GENOCIDE IN GAZA: Heinsohn’s Proxy War Against The Palestinians
January 14th, 2009Esra’a, the Director of MidEastYouth recently brought to my attention an article in the Wall Street Journal written by Gunnar Heinsohn who heads the Raphael Lemkin Institute at the University of Bremen, Europe’s first institute devoted to comparative genocide research.
I found the article to be deeply problematic and have written a detailed response and criticism of his arguments and position. I find his ideas to be particularly troubling in light of the fact that at least 1,000 people have now died, so many of whom were children, something Heinsohn fails to acknowledge in his artcile Ending the West’s Proxy War Against Israel: Stop Funding a Youth Bulge, And the Fighting will Stop too.
My response:
GENOCIDE IN GAZA: Heinsohn’s Proxy War Against The Palestinians
“The atrocities committed by Israel is a genocide of a conquered people. Gaza is a concentration camp and no amount of PR can reduce the magnitude of this horrible crime against humanity and decency”.[1]
The ‘Youth Bulge’ theory that Gunnar Heinsohn feverishly promotes is far from legitimate in an analysis of any society, let alone a society like Gaza, which is riddled with poverty and war and whose citizens, as a result of the illegal Israeli occupation, have no freedom of movement. The theory suggests that in countries where at least 30% of the male population is aged between 15-29, there is a tendency for these young men to “eliminate each other or get killed in aggressive wars until a balance is reached between their ambitions and the number of acceptable positions available in their society.” [2] Even at first glance, this theory is clearly far too reductionistic and does not take into consideration the many complicated and interrelated factors that determine the make up of Palestinian society – for instance, the overriding impact of the Occupation on the very possibility of ‘acceptable positions’ in the first place. It is interesting to note that the ‘youth bulge’ theory has become highly influential on US Foreign policy with two key consultants to the US Government, Jack Goldstone and Gary Fuller, ardently supporting it. [3]
While Heinsohn, in the most dubious manner, never cites his ‘statistics’ and ‘facts’, it is clear that his figures are intertwined with rhetorical accusations that have serious genocidal implications. For example, in his examples of the wars in Lebanon and Algeria, where birth rates fell significantly during the fighting, he asserts, “The warring stopped because no more warriors were being born” [4]. Juxtaposed to this questionable correlation, he contends, that with the ever increasing population of Gaza “the killing continues” [5]. No thought is ever spent on the context and diplomatic processes undertaken – as with Bush’s current support for the Gaza Operation – by national and international parties to reach this outcome. Heinsohn seems only concerned to disseminate his prejudice of the animalistic nature of the Arab.
Heinsohn even goes as far as to unashamedly claim that the death toll in the Palestinian territories is relatively slight over the last 60 years when compared to the death toll of Muslims across the entire world over the same period of time. Yet, how can one even bring oneself to compare the entire Muslim world (currently 1.5 billion people) to a measly scrap of land on the Mediterranean coast? The strongest feature of such an argument is the calculated ignorance of the reader who would assent to such spurious ‘logic.’
The argument that Israel does its utmost to spare civilian lives is wearing thin, especially in light of the recent UN proposal to investigate Israel’s war crimes [6], the refusal of many Israeli soldiers to fight in Gaza [7] and the condemnation of Israel by its most loyal ‘Zionist’ supporters [8] – not to mention the entire history of the Occupation, which is never mentioned by Heinsohn. For instance, with respect to the bombing of the UN School in Jabaliya, Israel had been given UN location coordinates, but this did not stop its fatal bombardment. The cynicism of this attack – and its lack of even respect for the dead, many of whom were children – is exposed with Israel’s insistence that it attacked the school in response to shooting from militants. Indeed, the UN insists that there were no militant fighters within the proximity of the school. This attack alone left 42 dead, further reinforcing the fact that there are no safe havens for the rest of the Palestinians in Gaza [9]. Also, contrary to Heinsohn’s estimate of 10-15% civilian deaths, it has been estimated by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs that at least 30% of all fatalities are civilians, and approximately 45% of casualties.
Part of Israel’s reasoning for this war has been, what it claims to be 8 years of missiles fired by Hamas. [10] However, one would have to question this on at least two levels. In the first instance, Israel only withdrew from Gaza in 2005. It would be clearly uncharacteristic of Israel to carry out this withdrawal, if i) Hamas was attacking Israel at the time ii) if there had not been a ceasefire being upheld at the time and iii) if Israel thought that this move would have jeopardised Israel’s safety.
It is also important, in the second instance, to note that in an analysis of the breaking of ceasefires, even up to this most recent incident [11], it is “overwhelmingly Israel that kills first after a pause in the conflict” [12], with 79% of all ceasefires being broken by Israel, 8% by Palestinians and 13% by both on the same day. In addition, Israel is more likely to break a ceasefire the longer it lasts, breaking 96% of ceasefires which lasted more than 7 days and 100% of which lasted longer than 9 days. [13]
Heinsohn throws out the further assertion, moreover, that “the reason for Gaza’s endless youth bulge is that a large majority of its population does not have to provide for its offspring”, as if it is a choice of the Palestinian people to live under continuous occupation, where they have restricted access to food, water and electricity, with Gaza’s borders shut off from land, air and sea access. The people of Gaza are refugees in their own land and as a result every new child will be born a refugee. Indeed, he has the audacity to assert: “Unrestrained by such necessities as having to earn a living, the young have plenty of time on their hands for digging tunnels, smuggling…” [14] Remarkably, Heinsohn is able to turn a humanitarian crisis – Gaza’a 45% unemployment rate, the highest in the world [15] – into a symptom of a degenerate Arab youth. The fact that Israel’s economic blockade, its repeated elimination of electricity and fuel sources, and its closure of 95% of all factories in Gaza [16], is totally neglected to be mentioned.
So what is Heinsohn’s solution to this ‘youth bulge’ that is feeding on international aid (sounds like ‘government handouts’ to ‘scroungers’)? Well, he directly offers a couple of practical solutions. Firstly aid must be cut off – the international community is urged by Heinsohn to have the courage to tell the Gazan’s to look after their own children and build their own economies. If only the Palestinians had such a preposterous luxury under the Occupation! Another recommendation is to export some of those young Palestinian men to North America and Europe. After all, “who would not want to get out of that strip of land”? [17] But, I have to wonder, if Heinsohn’s description of the Palestinian men and women were accurate, why would they want to give up all the aid they are getting and work for a living in their besieged land? We can also not ignore his calls to allow and support Israel’s freedom to defend itself, to let the killings go on, after all it can only benefit the predicament, as it purportedly did in Lebanon and Algeria when the warriors ceased to be born.
In response to the outrageous suggestions of Heinsohn and his extreme ‘bad faith’, I contend that the only authentic solution I can see, is for Israel to be made to abide by International law, so that it can be ‘saved from itself’ [18] and encouraged to cling on to the last threads of the democratic values that exist in the Israeli community. Such a turn by Israel to the neighborhood of legality would allow this relatively new country to begin to engage with its neighbors and in this way to begin to repair the damage to Israel’s legitimacy and its image across the world.
What is most astonishing about this insensitive article is its overwhelming sense of fatality, with respect to the people and for the future of Palestine. There is no attempt at an illustration of the reality of the situation in Gaza, only an obfuscating of the unnecessary and avoidable suffering by associating it with characteristics of laziness, aggressiveness and greediness. Indeed, Heinshohn’s cynicism even outdoes itself when he outrageously attacks the ‘NGO’s and social workers’ for perpetuating the situation of conflict for their own benefit. In his Malthusian pessimism Heinsohn is right about one thing, “the current situation can only get worse” [19] – if, that is, this kind of self-serving and genocidal theory continues to influence American foreign policy and its advocates are hired as their prize intellectual advisors.
[1] Bakhtiar, A. (10 January 2009). The Source of Arabs’ Shame: Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
[2] Heinsohn, G. (12 January 2009). Ending the West’s Proxy War Against Israel.
[3] Hendrixson, A. (December 2004). Angry Young Men, Veiled Young Women. The Corner House.
[4] Heinsohn, G. (12 January 2009). Ending the West’s Proxy War Against Israel.
[5] Ibid.
[6] McGreal, C. (13 January 2009). Demands Grow for Gaza War Crimes Investigation. Guardian.co.uk.
[7] Soldiers Refuse to Serve in Gaza – Tel Aviv Protest. (8 January 2009). Israel Social TV.
[8] LeVine, M. (13 January 2009). Who Will Save Israel from Itself? AlJazeera.net
[9] UN Agency demands Israel Support Claims of about Militants at School. (7 January 2009). CNN.com.
[10] FM Livni at Press Conference with EU Delegates. (5 January 2009).
[11] LeVine, M. (13 January 2009). Who Will Save Israel from Itself? AlJazeera.net
[12] Kanwisher, N. (6 January 2009). Reigniting Violence: How do Ceasefires End? Huffington Post.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Heinsohn, G. (12 January 2009). Ending the West’s Proxy War Against Israel.
[15] UN Report: AT 45%, Gaza Unemployment is Highest in the World. (28 July 2008). Haaretz.com
[16] Ibid.
[17] Heinsohn, G. (12 January 2009). Ending the West’s Proxy War Against Israel.
[18] LeVine, M. (13 January 20) ‘Who will save Israel from itself?’
[19] Heinsohn, G. (12 January 2009). Ending the West’s Proxy War Against Israel.
Loading ...
Loading...
I read his article a little earlier today and I was astounded at the stupidity of it. I believe that even Israel is supportive of what the UNRWA is doing. And I agree with you, the author’s intentions do appear to be flat out genocidal. Indeed, if the situation were not so serious, I’d be laughing at what the author is writing. Quite frankly, I don’t think his nonsense was even worthy of a response.
Considering Heinsohn’s position at the University of Bremen and the fact that he has published over 700 articles, conference papers and books, we must take what he says seriously (as problematic as his opinions may be) and not just brush it under the carpet as a lunatics rant. The real issue is his influence upon current policy, including the policy in Afghanistan. It is deeply troubling that his field of research is in comparitive genocide and that his perspective seems to require genocide, in some variation, for the solution to political problems. In other words, Heinsohn sees many of todays conflicts, including the Middle East and Afghanistan as rooted in demographics. What this means in real political terms is quite clear.
This is an excellent article Tamara. I agree that refuting abusive arguments like these are very crucial and I wish more people would respond to it. I’m really surprised that such an immature article actually made it to a prominent paper like the Wall Street Journal. To their credit however, they had published another article by George Bisharat stating the total opposite:
Thanks again Tamara for the eloquent refutation.
“Israel/Russia/America/Great Britian/China/Iran/Pakistan/India/etc should be held accountable for its crimes”.
You see now why the UN is a joke and a ‘play ball’ of the nation states to get more power. Did anyone did anything when Tibet was invaded? Did anyone did anything when Russia bombed the 9*@(*@ out of Chechnya? Did anyone did anything when Sudan was busy to ‘clean’ their country up? No. International law is a joke and is only used when it benefits major powers. It’s still the law of the jungle, the right of the strongest. And I don’t think this will change. Nor do I blame this on anyone. It’s just a part of the nature of mankind.
–>
“Most people are not rational, they are TRIBAL: “my gang yay, your gang boo!” It really is that simple. The rest is cosmetics.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Brecher
Living in Germany I never heard of the Raphael Lemkin Institute at the University of Bremen, but after reading the article of G. Heinsohn which really sounded quite cynical to me, too, I guess I`m going to look for some information about this Institute. It was good to read Tamara’s eloquent answer which referred precisely to each of Heinsohn’s statements showing a different point of view. It also occurred to me that usually a population which is well-fed, (more or less)educated and having access to medical support usually decreases like we see that in Western Countries. So the arguments of Heinsohn seem somewhat upside-down.
I can clearly see why one can get tipped off by Heinsohn’s article and I think you have some valid points in your counter arguments, Tamar. But after re-reading your article a few times, I can’t help, but thinking that you are doing practically the same thing that he does, especially when it comes to lack of context, framing your arguments, and “supporting” your claims.
It is quite natural for us to seek information that does not conflict with our believes and worldviews. This is what Heinsohn is doing in his article and this is what you are doing in yours. Perhaps your intention was to produce the negative of his article to show how absurd it is. In that sense it is a successful rhetorical exercise and you definitely make your point. But if your intention was to make a more meaningful and deeper argument, I think your article is not doing a very good job.
For example, you place the blame for breaking the ceasefire on Israelis basing it on the Haffington Post article. The article is doing an interesting exercise, but one that would not really stand academic rigor. For example, it says:
What do I learn from this? I learn that Israelis just went out there and shot a random Palestinian. That definitely serves your and Nancy Kanwisher’s rhetorical argument. Yet, if you go and look for what happened on that day you will see that it was slightly more complicated. It turns out that it was a fire exchange between the IDF and a group of armed militias who were planting explosives along the border with Israel. According to the Israeli sources, one IDF solder got wounded in that fight. So, who is there to blame or place the responsibility on? I don’t think this is a very easy task.
Of course, this just one example, but I do think it is representative of a phenomenon. There is a great degree of complexity in this conflict and I don’t think that any attempt to simplify it does any justice. On the contrary, such attempts only push people to barricade further in their respective positions.
Dima,
I think it is quite clear that the article was a direct response to the outrageous suggestions in Heinsohn’s article. As a result my response was an attempt at contextualising his arguments, and showing on a number of levels the absurdity of his suggestions, in light of that context. The reality of the situation in Gaza today speaks for itself, and therefore I feel it does not require a “deep and meaningful argument” to be made for it.
Your suggestion that I am doing in my article what Heinsohn is doing in his is absurd. I am not promoting genocide and I am not promoting a theory. My role is as critic. Heinsohn holds a high position in a University and is a powerful scholar, I do not believe he is simply seeking “information that does not conflict with our believes and worldviews”. He is actively promoting a theory that is having a detrimental influence on US foreign policy.
As for the example you provide of the breaking of ceasefires, this was a study carried out by a joint Tel Aviv University-European University team, which I beleive can be taken with some seriousness, and certainly would have gone under some academic rigour! As for the details, I do not know the specifics, you provide no sources to your claim. Also, if you could provide any other examples where my response could be seen to lack context, lack a frame of argument or not support its claims, I would greatly appreciate it.
I do not believe that I have in any way oversimplified the conflict, nor denied its complexity. My article is a response to a scholarly peice of work, and I do not claim to even be attempting to explain the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Hi Tamara,
Thanks for a careful response. As I said, if your plan was to create a negative to Heinsohn’s argument you did it. He is placing the entire responsibility on the Palestinians, you are placing it entirely on the Israelis. I don’t think that you and him disagree that a viable economy in the Gaza strip would make both sides better off. Heinsohn places the entire responsibility for Gazans not having an economy on the Palestinians, you place it on the Israelis.
As to the ceasefires Haffington Post articles, I have no doubt in the credentials of the researchers and their institutions. More so, they probably did the best they could provided the data they had. However, the point is that these data present a partial picture. Deaths are countable, thus it is easy to make a quantitative statement with them. However, how do you count an act of violence that does not bare any casualties? What about a missile that falls but does not kill anyone during a ceasefire? Do you count it as a violation of the ceasefire or not? How is that kind of violation factored in their data? Also, when the death does occur, what was the context? Is a civilian death from random shooting equals a death of military personnel in an armed encounter? Their data does not account for these differences and I do not think you can derive any decisive conclusion out of it.
I think the case I mentioned is a good example for the importance of context in responsibility placing. I took the information about the encounter on November 4th from searching the mainstream media. Here is a reference from Guardian and another one from the NY Times:
Guardian:
NY Times:
I am sure you can easily find more references. Now, this is where it is getting complex. Was digging a tunnel into Israel and/or placing explosives conducted by armed men a violation of the ceasefire? Or was it only a response of the IDF to these activities a violation of the ceasefire?
I am not sure it makes sense to refer to other points where I think you are lacking context or are framing things in a particular way if we clarified that your intent was to create a negative to Heinsohn’s article. In that case, your choice of rhetoric makes perfect sense.
When I say that we seek “information that does not conflict with our believes and worldviews” I mean that he bases his arguments on data and interpretations that help him make his point. You do the same in order to base your criticism. You revealing your references does make it easier to criticize your argument, him not revealing it makes it harder to criticize his explanations, but not his general idea.
I am not sure I would call his article “a scholarly peace of work” as it is clearly an opinion piece (which he is trying to base on his “theory”), but that is a different story. I do hope that you are wrong in your statement that his “theory” “is having a detrimental influence on US foreign policy” (tried to google his institute, but couldn’t easily find it, so I cannot judge how powerful it is). But that is again a different story.
Sincerely hope for peace in the region.
Dima
Dima,
I believe you have completely misunderstood the purpose of my article. Your accusations are coming from someone who does not comprehend the academic field of research and writing, you evidently do not comprehend the seriousness of what is going on in Gaza and therefore to discuss this further with you would be a waste of time.
It’s interesting that the “bombardment” of the UN school is mentioned, since the UN has changed its version and retracted the accusations of bombing the school, claiming the people died outside the compound.
http://perpetuaofcarthage.blogspot.com/2009/02/un-admits-israel-didnt-bomb-un-school.html