As expected, my recent article on the Israel-Palestine conflict ruffled some feathers. My goal in this article is to address a comment that was left on my last piece. There are various other comments, but in addressing this particular contention, I believe that I can touch on the content in the other comments as well. 

I am responsible for addressing the challenges posed to me for two reasons. First, many of the counterarguments presented are simply false and misleading. I am not going to list them out, but they exist in the comment section of my last article. Since people who decry the Israeli regime are accused of condoning Hamas, I must state that I unequivocally denounce Hamas and their brutal, unspeakable actions against Israel.

Unless you have seen the media coming from Israel, words can not truly describe the horror that Hamas has inflicted over the past few days. In no way are these actions justified. They are, however, provoked by an aggressive and illegal Israeli occupation (as well as a deep religious conflict). Saying this is not the same as condoning Hamas. This position must be repeated and clarified in unambiguous terms because I am exhausted of defending such a common sense claim.

Second, if we are to achieve any growth, open dialogues regarding the most important issues are required. A conflict of this scale is a loaded topic. That being said, we all need to maintain respect and allow others to express their opinions. Challenges and questions are appropriate. This cycle of conversation is crucial, and this article is an attempt to follow through on that commitment. 

The first comment I would like to address is one regarding my claim that Israeli citizens ought not to be slaughtered as a reaction to their government’s neo-fascist activity:

Do you have examples of how the Israeli government qualifies as neo-fascist? If you learn anything writing for this paper let it be it’s intellectually bankrupt to fall back on the typical leftist hyperbole of everyone who disagrees with my childish worldview must be a fascist. Please tell us how you define fascism, and how Israel qualifies. 

No problem. Aside from the absurd normative judgment of our school paper, let me proceed to their main points. I will start by defining fascism in a way that is unbiased and comprehensible. According to Brittanica, “fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another,” however, “they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism.” In addition, most fascist regimes uphold “a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: ‘people’s community’), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.” 

This definition suffices as a general summary of fascism. Now, to the next point. I must address how Israel fits this definition if my arguments are to remain intact. First, we can analyze the intentions of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister. He is the longest-serving Israeli Prime Minister and has continuously exerted his power in a fascistic way. Netanyahu is a member of the Likud, a prominent right-wing party and what some would call “ultra-orthodox” and “ultra-Zionist.” Given Netanyahu’s support of this party, we can also call him an ultra-orthodox Zionist. This is the way political analyst Marwan Bishara describes him.

How do Netanyahu’s actions support fascist ideology? Besides the illegal occupation of Palestine, Netanyahu’s desire to consolidate power is alarming. For example, his brazen pursuit of a bill “which curtails the power of the judiciary to strike down laws found by the court to be ‘extremely unreasonable’” is something that would frighten Americans if it happened within our own government.  

If President Biden suggested that America dispose of judiciary powers, would the political right not label him a rogue communist in a liberal disguise? This answer is self-evident if one gives serious consideration to the political climate of the U.S. 

Moreover, this attempt at limiting outside influence to consolidate power in favor of a right-wing nationalist government is fascist according to the Britannica definition. As we can see from the current events, Netanyahu is unwavering in his commitment to delivering a punishing blow to Palestine to protect Zionist interests. Furthermore, his support of judicial limitation expresses his “contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism.” How does Netanyahu express the desire for a Volksgemeinschaft?

One can look to the founding idea of Zionism expressed succinctly by historian Martin Gilbert in his book “Israel: A History.” Gilbert writes in the opening chapter that “Zionism proposed a national identity and a national home for the Jews.” Netanyahu, as a Zionist, believes that the Jews have a right to the land of Israel.

This is the deep-rooted issue of the conflict (and one I’m afraid can’t be solved). However, this is not what makes Netanyahu fascist. When you combine right-wing politics with a heavy dose of militaristic nationalism and an abandonment of basic democratic institutions, all in favor of a religious orthodoxy that inspires to be victors of contested land, fascism will follow. Netanyahu’s quickness to propose such radical shifts in power is reminiscent of The Enabling Act, which gave Hitler his ultimate and supreme authority to govern without impediment. 

We can also point to the rhetoric stemming from Netanyahu’s regime. For example, Yoav Gallant, the Israeli Minister of Defense, stated that Israel is fighting “human animals.” This may apply to Hamas, but what about the innocent Palestinians that will crumble due to this ideology? Hitler used to refer to the Jews as “rats” or in German, Untermenschen (which means subhumans). I must note I am not comparing the current conflict in Israel to the destruction of the Holocaust. I am pointing out how the Israeli regime fits with a definition of fascism based on a historical standard. When a right-wing, ultra-orthodox, nationalist government, attempts to limit judicial power and carries forth policies of oppression and occupation, this qualifies as fascism. 

Additionally, Israel cut off all food, water, electricity and fuel to Gaza. Who are the victims? Innocent people who are no different than the civilians slain by Hamas. In fact, since the fighting started, the UN Commission of Inquiry “has been collecting and preserving evidence of war crimes committed by all sides since 7 October 2023, when Hamas launched a complex attack on Israel and Israeli forces responded with airstrikes in Gaza.”

Key word: “all sides.”

Just as those who stick up for Hamas have no leg to stand on, neither do those who justify the ongoing Israeli occupation that has resulted in over 6,000 Palestinian deaths since 2008 (not including the current war). Surely, this count will rise. And if you believe the actions of Israel do not compare to the horror committed by Hamas, I cautiously encourage you to look at videos emerging on the internet. Parents are pulling their dead babies and toddlers from rubble in which they had no chance to escape, and families are now at risk of starvation and thirst. 

This is justified? Is shelling people in their homes justified? Is denying innocent people access to basic necessities such as food and water justified because of a couple thousand rouge militants? Respectfully, save the moral lecture for yourselves, especially when you try to justify such behavior on the basis of Judeo-Christian superiority. As Aharon David Gordon (a Jewish leader who inspired the Second Aliyah to Palestine) once said about his Arab counterparts, “Our attitudes towards them must be one of humanity, of moral courage which remains on the highest plane, even if the other side is not all that is desired. Indeed, their hostility is all the more reason for our humanity.” Where is this ethic present in the Israeli occupation? 

Much more could be said and argued about this topic. However, the issue is so complex that no solution will be found in an opinion column. It was important, however, to clarify the facts of the matter as it is happening. We cannot justify killing with more killing. There are civilians on both sides who are attempting to live in normalcy, and a justification of their slaughter is not only heinous but immoral in itself.

May peace be with you all.