To the Editor:
Re “The Grim Lesson of Israel’s War in Gaza,” by Omer Bartov (Opinion guest essay, July 25):
Dr. Bartov believes that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza akin to the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide of 1915. Israel can be accused of war crimes, but not genocide. The Nazi purpose in the Holocaust was the extermination of the Jews of Europe and beyond, leading to the murder of some six million people. The Young Turks’ purpose in the Armenian genocide was the destruction of the Armenian population, leading to the killing of some 1.5 million people.
The current Israeli government is not intent on exterminating or destroying the Palestinian population. It did conduct a cruel war against Hamas in retaliation for the massacre of Oct. 7, 2023. Hamas could have prevented such a disaster by climbing out of its hiding places in tunnels under civilian structures, but it determined that sacrificing fellow Palestinians would undermine Israel’s legitimacy. It was quite right in its brutal calculations.
Robert Melson
Brewster, Mass.
The writer is the author of “Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.”
To the Editor:
Omer Bartov’s belief that Israel has committed genocide is misguided. I write this as someone evacuated from Israel last summer after experiencing war firsthand. It is easy to accuse Israel of atrocities from afar, but living through missile sirens, bomb shelters and daily attacks provides a different perspective. Israel faces ongoing attacks from groups such as Hamas and the Houthis, and the Israel Defense Forces respond to those threats.
Dr. Bartov compares Israel’s actions to historical genocides, including the Holocaust. However, the Nazis sought to erase the Jewish people and history by destroying lives, synagogues and cultural sites. Israel, by contrast, has offered multiple proposals for Palestinian statehood. Israel has also used measures such as evacuation warnings through texts, calls and leaflets before many strikes.
War brings immense suffering, and Israel’s actions have not been perfect. But having witnessed the realities of this conflict firsthand, I believe that it is essential to distinguish between a devastating war and a deliberate attempt to erase a people. The seriousness of the word “genocide” demands nothing less.
Jacob Goroff
Chicago
To the Editor:
I hope it is uncontroversial to say that collective punishment, killing and maiming innocent civilians, and destruction of their homes and critical infrastructure are wrong. Can we leave it at that? Unless you’re a pedantic scholar or a legal expert, semantic labeling is an unnecessary distraction that adds controversy to the uncontroversial.
The Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl wrote, “No one has the right to do wrong, even if wrong has been done to them.” He would be appalled to see the slaughter of innocent Israelis be used to justify the killing of innocent Palestinians. So should the rest of us. Genocide or not.
Jay Markowitz
Pound Ridge, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Omer Bartov is undoubtedly an accomplished scholar. But scholarship should not be a substitute for clear and convincing proof.
Genocide is not simply the killing of large numbers of civilians, however tragic. It is the deliberate intent to destroy a people. That distinction matters. If every brutal war with horrific civilian casualties is labeled genocide before the facts are fully established, the term loses the very meaning that Raphael Lemkin intended when he coined it.
Dr. Bartov writes as though Israel’s guilt has already been decided. It has not. South Africa’s case against Israel before the International Court of Justice remains pending, and no final judgment has been rendered.
Curiously absent from his analysis is Hamas’s own history. Its original 1988 charter openly called for Israel’s destruction. That declared genocidal intent is not peripheral to understanding the massacre of Oct. 7.
Israel’s conduct deserves scrutiny, as does Hamas’s. Civilian suffering is heartbreaking regardless of nationality. But replacing legal standards with political conclusions is not justice.
The demanding legal standard defining genocide has long been recognized by courts and genocide scholars alike. It should remain the standard here as well.
(Rabbi) Reuven H. Taff
Sacramento
