get out.
This is the exact argument that white people made to not free the enslaved people. The real solution is freedom for everyone, from the river to the sea.
Yes, and the assumptions that make up this artificial“it’s us against them”ultimatum tend to dissolve when placed under an empathetic lens.
The political justification for the genocide of Palestine, much like that of US slavery, requires that people are dehumanized. It’s not genocide because they’re an existential threat, slavery isn’t a grievous violation of human rights because non-whites simply aren’t human in the same capacity, etc. These assumptions don’t hold up long if you perceive the “other” as motivated by a similar humanity to your own — everyone else is just trying to put food on the table and keep their family safe too.
Of course, there are many bad-faith actors to be found. But my point is that, broadly speaking, we all need to chip away at toxic “us vs them” narratives from the bottom up
Fanon talks about how colonialism dehumanizes both the colonized and the colonizer. The colonized become less-than-human, but the colonizers become greater-than-human. That’s what the existential threat is, if Palestinians regain their humanity then Israelis have to become lowly humans again. It’s not just an “us vs them” narrative, it’s a structure of domination that makes Israelis superhuman.
The de-colonial struggle shows the settler that no, actually, they aren’t superhuman. They bleed and die like the rest of us.
This is an excellent point, thank you. I think this is a crucial and overlooked component to fascist movements and their appeal to the disenfranchised, like the amorphous concept of “great”-ness that the MAGA crowd espouses.
I haven’t read Fanon, would you recommend a place to start?
Black Skin, White Masks is where he talks about colonial dehumanization. While he’s talking in the context of Africa and France, it applies quite well to Israel and Palestine too.
I don’t think you’re wrong per se, but I think you are applying your logic too equally. Yes, we all need to humanize each other more, but that ignores the uneven situation we find ourselves in. The colonizer or enslaver needs to stop the crime they are committing. Only then can the victims start their healing process and begin to humanize and forgive. This is a long process, but it needs to start with the crime being stopped. It’s hard to humanize the person that is enslaving or committing genocide against you while it’s still happening. It’s also hard to humanize your victims when you’re still committing crimes against them.
That’s true! And I don’t mean to sound like I’m making a “bad guys on both sides” sort of false equivalency here. Certainly the weight of the imperative should be directed toward those who sit atop power structures.
Honest question: how can one inspire empathy via rhetoric in an incredibly polarized and emotional situation? There seems to be a bit of a chicken/egg problem in that there must be empathy in order for the violence to stop, but the violence has to stop before the empathy can begin.
I think organizations like B’TSelem, Breaking the Silence, and Jewish Voice for Peace are really important for inspiring empathy to those convinced by Israeli/US propaganda. Assuming they are actually open to considering non-IDF sources.
I don’t know for sure, but looking back at the struggle of black people in the USA, I think the most likely way out is being forceful. Every victory was a struggle, either via direct violence or (often violent) protests. I would love to be wrong and see that love indeed conquers all, but I don’t know of any time that actually worked.
I’m not saying I have answers either, but my concern is that those grassroots struggles don’t work in the face of a huge imbalance of power. The Palestinians do not have the capability to forcefully counter the IDF, so if Israel is to be compelled forcefully rather than from inside-out, who provides that leverage? Is it the benevolent dictator problem, where the only way out is to have an absolute power in control which you trust will act altruistically?
The struggle of black folks in the US is an interesting example because, while the Civil Rights Movement made great strides, in the modern political sphere it would be absurd to conclude that the problem is solved. People didn’t stop being racist and hateful just because the law made it illegal to discriminate. People do stop being racist and hateful when they have a humanizing relationship with the black family down the street and empirically change their worldview.
It is naive to think that love will indeed conquer all and that force is never justified or appropriate. But so too is it naive to expect that being forceful alone can instigate the sort of healing necessary for lasting peace.
Perhaps the answer is to use force to get to the “peace treaty” phase, which becomes the foundation for gradual empathy. But I do see dangerous irony in the notion of “righteous” violence. Israel should be stopped, with force, but until minds are changed and hearts are swayed, the violence will resurface eventually.
I guess I’m really just arguing that violence should never be taken for granted.