UN Rapporteur Albanese once reported that “Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza is at an escalatory stage of a long-standing settler colonial process of erasure.”

The day after October 7, then Assembly Member Mamdani said, “I will always be clear in my language and based in facts: Israel is committing a genocide.”

If they are right—if even half of what they say is true—we are not debating policy. We’re watching one of the defining crimes of the century. Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia-level.

When my views changed on Israel, and I finally saw antizionism for what it was, I remember one of the first comments I received: an old friend wondered how I could support a country committing genocide. It occurred to me, that very second, that he might actually think I know a genocide is happening. “He thinks I believe a genocide is happening and still support Israel?”–I thought to myself. So either I don’t care, deceive myself, or agree with it. I had to tell him: “You know I don’t actually believe a genocide is happening, right?”

I knew that genocide was just another iteration of collective guilt and the blood libel. But I was beginning to wonder how people think we process genocide accusations. They have to be curious how we think of it. Being an old acquaintance, he knew I wasn’t ignorant or uninformed on the matter. So there goes the ignorance plea.

That leaves three possibilities for how he could understand me. Either I’m deceived—suggestible, consuming propaganda, conditioned to believe lies. Basically, a cult member. Or I have a subpar intellect and can’t process what’s in front of me. Basically, an idiot. Or I know a genocide is occurring, and either don’t care, or worse. Basically, a monster.

Cult member. Idiot. Monster.

And it’s not just me in these lovely categories. It includes the majority of Israel’s ten million citizens; tens of millions of Americans across party lines; the minorities in countries where opposition to Israel dominates—massive numbers of people across four continents. A significant portion of humanity, spread across dozens of countries.

It says something damning to people who are pro-Israel, especially Jews. It means the people with the most exposure, the highest personal stakes, with generations of historical memory, have misunderstood their situation and identity for decades. Like me, they would have to be collectively duped, unable to recognize genocide against a group of people, or willing to support one. This isn’t a narrow political disagreement: It’s a claim that an entire society—the ones actually living there—are brainwashed, idiotic, or monstrous. Claims that large don’t get to hide behind slogans.

Pick one of these three labels for each of the millions of people who are obviously missing something. Then keep picking. But before you end, let me try something.

I’m going to do the unexpected. I’m going to take Albanese, and even Mamdani, at their word. I’m going to assume they’re correct and follow the logic all the way to the end. Then, we can see what justice requires.

IF THE ACCUSATIONS ARE TRUE

We’ve officially entered this new world and Israel is guilty of genocide. Mamdani was right. I’m not sure which one is harder to believe, but we’re here.

What do we do? What’s our response? There aren’t many options, but I can think of three.

One: Military Intervention

This is the most honest answer. If a genocide is happening—comparable to Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia—the only truly effective response is military force. It would probably mean a war. The body counts on all sides would be significant. But if the charge were true, it would be the right thing to do. A coalition attacks the IDF and ends the state. Anyone waving a sign saying “stop the genocide”—if they truly meant it—would likely agree with this. It’s awful, but a genocide is happening.

Two: Increased Political Pressure

Heavy sanctions. ICC enforcement. UN-mandated dissolution by the Security Council. A soft siege on all fronts. It sounds cleaner and less bloody—but there are still ten million people living there. When the state collapses, what happens to the people? Who fills the power vacuum and becomes their leaders?

Three: What We Have Now

Protests. Encampments. Social media posts. University resolutions. If these accusations were taken seriously, the activist response would be grotesquely disproportionate. To get anywhere near impacting the ending of a genocide requires infinitely stronger and faster means. This, my friends, is not going to work. I think most people know it won’t. It makes for lots of pictures and tons of awareness, but little actual consequence. It took decades of international pressure to end apartheid in South Africa. According to the numbers I see quoted by them, do we really have the time?

What Would Come Next?

Let’s assume one of these options succeeds and Israel is no more. Ten million people live in the territory. The question antizionism has never answered out loud, now becomes unavoidable: what comes next?

There are two governing entities with infrastructure, budgets, armed forces, and control. There is no third option in the wind. At least not one that’s not “colonial.”

Hamas has governed Gaza since 2007. They won the 2006 election there hasn’t been another since. Its founding charter calls for the killing of Jews as a religious obligation, refers to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as representative of their plans, and explicitly forbids peace negotiations: “No solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad.” The 2017 revised charter softened the language but kept “from the river to the sea” as their territorial scope. Now they have it. The chants paid off.

After October 7, Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas member, said: “Israel has no place on our land. We must remove that country. October 7 is just the first time, and there will be a second, third, fourth.” Former leader, Yahya Sinwar said “October 7 was just a rehearsal.” Hamas has produced no document or policy describing a way in which 7.2 million Jews—46% of every Jew alive—remain in the territory it governs. It’s because it doesn’t have to. I’m sure you know why.

The Palestinian Authority (PA)

The PA already governs and has a track record. Mahmoud Abbas is twenty one years into a four-year presidential term—having dissolved parliament, seized control of the judiciary, and currently legislates by decree. The PA’s draft constitution was released last month, and establishes Islam as the official religion and Sharia as the legislative source for a future Palestinian state. Jerusalem is declared its capital. Christianity is named, and its followers’ rights are protected. Jews, Judaism, and Israel are never mentioned. Not once.

Article 24 codifies martyr payments as constitutional obligations—the same “pay for slay” program Abbas told Western donors he’d ended. Article 128 requires rulings in the name of the “Palestinian Arab people”—not Jews. Article 132 assigns personal status law—marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody—to Sharia courts. Both the president and prime minister must be a Palestinian born to two Palestinian parents.

It would be a different Levant. Innumerable Jews would be killed, or at best, exiled.

I’ve spent this piece granting a premise; now grant mine. Let’s say I’m a monster, a genuine paskudnyak, and I wanted to commit genocide.

Let me tell you what I would never do.

I wouldn’t provide evacuation warnings, texts, calls, posts, and leaflet drops telling civilians where I’d strike and where to evacuate. It’s never been done in the history of warfare. I wouldn’t stop fire to allow my targets through a corridor, or deliver medical supplies to one of their hospitals. I would never allow any aid to reach them, let alone 335,151 tonnes over the last nine months. Accept a ceasefire? Why? I have superior weaponry and don’t need to. I wouldn’t have pauses for civilians to leave the area. I wouldn’t give them fuel to keep their hospitals, plants, and water running. I wouldn’t help administer 1.3 million vaccines during an outbreak of polio. I wouldn’t send in ground troops either—I could do it all from the sky. Less discriminating, but that would be the point.

I wouldn’t risk the enemy knowing our location, by publishing maps online, detailing how civilians should exit. I wouldn’t use advanced technology to increase the accuracy of our munitions. Holding off on killing the leader, because he had hostages–I wouldn’t do that either. I can guarantee you, I would not wait for months. I wouldn’t stop hundreds of air strikes because civilian casualties may be too high, or abort operations when I had a clear line on a target. I wouldn’t have senior command cancel strikes they were permitted to take because hostages may have been inside. And if my undertakings were successful, the Palestinian population would not expand at all—it would have massive declines seen during other genocides.

I wouldn’t open criminal investigations into my officers, and I certainly wouldn’t arrest my Military Advocate General publicly and indict them for abusing a detainee. And as far as my authority goes, I would never accept the judiciary if it constrained me.

Lastly, I wouldn’t mention that all the sources I just used aren’t from the IDF or Israel; in fact, most of them are extremely critical of Israel.

Now let me tell you what I would do.

First, I would teach our children propaganda to groom them for martyrdom and sacrifice. I would describe my enemy with stereotypes applied to them in the past. I would invert their history to say they’re committing acts that were previously victims of. I would use what’s called “Accusation in a Mirror”–that is, I would blame them for everything I’m doing. It worked in Rwanda, it can work here. I’d portray them as genocidal, child-killing, colonial, racist, oppressors. I hear college kids love those words in the West.

I would have my soldiers record combat encounters, so I could control the information.  Outside reporters know what we can do, so they wouldn’t speak against us. I would have my group contract for respected media like the AP, CNN, Financial Times, the Washington Post, the NYT, and Al-Jazeera (102 have been looked at). I would instruct them to refer to all deaths as “civilians” and have our health system run inflated and manipulated numbers. I would build command centers, store weapons, and escape beneath hospitals, schools, and religious structures. This way, their attacks look indiscriminate, and “the high number of civilian casualties would create worldwide pressure on them.” Who knows, maybe these numbers could get them warrants for arrest by the International Criminal Court.

This is how our messages and figures pass into mainstream news. The stories aren’t vetted, they’re laundered.

To make our rival look particularly cruel, I would say that a large percentage of our dead are women and children. It could get printed in the NYT, the BBC, or The Guardian. Possibly without a single independent source. If we got spotted, we can delete any number we want; we changed 3,400 previously “identified” deaths—over 1,000 being children—in March. Not to mention that 84% of publications failed to distinguish a dead combatant from a dead civilian. Same thing we did. This is how our misfired rocket became their massacre within the hour—we claimed they killed 500 at our hospital, and before evidence showed otherwise, the damage had been done. That’s what I would do.

Even the UN cited our media for months, despite them admitting our “methodology is unknown.” A research study on six major outlets, showed our opponents casualty figures were mentioned in only 4% of publications, and ours were cited 100% of the time. So, even though our methods are “unknown,” and our figures have been shown to be incorrect–even mathematically demonstrated to be statistically impossible–the UN, the BBC, and others, will keep using them. They either trust our information more, or they don’t bother checking.

Now Let’s End this Assumption.

Now we’re back from the hypothetical, and I’m glad to no longer be genocidal. In case you didn’t notice, “what I would never do” is the record of the IDF, and “what I would do” is the governing philosophy of Hamas. One of these are genocidal. It just isn’t the one on the signs.

I began with a question about categories—cult member, idiot, monster—and what it means to accuse an entire civilization of willful blindness, or worse. I assumed a genocide accusation and followed it to its end—through the options it demands, through the governments that would replace Israel, through the logic meant to support it. What we found were statistics from a terrorist ministry. Contractors on the payroll. A UN that cited sources it couldn’t verify. A widely circulated figure demonstrated to be impossible.

We also found a people clearly worse at genocide than I am. They haven’t misunderstood their position or their identity.

They were never cult members, idiots, or monsters. They’re a fourth option.

They’re telling the truth.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)