Features
The British Invasion: Douglas Murray and Colonel Richard Kemp, Tel Aviv International Salon, Dec.21, 2023
By GABRIEL EMMANUEL In 1964 the Beatles were banned from performing in Israel (to the Jewish state’s everlasting shame and embarrassment). Nearly 60 years later a British invasion of a different sort took place and the crowd reaction was almost like a mini Beatlemania.
Some 600 or more twenty and thirty somethings packed themselves into a meeting room at the Carlton Hotel in Tel Aviv that was meant to accommodate only about a third of that size. The featured speakers were former Commander of the British forces in Afghanistan, Richard Kemp, and author, political commentator, Douglas Murray, whose book “War on the West”(2018) quickly became a New York Times bestseller. Both Kemp and Murray have spent the past two and a half months in Israel covering the war. “I’ve almost made Aliya” quipped Kemp as the talk was about to begin. When the charismatic Murray entered the room a little late for reasons which he would come to share, the audience broke into spontaneous applause.
While Colonel Kemp has been known for years for endorsing the IDF as the “most moral army” in the world, Douglas Murray shot to fame at the opening of the present conflict with his acerbic response to an interviewer’s question as to whether Israel’s response to the atrocities of Oct. 7 could be considered “proportionate”. In a segment on British Talk TV https://talk.tv/top-stories/31465/douglas-murray-proportionality-in-conflict-is-a-joke that went instantly viral Murray responded “There is some deep perversion in Britain whenever Israel is involved in a conflict and it’s the word you just used – proportion, proportionate, proportionality. Only Britain is really obsessed with this…Proportionality in conflict rarely exists but if we were to decide that we should have this fetish about proportionality then that would mean that in retaliation for what Hamas did in Israel on Saturday (Oct. 7, G.E.) then Israel should try and locate a music festival in Gaza for instance (and good luck with that), and rape precisely the number of women that Hamas raped, kill precisely the number of young people that Hamas killed. They should find a town of exactly the same size of Sderot… and make sure they go door to door and kill precisely the correct number of babies that Hamas killed in Sderot and shoot in the head precisely the same number of old age pensioners that Hamas shot in the head on Saturday…Proportionality in conflict is a joke,” spurned Douglas adding, “that it is only the Israelis that when attacked are expected to have precisely a proportionate response.”
Given the British gentlemens’ philo-semitic reputations the audience broke out with mixed laughter and applause when the two were introduced as the “two most beloved “Goyim” in all of Israel. Non-plussed by the off-colour moniker, Kemp stated proudly that “I am also an extremely talented “Shabbat Goy” the result of having been residing in a hotel with many displaced persons from Kiryat Shmona “who have used my services quite extensively.”
Asked by another Brit, moderator Deborah Danon, what drew each of them to supporting Israel in a topsy turvy world that was largely hostile towards the Jewish State, each had similar reasons for doing so. “I was taught when I was very young to know right from wrong,” said Kemp, “and it’s my duty to support those who are right. There is no question who is in the right in this fight,” he added.
Moreover, underscoring his 30 years spent fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq Kemp felt duty bound “to do what little I can do to help fight this fight with you because it’s not just your fight it’s a fight for Western civilization; the same ideology that’s attacking you now has attacked us in the past and will intensify its attacks in the future.”
Apologizing for his late entrance for having been held up in an interview on the Piers Morgan show (“It’s quite hard to get Piers to stop talking”) Murray offered another reason responsible for drawing him over to Israel’s side. “Aside from my love for this country and its people,” he said, “I also see something which I think any writer or journalist should see and get very annoyed by, which is lies. When it’s lies about an entire nation and people, when I hear someone like this blowhard I heard earlier (on Piers Morgan, G.E.) accusing Israel of ‘genociding’ the Palestinians, I can’t sit here and not say something. I’m not going to allow these canards, smears and lies and defamation to just go on…I don’t like lies being told and Israel has been on the receiving end of some of the biggest, longest, deepest and most wounding lies of our era,” said Murray. Demonstrating his effortless ability to deftly cross over from political commentary to artful literary imagery he caps the thought with finesse: “So I believe in the simple cause of “moral hygiene” that it’s necessary to try and clean some of that up.”
The moderator then asked a pertinent question: “In a world of Tik Tok where Jesus is Palestinian, do you wonder if this is just a Myth of Sisyphus syndrome where you are just pushing that rock up the hill and do you ever ask yourself just what’s the point?”
“Never, actually,” Murray replied emphatically. “Even if it was the case what option have you got? Just to sit at the bottom of the hill and get crushed by the rock?” he asks rhetorically.
Despite the omnipresence of social media in the world, where lies are able to “rocket around the world” Murray holds fast to a different view. “if you live in a world where 99 lies are being told and one person tells the truth, the truth will win,” he asserts and gives the example of writers such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn whose work was effective in bringing down the entire Soviet Empire. “The validity of a truth in an era of lies cannot be underestimated,” he says.
From the topic of lies it was an easy segue to Hamas battle figures. “I don’t know what the latest exaggerated figure is from Hamas about the number of people that have been killed in Gaza” says Kemp, “I just know that it has to be defeated. If it means that a very large number of people whether military or civilian have to die in that process then unfortunately that’s the case because no sovereign, democratic state can exist under this threat so it must be eliminated, it’s as simple as that,” states Kemp in a no nonsense, tell it like it is, military analysis. Despite the unreliability of figures Kemp posits that based on the figures he’s received from Israeli sources of 8,000 or 9,000 or more have been killed from Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which would represent about 30% of the total number of terrorists. “That’s a very significant proportion,” he says, “that’s in excess of 30% of their fighting capability. The whole edifice then begins to crumble and I think we’re going to see that,” he says with conviction.
“I’ve been in Gaza on a number of occasions. I’m deeply impressed by the IDF combat effectiveness. This is going to come down at some point,” Kemp says quite bluntly.
Kamp makes regular visits to the soldiers in hospital and knows the tragedy of war from close up. “Tragically, many Israeli soldiers will die and have died already,” he concedes, “but they will undoubtedly prevail in the end.” He contrasts the irony with Hamas: “They want the I.D.F. to kill their civilians. They want as many civilians killed as possible because that then provokes the inevitable international demand for ceasefire, condemning Israel for War Crimes,” he concludes while shaking his head at the anticipated perversion of justice.
Asked about pressure from the United States, Douglas Murray elucidated his view that “You should be courteous to your allies but not subservient to them,” earning a strong round of applause. “The future of this State, of the Jewish people must be in the hands of the Jewish people,” he continued.” It cannot be in the hands of anyone else. It cannot be in the hands of people who, for instance say the day after the massacre of October 7th that this is why we need to double down on the two state solution. It just can’t be in the hands of people going at that kind of slow speed”, he says.
Had the events of Oct.7th happened in the U.S.A., Murray points out, proportionately over 120,000 Americans would have been massacred on one day. “Nobody can tell me that the Americans would have listened to anyone then, nor should they, “he adds. The one potential outcome of the war that Murray absolutely rejects is that the situation might return to the status quo ante of October 6th. “Israel must be allowed to win,” he asserts. “It cannot simply always be encouraged to fight for a stalemate.” Regarding the as of yet unresolved situation with Hezbollah, Murray poked fun at the thought that we will all have to relearn the map of the North and become experts again on the Litani River. “Since 2006 it’s just been a replay of the same thing,” he says. “It just feels like Groundhog Day,” he quips to the amused young people in the room. And then in a more somber tone: “Anything other than actual victory by the Israelis in this conflict is unacceptable because all of these efforts to make Israel fight into a stalemate will simply prepare the groundwork for the next war and this country deserves not to be forced into perpetual war,” he emphasizes.
According to Colonel Kemp’s analysis much of what has transpired in the world in terms of instability with the Ukraine and now Gaza has to do with a weak image projected by President Joe Biden. On the other hand, Kemp considers that Biden has been strongly in favour of Israel and the U.S. unlikely to pressure Israel to desist its military operations. For this dichotomous view Kemp actually earned applause from both Biden supporters and detractors.
The moderator brought up the tragic issue of the three hostages who had been mistakenly killed by Israeli troops. Douglas Murray reflected on the incident and said that he was genuinely shocked by “the lack of empathy for Israel internationally”. A glaring example of such a lack of empathy he suggested could be found with the posters of the hostages in various cities around the world. What followed was another of Murray’s innovative insights: “If you put up a poster of a missing cat or dog in your neighbourhood you would not expect anyone to rip it down,” he matter of factly suggests. “And if anyone did rip it down you would think that person was subhuman. You would think what kind of a sick person are we dealing with here?” he asks. “And this wasn’t dogs or cats. These were Jewish children. And in city after city sociopaths tore down these posters…This lack of empathy has been there since the day (Oct.7th G.E.) itself. And the media treats it as more evidence of the brutality of the Israeli soldiers – they even kill their own! Imagine the lives of those soldiers who shot those three hostages, how they must have felt. And yet instead of recognizing what a tragedy that is for everybody involved they use it as a weapon against Israel!” Murray’s damning condemnation resounds through the packed but quiet room. “That really has slightly startled me in this conflict,” he continued to reflect in an afterthought.
The door was left open for a little humour when the Moderator, in her last question, asked about the Day After. Colonel Kemp was first to pick up the gauntlet: “I think we need a two state solution with the United Nations supervising it,” he said without flinching and with a stiff British upper lip to boot which held tightly in place until the audience stopped laughing. And then more seriously his sober insight: “The I.D.F. has no option, whatsoever, apart from to stay in control of Gaza from now on. It doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks; it doesn’t matter what President Biden might wish to happen…What is absolutely certain is that the I.D.F. must maintain security control of Gaza. It means either a permanent IDF presence inside the whole of Gaza or it means the creation of a one or two mile buffer zone on the inside of the Gaza border which no one is allowed to go into and which the I.D.F can police.”
Kemp had nary a kind word to say about the folks on the other side:”The reality in Gaza is that the vast majority of the population of allegedly innocent civilians support Hamas, even when they see the horrors that Hamas has brought on them, they still support Hamas . And there will be efforts to have a Hamas 2,” the Colonel warned.
Murray concurs that it is a “very bleak necessity” but that Israel will need to stay in Gaza. For how long? “Call me a pessimist,” says Kemp, “but I would say forever.” Like his colleague, Murray also spends some of his days visiting the wounded in hospitals. On a recent visit he met one of the victims, a farmer, from a border Kibbutz who had lost his wife, son and both of his legs in the Hamas attack of Oct.7th . “He said something that has really stuck with me,” Murray recalled, “He said, ‘I have been a leftist all my life. I now want to look out on nothing but potato fields from here to the Mediterranean.’ Who can risk living beside these people? Nobody else in the world would be expected to have to put up with that. I don’t think the Israelis have to be an experiment test case either. I think you should have the right to live in peace and to know that the border you have does not contain genocidal maniacs on the other side who wish to kill you all.”
In the question period which followed, Murray was asked what changes he would like to see in present day Britain. “Obviously the first thing I’d do would be to make Richard Kemp Minister of Defence,” he suggests to uproarious laughter from the crowd. “I assume you’ll be Prime Minister, will you,” Kemp shot back. Feigning humility, Murray wistfully demurred saying only, “If the nations calls…” Presumably, they may one day.
Getting more serious Murray took aim at the “appalling” pro Hamas demonstrations which took place in London and included one on Remembrance Day. “I think it’s been shameful,” he said. “I want no Hamas supporters in my country. And that’s quite easy to arrange in my view,” he added making reference to a case in point of Muhammud Sawalha, a key Hamas terrorist from the West Bank who subsequently obtained British citizenship. “To get a British passport you must, among other things sign a form that says you are a person of good character. I submit that he is not a person of good character,” said Murray, “and that he lied on his form when he said that he was. I would like to see his citizenship stripped and I would like to see him deported and to try his luck in Gaza.” On a humorous roll, Murray recalled the case of a young lady whose British passport was recalled when she returned from having joined Isis and tried to pretend – once the Caliphate fell apart – that she didn’t know that they were actually a “murderous, head-hacking group” and besides, “we all make mistakes”. She shouldn’t get her passport back argued Murray maintaining vociferously that “If you’re with an Islamist death cult you should not be allowed to be in Britain.”
Colonel Kemp fielded a question about another hot potato issue, that of missiles being fired from Yemen which no one seems to be doing anything about. “Yemen has been firing missiles into Israel since the war began including the first ever in history engagement in space when a Houthi ballistic missile was intercepted by an Israeli Aero missile outside the earth’s atmosphere. They’ve been firing numerous missiles and drones towards Israel, all of which have been shot down.” Unless a message is sent soon to Yemen and Iran by the U.S. Kemp warns that war in Lebanon will be inevitable.
A visiting American Major with a pronounced Midwestern drawl asked Colonel Kemp if he could explain the concept known as “the fog of war”. “It’s an extraordinary thing that doesn’t apply anywhere else in life,” said Kemp, “you have very often young, inexperienced soldiers in the reserves with a limited amount of recent training and then suddenly they are thrown into Gaza which I would say is one of the most treacherous and demanding battlefields that anyone has fought on in the history of warfare. And they’re expected to always make the right decision. That simply cannot happen. We all make mistakes. And that’s when nobody is shooting at us. Nobody is trying to kill us. We haven’t suffered lack of sleep for days on end, we’re not cold, hungry, we’re not terrified and yet we still make mistakes. So how can these guys not make mistakes? And the enemy is trying to fool you all the time, trying to make you think that the reality in front of your eyes is not the reality in front of your eyes. And the difference is when a soldier makes a mistake very often people die as a consequence.” The reference that was embedded on most peoples’ minds was the recent tragic killing of the three Israeli hostages by friendly fire.
Murray was asked about the effect of “hasbara” (P.R. G.E) in the current war. “I believe they should be given some credit for they have done a better job that any time previously that I have been covering since 2006”, he said. Taking the Al-Shifa hospital as an example, Murray pointed out that Israel “got on top of it very fast” like releasing the closed circuit TV footage of the hostages being led in to the hospital and showing the weapons cache that was discovered there. But at the same time, he underscores why not even the best P.R. may succeed in certain circumstances. “The minute they show that the hospital has an arms dump inside it and has a load of kalashnikovs and grenades , Jeremy Bowen of the BBC goes on and is asked about it and says, ‘well, it is not inconceivable that the kalshnikovs belonged to the hospital’s security department’. On the television the next day I said, ‘yes, and it’s possible the grenades were for the cardiology department’.” Murray’s point is well taken. No matter how strong the evidence is, it is not necessarily strong enough to overcome bias.
Kemp concurs, “This extraordinary propaganda campaign against Israel – everything that Israel does is wrong. For the past 10 years the BBC has not allowed me to speak on any program about Israel. Any other security issue, any other country I’m on all the time on the BBC just not about Israel. I got a call a few weeks back asking if I would do an interview about Israel. I almost fell off my chair,” recalls Kemp. “Then I realized what was going on. They had been heavily criticized and were under a lot of pressure for their lies about Al-Alhi hospital attack (where Israel was wrongly blamed for the bombing, G.E.) They felt we need to show how broadminded we are, so we’ll even get this extremist Kemp on to speak. So that’s how I became a human shield for the BBC”, Kemp concluded with a wry smile.
In a final story, also about the BBC, Kemp relates that he was once invited to the BBC studio in Jerusalem to do a number of interviews. In the interview which was live from London he was asked why the IDF were so keen to send in ground forces to Gaza. I explained “they don’t want to go in on the ground, they know the problems with that. So I was asked then why do the politicians want to go in on the ground. I said they don’t. I’ve spoken to them, the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister they will only go in if they have to. The interviewer was completely stumped at this and all he could say was, ‘yes, but you’re a Jew’. Now how do you answer that,” Kemp asked incredulously. Do I say in a belligerent tone, “how dare you accuse me of being a Jew!?” But instead I said simply, “I don’t have that honour.”
“If I can just say something” interjected Murray, “about the youth of this country. So young! So brilliant! So vivacious. I met a young woman the other day of 21 who was an expert on Yemen! Why her contemporary in America is being educated to become stupid and wicked!” his observation met by peals of laughter. Then more seriously, “I have been so moved by these young people. They will be an example not just to Israel but to the people of the world. And if I may leave you with one last thought,” he continued. “I know this period is incredibly troubling, disturbing, upsetting and much more for the people of this country. I think the country is still going through a trauma, trying to work out what was done to you in October. You asked at the beginning why we do this. I would just say whether I can answer it or not, it is the honour of my life to be standing in alliance with you.”
The evening done, the young people rushed the small stage to take selfies with both fine gentlemen. Douglas Murray and Colonel Richard Kemp. Two of Israel’s most beloved friends, indeed.
Gabriel Emanuel is a former Winnipegger.
An edited version of this article first appeared in the Jerusalem Post, December 29, 2023 .
Features
What Attachment Styles Can Reveal About Dating Habits
How many evenings with a stranger does it take before anything reliable is known about them? Most people answer with a number and then ignore their own answer. What actually gets measured across those evenings is the pattern each person carries into every new pairing, and that pattern has been studied under one name since 1987.
Attachment research began with infants and moved into adult romance almost by accident. It now supplies the best available vocabulary for a question most people ask eventually, which is why their dating life keeps taking the same shape.
A Newspaper Quiz in 1987
Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver tested a hunch in 1987 by publishing a quiz in the Rocky Mountain News asking readers about their romantic history. They received 620 replies. Roughly 56% of respondents described themselves in secure terms, about 25% in avoidant terms and around 19% in anxious terms.
Those proportions were close to what Mary Ainsworth had recorded in infants decades earlier. A distribution found in toddlers separated from a parent for 3 minutes in a laboratory had turned up again in adults describing love affairs, and that correspondence is what made the field take notice.
The method had obvious weaknesses. Newspaper readers who answer a quiz about their love lives are not a random sample, and every answer was self-reported by people describing their own behavior in the most favorable terms available. Later work with better samples moved the numbers around without dislodging the structure, and the structure is what has lasted.
Two Axes and Four Positions
Two questions turned out to organize the whole field. Does a person hold a positive or negative view of themselves, and do they hold a positive or negative view of other people? Kim Bartholomew and Leonard Horowitz built their 1991 model on exactly that pair.
Crossing those axes produces 4 positions. Secure covers positive views of both. Preoccupied means a negative view of self with a positive view of others, which produces someone who wants closeness and doubts they deserve it. Dismissing means the reverse, a positive self-view paired with low expectations of anyone else. Fearful covers negative views on both axes, which produces wanting closeness and distrusting it at the same time.
Two axes beat a list of 3 types, because the axes explain why 2 people who both avoid intimacy can look nothing alike in practice.
Pacing and the First Month
There is no fixed amount of dates that settles the question of compatibility, and attachment position changes how quickly a person believes they have settled it. Secure people tend to form an assessment gradually and revise it when new information arrives.
Preoccupied people often decide fast and commit to the decision before it is warranted. Dismissing people frequently take longer and still leave with less, since their default is to withhold the information that would let anyone assess them back.
Separating the decision from the feeling by a fixed interval helps the first group. Deciding after a set number of meetings rather than after a strong evening will not make the assessment more accurate. It removes the largest single source of error, which is a conclusion reached inside the honeymoon phase while everything still looks promising.
Hyperactivation and Deactivation
The mechanism underneath all of this has 2 modes. Anxious patterns run on hyperactivation, which means turning up the volume on distress to draw a partner closer. Avoidant patterns run on deactivation, which means suppressing the signal entirely to keep distance manageable.
In early dating this shows up in small behaviors. Hyperactivation shows up as checking your phone every few minutes after an unanswered message, and as the escalation of a minor scheduling conflict into something larger. Researchers call the wider category protest behavior, and it covers everything from pointed silence to deliberately provoking a reaction. Deactivation produces the pleasant evening that goes nowhere and the topic changed each time a real question arrives.
Both patterns are attempts to manage the same discomfort, pointed in opposite directions. The deactivating version accounts for most of what people mean when they call someone emotionally unavailable.
The Anxious-Avoidant Loop
The most documented pairing in the literature puts a hyperactivating person with a deactivating one. Fearful-avoidant attachment complicates the picture further, since one person can run both strategies in sequence and produce the same loop without a partner’s help. Each strategy strengthens the other. Pursuit triggers withdrawal, withdrawal triggers more pursuit, and the loop holds steady for years because neither person is doing anything the other did not provoke.
The reason this pairing is so common is easy to miss. To someone whose nervous system learned early to associate intensity with love, a secure partner can feel flat. The anxious-avoidant cycle produces intensity on demand.
Positions Move
Attachment position is a tendency, and tendencies move. Positions change across the lifespan with relationships, therapy and circumstance, and a single difficult partner can push someone temporarily toward a pattern that is not their baseline.
That matters for how any of this gets applied. A person behaving in a preoccupied way with one partner may be entirely secure with the next, so the category describes the current pairing as much as the individual in it.
It also rules out the most common misuse of the framework, which is deciding early that a new person is avoidant and treating every subsequent behavior as confirmation. Two quiet weeks can mean an avoidant pattern, a demanding job, a sick parent or ordinary early caution, and the categories offer no way to tell those apart from the outside.
Reading the Categories Correctly
There is one more thing the framework cannot do, and it is the thing people most want from it. Nothing in attachment theory tells anyone which partner to choose. It describes how a person is likely to behave once the choosing is over and the uncertainty starts, which is a different and much smaller claim than the one made by most of the writing built on top of it.
An attachment style is a description of a habit. It names what someone tends to do when closeness is on offer and they are uncertain about it, and nothing in the framework predicts what any specific person will do on any specific evening.
Used that way the idea is genuinely worth having. A person who knows their own pattern can catch it while it is running, and a pattern caught mid-run is the only kind that can be interrupted. Noticing that you commit early and regret it a month later teaches you more than any number of verdicts about the people you committed to.
Uncategorized
Four Seats or No Seats? Why Israel’s Final Polls Disagree Over Amcha Yisrael
Conflicting projections for Ofer Winter’s party illustrate the uncertainty of measuring public support near an electoral threshold.
A Channel 12 poll gives Ofer Winter’s Amcha Yisrael four parliamentary seats.
An i24NEWS survey reaches the same seat total.
Other final polls find that the party does not qualify for representation.
How can surveys conducted close to the same election produce such different results?
The answer lies partly in the difference between measuring a vote share and converting it into parliamentary seats.
A Statistical Boundary
Israel’s electoral threshold is 3.25 percent.
For a party receiving substantially more than that percentage, modest sampling fluctuations may change its expected number of seats without calling its parliamentary presence into question.
For a party whose support lies near 3.25 percent, the same type of fluctuation may change its projected representation from several seats to zero.
This does not necessarily mean the polls are measuring completely different political realities.
They may be producing estimates close to the same threshold but on opposite sides of it.
Sample Size Is Only One Factor
The i24NEWS survey conducted on October 22 included 5,124 adult respondents and reported a sampling error of plus or minus 1.4 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
That is a substantial sample by conventional political polling standards.
But a larger sample does not eliminate every source of uncertainty.
Different pollsters may employ different recruitment methods, weighting systems and procedures for estimating turnout.
They may also differ in how they handle respondents who are undecided or reluctant to state their preferences.
These choices can matter particularly for smaller parties.
The Problem of Turnout
Opinion polls generally estimate voting preferences before actual voting takes place.
Election results reflect the ballots cast by people who participate.
Differences between intended and actual turnout can affect parties in different ways.
Analysts must therefore consider not only how many respondents express support for a party, but also whether the poll’s turnout model accurately reflects the eventual electorate.
Without transparent, comparable information about the methods used by each polling organization, it is difficult to identify which methodological difference is responsible for a particular disagreement.
Reading the Final Surveys
The appropriate interpretation of Amcha Yisrael’s polling is neither that its parliamentary representation is guaranteed nor that exclusion is certain.
The available surveys demonstrate uncertainty around a legally decisive boundary.
The four-seat projections reported by Channel 12 and i24NEWS are meaningful observations.
So are the below-threshold findings published by Channel 13, Maariv and Zman Yisrael.
Each survey is a measurement of electoral intentions under a particular methodology, not a count of actual votes.
For readers following Israel’s election, this makes Amcha Yisrael an instructive case study in how polling uncertainty interacts with electoral law.
The final result will provide the definitive seat allocation. The polls explain why the outcome was difficult to measure in advance.
Features
What Constitutes Genocide, and is Israel Guilty?
By HENRY SREBRNIK Genocide is a grave and exceptional violation of international law, defined and prohibited by the Genocide Convention of 1948. But maybe Raphael Lemkin did us no favour in coining the word during the Holocaust. It is now used by antisemites against Israel.
Raphael Lemkin was a Polish-Jewish jurist who escaped from Europe when the Nazis occupied Poland. He moved to Washington, DC, in the summer of 1942, and went on to document Nazi atrocities in his 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. In this text, he introduced the word “genocide,” the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, ethnicity or tribe) and the Latin cide (killing).
But it’s not that cut and dried. Even before the antisemites accused Israel of genocide in Gaza, as a way of ridding themselves of any residual guilt about the destruction of European Jewry, the word had become little more than a term used by states and “human rights” groups who for one reason or another want to punish their adversaries.
Most of the time they really are talking about “ethnic cleansing,” pogroms, massacres and war crimes. By such criteria, every participant in World War II committed “genocide.” The mass killings of civilians in Hiroshima and Dresden in 1945 would today qualify. But these were acts against even far worse perpetrators of what we now call genocide, designed to speedily end the war.
What about the American war in Vietnam, and of course the almost numberless conflicts across Africa? The wars that dismembered Yugoslavia involved terrible massacres, particularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, but did they really meet the criterion for genocide? The numbers killed needn’t be huge. About 8,000 Bosniak Muslims were murdered in Srebrenica by Bosnian Serb militias in 1995 during the Bosnian war. In the Western Hemisphere it would — and lately does — refer to the cultural and also physical extinction of pre-contact peoples from the Arctic down to Patagonia.
Are ideological attempts to kill groups of identifiable people within a state — the Holodomor in Ukraine, but also elsewhere in Stalin’s USSR — genocide? What about the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Should we call this an “auto-genocide,” since it was perpetrated by the nation’s own mad Maoist regime? Was China’s Cultural Revolution a genocide? Millions probably died. Rwanda is an interesting case — obviously a mass murder by one class-cum-ethnic group against another, a giant pogrom involving intertwined peoples, but where the victims have now turned the tables.
Actually, there have been very few ideologically intentional attempts to destroy a powerless and helpless people, in whole or in part. Only a few qualify by that definition, the Holocaust being an obvious one, as well as the Turkish mass murders of Armenians in World War I. The allegations that Israel committed this crime do not meet the established definition and standards of genocide, are unsupported by established facts, nor do they stand up to common sense scrutiny.
A finding of genocide requires evidence of acts that are intended to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. Israel has neither intended to, nor destroyed, Palestinians as a group in Gaza. Israel’s accusers allege genocide mostly because of the supposed number of civilians killed in Gaza. Such claims are rife with flaws. Genocide is not a quantitative crime; there is no specific number of civilian casualties that constitutes genocide.
Israel set a high bar for how to conduct urban warfare against an enemy who will stop at nothing, including the death of its own civilians. What kind of genocide is it when the population of Gaza is larger today than it was three years ago? And how could it be that Israel is trying to kill innocents when the ratio of civilian-to-combatant casualties is lower than that of other urban wars fought in even less-difficult conditions?
Dave Rich, an Associate Research Fellow at the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism, writes extensively about the intersection of anti-Israel activism, far-left politics, and modern antisemitism. He observes that people respond to the genocide charge through facts and data: Israel’s supporters take the charge of genocide on its face, as an evidence-based allegation of a crime, and try to construct the case for the defence. But there is no defence, because the charge is not made on that basis, or for that purpose, he states.
The term “genocide,” he notes in “From Be’eri to Bondi: Global Antisemitism After October 7, published in Fathom, October 2026, has shed its legal meaning and become a political label, whose antithesis is “resistance.” These two terms represent two states of being: in a colonial setting, either you are engaging in genocide or you are resisting it. There is no middle ground. “Israel is condemned as genocidal, not by observation, but through logical deduction: Israel is colonial, therefore by definition it is genocidal. It cannot be otherwise. And Gaza represents resistance against the entire Western colonial and capitalist power structure.”
Maia Zelkha, editor-in-chief of Yad Mizrah, a Sephardi and Mizrahi cultural magazine, also contends that the left employs the word “genocide” as an ideological weapon. “Before Israel had even launched its ground invasion of Gaza, and before there was any evidentiary record of Israel’s military campaign,” she writes, in her article “Genocide and Its Jurors,” in Quillette, Sept. 24, 2026, many leftist groups “were already describing Israel’s response as genocide.”
On Oct. 8, just a day after Hamas’s massacre and kidnappings, thousands of demonstrators gathered in New York’s Times Square in an “All Out for Palestine” rally to support “Palestinian resistance.” Within days, other organizations were issuing statements describing Israel’s unfolding military response as genocide, situated within a pre-existing theory of Israel as a colonial project that had produced genocidal dehumanisation. Prominent academics, human-rights organisations, activists, journalists, and public intellectuals described Israel’s conduct as genocidal.
Although the conviction that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians is not new, it has garnered ever more strength since the beginning of this war. In March 2024, the UN special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, published a report alleging that the Israeli war in Gaza constituted a genocide. In December of the same year, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch did the same. Then in July 2025 came both Physicians for Human Rights and B’Tselem, followed almost immediately by the International Association of Genocide Scholars. A resolution from the latter organization requires a two-thirds vote of its members, academics in the field of genocide studies, to pass. One would be hard-pressed to find a more reputable source for the libel.
On Sept. 16, 2025, a UN Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza; other prominent left-wing organisations and scholars have reached the same conclusion. And finally, on Oct. 9, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that it awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 to South African judge Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, who led the 2025 UN commission that found Israel guilty of genocide against the Palestinians while completely ignoring many of the world’s worst human rights abusers, including, of course, Hamas. Pillay’s commission found that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes. Yet it accused Israel of genocide. This is a staggering moral inversion. And now the award of the Nobel; this appears to be the greatest possible legitimization of the now-established consensus about Israel’s war in Gaza. The icing on the cake!
But remember this: When a jihadist terrorist organization like Hamas applauds a Nobel Peace Prize, the moral judgment of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee should rightly be called into question.
Henry Srebrnik is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.

