Gaza Genocide - A Lesson Wilfully Ignored from History

The historical ramifications reverberating from the genocide in Gaza must be stressed in relation to the new world order established in the wake of World War 2.

In 2024, three historically crucial events took place. The first was a decision from the International Court of Justice in January that Israel was committing a ‘plausible genocide’ in Gaza. The second was a formal Legal Opinion from the ICJ in July that the Occupation of the Palestinian Territories was unlawful. This was followed a matter of days later by an address from Benjamin Netanyahu to the US Congress, accompanied by a standing ovation from members of the House. These three events mark a crucial watershed in history that should in theory mark the beginning of the end of the State of Israel as we know it. But history is still unfolding. The moment the Israeli prime minister took to the podium in Washington, echoes of the Nuremberg Rallies began reverberating around the chamber.

A Plausible Genocide

On the 29 December 2023, South Africa instigated proceedings against Israel over the unfolding genocide in Gaza. On the 26 January 2024, the ICJ reached its deliberation. The full case history can be found here. The basis for the proceedings came under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The submission detailed the relevant articles of the convention that SA contended Israel had breached. The submission was lodged under the provision of the Statute of the Court and the Rules of Court. Oral hearings took place on the 11 and 12 January from both SA and Israel. An important point to note here:

South Africa and Israel are parties to the Genocide Convention. Israel deposited its instrument of ratification on 9 March 1950 and South Africa deposited its instrument of accession on 10 December 1998. Neither of the Parties has entered a reservation to Article IX or any other provision of the Convention.

During the initial hearings, Israel of course rejected the SA position that Israel had contravened the Convention:

The Court notes that Israel dismissed any accusation of genocide in the context of the conflict in Gaza in a document published by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 6 December 2023 which was subsequently updated and reproduced on the website of the Israel Defense Forces on 15 December 2023 under the title “The War Against Hamas: Answering Your Most Pressing Questions”, stating that “[t]he accusation of genocide against Israel is not only wholly unfounded as a matter of fact and law, it is morally repugnant”. In the document, Israel also stated that “[t]he accusation of genocide . . . is not just legally and factually incoherent, it is obscene” and that there was “no . . . valid basis, in fact or law, for the outrageous charge of genocide”.

The Court finally concluded that ‘prima facie, it has jurisdiction pursuant to Article IX of the Genocide Convention to entertain the case’, and that ‘the Court considers that it cannot accede to Israel’s request that the case be removed from the General List.’

In its submission, SA outlined that the evidence “shows incontrovertibly a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts,” and that “[t]he intentional failure of the Government of Israel to condemn, prevent and punish such genocidal incitement constitutes in itself a grave violation of the Genocide Convention”. In response, Israel claimed that ‘in situations of urban warfare, civilian casualties may be an unintended consequence of lawful use of force against military objects, and do not constitute genocidal acts’ (emphasis added). As such, ‘it claims that its right to self-defence is critical to any evaluation of the present situation.’

This raises an interesting legal point, which I’ll discuss later, namely whether the Hamas’ 7 October attack could be considered lawful under international law.

In addition to the SA submission, the Court took account of evidence from other sources, including statements from senior Israeli ministers that clearly indicated genocidal intent. I won’t reproduce all of that here. It can be found in Paras 47 - 53 in the report. Based on this evidence, the Court concluded that ‘at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.’

In letter dated 6 December 2023, the Secretary-General of the UN made the unfolding situation in Gaza clear to the UN Security Council:

“We are facing a severe risk of collapse of the humanitarian system. The situation is fast deteriorating into a catastrophe with potentially irreversible implications for Palestinians as a whole and for peace and security in the region. Such an outcome must be avoided at all costs.”

In conclusion, the Court agreed that provisional measures must be issued and adopted. These are the measures issued by the court:

78. The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. The Court recalls that these acts fall within the scope of Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a group as such (see paragraph 44 above). The Court further considers that Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the above-described acts.

79. The Court is also of the view that Israel must take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.

80. The Court further considers that Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

81. Israel must also take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Genocide Convention against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.

82. Regarding the provisional measure requested by South Africa that Israel must submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to its Order, the Court recalls that it has the power, reflected in Article 78 of the Rules of Court, to request the parties to provide information on any matter connected with the implementation of any provisional measures it has indicated. In view of the specific provisional measures it has decided to indicate, the Court considers that Israel must submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one month, as from the date of this Order. The report so provided shall then be communicated to South Africa, which shall be given the opportunity to submit to the Court its comments thereon.

83. The Court recalls that its Orders on provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute have binding effect and thus create international legal obligations for any party to whom the provisional measures are addressed (Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March 2022, I.C.J. Reports 2022 (I), p. 230, para. 84).

Prior to the Order being issued, Nicaragua submitted an intervention on 23 January 2024. Other countries later followed suit with their own interventions. Colombia issued theirs on the 5 April, followed by Libya on the 10 May, then Mexico on 24 May, followed by Spain on 28 June. Palestine finally issued its own Application on the 3 June.

Following a further request by SA for additional measures on 12 February, the Court issued a modified Order on 28 March. This was what SA requested:

11. South Africa requests the “indication, clarification and/or modification” of provisional measures in the following terms:

“1. All participants in the conflict must ensure that all fighting and hostilities come to an immediate halt, and that all hostages and detainees are released immediately.

2. All Parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide must, forthwith, take all measures necessary to comply with all of their obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

3. All Parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide must, forthwith, refrain from any action, and in particular any armed action or support thereof, which might prejudice the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts, or any other rights in respect of whatever judgment the Court may render in the case, or which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.

4. The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address famine and starvation and the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, by:

(a) immediately suspending its military operations in Gaza;

(b) lifting its blockade of Gaza;

(c) rescinding all other existing measures and practices that directly or indirectly have the effect of obstructing the access of Palestinians in Gaza to humanitarian assistance and basic services; and

(d) ensuring the provision of adequate and sufficient food, water, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene and sanitation requirements, alongside medical assistance, including medical supplies and support.

5. The State of Israel shall submit an open report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to all provisional measures ordered by the Court to date, within one month as from the date of this Order.”

The Court was unable to act on the first 3 measures. Thus the final statement was:

45. In conformity with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, and in view of the worsening conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, in particular the spread of famine and starvation, Israel shall: (a) take all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full cooperation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance, including food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene and sanitation requirements, as well as medical supplies and medical care to Palestinians throughout Gaza, including by increasing the capacity and number of land crossing points and maintaining them open for as long as necessary; and (b) ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit acts which constitute a violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group under the Genocide Convention, including by preventing, through any action, the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance.

46. The Court further considers that the catastrophic situation in the Gaza Strip confirms the need for immediate and effective implementation of the measures indicated in its Order of 26 January 2024, which are applicable throughout the Gaza Strip, including in Rafah. In these circumstances, the Court finds it necessary to reaffirm the measures indicated in that Order.

47. In view of the specific provisional measures it has decided to indicate, the Court considers that Israel must submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order, within one month as from the date of this Order. The report so provided shall then be communicated to South Africa, which shall be given the opportunity to submit to the Court its comments thereon.

A second request was submitted by SA on 10 May. In addition to the measures stipulated in the previous orders:

50. The Court considers that, in conformity with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

Needless to say, Israel has ignored the rulings from the ICJ. There’s little point in outlining any of Israel’s responses as they simply incur falsehoods and nonsense. A month later, the Court came to a landmark decision on another aspect of Israel’s oppression in Palestine.

The Occupation is Illegal

What everyone and their well trained dogs knew all along has now become official. On 19 June 2024, the ICJ ruled that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories was unlawful. The 83 page Advisory Opinion of the Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, concluded:

267. With regard to the Court’s finding that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal, the Court considers that such presence constitutes a wrongful act entailing its international responsibility. It is a wrongful act of a continuing character which has been brought about by Israel’s violations, through its policies and practices, of the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Consequently, Israel has an obligation to bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible. As the Court affirmed in its Wall Advisory Opinion, the obligation of a State responsible for an internationally wrongful act to put an end to that act is well established in general international law, and the Court has on a number of occasions confirmed the existence of that obligation (Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2019 (I), p. 139, para. 178; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 197, para. 150).

Other stipulations were to ‘cease all new settlement activity’ and to ‘repeal all legislation and measures creating or maintaining the unlawful situation.’ Reparations to the Palestinians were included. Importantly:

270. Restitution includes Israel’s obligation to return the land and other immovable property, as well as all assets seized from any natural or legal person since its occupation started in 1967, and all cultural property and assets taken from Palestinians and Palestinian institutions, including archives and documents. It also requires the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements and the dismantling of the parts of the wall constructed by Israel that are situated in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as allowing all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their original place of residence.

There can be absolutely no doubt now as to what is required from Israel. But that will depend a great deal on how other states, particularly in the West, react. The Court covers this in scope. It clearly indicates in Para 275:

while it is for the General Assembly and the Security Council to pronounce on the modalities required to ensure an end to Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the full realization of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, all States must co-operate with the United Nations to put those modalities into effect. As recalled in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “[e]very State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle” (General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV)).

It goes on to outline previous UN resolutions and statements that made clear that the UN has never recognised the territories seized in 1967 by Israel. A summary of the overall Legal Opinion can be found at Law for Palestine. The Legal Opinion was reinforced at a General Assembly vote that took place on 18 September 2024, based on the stipulations outlined above. It was carried by 124 in favour to 14 against, with 43 abstentions.

Naturally Israel and its cohorts in the west have rejected any decisions made by the ICJ, which underlines the selectivity and double standards applied to international law. This then brings me back to the Hamas issue. In the UK recently we have seen the extraordinary sight of journalists being arrested under Section 12 of the UK Terrorism Act – which outlaws support for a proscribed organisation. Richard Medhurst and Sara Wilkinson (YouTube link) have both particularly fallen into this trap. As Former UK diplomat and whistleblower Crag Murray pointed out:

We now have an extraordinary conflict between UK domestic law and international law.

Where despite the ICJ ruling:

it is perfectly legal in UK domestic law for zionists to state that they support the Israeli Defence Force and they hope that the IDF kill every Palestinian in Gaza. Indeed zionists state this all the time, supporting an action that is entirely illegal in international law, and no action is ever taken against these zionists by the UK state. Members of the IDF who have actually participated in the genocide are able to come and live in the UK unmolested.

He clearly points out that the Palestinian people have the right of armed resistance in international law, as encapsulated in the First Protocol of the Geneva Convention (1977) Article 1 Para 4:

The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

There is therefore a rational argument that the Hamas attack on October 7 was conducted under the provision of international law. Although Hamas has allegedly committed violations of international law during the attack, that’s an issue for ICJ to resolve, not politicians who are themselves complicit in violations of international law. But of course they full well know this. Western governments have been exposed red handed explicitly supporting and condoning the mass murder and genocide of the Palestinian people. But as with bullies everywhere else, the only response they can make is through the use of crude force and infantile smear tactics.

HAMAS, Gaza, and the 'New World Order'

Hamas is proscribed in the UK: Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah (Hamas) – Proscription extended November 2021.

A Palpable Evil

On July 24 2024, Netanyahu addressed Congress with an odious display of Machiavellian megalomania. Craig Murray summed up the sentiment perfectly in relation to that and the ICJ hearings:

when I sat in the International Court of Justice and heard Israel’s lawyers tell lie after lie to justify or excuse the Gaza genocide, I could feel I was palpably in the presence of evil.

At least in the Hague you could also feel and indeed observe that most people in the courtroom – including the majority of the judges – were repulsed by the evil.

Yesterday that same evil, and the same lies, was manifested in the US Congress by Netanyahu, to an audience which glorified, reflected and amplified that evil.

The speech was a familiar catalogue of fiction, but behind the bluster was a dangerous anti-Iran diatribe, where not for the first time, Israel seemed to be goading the US into a war with Iran. But more than this was the myopic hagiographic euphoria on display towards Netanyahu from many members of congress, that brought the sordid underbelly of the US establishment into sharp relief. The world was watching. Anyone fully compos mentis would have watched the display with considerable alarm and disgust. There was also a palpable deja vu as history seemed to be repeating itself - as it so always does.

Standing ovation for Netanyahu at Congess

Yet there is an irony to this. Netanyahu is hardly a revered figure in his own country. In early 2023, thousands of protesters, which included hundreds of legal professionals, turned out against Netanyahu’s far right coalition and its plans to implement a major judicial review that would overhaul the courts and threaten Israel’s fragile ‘democracy’. After the Hamas attack there were calls for his resignation. That’s over and above the fact that he has been indicted for bribery, fraud and breach of trust. This then is the diabolic figure that symbolises democracy in the Middle East, a figure propped up by a malignant western establishment led by an imperialist US and a rules based international order, spelt out by the Washington Consensus to suit its own agenda.

A Lesson from History?

100 years ago, a chain of events began that would change the world forever. In 1923 the first of the Nuremberg rallies took place, by a new emerging Nazi party. Established in 1920 from its precursor, the German Workers' Party, that had emerged a year before, the National Socialist German Workers' Party would go on to dominate German politics in the 1930s.

Nuremberg became the focal point of the rallies as it was seen as following the tradition of the Holy Roman Empire. This stems from the period of Roman rule in central Europe and the fact that German Kings presided over the Empire in this area for a period. The Nazi’s called this period the “First Reich”. The period of the German Empire, which ran from 1871 and ended with World War 1, was the “Second Reich”. Hitler’s Third Reich was initially evoked in the book Das Dritte Reich (1923; “The Third Empire,” or “Reich”) by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck. The Third Reich effectively came into existence when Hitler came to power, superseding the Weimar Republic, which had replaced the German Empire at the end of World war 1. The 1933 Nuremberg Rally effectively marked this transition and became an annual event nationally and a focal point for the new Reich. Each Rally had a theme. The 1935 Rally was a watershed as it was seen as the German liberation from the Treaty of Versailles. It also marked the build up of the German military.

Using this as a case study, I’ll go into more detail of how Nazism developed. There are some parallels with the emergence of Zionism. Both movements were highly nationalistic, with the Zionists clamouring for a historic homeland that according to them was stolen from them back in year 1. For the Nazis, it was reclaiming German honour and power after the post-war chaos and economic and political isolation that transpired. In short, the victors of World war 1 were ultimately responsible for the rise of Naziism in Germany, a mistake they worked hard to rectify following World war 2. By the same token, those same victors would sow the seed for the birth of the state of Israel, a mistake that has never been rectified and which could lead to another dark era in our world.

Hitler became involved with the party right at the beginning. In 1920, he outlined a program that would form the basis of the party’s ideological direction. This focused on the rejection of the Treaty of Versailles and for the expansion of German territory. There was also a strong element of anti-Semitism. Projecting the Party as a socialist Party was just a front for attracting working class support. Hitler resumed control of the Party in 1921. As Nazi power grew, they used paramilitary and other groups, that included war veterans to apply strong arm tactics. In 1923 they attempted to overthrow the Bavarian Government in what became known as the Beer Hall Putsch. The result was a temporary ban on the Nazis, with Hitler spending some time in prison. But they weren’t deterred. The Party subsequently took a more cautious approach towards the build up of power.

The Great Depression was a godsend, as disillusioned and disgruntled jobless people became seduced by the message that was emanating from Hitlers’ movement. This was translated into votes, resulting in the Nazis becoming the largest voting bloc in the Reichstag. The rising success attracted business financing, as well as the paramilitary presence, forming a cohesive entity that became known as the SA or stormtroopers. However Hitler became suspicious of the SAs increasing dominance. Following the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, the SS had dispatched its leaders in a “Blood Purge”. Despite a slight drop in votes in the 1932 election, Hitler’s manoeuvring managed the persuade the incumbent president of the German republic, Paul von Hindenburg to install him as Chancellor. Hitler had achieved his goal. Absolute power awaited him. The Britannica article sums up what happened next:

The history of the Nazi Party after 1934 can be divided into two main phases. The years between 1934 and 1938 were used by the party to establish virtual total control of all political, social, and cultural activities in Germany. This phase began in earnest with the death of Hindenburg on August 2, 1934. The functions of the military and government were subsumed into the party, and all troops and officials were forced to take the oath of fidelity to Hitler personally. Subordination of the broader German populace was achieved primarily through the unification of all the police, security, and Schutzstaffel (SS) organizations under the direction of Heinrich Himmler and his chief lieutenant, Reinhard Heydrich.

But the key here is the ideology that dictated the Party and Hitler’s rise to power. The book Nazism, published by Oxford University Press, Provides a detailed background.

Similar to Zionism, Nazism can trace its roots back to the latter years of the 19th century. Germany at the turn of the last century was in a fragile state politically, as well as being influenced by ideas of Social Darwinism, nationalism and eugenics. This targeted specific Groups such as Jews. However this was not necessarily unique to Germany. This quotation from the Manchester Evening Chronicle in 1905, summed up the attitude in Britain in the early 20th century:

'that the dirty, destitute, diseased, verminous and criminal foreigner who dumps himself on our soil and rates simultaneously, shall be forbidden to land.'

Cartoon from Viennese newspaper Das Kleine Blatt in 1939, depicting Jews as rats.

For these characteristics to be amplified required a particular social environment. The aftermath of World War 1 provided the ingredients. The war had fostered political polarisation, with some political elements, particularly from the left, coming out against the war. However the conservative ruling classes continued to push the financing of the war through loans. This would ultimately lay the foundations for rampant inflation, during the interwar period.

Many of those who fought in the war were left by its scars. Many found it difficult to return to civvy street. This provided a breeding ground for the Nazi Party. Added to that was the impact of the Treaty of Versailles and the influence of the Russian Revolution. But importantly, was the prevailing myth that had been perpetuated that Germany’s defeat was caused by factions at home:

the circumstances of defeat, revolution, and humiliation of 1918–19 laid the foundation for the potent nationalist myth of the ‘stab in the back’—the idea that the German army had been let down by a collapse in the home front treacherously orchestrated by the internal enemies of the people, above all Marxists and Jews. For the radical Right, the German nation at war had been infiltrated and undermined by parasitic enemies who were now in charge of a Republic which represented everything un-German: regenerating and renewing the health of the ‘national body’ would mean above all the eradication of these enemies.

The Weimar Republic was a fractured entity. This created the conditions for the rise of Nazism. Familiar characterisations that defined fascistic movements would drive the ideology into the mainstream, namely, populism, radical nationalism and militarism. There was also a specific focus here on biological racism, directed predominantly against Jews. Symbolism and ritual is also an important element:

with their emphasis on rallies, uniforms, and paramilitary display, and with their appropriation of military heroes, military values, and events in the construction of a legitimizing symbolic system.

Symbolism was also a defining element that drove Zionism.

The Mythological Symbolism of Israel

One familiar manifestation of the consolidation of Nazism was the isolation and persecution of perceived dissidents, especially on the left. This is a phenomenon that has been emerging in western countries in current times, emanating from what has been described as crypto-fascism, which Wikipedia defines as:

the secret support for, or admiration of, fascism or trends close to the ideology. The term is used to imply that an individual or group keeps this support or admiration hidden to avoid political persecution or political suicide. A person, organisation or idea possessing this tendency would be described by the adjective "crypto-fascist".

Chris Hedges wrote an article, exploring this manifestation of so-called western democracy, where the march of neoliberalism has created a receding shell of democracy. In the US the militarised police force subjugates the population as part of a wider military-industrial-complex that fuels a bloated empire and a ‘system of legalized bribery’. Virtually every institution in the US has now been compromised, including the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Hedges sums up the rot perpetuated by the ruling classes:

These establishment politicians and their appointed judges promulgated laws that permitted the top 1 percent to loot $54 trillion from the bottom 90 percent, from 1975 to 2022, at a rate of $2.5 trillion a year, according to a study by the RAND corporation. The fertile ground of our political, economic, cultural and social wreckage spawned an array of neo-fascists, con artists, racists, criminals, charlatans, conspiracy theorists, right-wing militias and demagogues that will soon take power.

Back to Nazism. It wasn’t long before it finally consolidated power, going beyond persecution and implementing a euthanasia programme, the beginnings of the extermination of Jews and other targeted groups. Incidentally the expression of euthanising Palestinians was made by a local pro-Israel group based in Glasgow, Scotland and picked up by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Indeed the murder squads that rummaged through Germany and the subsequent eastern front, mirrors what is happening in Palestine today. Although in today’s high tech world, military hardware can wipe out entire populations with minimal ‘boots on the ground’.

As its power increased, the effect of Nazism mesmerised people across the class divides. But as the book notes:

Far from duping a population whose sense of disorientation opened it to being misled, National Socialist propaganda spoke to deep-seated social resentments within broad sectors of the population; the mobilization of these contributed much to the underlying dynamism of the regime.

Many today would feel a sense of Déjà vu reading that quotation as they look around the 21st century landscape. We see the same conservative authoritarianism emerging that allowed Hitler to consolidate his power, mirrored in the unconditional support for Israel from the west as it continues its genocidal assault in Gaza and the purging of leftist entities. Of course the Nazis went even further through its extermination programs. Again there’s the parallels with Israel’s dehumanisation of the Palestinians, with western governments entirely behind this, just as other western countries had similar views as Germany during the interwar period. This was simply an extension of European colonialism. The only difference here was that Hitler applied the ‘final solution’ to Europe rather than the global south. As the book puts it:

if we are to understand how the ‘cumulative radicalization’ of persecution, violence, and aggression spiralled out of control so quickly and with such little resistance, why it was that at particular moments Hitler felt it either necessary or possible to embark on further initiatives in pursuit of his goals, how it was that under the peculiar conditions of war, discrimination and expropriation escalated so rapidly into systematic genocide, and how it was that the apparatus of government, the institutions of civil society, and large sectors of the population came to be co-opted into the machinery of genocide with such apparent ease, we need to consider how it was that the political, institutional, and above all moral barriers to the realization of a process of mass murder which few can have envisaged, let alone hoped for, in 1933, were removed.

Once more, the book hits a point that could be reflected so poignantly today. Where the Nazis differed from other fascist regimes was the appropriation of absolute power. Power was removed from the existing elites and institutions, and totally centralised within the wider Nazi apparatus. Ordinary people became a part of this apparatus and executed its policies:

The millions of ordinary people murdered under the National Socialist regime were not murdered by impersonal structures, but by many hundreds of thousands of other ordinary people.

Witness today the almost unanimous appraisal of the ongoing genocide in Gaza by ordinary Israeli citizens, propagandised just like their German forbearers. Also witness the uncritical dissemination of Israeli propaganda by western media outlets. Just as with the Nazis, it’s the Israeli military that is directly responsible for committing atrocities. In addition there is the invincibility mindset that come with impunity, conferred upon Israel by its western allies. As the book notes:

the armed forces were directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Soviet prisoners of war. Although only a minority of army units participated actively in the mass killings of Soviet Jews, it is notable that there are few indications that those units who were faced with this task had any real qualms about fulfilling it—an indicator of the extent to which Nazi ideology, propaganda, and images of the enemy had penetrated the rank and file of the military too.

This perfectly mirrors the atrocities committed by the IDF.

The ideology of the Nazis had a remarkable appeal to different factions within German society from left to right, pulling them together as a cohesive entity within the Nazi sphere. Fascist elements were adopted using:

new propagandist forms and a general invasion of the cultural sphere. It is negatively defined against liberalism, social democracy and communism, or any creed which seems to elevate difference, division and conflict over the essential unity of the race-people as the organizing principle of political life.

This new propaganda would have been the works of Edwards Bernays, which I’ve examined before.

Ukraine Reloaded Revisited

As I noted:

The use of propaganda during war time was particularly effective, especially in Nazi Germany (emphasis added):

In the 1920s, Joseph Goebbels became an avid admirer of Bernays and his writings – despite the fact that Bernays was a Jew. When Goebbels became the minister of propaganda for the Third Reich, he sought to exploit Bernays’ ideas to the fullest extent possible. For example, he created a “Fuhrer cult” around Adolph Hitler.

Bernays learned that the Nazis were using his work in 1933, from a foreign correspondent for Hearst newspapers. He later recounted in his 1965 autobiography:

They were using my books as the basis for a destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany. This shocked me, but I knew any human activity can be used for social purposes or misused for antisocial ones.

Given a propensity of traditional authoritarian mentalities, which the book ascribes ‘to the absence of a liberal political culture’, this would create the conditions for radicalisation, linked to the post world war 1 environment. There was also the prevailing threat of revolution (the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia). As the book sums up:

fascism prospered under conditions of general political crisis, in societies which were already dynamically capitalist (or at least, which possessed a dynamic capitalist sector), but where the state proved incapable of dispatching its organizing functions for the maintenance of social cohesion. The political unity of the dominant classes and their major economic fractions could no longer be organized successfully within the existing forms of parliamentary representation and party government. Simultaneously the popular legitimacy of the same institutional framework also went into crisis.

In short:

Fascism may be best understood, therefore, as primarily a counter-revolutionary ideological project, constituting a new kind of popular coalition, in the specific circumstances of an interwar crisis. As such it provided the motivational impetus for specific categories of radicalized political actors in the immediate aftermath of the First World War, embittered by national humiliation, enraged by the advance of the left.

Despite the apparently indestructible persona of Nazism, especially around the beginning of world war 2, the regime was actually inherently unstable, and increasingly chaotic, just like Israel today. What held it together, as noted above, was the imagery and symbolism of the regime, with the Swastika the focal point, in much the same way the Star of David had become the focal point for Zionism. Nazism was at its heart an imperialist project. Within Germany, the ability of the regime to deflect resistance was reflected in its role to tolerate some dissent by utilising popular opinion and rhetoric to counter it. In essence, this was the classic manufacturing of consent of almost an entire population, driven to engaging in racially motivated killing campaigns. The book sums it up succinctly:

A mixture of anti-Semitism, more general racism, obedience to authority, socialization, acclimatization to brutality, peer pressure, and various other situational pressures was involved. Our abhorrence of the crimes of the Third Reich derives from even momentary consideration of the appalling suffering of the regime’s millions of victims, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Yet perhaps the most frightening lessons to be learned derive from consideration of the nature and motives of the perpetrators. For, under particular conditions, very ordinary people were co-opted into committing crimes of almost unimaginable proportions.

There’s a remarkable similarity here with Israeli society. The difference here is that Israel has had nearly 80 years to indoctrinate its masses. The Nazis did it in less than 2 decades. And lets not forget the experience of those living under Nazi occupation and the ‘arbitrary brutality of occupation’, with Gazans now facing their own version of the final solution. Also remember that German society was similar to the rest of Europe, and some of the ideas that became part of Nazi ideology were already around. Those ideas still prevail today. And just to emphasise the point, lets not forget how the US voted in a UN resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism.

Hannah Arendt produced the seminal work The Origins of Totalitarianism. Arendt was a German Jew, who left Germany in 1933 for Paris after a brief detention by the Gestapo. She was forced to flee France for the US following the German occupation. The first edition of her book was written in 1951, whilst the world at large, recovering from war, was plunging headlong into a cold war. It was also just 3 years after the creation of Israel. Arendt’s sentiment at the time would resonate with today’s world:

Never has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense and self-interest – forces that look like sheer insanity, if judged by the standards of other centuries. It is as though mankind had divided itself between those who believe in human omnipotence (who think that everything is possible if one knows how to organize masses for it) and those for whom powerlessness has become the major experience of their lives.

She delves into the roots of antisemitism, which I’m not going to go into in depth here. But suffice to say, the whole concept and idea of antisemitism was ‘the prerogative of crackpots in general and the lunatic fringe in particular.’ She notes that antisemitism per se didn’t really exist before 1870. She also notes specifically that:

The only direct, unadulterated consequence of nineteenth-century antisemitic movements was not Nazism but, on the contrary, Zionism, which, at least in its Western ideological form, was a kind of counterideology, the ‘answer’ to antisemitism.

Essentially the point here is that Jew hatred had been prevalent in history but antisemitism had emerged as a political concept. Arendt also touched on the notion of Jewish supremacy, which formed the basis of the Zionist movement.

Ultimately behind any genocide or extreme racism is the process of ‘otherisation’. In the wake of the the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968, teacher Jane Elliott conducted a famous and remarkable experiment with her third grade students, known as the "Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes Exercise." To sum up precisely what happened:

In her own words, Elliott “created a microcosm of society in a third-grade classroom” by placing collars on the students with brown eyes and telling them they were inferior to their blue-eyed counterparts. She gave students with blue eyes extra time at recess and told those with brown eyes that they couldn’t drink out of the water fountain. The next day, she switched the target of inferiority, saying that blue-eyed students were lesser.

On each day, she saw the same things happen: The so-called superior students would bully the other students, and the group with the collars on wouldn’t do as well in their studies.

“I watched what had been marvelous, cooperative, wonderful, thoughtful children turn into nasty, vicious, discriminating little third-graders in a space of 15 minutes,” Elliott said in the "Frontline" documentary about her exercise, “A Class Divided.”

There were negative reactions in the local community as well as the wider national community. Some parents reacted saying their kids had been bullied. One reaction was that ‘she’d unethically conducted a thought experiment on children.’ Even her mother shunned her. But Elliot stood her ground, stating what should have been obvious:

But if her lesson was an unethical experiment, Elliott said, so too is the current social system that deems people with white skin superior. “The skin color exercise is still acceptable in schools today. We do it on a daily basis, 24/7,” she said.

As time went past though, her exercise was increasingly seen for what it was, an exercise in exposing endemic racism as an arbitrary irrational condition. As she herself concluded:

“I want people to know there’s only one race on the face of the earth, and that’s the human race. We’re all the three-hundred and fifty-fifth cousin of everybody else”

This exercise is precisely what happens within the Israeli education system. As this article from the Jerusalem Post notes:

The Israeli education system still suffers from racism and discrimination, failing to properly address these issues for years

That still remains the case, despite calls for change. As this Haaretz article outlines. The headline sums up the conundrum:

From the First Grade to the Grave, Israelis Are Taught to Dehumanize Palestinians.

The calls came originally from Breaking the Silence, a disillusioned group of former IDF veterans, who ‘have taken it upon themselves to expose the public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories’. The Israeli Palestinian Bereaved Families for Peace, are following a similar trajectory, but they are pushing against the tide. The genocide in Gaza is causing a systemic breakdown of the whole fabric of Israeli society. Racism and discrimination is endemic within the Israeli psyche. But if South Africa was able to move beyond apartheid then perhaps there is a glimmer of hope. The only problem with Israel though is that western governments supporting Israel have exactly the same racist and colonial mindset. Truth and reconciliation may be more difficult in Israel.

To Hell with Nuremberg

A scathing article from Haaretz, consolidates the final definitive link between Israel and the Nazi regime. It opens with an important question:

Will Israel turn its back on the principles central to the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals?

The article was referring to the nation-state law that was still to be signed into law. The purpose of the Bill was to confer absolute legal immunity to any military personnel committing any acts during military or anti-terrorist operations. In essence:

This bill flatly contradicts the most well-known principles to emerge from the Nuremberg Trials: the principles that individual soldiers are criminally liable for war crimes and that “just following orders” is not a defense to such charges.

In an almost incredulous sense of irony, this could be construed as a form of holocaust denial, especially as Israel has in past been determined to follow the principles of Nuremberg, such as in the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann. The immunity conferred to military personnel remains even after military service is complete:

This absolute immunity grant is not only immoral but has grave international consequences. Parties to the Geneva Conventions are under a duty to prosecute “grave breaches” of its provisions, regardless of where they occurred. The International Criminal Court can prosecute the war crimes defined in its statute.

As such, it represents an abject violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Al-Jazeera elaborates further following the enactment of the law, which has:

essentially codified “Jewish supremacy” into law, which effectively mirrors the Nazi-era legislation of ethnoreligious stratification of German citizenry.

The second Nuremberg Law is noted, which is the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour. This precluded any “race defilement”, essentially no mixed relationships to preserve the purity of the Aryan race. This is mirrored in the anti-miscegenation laws in place in Israel.

The law also stipulates the significance of national symbolism, which indicates that “the flag of the state is white, two blue stripes near the edges, and a blue Star of David in the centre.” This in turn reflects the Reich Flag Law, which established black, red, and white as the national colours of Germany, with the swastika as the national flag. All this with the west turning a blind eye, which in itself makes us complicit in the dismantling of the new world order that was established after the Nazi atrocities. ‘Never again’ suddenly sounds very vacuous. Indeed we appear to be witnessing the emergence of a new world order that could be construed as a new axis of evil represented by the key western players, namely the US, UK and Israel, with the tacit support of most other western countries.

This begs the question, can anything be done to tackle the crime of crimes? As things stand, Gaza is unlikely to be the last. And if there’s any credence relating to a dystopian future where we all end up being Palestinians, there needs to be a massive sea change. In relation to this, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security has produced a Genocide Prevention Toolbox. Worth noting here is this passage from the patterns of genocide:

Perpetrators of genocide attack their target groups because these groups are seen to be existential threats. The genocidal process of destruction involves every member of the target group, regardless of gender, age, social status or occupation, but it affects different people in different ways. Frequently such variation is intentional on the part of the perpetrator: People’s real and perceived positions in the target society are instrumentalized by perpetrators to cause maximal and lasting physical and psychic damage to group members and to institutions of group cohesion, especially the family unit. These crimes are referred to below as life force atrocities and are a strong indicator of genocidal intent and potential genocide within wider social crises and conflicts.

But Gaza is not enough. Zionism’s biblical demons have been summoned like some proverbial Book of Revelations to annihilate those who are deemed inferior. The west bank is being chalked up, Lebanon is now under attack. It’s unlikely Israel is going to stop there. Who would bet on Israel not attacking Iran. But its most likely that if Israel succeeds in pulverising Lebanon, Syria will be next on the wish list as Greater Israel beckons. The threat of global destabilisation is now much greater than ever before. It remains to be seen whether Israel will face its own Nuremberg. If Israel gets away with its atrocities in the Middle East, the threat on the current international order could be dire. But its not just Gaza that has become a melting pot. This all links to the Ukraine conflict in eastern Europe. The geopolitical threads here will be twined in a subsequent article.