Increasingly, Netanyahu’s own cabinet and advisors are urging genocide there against Gazans. (Actually, this viewpoint has long been popular among Netanyahu’s voters — well prior to the October 7th Hamas attack.)
The legal basis for such a solution comes from many decades of apartheid laws there:
In today’s United States or Europe, any argument that citizenship privileges should be assigned to a group because of its ethnicity or religion would be considered overtly racist. That nonetheless is precisely the position of all the Jewish parties in the Israeli parliament – without exception.
All of them believe, for example, that it is essential that Israel has two differentiated citizenship tracks. One, the Law of Return of 1950, allows all Jews in the world to automatically immigrate to Israel. The other, the Citizenship Law of 1952, bars almost all Palestinians from ever returning to their homes in what is now Israel. It also denies Israel’s 1.8 million Palestinian citizens, a fifth of the population, a basic human right: to marry a Palestinian non-citizen and live with them in Israel.
On November 20th, Jonathan Ofir headlined at mondoweiss.net, “Influential Israeli national security leader makes the case for genocide in Gaza”, and reported:
Since October 7, there has been no shortage of genocidal calls from Israeli leaders, as well as clear plans, also at ministerial level, for the complete ethnic cleansing of Gaza. And while the usage of biblical euphemisms like Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “Amalek” reference may appear too vague for some, even if the story suggests killing infants, on Sunday retired Major General Giora Eiland, former head of the National Security Council and current advisor to the Defense Minister, decided to spell out genocide more explicitly.
In a Hebrew article [published November 19th] on the printed edition of the centrist Yedioth Ahronoth titled “Let’s not be intimidated by the world,” Eiland clarified that the whole Gazan civilian population was a legitimate target and that even “severe epidemics in the south of the Gaza Strip will bring victory closer.” His bottom line leaves no doubt as to his view:
“They are not only Hamas fighters with weapons, but also all the ‘civilian’ officials, including hospital administrators and school administrators, and also the entire Gaza population that enthusiastically supported Hamas and cheered on its atrocities on October 7th.”
Eiland speaks against humanitarian concern and the whole principle of distinction:
“Israel is not fighting a terrorist organization but against the State of Gaza.”
Therefore, per Eiland, “Israel must not provide the other side with any capability that prolongs its life.”
Eiland mocks the idea of “poor women” as the representation of uninvolved civilians:
“Who are the ‘poor’ women of Gaza? They are all the mothers, sisters or wives of Hamas murderers”.
The formulation is reminiscent of the far-right former Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, who, during the 2014 onslaught, suggested that Israel’s enemy was the entire Palestinian people:
“Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.”
Eiland speaks against surrendering to American sensibilities. Humanitarian pressure (that is, cutting off all basic life necessities) is a legitimate means of war, he claims:
“The Israeli cabinet must take a harder line with the Americans, and at least have the ability to say the following: as long as all the hostages are not returned to Israel, do not talk to us about the humanitarian aspects”.
Also, the rest of the international community, with its humanitarian concern, must be resisted – even the spread of severe epidemics is a legitimate means of warfare:
“The international community warns us of a humanitarian disaster in Gaza and of severe epidemics. We must not shy away from this, as difficult as that may be. After all, severe epidemics in the south of the Gaza Strip will bring victory closer and reduce casualties among IDF soldiers” …
Eiland’s outrageously genocidal piece was endorsed by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who tweeted the full article and said he “agreed with every word.” Smotrich is known for, among other things, calling to “wipe out Huwwara” in the West Bank, so it should come as no surprise that he would now endorse Eiland’s call to do the same in Gaza.
A concentration camp
Eiland has a long history of being surprisingly forthright about his view on the state of the Gaza Strip. In 2004, then as head of the National Security Council, he regarded the Gaza Strip as “a huge concentration camp” as he advocated for the U.S. to force Palestinians into the Sinai desert as part of a “two-state solution.”
As per a U.S. diplomatic cable leaked to Wikileaks here:
Repeating a personal view that he had previously expressed to other USG visitors, NSC Director Eiland laid out for Ambassador Djerejian a different end-game solution than that which is commonly envisioned as the two-state solution. Eiland’s view, he said, was prefaced on the assumption that demographic and other considerations make the prospect for a two-state solution between the Jordan and the Mediterranean unviable. …
Ofir’s article closes by presenting an English translation of Eiland’s piece, “Let’s Not be Intimidated by the World.”
There are 11 million people in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip, and that number will increase to 36 million in 50 years. The area between Beer Sheva and the northern tip of Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza) has the highest population density in the world. Gaza alone, he said, is already “a huge concentration camp” with 1.3 million Palestinians. Moreover, the land is surrounded on three sides by deserts. Palestinians need more land and Israel can ill-afford to cede it. The solution, he argued, lies in the Sinai desert.
13. (C) Specifically, Eiland proposed that Egypt be persuaded to contribute a 600 square kilometer parcel of land that would be annexed to a future Palestinian state as compensation for the 11 percent of the West Bank that Israel would seek to annex in a final status agreement. This Sinai block, 20 kms of which would be along the Mediterranean coast, would be adjacent to the Gaza Strip. A land corridor would be constructed connecting Egypt and this block to Jordan. (Note: Presumably under Egyptian sovereignty. End Note.) In addition, Israel would provide Egypt a 200 square km block of land from further south in the Negev. Eiland laid out the following advantages to his proposed solution:
— For the Palestinians: The additional land would make Gaza viable. It would be big enough to support a new port and airport, and to allow for the construction of a new city, all of which would help make Gaza economically viable. It would provide sufficient space to support the return of Palestinian refugees. In addition, the 20 km along the sea would increase fishing rights and would allow for the exploration of natural gas reserves. Eiland argued that the benefits offered by this parcel of land are far more favorable to the Palestinians than would be parcels Israel could offer from the land-locked Negev.
Consequently: whereas back in 2004, Eiland was NOT urging that “The Israeli cabinet must take a harder line with the Americans,” but was INSTEAD advising to take into account “the Americans” (who then would not have favored Israel’s extermination of Gazans), he now DOES urge Netanyahu to go all the way to — like was Hitler’s goal regarding Jews — exterminate Gazans.
Apparently, during the 19-year interim, the U.S. body-politic has moved in step along with Israel’s toward Hitler’s views (but against different extermination-targets than his), so that Netanyahu now is being advised to go all the way to a final solution, regardless of what “The international community” will say about it.
Americans spend annually $3.8 billion in tax-dollars (that’s paid to Israel’s Government each and every year — and Biden now wants $14B added for Israel this year immediately) being donated to Israel’s Government, at least $3.3 billion of it each and every year to be paid then by Israel’s Government to purchase from Lockheed Martin and other U.S. weapons-makers the tools to carry out Israel’s invasions, up to and including genocide (because how those weapons are to be used is under the control of Israel’s Government, not of America’s). American voters are offered as prospective future public officials to vote for, only candidates who are neoconservative; i.e., who represent and vote for the interests of the investors who control and profit from America’s weapons-manufacturers — the firms that sell to the U.S. Government. Instead of the weapons-makers serving the Government, the Government serves the weapons-makers; i.e., their owners. So, those people (the individuals who control those firms) share with Israel’s Government the guilt for this extermination that’s now occurring in Gaza. And Americans who vote in national elections find these candidates acceptable to vote for. This is not Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s America; it is Harry Truman’s.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.