Opinion

Israel’s efforts to erase Palestinian history reflect ‘incremental genocide,’ Ehrenreich says

Ben Ehrenreich, author of The Way to the Spring, the chronicle of heroic resistance to occupation in a Palestinian village, spoke at Columbia’s Center for Palestine Studies a week ago, and described Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as an “incremental genocide.”

A questioner asked about the Movement for Black Lives statement saying Palestinians are experiencing “genocide,” and asked Ehrenreich, would you agree? The author said he did.

 

The question about genocide– yes, it’s an incremental genocide. And I think that’s a word that gives a lot of people pause and it certainly should. We don’t see the absolutely mass slaughters, although in Gaza I think we’ve seen something very much like it that we usually associate with genocide. But– the attempts to erase a people, to just erase them, to erase their history, I think follow a logic that can only be called genocidal. I mean, every time someone says– and people say it all the time, I get it on twitter all the time– “There’s no such thing as a Palestinian,” or “There was nobody there when the Zionists arrived”– these are genocidal statements, these are attempts to erase a culture, erase a history, decimate a people and I think they should be recognized as that.

Moderator Colm Toibin, the Irish novelist, pushed back, saying, that’s a very very loaded thing to say from the Israeli side, and difficult to accept, in the context of the Holocaust and European genocide. “I’m very uneasy about letting this go without questioning you one more time… I wonder if there’s another word you could use. I’m just uneasy about it.”

Ehrenreich elaborated:

You should be and we all should be. It’s an especially painful thing to talk about, given the history of the Holocaust, and as someone with a Jewish background, it’s extremely painful for me to use that word. It’s more painful to see those realities, and those historical ironies are brutal. I mentioned the Balfour Declaration because I think this always has to be put into a colonialist context. Israel is a settler colonialist society, and the one things that settler colonialist societies have in common is that they follow a genocidal logic. The one we’re living in right now. Every single one of them– South Africa, Canada, the United States, Australia, and Israel: places where settlers came in and declared the land theirs and did everything they could to either remove the people who were already there or so erase their history that they could pretend that they weren’t there.

Hatim Kanaaneh asked Ehrenreich how it was that American mainstream publishers put his article and book out. Ehrenreich said that things have shifted “quite a bit in terms of US public opinion. None of this is reflected in the actions of our politicians.”

He then observed that this is the issue that is “most tightly controlled” in our media, and he was “shocked” when the New York Times Magazine sent him to cover the resistance in Nabi Saleh, in that historic cover article of 2013 explaining why Palestinians have a right to throw stones.

I was shocked that the New York Times Magazine wanted to send me to a small West Bank village to write a story that was exclusively from the perspective of the people who lived there. And I think slowly, as long as I’ve been writing about this, I am sort of constantly seeing cracks in the wall, because there has been I think more than any other issue in the U.S., this is the one where the narrative is most tightly controlled, where certain perspectives are just not allowed in, Palestinian perspectives, that is. And that has shifted…. During the primary season, this issue was suddenly an issue that it was possible to talk about, which it never was in other election seasons in this country.

I’d add that anti-Zionists are also marginalized, including Jewish ones. And Ehrenreich’s observation about the narrative being most tightly controlled on this issue– wonderful. It inevitably raises the issue of the Jewish Zionist presence in the establishment, along with the shadow of the Holocaust as a muzzle on non-Jews’ willingness to express their opinions. Bernie Sanders said there was a war for the soul of Islam. There’s also a war for the soul of Judaism; and it involves Zionism.

 

 

 

73 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Israel’s efforts to wipe the Palestinian nation off the pages of history continue to be incompetent. They have already broken Judaism , They have been forced to brainwash Jewish Israelis at the price of their educational potential and they have destroyed the vast majority of Israel’s diplomatic capital. And then there is the insane settler project which brought all the Palestinians in the OT onto the balance sheet. As Maimonides wrote in his letter to the Malik of Granada, FFS. So Jews are now a minority in Eretz Israel Hashlemah.

What Israel has been doing here is indeed ugly.

It even goes farther.

Israel has appropriated many traditional Palestinian products – oranges, cous-cous, etc – and now calls them by Israeli names.

However, I do object to the use of the word “genocide” in this context.

It represents a terrible misuse of language.

What Israel has done and is doing is bad enough without such misused language.

It all boils down to a national policy of theft – theft of names, theft of places, theft of homes, theft of even produce.

I think that is a sufficiently strong charge to make, a national policy of theft.

RE: “I mentioned the Balfour Declaration because I think this always has to be put into a colonialist context. Israel is a settler colonialist society, and the one things that settler colonialist societies have in common is that they follow a genocidal logic. The one we’re living in right now. Every single one of them– South Africa, Canada, the United States, Australia, and Israel: places where settlers came in and declared the land theirs and did everything they could to either remove the people who were already there or so erase their history that they could pretend that they weren’t there.” ~ Ehrenreich

Discovery doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_doctrine

[EXCERPT] The Discovery doctrine is a concept of public international law expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, most notably Johnson v. M’Intosh in 1823. Chief Justice John Marshall justified the way in which colonial powers laid claim to lands belonging to foreign sovereign nations during the Age of Discovery. Under it, title to lands lay with the government whose subjects travelled to and occupied a territory whose inhabitants were not subjects of a European Christian monarch. The doctrine has been primarily used to support decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial governments.

The 1823 case was the result of collusive lawsuits where land speculators worked together to make claims to achieve a desired result.[1][2] John Marshall explained the Court’s reasoning. The decision has been the subject of a number of law review articles and has come under increased scrutiny by modern legal theorists.

History

The Doctrine of Discovery was promulgated by European monarchies in order to legitimize the colonization of lands outside of Europe. Between the mid-fifteenth century and the mid-twentieth century, this idea allowed European entities to seize lands inhabited by indigenous peoples under the guise of discovery. In 1494, the Treaty of Tordesillas declared that only non-Christian lands could be colonized under the Discovery Doctrine.

In 1792, U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson declared that the Doctrine of the Discovery would extend from Europe to the infant U.S. government. The Doctrine and its legacy continue to influence American imperialism and treatment of indigenous peoples.[3]

Johnson v. M’Intosh

The plaintiff Johnson had inherited land, originally purchased from the Piankeshaw tribes. Defendant McIntosh claimed the same land, having purchased it under a grant from the United States. . .

ALSO SEE:
The Doctrine of Discovery, 1493https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/imperial-rivalries/resources/doctrine-discovery-1493

As to “holocaust” and the misuse of language. See also “genocide”.

We should not let these bozos get away with pretending that the use of “holocaust” is patented, copyrighted, etc.

Well, it may be said that there was only one “TheHolocaust”(tm) in which six million European Jews were killed by Germans etc. (And no one else s/b mentioned as “killed”, only Jews.).

But there have been many “holocausts” including that by Pol Pot in Cambodia against his own people, Rwanda, Boznia, maybe China if you count the killing of the pre-communist propertied class.

Each is different, even as every “murder” is different. And yet we have only one word, “murder” to cover many different kinds of acts. And “manslaughter” to cover somewhat similar but somewhat different acts (w.r.t. intention to kill).

And we have only one word “terrorist” although we have many words for types of armed groups: armies, paramilitaries, militias, gangs, mercenaries, “private military company” (Blackwater, Xe Services), thugs, terrorists, security forces, and probably others. But every act of “terrorism” is different. Israel has called killing soldiers “terrorism”. Others, I believe (am I wrong?) use “terrorism” to mean killing civilians — and then only when the killing is done by non-army folks. (Under some definitions, and there are many, even within the USA’s statutes, terrorism is usually (but I believe not always) said to be an act of a non-army (or non-state).

So with a few words and so many meanings (holocaust, genocide, murder, terrorist), we should not let these bozos get away with pretending that the use of “holocaust” is patented, trademarked, copyrighted, and may be used only to refer to “TheHolocaust” ™.

I notice the phrase “incremental genocide” is in quotes. I think it comes from the Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe, who now teaches at the University in Exeter in the UK. At least I recall him using it about three years ago when he came to speak at the University of Victoria in B.C.