The Question of Genocide

of History Impossible. I want to first thank my executive producer level supporters John Andre Sather and Mike Mayleban, longtime supporters. Really appreciate you, guys. If any of you listening like what I'm doing and want to support at that level

or any level, I would really appreciate it. You can do so over on Patreon dot com, slash History Impossible, or over on History Impossible dot substack dot com, or you can send me a message via the website History Impossible dot com if you want to support in a different way, or if you just want to, you know, chew me out for something I said that made you not happy. We'll say I do appreciate any and all feedback, especially on more contentious issues like the one that we're

about to get into. On top of that, if you want to share this episode, or any of the episodes you've listened to that you like, with someone you think might find them interesting or illuminating, please do so. Promote this show as best you can. That is a really good way to help keep the lights on in its own way. Leaving a review over an Apple Podcasts that also helps. So I've noticed a lot of people listen

to this show on Spotify and I don't. I'm not really sure if they have a review system there, So regardless, I appreciate any and all of you who give this show a listen. Like I said, this episode gets into some contentious territory, namely the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, and it gets into my thoughts on the particular accusation and general I would say use of the word genocide,

not just in the case of this conflict. This conflict is the sort of centerpiece to that people who subscribe to the History Impossible substack or to the Patreon probably have seen the written version of this, though this has been adapted for an audio format, as many of you listening who have also read that piece will know and can tell, But in this case it goes some pretty dark places if you haven't gotten a chance to read that.

So those of you have will recognize that, but to those of you haven't, I do want to recommend some caution. I don't often do that with this show, as longtime listeners likely know, but in this case, it does get

pretty unpleasant. I also want to note that this is a bit of a It's something I'm trying because this is going to be a bit of a polemical introduction to the next sort of closer to full length episode that I'm putting out as part of a trilogy of episodes that I am doing based on the research I've been doing in grad school. This first one we'll have to do with the Air Revolt of nineteen thirty six

to nineteen thirty nine. It'll have a much more academic feel to it, and like I said, you know, using the word polemical, a much less polemical feel to it than this one does. But I got to get my opinions out there in some cases, guys, I guess that's all I all I can say anyway, with all that said, thank you again for listening, and let's get into some impossible history.

her fifteen year old cousin, Lyon Hamidae. According to an investigation by Goldsmith's University of London research Group Forensic Architecture, the tank and fire three hundred and thirty five rounds into the black Kia that carried her, Job and her Family. CNN, which led the reporting on this incident, described what happened

after the initial strike as follows quote. Heine's cousin, fifteen year old Lion Hamiday, made a desperate call for help to emergency services that was recorded by the PRCS and shared on social media. Audio of gunshots heard during the call revealed that Hamiday was killed while making the call. They are shooting at us. The tank is right next to me. We're in the car. The tank is right next to us. Lyon screams amid intense gunfire in the background.

Lyan then goes quiet and the rounds of fire stop. The paramedic on the phone tries to speak to her, repeatedly saying hello, Hello, but there is no response. Alone, terrified and trapped in the car with the bodies of her relatives around her, Hind makes a desperate call for help. Come take me. Will you come and take me? I'm so scared, Please come, Hind can be heard saying in a recording of the call to the responders released by

the PRCS unquote. Rajab and her family were not discovered until two weeks later, all of them dead, along with two of the paramedics. Dispatched to rescue them nearby in their destroyed ambulance. According to the PRCS quote, the occupation deliberately targeted the Red Crescent despite obtaining prior coordination to allow the ambulance to reach the location to rescue the

girl Hind. According to the IDF, they initially were quote unfamiliar with the incident described unquote, and the weeks and months that followed the story of Hind and her family's death reverberated through activist circles and among those invested in the outcome of the ongoing war, with everyone from Hamas's Foreign Ministry to the rapper Maclamore Weiane in on Israel's

alleged crime. Heine's death likely served as a major catalyst for the growing agitation on many of the United States's college campuses in the spring of twenty twenty four, though there were certainly many other factors at work during those

fevered months. Some reactions were blunt, with the Euromediterranean Human Rights Monitor calling Heine's death quote a planned execution carried out by the Israeli army in Gaza City in broad daylight, while some were more diplomatic, with the Washington Post writing that after a thorough review of the evidence by six munitions experts, it was clear that while none quote could definitively say what munition caused the damage or killed the

paramedics based on the ambulance alone unquote, it was also clear that quote the damage to the ambulance sent to rescue the family was consistent with the potential use of a round fire from Israeli tanks that matched the vehicles captured on satellite imagery in the area that day unquote. But amid all of this analysis and opining, there was a word that kept being repeated. That word was genocide.

We've been hearing that word genocide well at this point for over a year, but at that point we'd been hearing it since the beginning. But it was when this happened that many people started saying genocide with much more ferocity. This event was evidence, one piece among many supposedly that Israel was committing a genocide against the Palestinians of Gaza. It was not just student activists or ideologically possessed opinion

writers saying this either. By this point, you went special reporter on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese said much the same thing just a month after Heine's body was discovered. And as I just said, this phrase, this accusation of genocide continues to be said many many months later, and will likely continue to be said for many months, if not years to come. It's a very common tread when it comes to discussing this conflict in

certain circles. But this begs the question and is it Is it truly a genocide? This question has been asked many, many times before, especially in the decades following the Second World War and the revelations of the Holocaust. This general

question is this genocide? Perhaps the best known case, at least in very modern history, is a Srebernita massacre, sometimes actually called the Srebrenica genocide, that occurred in the chaotic post yugoslaviyears of the nineteen nineties in Bosnia Herzegovina.

had been abandoned by their higher commanders. Srebrenita was overrun and more than twenty thousand frightened Muslim women and children crammed into the Dutch base. Laddich guaranteed the women and children's safe passage, but meanwhile his troops hunted the men of sre Bernitza. They were gathered in places like this school. The man who told us that Melide and Norawich went back with us for only the second time since Serb troops brought him and hundreds of others here to kill them.

running disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. In the years that followed jos bros Tito's death in nineteen eighty, forces from the Army Republica Serpska or the Army of the Serbs of Bosnia, under a man named Rad Komladitch, captured the town of Srebenita on July eleventh, nineteen ninety five, after overwhelming the Dutch soldiers of the UN Protection Force that

were stationed there. Despite the town of Srebinita being declared a humanitarian quote unquote safe area for civilians, the days that followed that initial occupation were an orgy of death and destruction. From July thirteen through the twenty second of nineteen ninety five, groups of men and boys were taken to various sites near Serbenita and executed by gunshot in batches of a few hundred at a time. Sometimes these

executions were out in picturesque meadows. Sometimes it was near rivers, and sometimes it was over predug graves, oftentimes dug by the victims themselves. Not all of them were killed, with some survivors managing to create a picture of the horror that befell the Bossian Muslims of Srebenitza and the surrounding area. One survivor of the men and boys killed at Branjevo between July fourteenth and July sixteenth would recall the following quote.

When they opened fire, I threw myself on the ground and one man fell on my head. I think that he was killed on the spot, and I could feel the hot blood pouring over me. I could hear one man crying for help. He was begging them to kill him, and they simply said, let him suffer, we will kill him later unquote. On the first day of the killing, another survivor would describe his attempt to escape after several

farm sheds in Kravitza were used as killing centers. Quote, I was not even able to touch the floor, the concrete floor of the warehouse. After the shooting, I felt a strange kind of heat, warmth, which was coming from the blood that covered the concrete floor. And I was stepping on the dead people who were lying around. But there were even men, just men who were still alive, who were only wounded. And as soon as I would

step on him, I would hear him cry moan. Because I was trying to move as fast as I could. I could tell that people had been completely disembodied, and I could feel the bones of the people that had been hit by those bursts of bullets or shells. I could feel their ribs crushing. Then I would get up

again and continue. This cruelty exacted upon the people of Strebernita had no discrimination for age either, oftentimes mirroring the savagery visited upon the Serbs by the Croatian Mustasia during the Second World War, which we have talked about on this show. Public torture and murder for the amusement of

the occupying soldiers was carried out against children. Survivor Zumra Shejometowitz later testified that at one point the soldiers attempted to force a boy to rape his nine year old sister and was killed when he refused, and the same rid of summons Kadahochich testified that she saw a baby get its throat cut because its mother could not silence

its cries. And Ramiza Gerdych testified that a urb in a Dutch uniform, presumably taken from the overwhelmed un forces, killed a ten year old boy sitting next to his mother, cut his head off, and quote placed the head of the young boy on his knife and showed it to everyone. Quote. With the exception of horrifying events like these, the men and boys had been separated from the women and girls, but the latter did not escape the torment of their captors.

By the thousands, women and girls as young as seven years old were frequently and repeatedly raped by the Serb soldiers.

horrible years of the early nineteen nineties. We can see this in all the testimonies that came out in the years that followed the end of the Bosnian War. A Dutch medical orderly would testify during the prosecutor viv Radaslav Kerstitz judgment the following quote. We saw two Serb soldiers. One of them was standing guard and the other one was lying on the girl with his pants off. And we saw a girl lying on the ground on some kind of mattress. There was blood on the mattress, even

she was covered with blood. She had bruises on her lefele, there was even blood coming down her legs. She was in total shock. She went totally crazy. Other survivors testified that many rapes like this occurred, and many women often killed themselves by hanging afterward, oftentimes to avoid the shame of being impregnated by their rapist, and this was not

unreasonable for them to fear. The systematic nature of the rapes was made even clearer by the fact that they often occurred in specially designated zones, including gymnasiums, camps, and most disturbingly, the infamous Velinovlas Spa that came to be known as Bosnia's Rape Hotel. This hotel was the headquarters of the White Eagles, headed by the now imprison for life Milan Lukich. Lukitch himself was accused of multiple rapes, including of a woman who accused him of doing so

before killing her sixteen year old son with a knife. Ultimately, the Srebrinita genocide claimed the lives of up to eighty three hundred and seventy two people, with six thousand, eight hundred thirty eight being identified through DNA analysis as of twenty twelve. However, this figure does not include the estimated twenty to fifty thousand women who were systematically raped during

the three year war. This also does not include the multitudes of children who were born and who lived to this very day, many of them adopted in the UK and other places thankfully, and have been able to live relatively normal lives despite the circumstances of their conception. You can actually find that interviews of these young people I shouldn't even say that young, they're barely younger than I am.

Talking about their experiences. Learning about this disturbing nature of their family's background, one can understand why they would not want, or at least their mothers would not want them raised under such circumstances, especially given the fact that many of the rapists, the ones at least who were not prosecuted and put in prison for their crimes, are walking free to this day, living among the Bosnians that they tormented

for years. And this is to say nothing of the intense shame felt by the women who experienced this unthinkable crime. Because the crime did not just stop at rape. As bad as that it is, much of that rape, it has been suggested very compellingly, was done in service of what could be called genocide. The use of rape as an ethnic cleansing strategy or even genocide is unbelievably shocking

and disturbing, especially to modern readers. So it requires a deeper examination because it provides insight into the most contentious aspect of genocide accusations that is, of the intent to

destroy a population at its very root. While it is extremely difficult to apply this standard to every conflict in history that has involved sexual assault as well as genocide, it is much easier to do so when looking at the Bosnian War, thanks to the explicitly genericidal nature of the mass rapes that occurred between nineteen ninety two and nineteen ninety five. It had been known that Bosnian Serb troops were using rape as an explicit weapon of ethnic cleansing.

According to the remembran Srebred needs to Charity in England, which was who was interviewing that woman from a couple moments ago. They write that quote, the rapes were carried out in fulfillment of official orders as part of the Bosnian Serb strategy of ethnic cleansing in the region. Several victims recalled how Serb soldiers re marked that it is

better to give birth to Chetniks than to Muslim filth quote. However, while rape was certainly involved from a legal and even philosophical perspective, calling it genocidal in and of itself is not quite accurate. In fact, the icidal nature of the crime is like all genocide in the intent behind the rapes themselves. That intent is the goal of forced impregnation.

As legal scholar Cybin K Fisher wrote in a paper explaining this phenomenon quote, the conflict in the former Yugoslavia also raises a question beyond the criminal treatment of rape during war. For perhaps the first time in modern history, an aggressor in a military conflict may have used rape not only as a tool of war, but also to implement a policy of impregnation in order to further the destruction of one people and the proliferation of another, a

policy of genocide by forced impregnation. Forced impregnation, as an intentional policy of an aggressor to destroy a group of people, is distinct from the crime of rape, and is at its core a crime of genocide. Genocide, as defined in the Genocide Convention of nineteen forty eight, involves the destruction of a group of people. It may seem counterintuitive that impregnation the creation of new life, can in fact be an instrument of genocide, but force impregnation interference with autonomous

reproduction can destroy a group. This interference in the group's reproduction may take a number of forms. First, women may be psychologically traumatized by the pregnancy and unable to have normal sexual or child bearing experiences with members of their own group. Second, women who are raped and bear the children of the aggressors may no longer be marriageable in their society. Third, the women, simply because they are pregnant with the children of the aggressors, cannot bear their own

children during this time their wombs are occupied. It is indeed counterintuitive, and yet that is what makes this interpretation of force impregnation via rape so chilling. It is also illuminating because the aforementioned intent behind the rape, the deeper intent, the desire to eliminate or at to very least curtail an entire population of people based on ethnic and religious characteristics, lines up with the most important part in the definition

of genocide. The hard truth for so many to accept, probably the hardest truth, honestly, is that this most important part of defining genocide almost certainly applies to the story of Strebenitza, and at least as of twenty twenty four, almost certainly does not apply to the suffering experienced by young girls like Hindra Job and the family that she left behind.

Central to that tattered reputation is the oft repeated claim that Israel is engaging in a genocide, and to support this claim, many stories like those of Heindra Job have been cited in order to tug in the heartstrings, and understandably so, however manipulative it might feel to do so.

Others point to the fact that the United Nations, which is no stranger to seemingly singling Israel out compared to other more nefarious nations, it should be noted, investigated Israel for its alleged war crimes and eventually came away with a conclusion that clearly pleased nobody as evidence of a

genocide occurring. To clarify, according to an article that was published in The Guardian on June twelfth, twenty twenty four, written by Emma Graham Harrison and Peter Beaumont, Israel and Hamas have both committed war crimes since the seventh of October. According to the UN body that investigated these claims, they relied on parallel reports that describe serious crimes during Hamas

attack and israel subsequent offensive in Gaza. So clearly nobody's going to be happy when they hear that, even though it is likely closest to what is actually true. Granted, my bias usually puts me in the position of assuming that the truth lies between the two most extreme claims being made, And obviously I have my biases that have been made pretty clear on this show by this point.

But like I said, if I was a gambling man on this claim, on these claims of war crimes, I would be willing to bet we're going to find evidence of it happening on quote unquote both sides.

members of Benjamin Netanyahu's government. Some of these comments included a LECUD member of the Israeli parliament named Mario Klner saying that Israel needed to conduct a quote nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of forty eight, and similarly, another lawmaker named Revital Tally Gautli demanded that the Ideaf quote do everything and use doomsday weapons fearlessly against their enemies unquote, and perhaps most chillingly, Defense Minister Joav Gallant said, quote,

if Hezbealah makes mistakes of this kind, the ones who will pay the price are first of all the citizens of Lebanon unquote, which honestly, at least only at the surface level, does resemble something like Hitler's prophecy, in which he said that if the world was plunged into a

world war, the Jews would be annihilated in Europe. But that really only applies as a comparison if one is assuming the worst about what is being said, which I don't think is necessarily fair without further context that I honestly have not really looked into I'm just trying to demonstrate what people have pointed to being said in the Israeli government that is caused for concern and understandably if you're a little worried about this sort of thing, the

justifications for calling something a genocide, now, the argument over genocide in general is nothing new, and I wanted to give some perspective on just what this whole debate typically looks like, because it very much looks like what we're seeing, and it always demonstrates why we need to be precise

in our language and talking about this. The previously discussed rebenitza genocide was downplayed by the likes of Noam Chomsky, who, at least in my opinion, never ceases to amaze with his seeming willingness to pretend genocide does not exist unless it is purpose traded or allowed to occur by the

United States. I mean, you don't have to look past this Crebnizza genocide controversy involving him, But you know, if you want to look into his comments made about the Cambodian massacre by the Khmer Rouge back in the nineteen seventies, if you really want to get your skin crawling. Now in a sense, it might be more honorable at least or prudent to show restraint in calling things genocidal or accusing something of being a genocide. And I tend to

try to, you know, fall into that category. But that's only if the standard being applied is applied equally, which it almost certainly is not applied that way. When it comes to Chomsky and his ilk who tend to have a funny way of getting proven wrong many years after the fact, like I was suggesting a moment ago, of course, that could well happen in my case here, and I will be the first person to admit I was wrong.

If it comes to pass that Israel is somehow can implicit in committing a genocide, but based on the information that we do have about Israel's conduct during the past year or so, as well as examples of actual proven genocide in history, and the legal precedent that they set or met, like I was talking about earlier, the claim that Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinians just

does not really pass Muster. The most difficult part of defining genocide is trying to define it while it is happening, because intent matters so much in making such a determination. This is simply the unfortunate reality of such things, and it is understandable that no one concerned about genocide is going to feel happy about needing to wait for the killing, rape, and ethnic cleansing to be over in order to make the most accurate determination on whether or not the horrible

events unfolding were in fact genocide. But that is the nature of the yeast Stating intent is relevant to the diagnosis of genocide, but it is also insufficient on its own, So the comments made by the members of netn yahoo's

government don't really matter enough on their own. In other words, genocide is in its most basic definitional sense, according to the United Nations General Assembly that created the definition in nineteen forty eight and then ratified it in nineteen fifty one, involved the following quote, any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such a killing members of the group,

b causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, C Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. In whole or in part, d imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group, or e forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

progressive development of international law and his codification. I would urge, and I think that's the spirit, the unanimous fuel of the Assembly, that this Convention be signed by all states, ratified by all parliaments of the Earth, in order the basic human rights be given the protection of international law for the psych of progress, social and international faith.

called genocide. Are their genocidal sounding statements being made by members of the Netanyahu cabinet and his party's government. Absolutely, we just covered that, But are they proof positive of the response to the worst Pogram and Jewish history since the Holocaust, constituting a genocide. Unfortunately, for those who believe

in their heart of hearts that they are. The answer is, as of this recording in November of twenty twenty four, No, what animates the people who sincerely believe that what Israel is doing in its efforts to destroy Hamas and now Hasbllah constitutes genocide is when not colored by a deep seated anti Semitism, because that is out there, guys, what animates them is perfectly normal and even admirable in a way, because what it is is in despair at the destruction

of innocent life. And when not educated on the history of genocide, it is understandable that this, namely the death

of civilians, is what genocide means to a lot of people. However, by using that metric, that would also require these same people to admit that what happened on ten Seves twenty twenty three was a genocide as well, and hence why the sneakier among those who try to minimize the horror of ten to seven will bring up Israel's conscription laws forgetting about the many migrants who also found themselves getting

butchered that day. Based on the standards of genocide, I am still inclined to say that the Hamas massacre on ten to seven was not a genocide. This is not because the intent to slaughter every Jew in Israel was not present. I think it actually almost certainly was, but

it was held back only by means and opportunity. Conversely, and this is a point that I've seen made by a lot of people, and I think it's a good one, Israel has both the means and opportunity to slaughter every single human being in Gaza, Lebanon, and possibly even Iran, and yet they do not do that. This is another major factor in determining whether or not Israel is engaging

in genocide. I would wager that this fact alone is why the term does not apply to Israel, at least in this case, however, because Hamas did not have the means an opportunity to do what they did on ten to seven, and given that their leadership almost certainly knew that, given that their strategy, as most people seem to agree, was almost certainly to provoke Israel into overreacting in order to boost their popularity and diminish Israel's as well as

their Jihadis rivals. But given that their leadership almost certainly knew that they did not have the means an opportunity to kill every single Jew in Israel. I do not believe it is fair to call the events of October seventh, twenty twenty three, a genocide, and that also might rub some people the wrong way. I've had some conversations already about this, based on the original essay I wrote on this subject, and that's fair. You know that I'm open

to discuss that as well. Regardless, I don't necessarily believe that you could call it a genocide, a massacre, a crime against humanity, absolutely, but not a genocide. And while I do believe Israel does not get enough credit for their attempts at precision in destroying Hamas and especially has Belah, I can certainly accept the argument that their efforts to quote unquote mow the grass as they called it, as

net Yahoo called it. I believe in Gaza has produced an excess of civilian death and suffering, but again, that is not genocide. Perhaps it will emerge that there was a criminal element to what Israel has been doing, but unfortunately it will not become truly clear until the conflict

is essentially over. The point being, genocide does not need to be the qualifier that we use in order to demonstrate that something is a tragedy beyond the pale, and the deeper point being genocide should not be a moral qualifier at all. And I know it's hard for me to even say that. It's probably hard for a lot of people to hear that, because it is a horrible thing,

it is a moral failing, to put it mildly. But I think it's more important to see it as simply a fact and one that can be proven, and more importantly, one that denotes an accusation of a crime, as in the most unspeakable crime in which a group or nation can engage. That is why, as I see it, it is no better to throw around accusations of genocide than it is to accuse a person of being a pedophile, a rapist, or a murderer without the sufficient evidence, especially

outside of the context of a court of law. In this context and with the evidence available, I cannot say whether or not Israel is actually guilty of genocide, though like I've been saying, I am inclined to say, based on what I've seen, that it is not. And indeed, while I cannot say one way or another, neither can anyone else. That's really the key right there. Statements made by the more bigoted and imperialistic members of Israel's government are not proof enough on their own, troubling as they

might be in the context of so much violence. Now, those still unconvinced of this might try to point to the notion that Israel is targeting the people of Gaza in order to destroy them in part quote unquote, thus meeting the criteria for genocide. But the problem is that there still is no evidence that Israel's government intends to

exterminate the Palestinians, even in part as a people. The euphemistic term collateral damage understandably leaves a sour taste in anyone's mouth who utters it, but there is really no other way to define the civilian deaths in Israel's efforts to destroy Hamas. The notion that wark times have been committed is a far more defensible position, but that is now what most people critical of Israel, people like John Meersheimer, for example, have been arguing for the past year or so.

As always, the position they take is that this is all genocide. Many have pointed to the Holocaust shaped elephant in the room when it comes to this debate about whether or not israel Is committing genocide or not. A common phrase I have heard, and it might be the most common one I've heard at this point is why

were the Palestinians punished for the crimes Germans committed? My problem with that question is it exists as if nineteen forty eight was year zero for this conflict between what are now the Israelis and the Arabs of the region. As I and many others have hopefully made clear at this point, that is a very twisted reading of the

Holy Land's modern history. Less common but in my opinion, far more useful retort, since it deals with the actual history involves the German's efforts to expel the Jews rather than massacre them, namely with their infamous Madagascar plan, in which all Jews in the Reich's path will be shipped off to Madagascar and exile. This plan is often lumped into the wider context of what would become the Holocaust,

a step toward the final solution. Why, this hypothetical interlocutor may ask, does that get counted as genocidal and not what happened to the Palestinians in nineteen forty eight during the Nakba. Now that on its face is actually a good and fair question. What happened to the Palestinians in nineteen forty eight was in a lot of ways indeed very horrible, and I would even agree with the idea that it was a form of ethnic cleansing, and many

people died as a result of the mass expulsion too. However, this all goes back to intent. It was never the goal to destroy the Palestinians, just and I'm putting that in big air quotes there to take their land. The goal of the Nazis, though, even with their Madagascar plan and by extension, their plan to ship the Jews up to the Arctic Circle when the Madagascar plan fell through, was indeed to destroy the Jewish presence in Europe by any means necessary, and was part of a plan for

them to be eradicated as a people in general. According to historian David Blackburn, quote, it hardly needs to be said that implementation of the Madagascar plan would have meant high death rates by attrition, and it was intended to. Blackburn also explains that the genocidal nature of the proposed Jewish displacement is even clearer with the proposed plans to resettle them in the Arctic Circle, like I just mentioned, a plan bearing a striking similarity to the resettlement of

the Armenians by the Turks in nineteen fifteen. If you recall that genocide, that still has a lot of contentions surrounding it. Historian Dan Stone, in his recent excellent book The Holocaust in Unfinished History, also concurs with its analysis, writing that quote one should not overlook the fact, as with ghettoization policy, the plant to to port millions of Jews to an island with no infrastructure to accommodate them

was itself genocidal. Its failure constituted a psychological icebreaker for genocide in the East. One may wish to make the argument that a similar fate befell the Palestinian nineteen forty eight, but crucially that will miss the fact that the Nakba was anything but the psychological icebreaker for further destruction. It was the event, and a horrible one, for hundreds of thousands of people, victimized by historical forces and having the

worst possible leadership. It should be noted, as I've covered many times on history, impossible at this point, frankly attempting to frame the Nakba, whose name is already problematic enough, giving the linguistic linkages that exist between it and the

word shoa. But that's a whole other thing. Attempting to frame the Knakba that way as morally comparable to even parts of the Holocaust feels like what it often is to me, and that is cynical and contrarian piggybacking, not a matter of principle or even a matter of accuracy, just as a means to manipulate the conversation or debate, rather via what Brendan O'Neil very astutely calls Holocaust envy.

This has made all the more distasteful when the facts do not even line up to support such a comparison, as I hope this audio essay of sorts has demonstrated. In the end, one can believe all one wants about what has been going on in the Holy Land during the last four hundred days or so. However, the fact remains that the truest tragedy of the Palestinian people is

that they almost always have had the worst advocates. This includes a people who repeat traditional bromides about free Palestine and the people who repeat the cliches about decolonization and so on, But it is most apparent that the Palestinian people themselves have had the worst international advocates in modern history. This should be obvious to anyone paying attention to that history,

because their first international advocates were the literal Nazis. It does not really matter that the Nazis had ulterior motives, or that the Arab nationalists with whom they had allied themselves were not representatives of the Arab nationalist movement as a whole, or, for that matter, the Palestinian people in general. I would not be surprised that people in this day and age don't even know about that unless they've listened

to my podcast. It seems it's a little bit more to it than that, actually, because of what's been going on with Wikipedia as of late, which will actually be something I talk about in an essay on American dreaming at some point that I will make sure to link to all of you guys. The point being is that a lot of people aren't even aware of this history, So in one sense I can hardly blame them for

just falling back on the old cliches. But on the other I also think that there is definitely an information problem going on in which people don't want to believe certain things because it makes things a little too complicated. Ultimately, we are just as responsible for how our cause is remembered as those doing the remembering, if not more so.

That's kind of how I see it. This is not to say that people in twenty twenty four are responsible for figures like Hajamin al Husseini or Rashida Li Alguilani, or any of the other Arab nationalists or Bosnian Muslims or other Islamists who allied themselves to the Third Reich

did or said. I'm not saying that at all, far from it, actually, But what it is to say is that because of what those people said and did, and what mark they left on history, on the collective memory that they themselves created with their actions and words, there will be effects that are conducive upon anyone who takes up their respective causes in the modern day. To counteract that does require education. Like I said, there's a bit

of an information problem here, but it's still required. In other words, one cannot blame anyone, much less a Jew or Israeli for flinching or getting defensive when they hear the words from the River to the Sea coming from someone wearing a cafea, as well as that person making the same claims or even similar sounding claims that were made by the actual Nazis and their allies while the

Holocaust was burning its way through Europe. If one does not care, how it sounds fair enough, I guess, But then one should not be surprised on the pushback against the sentiment that was often shared and even amplified across the world by the Third Reich is harsh and even uncompromising. Stories like those of Hindri Job do not have to be classified in any particular way as genocide, for example, for them to be as heartbreaking as they self evidently are.

Stories like that of Crebenita and of Velinavlass do have to be classified as such, however, because in doing so, that classification was instrumental in meeting out justice to the perpetrators. If such malice and evil can be proved when the now year old war in the Holy Land is concluded, then the conversation can and probably should start to change,

at least from my end. But until then, the cheapening of one of our most vital classifications continues to do no one any favors, much less the victims of war.

I know it's a bit heavy, but I do appreciate the support, and if you like, I'll put that in air quotes what you just heard, or you just like what I do. Please consider supporting the show over on patreon dot com slash History Impossible orhistory impossible dot substack dot com. Thank you again, so much, guys,