A Dialogue on Gaza

A: I understand that you wanted to put some questions to me regarding the atrocities that we see daily in the Gaza Strip, and the defences—the hideous defences—so often made by the venerable members of our political and media establishment.

B: Yes—I thought that it would be useful for us to survey some of the widespread pretences, and sham pleas, which have been contrived to exempt Israel and its allies from moral responsibility and international accountability. Of course, for the purpose of this discussion, I will put to you the common defences of Israel, after which you will give your rebuttal; and we may also take the opportunity to bring to attention facts and reasonings that are little heard in mainstream discussion.

A: That sounds like a good method to me: please, go ahead.

B: The official aims of the Israeli military assault—or rather, the aims which are given the most credence and attention among our politicians—are two: 1. the Israelis allege that they are devoted to releasing the hostages; 2. they say that Hamas must be destroyed. With these objectives in the background, it is often said that if the hostages were simply released, or if Hamas unconditionally surrendered, then the war would end immediately. How do you respond to these justifications?

A: Let us begin with the first official objective: the release of the hostages. I do not believe that anyone who weighs the evidence honestly and impartially can conclude that this is meant sincerely: if the release of the hostages were desired, we know the best means to effect it: negotiations and the release of Palestinian hostages in exchange (though they are more commonly known as “prisoners”—as if they are all detained justly and convicted by impartial courts in what the world’s leading human rights groups consider to be an apartheid state). In any event, scores of hostages have already been successfully freed by the aforementioned means—by negotiations. But now the government of Israel refuses to negotiate in good faith:[1] it has even drawn the ire of the families of hostages in Israel itself. In short, Israel is acting in a manner entirely inconsistent with its professed motive—from which it follows, that it is not, in fact, actuated by a desire to free the hostages. As to the next aim, the destruction of Hamas, it raises a number of observations: first, it is far from clear what it means to “destroy” an organisation which is not only a militant group, but also a governing authority with an extensive civilian branch and social influence. One must doubt that the wholesale elimination of any such political body is even a possibility; even with all the instruments of brutality that Israel has already employed, Hamas has continued to recruit new members and fighters, such that, again, it seems Israel is not really actuated by its professed motive. If we consider the question from a moral point of view, and undertake to be wholly consistent in our reasoning, we discover that the Israeli rationale for destroying Hamas, which is so often assented to unquestioningly by our politicians, in fact applies equally to Israeli political parties and the Israeli army. In the 2008-9 Cast Lead assault on Gaza, Israel killed a comparable number of Palestinians as Israelis were killed on 7 October by Palestinian militants. Israel was the immediate aggressor.[2] Again, applying precisely the same reasoning, it would follow that the Israeli army and state ought to be destroyed, its capabilities dismantled, and the responsible Israeli functionaries too. Yet I cannot recall a single commentator suggesting such a thing: merely to apply the same moral standards is considered an impossibility, if not a ludicrous absurdity. But if the Israeli state apparatus did not deserve to be destroyed for its actions in 2008-9—not to mention the catalogue of crimes it committed before then—in 1948, 1967, and 1982, to give a few examples—or after then, then it is obscure why Palestinian groups which commit violations of the laws of war deserve utter ruin and extirpation. It would seem that we are not, after all, following out the dictates of reason or justice, but rather adhering to whatever advantages the stronger. Now you raised the usual corollary of the Israeli position: that if the hostages were released, and Hamas surrendered, then the war would end. But again: Hamas is willing to release the hostages and to stop fighting: it has made clear its readiness to do so in exchange for a ceasefire and a lasting peace.[3] It is possible to secure these supposed Israeli objectives entirely by peaceful means, and yet Israel insists upon its onslaught and ravage of Gaza. How, then, can we possibly accept this notion, that the war would end immediately if the Palestinian leadership in Gaza assented to Israeli demands? Is it expected that the Palestinians should unilaterally surrender and assent to all Israeli demands, without any guarantee of the violence coming to an end, and without international supervision? Would any rational person, in the position of the Palestinian leadership, do such a thing? This is an extraordinary proposition. No: Israel has not only acted inconsistently with its alleged objectives; it has set up objectives which are either impossible (to destroy a political entity with many branches, and which has not yet been eliminated after nearly two years of the most brutal violence), or unattainable without negotiations (the surrender of Hamas and the release of the hostages)—while refusing to negotiate in good faith. Let these “war aims” be dismissed for what they are—sham pretences.

B: I suppose you have shown that the motives the Israelis allege are not what truly actuates them; but there must yet be a motive of some kind. What is the alternative explanation for Israel’s conduct in Gaza since 7 October?

A: There is a motive which is perfectly consistent with Israel’s line of conduct: to destroy the Palestinian population in Gaza, and to expel large numbers of them. Not only is this consistent with Israel’s conduct, but it is also consistent with the declarations of Israel’s leaders, who, especially at the beginning of the assault, made no great effort to conceal their flagitious intentions.[4] Now that Israel is convinced that it has a free hand to do as it wills, similarly outrageous declarations are made almost every day:[5] we are told that Gaza will be conquered, and that its people ought to be banished elsewhere. The small strip of land, once home to two million people, half of them children, has been ravaged beyond recognition: it has been bombed more intensely and more brutally than any other conflict zone in this century; it has been reduced to the image of apocalypse; foreign soldiers, who have known many of the most violent wars of our generation, say they have never witnessed such devastation before;[6] and the killing has taken place at a rate, likely to be unparalleled in our century. Of course, the crushing majority of the dead are civilians.[7] But we have only now touched the surface of this ocean of suffering—this unexcavable depth of blood and horror. Israel has inflicted a campaign of starvation against the people of Gaza on multiple occasions in this massacre, but it has now reached its most terrifying pitch. Famine has been declared in Gaza City.[8] Children are dying for want of food, not because of scarcity—not owing to some natural disaster—there is ample food aid to be distributed by the proper humanitarian agencies. Children, and the elderly, and the innocent are starving to death—in conditions more wretched than we can conceive—merely because Israel desires this, and will not allow aid to be distributed effectively. No, the Israeli government, working with American quiescence or approval, has made even the distribution of what little food is supplied into another instrument of death: desperate and despairing Palestinians, with no hope of survival if not for some meagre packages of food, are forced into a tiny number of distribution points, under heavy military guard, and for a very short period. These human beings are derided as the “zombie horde”. Every day—or nearly every day—witnesses new fatal shootings. Thus even the means of life are converted, by the perfidy of this Vandal state and its accomplices, into an engine of murder. All this is done in daylight. Tens of thousands are dead—far more than the official statistics of the Gaza health ministry.[9] Journalists are slaughtered. Aid workers are slaughtered. Children are deliberately shot in the head and the chest.[10] Israeli soldiers confide to journalists of kill zones, where innocents are killed on sight, and later counted as “terrorists”.[11] Torture and rape are committed against detainees in Israeli prisons.[12] No depravity—no crime—is excluded from the register of this regime. Such is their purpose: to kill, to destroy, to humiliate, for the sake of killing, destruction, and humiliation, and likely some form of expulsion in the future. They have made Gaza uninhabitable: and that was their aim. The killing of militants has been purely incidental. The target has always been the people as a whole: and Israeli military doctrine has long viewed disproportional retaliation against civilians as a perfectly licit tactic.

B: In other words, the Israeli campaign amounts to genocide?

A: This is the opinion of the expert human rights organisations, and the scholars of genocide who have studied the matter concur.[13] I cannot see any reason to discard their opinion in favour of that of Israel’s official and unofficial propagandists. Besides, we ought to remember that Israel’s leaders are suspected of many other war crimes, which have been enumerated by the International Criminal Court: Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant are officially fugitive war crimes suspects.[14] If not for the corruption which pervades the world, they would now be standing trial. Here, I should say, an incidental observation comes to mind: despite Israel’s trumpery about its moral army, and its matchless regard for human rights, it persists in denying both international journalists, and UN-mandated investigators, access to Gaza. But why? If Israel is moral, it has nothing to fear. But they know the truth. Their actions interpret their words. If journalists and investigators are allowed in—persons who Israel cannot easily dismiss and slander as terrorists—then the evil that has been committed would be even more effectually exposed, and Israel would face yet greater losses in the battle for public opinion. As things stand, the absence of foreign journalists and investigators—despite the courageous work of Palestinian journalists, and video recordings of atrocities—means that international media organisations are left unable to verify certain reports and pieces of information. Israel then seizes upon this ambiguity to sow doubt and confusion. But I am apt to think that this charade has lost its potency. Too much has already been seen: every person has a phone to record the truth, and Israel could never stop all news from escaping the Strip and being uploaded to social media. Indeed, it is odd to find such an innocent state, so opposed to the least scrutiny of its acts! It is no surprise that, throughout the world, Israel has lost the battle for public opinion.

B: Some supporters of Israel, particularly on social media, are fond of saying, when Palestinian suffering is discussed, that they ought not have started the war, and must therefore accept the burdens that follow from it. What do you make of this argument?

A: We can hardly conceive of a more evil principle, than to insist that a people must bear extermination, because of the actions of a segment of them, and that all forms of retaliation are licit in these circumstances. There are laws of war: these laws have been accepted and ratified by the world; and governments are not exempt from the observance of them, merely because they wish to gratify their desire for revenge. If, indeed, Israel’s crimes are warranted as a response to 7 October, then it infallibly follows that the whole edifice of international law ought to be razed to the ground. It further follows, according to this erroneous line of reasoning, that retaliatory Palestinian violence is justified without limit, in view of the prolonged and brutal occupation, which is itself a form of ongoing, unveiled aggression. Now I oppose this principle of unlimited revenge—we should reject it in all circumstances, for it must always lead to the most pernicious results. I only wish to draw attention to the train of horrifying consequences that attend this doctrine, which defenders of Israel affirm at various times. Morality and civilisation demand a far higher standard than that of the barbarians who cry “FAFO!” If we allow them to have their way, humanity will be trapped in endless bloodbaths of war and retaliation, until there is nothing left for us to fight for.

B: But then there is still the matter of the violence of 7 October, and how Israel ought to have responded, and the violence committed on that day. How ought we to understand these points?

A: From the facts of the case, and the killing of 725 Israeli civilians, among them 36 children, one must agree with the verdict of reputable human rights groups that serious atrocities were committed; and it is only consistent to deplore the targeting of civilians wherever it occurs. There was, indeed, a horrific massacre, including of dozens of foreign workers, which can neither be denied nor excused. But although the crimes committed on that day were serious enough in their own right, there was still an additional dose of fabrication, and falsehood, which made its way from Israel into British reporting. There were claims, for instance, of babies being beheaded: it did not happen. Allegations of systematic rape and widespread sexual violence on that day have failed to be substantiated, even as considerable resources have been devoted to uncovering it.[15] Finally, it should be borne in mind that at least some of the Israelis killed on 7 October were the victims of the Israeli army, which employed the Hannibal directive.[16] I stress that my purpose is not to excuse the killings of civilians, for which there can be no justification, but rather to ensure that our factual view of the events of that day is accurate, and free of invention or error. Moreover, I raise these points for consideration, because, as our government is allied to Israel, and supplies it with weapons, and diplomatic support, we share responsibility for Israel’s actions; and it is therefore especially necessary that false information spread by Israel be corrected. For the same reason, I have devoted relatively little time to discussing the violence of Palestinian militants: Britain does not support Palestinian militancy of any kind.

Having established that serious atrocities were, as a matter of fact, committed on 7 October, it is remarkable that British politicians exclusively attach the language of reproach to Palestinian violations of the laws of war, while they either defend, excuse, or refuse to pass judgment upon Israeli violations. This contradiction becomes the more flagrant and audacious when we consider that, both numerically and by the proportion of civilians, including children, killed, Israel’s campaign has been far worse than the crimes committed on 7 October. It behoves us, furthermore, not merely to attend to numbers, but to attend to the history of the conflict—to remember that history did not begin on 7 October 2023.

Since at least 1967, Israel has occupied Palestinian land, in violation of international law. The advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice have settled the matter: the occupation of Palestine is illegal.[17] In Gaza in particular, Palestinians have languished, since 2007, under an economic blockade, including the prevention of freedom of movement, unless by Israel’s permission. The residents of Gaza were reduced to a state of permanent economic stagnation, where the rate of unemployment was fifty per cent.[18] Then there were streams of massacres: a continual “mowing” of the human grass in Gaza, in the barbaric Israeli idiom: Operation Cast Lead (1,400 dead—1,170 civilians); Operation Protective Edge (1,600 civilians killed); and the shooting of overwhelmingly peaceful protesters in 2018, who had taken to civil disobedience. Is it any surprise that Gaza, long before 7 October, was likened to a concentration camp? Is it any surprise that people subjected to such conditions eventually resisted by violence? It is often assumed that Palestinian factions are fanatical ideologues: and yet history refutes that caricature. Palestinian leaders attempted negotiation: they were open to the two-state settlement. They have attempted to use international law, by cooperating with different inquiries. Palestinians also employed peaceful protest, which was met with tragic indifference. Their plight continued: the blockade; the death; the humiliation. In the meantime, the Arab states began to make peace with Israel and normalise relations. Then came the attack of 7 October. This was a reaction to prolonged injustice—and it was not the first time that an oppressed people resorted to grim violence. In short, if we wish to reason morally, and to do so rigorously, we are bound to conclude that the violence of Palestinian militants is of an entirely different order, both in its scale and historical context, from the violence of Israel. And yet, all the condemnation is for the Palestinian side—none for the Israeli side, no matter how great its crimes, no matter how unjust the status quo. Israel’s lawyers have gone so far as to suggest that Palestinian militants committed genocide on 7 October:[19] if so, it would follow that not only has Israel committed genocide in its past assaults on Gaza, but that during the present assault, it has committed a crime quite unfathomable—a crime several magnitudes worse than genocide—a crime so unspeakable, it could scarcely be written into a statute. But there is no allegation that Israel is guilty of wrong. Our politicians stay silent: all the blame is poured on the heads of our official enemies: is not the world simpler, and easier, that way?

B: So although crimes were committed on 7 October, and although you deplore the targeting of civilians in all cases, you still see that there is a difference in the nature of the crimes of Israel and the Palestinians?

A: Without doubt. Israel’s crimes, which our governments in the West support, are far worse.

B: Understood—but what say you to the question, what ought Israel to have done?

A: I say, in the first place, Israel ought not to have occupied land to which it had no right. It ought not to have massacred Palestinians continuously over a period of many years. It ought not to have established a racist system of Jewish supremacy.[20] It ought to have taken one of the several opportunities to grant Palestinians their most basic rights. But it had little inducement to do so, which is where, indeed, the responsibility of our government, and Israel’s other allies, perhaps becomes most obvious. In effect, we had granted Israel permission to do as it pleased. We allowed the theft of land, and the settler rampages, and the displacement to go on unabated. Had we raised our voices long ago—had we stood for truth and justice at the beginning—then the train of events that led us into this abyss need never have been set in motion. There were alternatives. But we—in our folly, and our cowardice, and our complacency—never did as we should. We threw the law before the march of injustice, and watched inattentively as it was trampled underfoot. And so here, again, must we bear our share of the moral burden. But let me go on: what ought to have happened after the assault, and the massacre of hundreds of civilians on 7 October? That, after all, is the core of your question; and if you will ask me to leave out of the reckoning the real world—i.e., what the response was always going to be—then the just solution would have been: 1. a permanent ceasefire and hostage exchange deal; 2. to end the military occupation and settlements; 3. to establish a single democratic state, with equal rights for all its citizens, and thus to abolish Israel’s system of racial supremacy; 4. to refer all questions of criminal accountability, in respect of Israelis and Palestinians alike, to an independent international tribunal. Perhaps I am missing some details, but these seem to me the rudiments of a just solution, and a just response to the violence. I do not pretend that there is any realism in it whatsoever. But your question was moral and hypothetical in nature. Now I know that many people express incredulity at the suggestion that Israel should not have violently “defended itself” with great force—

B: That brings us to another important claim—the claim of Israel’s right to self-defence in retaliation.

A: Yes—and there are those who, I suppose, think instinctively that this is just. But if you consider the matter more carefully, it will become clear that the bulk of the guilt belongs to Israel and its accomplices, for the historical and contextual reasons we have already enumerated. But besides, we ought to ask what the object is: is it to take effectual action to remedy the real causes of the violence? If so, then I believe the solution proposed above is clearly adequate to the purpose, however far off it may be from realisation. On the other hand, if your object is merely revenge, then violent and indiscriminate retaliation is indeed the natural response. (Of course, we have already observed that Israel’s response has had nothing of the character of self-defence; rather it has been actuated by genocidal motives.) I do not believe vengeance is a sufficient reason to take up arms and kill. But it is puzzling when commentators shrilly demand, “What was Israel supposed to do?” when they do not take a second to contemplate: what were Palestinians supposed to do, all through the period of their oppression? What were they supposed to do in all the months and years past, as they tried a catalogue of different strategies, and still watched their loved ones die and lands disappear? This is a question seldom—or never—asked; indeed it is scarcely even thought of or imagined. What ought Palestinians to have done? To have submitted to injustice forever? But this question is not asked.

B: Indeed.

A: The hypocrisy of our civilisation knows no limit, I am afraid. But I stress, again, that I do not allow the gratification of vengeance as a justification for violence in any case. I am merely pointing out the proliferation of double standards in our public discussion.

B: Yes. I would like now to come to a series of shorter topics. What do you say to the claim that Israel, as a democracy, would not commit the crimes that have been ascribed to it? This claim has been made by Lord Cameron,[21] among others.

A: I say it is a miserable failure of reasoning. In the first place, catchphrases—like the phrase which says, democracies do not commit war crimes—do not override the facts of the world. We cannot make some confident judgment about these matters before looking to the evidence: that reverses the operation; the evidence is what should guide our judgment. Historically, of course, the phrase is nonsense. The democratic Athenian city-state murdered indiscriminately and took people as slaves. The democratic American government massacred Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians; it tortured Iraqis; it terrorised Central and South America. The democratic English parliament tyrannised over India. There is a supposition, the correctness of which is of little importance to us here, that democracies are more likely to safeguard the welfare of their citizens than despotisms; but as for non-citizens, who belong to an entirely different community, I have never understood why anyone thought democracies would be particularly interested in their happiness. The democracy argument—granting that Israel is a democracy exclusively for its Jewish population—is simple, irrelevant nonsense.

B: Israel also says that it is facilitating the entry of aid to Gaza. How do you reply?

A: They are facilitating aid, and yet children are starving to death, and famine has been declared? The lie is obvious. If you are not, yourself, on the ground in Gaza, you have only testimony by which to judge the true state of things. So who will you believe: the experienced humanitarian agencies? The doctors, including the foreign ones, in Gaza? The cameras of journalists, and recordings and pictures taken by Gaza residents, showing starvation? Or will you believe the interested, deceptive, official Israeli spokespeople and accomplices, who are still preventing international journalists and investigators from entering the Strip? Presumably they fear that the international observers will find the absence of starvation to be too evident, or too incontestable, to let them in! It is another bald lie.

B: They also allege that Palestinian armed groups steal aid.

A: Indeed they do—the gangs which Israel supports steal food from Palestinians who need it, and perform other tasks besides.[22] Apart from Israel-backed groups, I am not aware of reliable reporting of aid theft.[23]

B: What about the charge that Palestinians use human shields and tunnels under civilian areas?

A: First, the evidence of human shielding is scant: it has not been validated by previous investigations by more or less impartial groups. Second, even if human shields were being used, it would not warrant the killing of all the innocent civilians who have thus been held captive: yet Israel treats alleged human shielding as a licence to kill Palestinians en masse. Does it then follow that, in order to target Israeli government and security sites in populated parts of Israel, it would be justified, say, for the Iranian government to carpet bomb all of Tel Aviv? If not, then is the stupidity of this moral reasoning not obvious? As to the tunnels, and the difficulties of urban war, there has long been another option: to come to a deal instead of insisting on combat.

B: Do you have anything further to add?

A: No, except to say, that I hope we have proved that the Palestinian cause is a just cause, and that the crimes that Israel is committing, with the support of our government, must be stopped. The massacre of civilians committed on 7 October does not justify genocide, collective punishment, or war crimes, and Palestinians deserve to be liberated from occupation.

[1] https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n18/tom-stevenson/short-cuts; https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/east-mediterranean-mena/israelpalestine/worlds-shame-gaza.

[2] Avi Shlaim, Genocide in Gaza: Israel’s Long War on Palestine, pp. 156, 159-161.

[3] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/3/hamas-calls-for-un-action-as-israel-escalates-brutal-bombardment-of-gaza

[4] See South Africa’s Application Instituting Proceedings (29 December 2023) in South Africa v. Israel, especially Section D. Expressions of Genocidal Intent against the Palestinian People by Israeli State Officials and Others.

[5] See ANNEX I: STATEMENTS EVIDENCING GENOCIDAL INTENT AND INCITEMENT TO GENOCIDE BY SENIOR ISRAELI GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS; ANNEX II: GENOCIDAL INTENT AND INCITEMENT TO GENOCIDE BY ISRAELI MILITARY OFFICIALS; ANNEX III: INCITEMENT TO GENOCIDE; in the Letter dated 27 February 2025 from the Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2025/130). See also https://mecouncil.org/blog_posts/israels-admission-of-genocide/; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/01/leaked-gaza-riviera-plan-dismissed-as-insane-attempt-to-cover-ethnic-cleansing.

[6] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cy8k8045nx9o

[7] https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/aug/21/revealed-israeli-militarys-own-data-indicates-civilian-death-rate-of-83-in-gaza-war

[8] https://www.who.int/news/item/22-08-2025-famine-confirmed-for-first-time-in-gaza

[9] https://aoav.org.uk/2025/independent-survey-suggests-gaza-war-death-toll-far-higher-than-official-estimates/

[10] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war; https://www.icjpalestine.com/2024/08/22/30-uk-based-medical-professionals-send-open-letter-to-prime-minister-demanding-a-ban-on-arms-sales-to-israel-2/; https://www.gazahealthcareletters.org/usa-letter-oct-2-2024.

[11] https://news.sky.com/story/israeli-soldier-describes-arbitrary-killing-of-civilians-in-gaza-13393422; https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-12-18/ty-article-magazine/.premium/idf-soldiers-expose-arbitrary-killings-and-rampant-lawlessness-in-gazas-netzarim-corridor/00000193-da7f-de86-a9f3-fefff2e50000.

[12] https://www.btselem.org/sites/default/files/publications/202408_welcome_to_hell_eng.pdf

[13] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/; https://www.btselem.org/publications/202507_our_genocide; https://www.phr.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Genocide-in-Gaza-PHRI-English.pdf; https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-extermination-acts-genocide-gaza; https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/01/israel-committing-genocide-in-gaza-worlds-top-scholars-on-the-say; https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/top-genocide-scholars-unanimous-israel-committing-genocide-gaza-investigation-finds.

[14] https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges.

[15] https://www.democracynow.org/2024/3/1/nyt_anat_schwartz; https://normanfinkelstein.substack.com/p/pramila-pattens-rape-fantasies; https://www.normanfinkelstein.com/did-secretary-general-guterres-betray-gaza-and-the-un-to-appease-israel/.

[16] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-07-07/ty-article-magazine/.premium/idf-ordered-hannibal-directive-on-october-7-to-prevent-hamas-taking-soldiers-captive/00000190-89a2-d776-a3b1-fdbe45520000.

[17] https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/07/1152296.