The discourse surrounding Palestine has deep historical roots, dating back to the arrival of the first Jewish settler in 1881 (Masalha, 2012, p. 43). When Israel established itself as a state on Palestinian land in 1948, causing substantial destruction and harm to native Palestinian people (Holman, 2023), various perspectives emerged. There have been intense debates between those arguing the 1948 Nakba should be labelled a genocide (for example Shaw, 2010), whereas others argue it does not meet the parameters to be defined as such (for example Auron, 2013). The events of October 7th, 2023, where Palestinian actions prompted a heightened wave of Israeli violence (Salhani, 2023), have drawn international scrutiny. While many view the levels of violence and destruction enacted on Palestine as genocidal (Adel and Gallagher, 2023), debates persist, as some question the validity of such claims (Pollard, 2024).

In this essay, I assert that Israeli treatment of Palestinians in general qualifies as genocidal, transcending isolated incidents such as the Nakba or events post-October 7th. To unravel the complexities, I first draw on insights from scholars such as Auron (2013), Pappé (2006), and Shaw (2010) to scrutinise different views between those who do not constitute the Nakba as a genocide, and those who do. Additionally, I delve into the nuanced distinctions between ‘ethnic cleansing’ and genocide, then consider Raphael Lemkin’s (1944) seminal work on conceptualising genocide as a form of destruction with social and cultural aspects at its centre. With this broader definition, I aim to draw attention to the continuity of the genocide Palestinians have experienced throughout decades.

Further contextualising Palestine within a settler colonial paradigm, I use Wolfe’s (2006) concept of the ‘logic of elimination,’ which drives what he terms ‘structural genocide.’ Adopting theoretical frameworks from Lemkin (1944) and Claudia Card (2012), I attempt to dissect the many layers of genocidal harm inflicted upon Palestinians throughout history. This includes not only physical violence, but also analysis of Card’s (2012, p. 237) concept of the ‘social death’ experienced by the people targeted by genocide, as many scholars and legal figures overlook this important product of genocide. I also consider more nuanced ideas of intent behind genocide, exploring how motivation for genocide in Palestine is in part driven by the pursuit of capital gain (Short, 2014), for both Israel and other international powers.

I advocate for an expanded understanding of genocide, transcending its simplified equation to mass killings, as has been common in the general genocidal discourse concerning Palestine. Narrow definitions risk facilitating denial and allowing continuation of such atrocities, as is evident in Palestine’s historical trajectory of unjust treatment without intervention, where the many forms of ongoing destruction often go unrecognised. Recognising and addressing the genocidal destruction in Palestine, I contend, serves as a crucial step toward its resolution.

‘Nakba—Not Genocide’

The conversation surrounding genocide in relation to Palestine frequently centres on pivotal moments marked by heightened physical violence. Scholars often scrutinise events like the Nakba of 1948 through a genocidal lens, leading to varied interpretations regarding its classification as genocide, as seen from scholars such as Auron (2013), Pappé (2006), and Shaw (2010). The term ‘Nakba,’ translating to ‘catastrophe,’ refers to the forceful expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians from their land, when Israel unlawfully annexed 78% of historic Palestine (Haddad, 2022). Within legal contexts, the most dominant definition of genocide is from the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (henceforth UN Convention), which states:

In the present Convention, genocide means 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 births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Yair Auron (2013), an Israeli scholar specialising in Holocaust and genocide studies, sticks closely to this definition in his analysis of the Nakba, proclaiming to do so for simplicity’s sake. Auron contends that the Nakba does not align with the criteria for genocide. His arguments are distinctly outlined: initially, he challenges the notion that the Israeli expulsion of Palestinians qualifies as genocide, asserting that it was the ‘Israeli Arabs’ who initiated hostilities after ‘rejecting various options for compromise’ (Auron, 2016, p. 10). He also argues that although there was ‘name-calling and condescension’ toward Palestinians, there was no ‘racist’ ideology (ibid., p. 10). Furthermore, he contends that in 1948, Israel did not have superiority of power, as is common for the perpetrators of genocide; he asserts that this is clear from the roughly equal damages to both sides, with the deaths of 8000 Arabs, and 6500 Jews (ibid., p. 10). In fact, he argues that in proportion more Jews died, as they made up a smaller population who struggled valiantly for their ‘survival’ as a state (ibid., p. 9). Finally, he asserts that Israel had ‘no intent to destroy’ Palestinians, indicating ‘the Israelis sought to expel the Arabs in several regions of Israel, but not to kill them’ (ibid., p. 9). In his view, this does not meet the necessary requirements for a genocide, and instead means it was an ‘ethnic cleansing’ (ibid., p. 12).

However, the self-professed simplicity of Auron’s analysis is also its downfall. Despite his criticism of actions from both sides, his overall analysis comes across as narrow and decontextualised. If Auron is so adamant in sticking solidly to the UN Convention definition, then half of his main points are tangential to its requirements of genocide, at best. When observing the UN Convention definition above, questions of who made the first attack, or balances of power, are not explicitly set out as necessary conditions for quantifying genocide. Aside from their irrelevance in the space of Auron’s confined framework, his arguments for these points are rife with historical omissions. The assertion that Palestinians began the war (Auron, 2013, p. 10) deserves historical context, which Zoe Holman (2023) covers well; Palestinians lived peacefully on their land for generations, and Palestine’s population consisted of 87% Muslims in the late 1800s. Zionist aspirations to create an exclusively Jewish homeland, however, grew continuously, due to religious ties to the land (ibid.). The 1917 Balfour Declaration pledged British support for this: they began to facilitate rising migration of Jews to Palestine, with no recognition of indigenous Palestinian rights (ibid.). In 1947, when Britain ended its occupation of Palestine and handed governance to the UN, the UN ‘adopted a resolution recommending division into Jewish and Arab states, with 56 percent allocated to the former’ (ibid.). Within this context, it is unsurprising that this ‘resolution’ was met by opposition and resistance from Palestinians. Israel followed through with devastating force, taking 22% more land than the UN had allowed (ibid.). Auron’s omission of this all-important historical context is at best, unfair, and at worst, dishonest.

In discussing racist ideology, Auron takes a discernibly cherry-picking approach. The UN definition of genocide does not necessitate racism, a point even acknowledged by the author (Auron, 2013, p. 10). Auron’s essay repeatedly categorises Palestinians as a cohesive group, accepting this as fact, as he focuses on the question of whether they faced genocide. Thus, the absence of explicit racial discrimination does not negate the underlying issue of targeted harm to this group. Furthermore, Wolfe’s insights (2006, p. 387) emphasise that race operates as a social construct; historical instances of European genocides demonstrate that race is not a fixed category, but rather constructed through targeted actions as justification for mistreatment. For example, Wolfe (2006, p. 388) notes that ‘Black people were racialized as slaves; slavery constituted their blackness.’ Auron’s reliance on an apparent lack of racism to bolster his argument against labelling the situation as genocide lacks persuasive force.

In regard to Auron’s assertion that Israel was lacking in superior power; this is yet another decontextualised and surface-level approach. Ilan Pappé (2006) explores how the Nakba constituted an ‘ethnic cleansing’ in far more depth; as Pappé extensively documents, the events surrounding the Nakba were neither spontaneous nor balanced in terms of power dynamics. The meticulous planning for the systematic expulsion of Palestinians, evidenced by military plans like the Village Files and Plan Dalet being composed since 1940, indicate a premeditated strategy by Zionist leadership (Pappé, 2006, p. 10). Kahlidi (2020, p. 44) also details in depth the extensive support the Zionist movement received from the British, including military training and supply of arms. Such comprehensive planning and outside support undeniably gave Israel substantial advantage, challenging Auron’s assertions about power dynamics.

Auron’s most relevant point in terms of the UN definition is that of intent. The centralising of intent in the question of genocide has been problematised in itself by numerous critical scholars (for example: Shaw, 2010; Wise, 2017), but this is something I will revisit in depth in the final section of this essay. Auron (2013, p. 9) posits, ‘On the Israeli side, there was no intention to destroy in whole or in part any ethnic, religious, national, or race group’. His interpretation narrowly equates ‘destroy’ with ‘kill,’ a limited understanding that even the UN Convention does not strictly define. Pappé’s (2006, pp. 6-16) research makes clear that ‘destroying’ can encompass actions beyond just killing, as evidenced by orders from Zionist leadership involving deliberate destruction such as burning villages and placing mines in the rubble, to ensure Palestinians could never return to their homes. Various non-physical forms of destruction are also left unacknowledged by Auron; I will attempt to highlight these in the coming sections of this essay. Ultimately, Auron (2013, p. 12) remains steadfast in his assertion based on UN Convention framework, classifying the Nakba as an ‘ethnic cleansing’ rather than genocide, arguing that this is more suitable as the Israelis aimed to ‘expel’ Palestinians, but not to kill them. In the next section, I will explore why ‘ethnic cleansing’ is also an........

© E-International