Reflection on Gaza

Every day, people die in Gaza.
They are killed by airstrikes, gunfire, or simply because they cannot access the care they need. The world watches and agrees it is horrific. Up to that point, there seems to be consensus. But as soon as we ask who is carrying out the attacks or obstructing aid, silence follows. It becomes politically sensitive. Or worse: some truly believe that the gradual reduction of a people to a densely packed, suffering mass can be justified under the guise of self-defense.
How is that possible?

The question may sound rhetorical, but I mean it sincerely. I grew up with the belief that, despite its violent history, humanity had gradually developed the notion of human rights — fundamental rights to which every person is entitled, regardless of origin or belief. These rights, I was taught, form the foundation of our rule of law and liberal democracy.

If Israel so blatantly tramples those rights, why do we not unequivocally condemn it? A common response is that the situation is more nuanced, and that the Palestinians — especially under Hamas — are not innocent either. The atrocities committed by Hamas are indeed undeniable and deplorable.

But that line of reasoning suggests we must choose between Hamas and Israel. As if it’s impossible to denounce both. That is a false dilemma. Precisely because Israel claims to be a liberal democracy, it should be held to a higher standard. It should know better.

There are also principled arguments. One crime does not make another any less severe. Human rights and the laws of war were created to protect what makes us human, especially in times of extreme crisis. What is the value of laws that only apply when they are not tested? Israel’s right to self-defense is real, but arming oneself against an attack is not the same as systematically seeking to eliminate an organization — regardless of the civilian lives lost in the process. That is not only strategically foolish — it fuels extremism — but also morally unacceptable.

There is also a fundamental asymmetry. What is commonly called “a conflict” suggests two equal parties. In reality, Goliath is crushing David. The Palestinians no longer live in the homes where they grew up, have difficulty accessing education or work, and barely have access to medical care or freedom of movement. They lack strong institutions, let alone an organized army. Many of them today barely have food.

And yet we expect them to find the solution? When they protest peacefully, they are ignored. When they resist with violence — which, let it be clear, is not justifiable — retaliation is merciless.

Israel, on the other hand, has a functioning state, a thriving economy, and a high-tech military. They have the power to choose differently. They could offer Palestinians a future as equal citizens — in their own state or a shared one. Precisely because Israel has the option to act differently and refuses to do so, the greatest responsibility lies with them. We can only speak of Palestinian responsibility when they are truly given a choice — not between terror and annihilation, but with a concrete prospect of a dignified future for both peoples.
I write this, and I fear it’s already too late.
Who will be able to forget this?
And yet we must not. Let us never stop believing that change is possible.

I remain astonished that Europe cannot take a firm stance against what increasingly appears to be the deliberate destruction of a people.
Why do we not sever all diplomatic, economic, political, scientific, cultural, and sporting ties with Israel until there is a fundamental shift in direction?

Precisely because Israel resembles us in so many ways, we must hold it to account. Sometimes, seeking nuance is a way of avoiding what stares us plainly in the face — even when justice stands right before us.

Sincerely,
A European