This October marks the first anniversary of the Hamas terrorist attack that killed 1,180 Israelis, in addition to the kidnapping of 251 hostages. Israel’s brutal reaction, with the murder of more than 40,000 Palestinians and the invasion of Lebanon, has fanned the flames of a conflict that can now be considered regional in scope. The Western world seems to censure the Zionist cause, while, when it comes down to it, it lets everything happen the way the Israeli government wants everything to happen.
It has been one year since the Hamas attack that killed 1,180 Israelis, in addition to the kidnapping of 251 hostages (more than 100 have still not been released). From the very moment of the attack, Israel’s reaction was totally disproportionate. Instead of a surgical and targeted response, the Israeli government opted for the animalization and brutalization of the entire Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip, on the understanding that any casualty was worth it if it achieved what, in principle, was its main objective: the total destruction of Hamas. The result has been the killing of more than 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza, countless missing under the rubble, more than 750 dead in the West Bank and more than two thousand in Lebanon.
More than the actual day of October 7, 2023, it was Israel’s subsequent reaction that reminded us of the nature of a conflict that has been raging for three quarters of a century and has obvious xenophobic and supremacist overtones. The disproportionate reaction, which still persists, not only failed to calm the situation in the region (who could have expected such a thing?) but fanned the flames of a conflict that has been spreading not only in intensity and time, but also geographically and politically.
Thus, one year after this new offensive, Israel has not only razed almost every building in Gaza, causing the drying up of practically the entire area and the death of thousands of civilians, but the confrontation with Iran and Hezbollah has led it to tighten the noose to the point that, as of today, Lebanon (an independent and sovereign state, it should be recalled) is beginning to be seriously affected by the conflict.
It is not necessary to go very far back in time to glimpse the expansion of the conflict. Just a few weeks ago, Israel surprised with the detonation of flares and other electronic devices that caused the death of hundreds of people in Lebanon. These devices were in the possession, at least overwhelmingly, of Hezbollah members, but their massive detonation in public settings has also caused deaths and injuries among the civilian population – did someone say collateral damage? Yes, those who defend these attacks consider that, beyond the maxim that the end justifies the means, it is practically inevitable to incur civilian deaths if the targets are shielded by them. However, even assuming that hiding among civilians is a typical terrorist modus operandi, isn’t the rule of law supposed to be distinguished by proportionality? Because if we still believe that in dubio, pro reo, all the more reason to believe that when in doubt, it is preferable to let a guilty person go than to kill an innocent person, or is that no longer valid?
Obviously, the mainstream media have generally not tended to delve much into the issue, other than to emphasise the spectacular nature of the operation. In view of this kind of reaction, I recommend an exercise: if these detonations had been organised by almost any other army, group or secret service… How long would it have taken us to pronounce the word terrorism? How far can we extend the pretext of collateral damage?
To the ground invasion of southern Lebanon begun by Israel a few dates after its massive explosive detonation operation, Iran has responded by sending several hundred missiles that have hit Israeli soil. In turn, Israel has vowed to strike back. The situation of all-out war seems to be getting closer and closer, even though everyone seems to be acting as if it is hard to believe. But keeping quiet in the face of massacre is not good business.
In the meantime, there have already been complaints this year from the International Criminal Court to the Israeli executive, especially to its prime minister and defence minister. On occasion, the US government has even threatened to limit its support for Israel if it crosses a certain line (although what father ever follows through on his threats to his discoloured child?) Of course, all this has been accompanied by frequent and recurrent protests on student campuses and in the streets of many major cities around the world.
Yet Israel has never been deterred by all this. Why? For many reasons. There are geopolitical reasons and economic reasons. But there are also ideological and communicative ones, which are the ones we can state, because they have been made very clear and explicit. Basically: any attempt to limit or censure Israel’s actions is a sign of terrorist complicity and even an exhibition of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, it is difficult to back down if compassion is lacking, but not military and political superiority. In this regard, it would not be out of place to refer to the words that Maurizio Lazzarato quotes and attributes to a former brigadier general (retired in 2006) of the Israeli army, Shimon Naveh. He commented that: We fell in love with what we were doing with the Palestinians, to the point where we got used to it. You know, when you fight a war against an opponent who is inferior in every way, you may lose a soldier here and a soldier there, but you always have total control. It’s nice to pretend you’re fighting a war when you’re not really in danger (¿Hacia una nueva guerra civil mundial? [Towards a new global civil war?], Maurizio Lazzarato).
Sadly, a year into this new stage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is no way out and, given the way things are going, it almost seems we should be grateful that a global conflict (World War III?) has not broken out, even though the cost in human lives and widespread suffering is so unbearable that I would be lying if I said there was any possible consolation.
Given the prevailing narratives and the impunity with which the Israeli executive continues to respond disproportionately to any affront (real or perceived), there is little hope that a chance occurrence, or a greater interest now overlooked, can stop the carnage. A foolish confidence, surely. But any stupidity seems preferable to this barbarity.
In the meantime, at least perhaps we owe it to ourselves to be constantly reminded of what is happening, not to forget what is happening. And we owe it to ourselves because, yes, as Žižek says on another issue, perhaps we need to feel that what is happening is somehow dependent on us to think that we are in control and that it is not totally out of our control. Maybe it is all a sham, but consciousness must survive somehow. After all, and most unfortunately, the torment seems unlikely to leave the Middle East for long.
