National Atrocities and Collective Punishment

Israel’s 23-day war on Gaza from December 2008 to January 2009 provoked outrage among many. Campuses worldwide, from the UK to New York City, were convulsed with competing responses. To many it was clear that Israel was collectively punishing the Palestinian people, and yet Zionists succeeded in portraying the conflict as a defensive action against an inhumane, terrorist enemy. While Israel’s actions are shocking, placing Zionism within the long European tradition of violent nation-making sheds light on brutal practices the underpin all national homelands constructed on a racial, ethnic or religious collectivity.

During the early days of the conflict, the U.N. Security Council, European Union, League of Arab States and others called on Israel to immediately halt its operations in Gaza. But with the support of the United States, Israel continued the massacre for weeks. By mid-January, the U.N. Human Rights Council condemned Israeli attacks as “massive violations of human rights of the Palestinian people.” Although the Israeli military hides behind other figures, the most complete report by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights identifies 1,284 Gazans killed, of which 894 were civilians, including 280 children and 111 women. In comparison, 10 Israeli Defense Force soldiers and just three Israeli civilians died during the war, and the year of pre—combat casualties includes a dozen more Israelis.

Despite these stark realities, reporting on the conflict reflected a skewed sense of proportionality. Stories of the suffering of Palestinians were paired with depictions of Israelis living under the threat of rocket attacks. Much coverage would conclude with an agnostic intonation against the violence on both sides. More often, media outlets vilified Hamas as barbarous terrorists deliberately targeting innocent Israeli civilians, and praised Israeli’s restraint. Israel’s Zionist supporters dramatically succeeded in shaping the conflict using some of the oldest tactics of state formation, conquest and empire.

Thus Israel’s tactical violence must be understood within a long tradition of European nation—making. In examining the English conquest of Ireland from the late sixteenth to early seventeenth century, it is striking how the colonizers deployed tactics remarkably similar to those of Israel. In both the English conquest of Ireland and Israel’s attack on Gaza, the occupying state succeeded in decisively shaping the discourse surrounding the conflict. The actual use of violence was grossly disproportionate, but focusing attention on acts of “barbarism” and the inhumane cruelties of their adversaries obscured the actual distribution of violence and destruction obscured, enabling both the English and Israelis to carry out their brutal nationalist projects with moral immunity.

The history of England’s conquest of Ireland may seem eerily familiar to those acquainted with Zionist occupation and annexation. Encroaching on Irish autonomy, Queen Elizabeth supported a policy of colonization that carried 100,000 Englishmen to Ireland. In the occupied territories, growing religious tensions and the pressure of English settlers sparked a bloody Irish rebellion in 1641 that was not suppressed for over a decade.

The Irish rebellion was linked to revolutionary transformations in England. The obstinate Long Parliament led to regicide, and Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector of the revolutionary Commonwealth. The new militantly Protestant regime planned to remake Ireland as a Protestant homeland. To this end, Parliament passed the Act of Settlement creating an Irish reservation in the Connacht province. Irishmen who remained east of the Shannon River were ordered to be executed, thus preserving the bulk of Ireland for Protestant settlers. However, the push towards reservation was mediated by labor shortages, and thus many Irish were allowed to remain outside Connacht, but only as servile labor for the conquering English landlords.

Beyond this parallel history, English and Israeli propagandists deployed similar tactics to legitimize their crimes. A campaign rehearsing the “barbarous cruel murthers” of innocent Protestants during the 1641 rebellion secured support for Irish collective punishment. Stories of Irish inhumanity were widely publicized, including the frequently repeated image of Irish soldiers plunging their bare hands into the wombs of pregnant Englishwomen and ripping out the unborn as trophies. Perhaps this image drew from one real atrocity, but it came to stand for the barbarity of the Irish in general, and legitimized the collective punishment, deportation, relocation, and execution of the Irish. When news of Cromwell’s plans reached New England, the Puritans applauded the “execution of his just vengeance upon those bloody monsters of mankinde.”

Groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee pursue a similar campaign to legitimize Israel’s aggression in Gaza. In press releases and other propaganda, AIPAC emphasizes the “indiscriminate” brutality of faceless Hamas terrorists. In a slideshow under the heading “Hamas In—Depth,” carefully selected AIPAC imagery depicts Hamas soldiers as a faceless enemy, wearing black masks and launching missiles at Israeli women and children. The evocative faces of Israeli civilians are filled with fear and anguish, while images of Palestinian militants are either masked or reveal cold, unfeeling expressions, deliberately obscuring the humanity of Palestinians in Gaza. Pro-Israeli sources omit references to Palestinian casualties, but rather emphasize the thousands of missiles Hamas launches murdering, “wounding and traumatizing” countless Israelis, according to an AIPAC memo. In a trope relentlessly reiterated by Zionist propagandists, Israeli had shown incredible “restraint” against a barbarous and inhumane foe, and Israeli actions in Gaza were predicated on every nation’s right to self defense.

Deportation, removal to reservations, execution, violently enforced boundaries—the Zionist project reiterates the brutal process of nation-making in Europe, not just in the British Isles. National “homelands” for any people, ethnic group or religion always involved some brutal crime against humanity. This is not to normalize Israeli violence, but to call into question the ideal of “nationhood” as a viable ethical and political end. Until we are willing to advance to a more searching critique of nationalism itself, protests against Israeli brutality skirt uncertain terrain. Repeating an ugly narrative, the conflict was effectively framed by Zionist propaganda. The opinion prevailed against overwhelming evidence that Israel was once again enacting “just vengeance upon those bloody monsters of mankinde.”

Rudi Batzell is a Columbia College senior majoring in history and sociology. He is an editor for El Participante, a member of Lucha, and the editor and chair of Columbia Undergraduate Journal of History. History and Politics runs alternate Wednesdays. Opinion@columbiaspectator.com