After nearly two years of severe violence in Gaza, Senator Bernie Sanders has publicly identified the humanitarian crisis there as a genocidal situation. In an op-ed published on his official Senate website, he stated, “The intent is clear. The conclusion is inescapable: Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.” This acknowledgment, welcomed by many observers, underscores the urgency of the situation.
Yet, while Sanders’s statement aligns with recent evaluations from the United Nations and the International Association of Genocide Scholars, it raises significant concerns due to its framing. By suggesting that “Hamas started it,” this perspective risks perpetuating victim-blaming, overshadowing the historical context of eight decades of conflict, displacement, and suffering faced by Palestinians.
This framing is not merely a moral misstep; it has substantial legal implications that could undermine the rights of all oppressed groups. It implies that those who resist colonization must do so without the means to defend themselves, sending a troubling message to marginalized populations worldwide that their survival rests on appeasement rather than the principles of international law or basic human rights.
The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as the intentional destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The situation in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, and historic Palestine aligns with this definition in multiple ways, including violence against individuals, coercive living conditions, and efforts to prevent births within the community.
International law unequivocally supports the right of occupied peoples to resist their oppression. UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43 explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of the struggle for self-determination and independence against foreign domination, including armed struggle. This does not justify targeting civilians, but it affirms the right to resist occupation, which is often overlooked by those framing the narrative in favor of power dynamics.
By framing his discussion with “But Hamas,” Sanders inadvertently implies that Palestinian voices are not entitled to the rights guaranteed under international law, while simultaneously endorsing rights for Israel that those laws deny. This troubling dichotomy feeds into a narrative that calls into question the legitimacy of any resistance movements against oppression.
The current violence did not arise from a singular event on October 7, 2023, but is the culmination of enduring conflict, rooted in historical injustices dating back to the late 19th century, when significant efforts were made to establish a Jewish state at the expense of Palestinians. The Nakba of 1948, which witnessed the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians, illustrates the deep-rooted nature of this systematic violence.
The crisis in Gaza is portrayed not merely as a recent development but rather as the latest chapter in a prolonged saga of disenfranchisement and resilience. It is critical to recognize that comparing the struggles of oppressed populations throughout history illustrates a common thread: the fight for survival against oppressive forces is a universal principle, demanding recognition and respect.
As we confront the gravity of the term genocide, we must be vigilant against narratives that prioritize the actions of one group over the fundamental rights inherent to another. By seeking to understand these complex dynamics without placing blame on those who resist oppression, we can strive toward a more empathetic and equitable global community.
History will inevitably judge our response to these crises. If we fail to acknowledge and act upon these fundamental truths, we risk not only failing the Palestinian people but also betraying the hopes of all who seek justice against oppression around the world.
#MiddleEastNews #PoliticsNews