Terrorists from Hamas surged into Israel on October 7th, killing hundreds of Israelis and taking dozens more hostages. Israel declared that it would destroy the terrorist organization that governs Gaza and then unleashed a bombing campaign that killed thousands of innocent Palestinians.
The international community condemned Israel’s government for its harsh reprisals. However, many supporters of the “Palestinian cause” hesitated to denounce the attack on Israel on October 7th. When pressed, why? They resorted to historical arguments or historical allegations.
Starting points for these historical arguments range from World War I to World War II.
Between 1915 and 1916, the British high commissioner in Egypt corresponded with the emir of Mecca. The high commissioner told the emir that the United Kingdom would back Arab independence in exchange for the emir’s cooperation against the Ottoman Empire’s rulers. The emir asserted that he spoke for all Arab-speaking territories east of Egypt, including Palestine. The emir agreed, and an Arab revolution against the Ottoman Empire began.
This, however, was not a formal treaty.
In 1917, Great Britain declared its support for the formation of a Jewish national homeland. The Arabs in Palestine considered this a betrayal of British previous commitments and have since resisted the influx of Jews into the territory.
During the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, Israeli armed forces decimated Palestinian society, expelling Palestinians and denying them the ability to return, effectively turning them into perpetual exiles in occupied lands.
Accusers label Israel as an apartheid state and Israelis as settler colonialists. Supporters of the “Palestinian cause” accuse Israel of “radicalizing” each new generation of Palestinians against it as a result of the Israeli occupation’s harsh treatment of the Palestinian population.
Israel withdrew its armed forces and demolished the settlements in Gaza in 2005. However, Israel has maintained control over Gaza’s borders and imposed an Israeli blockade on the territory since 2006, restricting movement by land, sea, and air. Israel has faced accusations of transforming Gaza into a concentration camp or an open-air prison, subjecting over two million Palestinians to deplorable conditions.
Following Hamas’ October 7th attack, political scientist Norman Finkelstein stated, “For the past 20 years, the people of Gaza, half of whom are children, have been immured in a concentration camp. [On Oct. 7th] they breached the camp’s walls. If we honor John Brown’s armed resistance to slavery, if we honor the Jews who revolted in the Warsaw ghetto, then moral consistency demands that we honor the heroic resistance in Gaza.”
When historical arguments are coupled with historical allegations, which are emotional appeals disguised as reasons, the purpose is no longer to help understand a point of view; it is to justify the unacceptable.
Here’s a hypothetical scenario combining a historical argument with a historical allegation.
After WWII, Great Britain, which had governed Palestine since 1922, was prepared to withdraw from the region. However, the “problem of Palestine” remained unresolved, and Great Britain referred the issue to the newly formed United Nations.
Clearly, the issue was that Arabs and Jews believed Britain supported their right to establish independent states. The United Nations recommended a two-state solution and devised a plan for land division. The Jews accepted the United Nations proposal and established Israel as an independent state, while the Arabs rejected it.
Why did the Arabs oppose an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel?
There’s an historical argument that suggests the Arabs in Palestine were fully aware that once Israel declared independence, seven Arab countries—Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen—would attack Israel with the goal of destroying the new state, killing all Jews, and taking over all of Palestine.
Israel defeated the Arab countries, establishing its right to exist. As a result of this war, Israel gained control over the majority of the territory recommended by the UN for an Arab state.
Now, let’s assume the attack by the seven Arab countries radicalized Israelis. Many of the Jews who fought for independence had survived the Holocaust. What if Israel’s first generation alleged that the seven Arab countries sought to complete Hitler’s Final Solution? What if the first generation of Israelis radicalized the next two generations of Israelis not only with that historical indictment but also with the notion that these seven nations would attempt to finish the final solution in the future unless preempted?
Then the third generation of Israelis launched preemptive strikes against the capital cities of the seven Arab countries.
No one in their right mind would justify these actions based on those historical allegations because the outcome is unacceptable.
Just like no one should have justified Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7th.
About Post Author
