The Holocaust, the Massacre in Deir Yassin and the Gaza Genocide: Victims of Victims

Without Deir Yassin, there wouldn't have been an Israel, and that after it, the Zionist forces could "advance like a hot knife through butter." Menachim Begin, 1952

Dr. Pamelia Riviere 

Israel's relentless violence in Gaza continues unabated, with heartbreaking reports of a child shot in the head yesterday, as Al Jazeera reported. Over 20,00 children have died during these two devastating years of war. But the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu characterized the ongoing war as "the War of Rebirth on Seven Fronts," emphasizing its significance for Israel's survival and future. He stated, "Our bloodthirsty enemies hit us hard, but they have not broken us," and asserted that any aggressor against Israel would face severe consequences. This statement was made on the two-year anniversary of the October 7 Hamas terror attack, during which Netanyahu reinforced Israel's resilience and commitment to bringing home hostages, as reported by Fox News. 

Netanyahu's rhetoric has prompted some critics to argue that he uses historical references, such as the Holocaust, to garner sympathy for Israel's actions and to justify military operations in Gaza like Menachim Begin. 

According to The Guardian, the legacy of the Holocaust has gained a complex reinterpretation in the context of the Middle East, with some arguing that the tragic events of the past are invoked to rationalize contemporary violence. 

In the wake of events like the Deir Yassin massacre, there are claims that the suffering of Holocaust survivors has been used to legitimize the suffering of Palestinians, leading some Arab groups to respond with Holocaust denial as a means to challenge the narrative surrounding these events. Professor Edward Said referred to the complexities of this situation by calling the post-Holocaust Jewish experience "victims of victims."

The discourse surrounding historical events such as the Holocaust, the October 7 atrocities, the Deir Yassin massacre, Nakba I and II, and the Gaza genocide is complex and contentious. These incidents are widely regarded as significant tragedies that arise from prolonged conflict and issues of self-determination. It is important for leaders, including Netanyahu, to address these matters constructively and refrain from perpetuating cycles of blame, as this can exacerbate tensions and suffering for the affected communities. Collaborative efforts among secular Jewish and Palestinian leaders may be necessary to progress toward a shared understanding and resolution.

Menachem Begin, the Holocaust and the massacre in Deir Yassin

Twenty-three years ago, on Tuesday, March 26, 2002, The Guardian published an article about the Deir Yassin massacre. I summarized a few paragraphs to highlight how the Nakba I, particularly the associated atrocities, began. Tragically, these killings were supported by Menachem Begin, the former Prime Minister who won the Nobel Peace Prize. For what reason was he awarded this honour? It seems contradictory, given the violent nature of a leader who acted so openly.

“Menachem Begin, in his 1952 memoirs, said that without Deir Yassin there wouldn't have been an Israel, and that after it the Zionist forces could "advance like a hot knife through butter." Under advice, he removed these words from subsequent editions, as reported by The Guardian. 

The events in the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin in April 1948 hold significant symbolic importance in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. They are memorialized annually on April 7 in various locations, including England and Scotland. The attack on Deir Yassin has drawn intense scrutiny and debate due to its implications. On April 9, 1948, commandos from the Irgun, led by Menachem Begin, and the Lehi guerrilla group, with support from a small unit of the Haganah, executed an assault on Deir Yassin, a village located west of Jerusalem. 

This attack resulted in the deaths of approximately 100 Palestinians, mostly comprised of elderly men, women, and children. Supporters of the operation argue that it was necessary to break the siege of West Jerusalem and that Deir Yassin was not merely a peaceful village but rather a heavily armed military post.

 In contrast, critics note that the village had a non-aggression pact with the nearby Jewish settlement of Givat Shaul and was largely unarmed, possessing only outdated weapons. The reaction from Jewish leadership was marked by condemnation of the assault.

 Notably, Prime Minister David Ben Gurion sent an apology to King Abdullah of Jordan, and the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber described the event as "a black stain on the honour of the Jewish nation," emphasizing that no practical military needs could justify such acts of violence. Menachem Begin, in his 1952 memoirs, controversially stated that the events at Deir Yassin were pivotal for the establishment of Israel and enhanced the effectiveness of Zionist forces. 

However, he later removed this assertion from subsequent editions of his memoir. Deir Yassin is significant not only because it triggered a cycle of violence that has characterized the conflict—exemplified by a retaliatory Arab ambush that killed 77 Jewish medical personnel just two days later—but also because it symbolizes Palestinian dispossession.

Dilemma with the Holocaust and the Deir Yassin massacre recognition

 In the year following the attack, the village was repopulated by Orthodox Jewish immigrants, and its cemetery was destroyed, effectively removing its name from the map. Revisionist historian Benny Morris has identified Deir Yassin as a key event that contributed to the exodus of Palestinians. Interestingly, Deir Yassin can be viewed from Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Memorial Museum, and this year (2002), its commemoration coincides with Yom ha'Shoah (Holocaust Memorial Day), as reported by The Guardian. 

This overlap creates unease among many Jews who fear that acknowledging Deir Yassin may undermine the recognition of their own historical tragedies. Some have proposed a conditional approach to commemoration, suggesting that Palestinians should first acknowledge the Holocaust before Jewish communities remember Deir Yassin. 

This argument, however, lacks equivalency, as the responsibility for Deir Yassin rests with Israelis, while Palestinians were not responsible for the Holocaust. The Holocaust has significantly influenced narratives in the Middle East, with some Zionists arguing that events like Deir Yassin were inevitable outcomes of the post-Holocaust demand for a Jewish state. 

Conversely, this perspective has led to anger among Arabs who perceive the use of Jewish suffering to justify Palestinian pain as unacceptable, resulting in instances of Holocaust denial. Although drawing comparisons to the Holocaust can be contentious, recent images from the Dheishe refugee camp—showing Israeli soldiers detaining young men, blindfolding them, and marking numbers on their arms—have evoked parallels that many find difficult to ignore.

 Hamas: End of the Gaza genocide and withdrawal of the Israeli military

Senior officials from Qatar and the US are participating in talks in Egypt regarding the ongoing conflict. A coalition of Palestinian factions, including Hamas, has stated its commitment to resistance and rejected disarmament demands linked to Trump's plan. Hamas is seeking an end to the war and a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, although Trump's plan lacks a clear timeline for troop withdrawal, which is contingent on the return of Israeli captives. A Hamas official indicated that the release of hostages would happen in stages linked to Israel's military withdrawal and the release of Palestinian prisoners, including assurances that Israel will not break the ceasefire or resume genocide in Gaza. Hamas's negotiator expressed distrust of Israel, emphasizing the need for absolute guarantees to ensure the war does not resume.

Is it a peace plan for the Palestinians or a plan for Neo-Colonization?

Prof Jaffery Sachs shared his thoughts with Judge Naplitano on Trump's ceasefire plan. He thinks that Gaza is a neocolonial deal to give Gaza to Jared Kushner. 

Professor Jeffrey Sachs expressed his views on Judge Napolitano's program regarding former President Trump's ceasefire plan for Gaza. He criticized the deal as a neocolonial move aimed at facilitating Jared Kushner’s redevelopment of Gaza. Sachs questioned the rationale behind Hamas negotiating with Israel and the United States, given Israel's history of violence toward Hamas negotiators and its alleged deception regarding negotiations with Iran. He highlighted a broader desire for peace, particularly from Arab nations, which have proposed a straightforward peace plan calling for normalized relations with Israel alongside the establishment of a Palestinian state since 2002.

 Sachs noted that despite persistent efforts for a two-state solution, the Israeli government has continuously undermined the establishment of a Palestinian state since the Six-Day War in 1967, resulting in ongoing conflict. He pointed out that the international community, including various countries such as France and the UK, has recognized the state of Palestine, reinforcing that peace is both desired and legally supported by international law. Sachs criticized the Trump administration's recent proposal, heralded as a 20-point plan, for failing to address the core issues at hand. While the proposal acknowledged the need for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid, it ultimately maintained the existing colonial structures. It did not adequately tackle the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state. In summary, Sachs emphasized that true peace hinges on recognizing and granting the rights of the Palestinian people alongside Israel.

The discussion centers around the notion that a peace plan for the Palestinian people should acknowledge their aspirations. Yet, it critiques the fact that a U.S. president presents such recognition as if it were a revelation. 

The proposed plan includes positive elements such as ending starvation, halting fighting, and releasing hostages and Palestinian prisoners, but it simultaneously establishes a new colonial structure. This structure comprises a committee led by Donald Trump and joined by figures like Tony Blair, reflecting a historic British-American colonial influence that dates back to 1921, when Britain took control of Palestine.

 Critics assert that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fundamentally opposes genuine peace, instead seeking to establish greater Israeli control over all of Palestine. Netanyahu’s stance implies that any peace should occur solely on Israel’s terms, which could involve cruel conditions for Palestinians, framed as either living under oppressive regimes or relocating altogether. The narrative points out that, according to international law, Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian lands, which contradicts Netanyahu’s claim that a Palestinian state is not viable. 

Critics say that Trump initially outlined a 20-point plan that included the idea of a state of Palestine, as Arab leaders suggested that peace and normalization could arise from this. However, after meeting with Netanyahu and his adviser Ron-Dermer, the plan shifted to prioritize a neocolonial agenda, sidelining the state of Palestine and incorporating elements that resemble colonialism. Governing Gaza by the West for an indefinite period through a management board is a form of slavery and colonialism.

Can the current US administration take a stance for Palestine?

During the Trump administration, U.S. foreign policy experienced an intense pivot towards Israel, shaping many diplomatic discussions. Prominent figures like Mike Huckabee, who has long been a vocal supporter of Israel, asserted that the United States does not need Israel's approval to engage in negotiations with Yemen, highlighting a shift towards a more independent foreign strategy. Senator Lindsey Graham weighed in, suggesting that Iran should be allowed to maintain a peaceful nuclear program, indicating a more nuanced stance toward Iran within the broader context of Middle Eastern relations.

 In a striking declaration, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene emphasized that the United States would cease conducting military operations in Yemen on behalf of Israel, underscoring her commitment to redefining American military engagement in the region. 

Meanwhile, Steeve Witcoff offered critical commentary on the administration's policies, expressing concern over the implications for regional stability. Adding to the evolving narrative, Pete Hegseth made headlines by cancelling an anticipated visit, a move that hinted at potential shifts in diplomatic ties. As these events unfolded, the future of U.S.-Israel relations and their broader impact on Middle Eastern geopolitics remained shrouded in uncertainty. 

 CNN reported today that the deal is “very close”: President Donald Trump says a Gaza ceasefire deal is “very close” and that he may travel to the Middle East soon. Twenty-three years ago, Edward Said poignantly described this critical situation as "victims of victims," emphasizing the cyclical nature of suffering. Can Trump secure the deal and put an end to suffering? 

The writer is a freelance analyst.