There’s a well-known moment in *Schindler’s List* where Liam Neeson’s character, Oscar Schindler, reflects on his actions. He holds onto his Nazi party pin, lamenting that if he had sold it, he might have saved another life. The Jews he saved remind him with wisdom from the Talmud, saying, “Who saves one life saves the whole world.”
Over the years, countless media—books, films, speeches—have aimed to educate us about the Holocaust, emphasizing the necessity of recognizing signs to prevent future atrocities. So, it baffles and frustrates me that, when considering the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza, many Americans dismiss it as anything close to genocide.
A recent column in The New York Times by Brett Stevens argues that what’s happening in Gaza doesn’t qualify as genocide, claiming it would require a more systematic approach. But that notion—a genocide can only be termed as such if it mirrors the Holocaust—is counter to the lessons many survivors and educators have shared. Martin Niemöller’s poem, “They came first,” offers a stark reminder that we shouldn’t wait for specific thresholds to recognize mass murder as genocide.
If you look at the Rohingya genocide, for instance, which resulted in around 43,000 deaths, the label of genocide is straightforward. Similar conclusions were drawn for other groups like the Yazidis and Bosnians. It seems odd for supporters of Israel to argue that the deaths of Palestinians aren’t genocide just because it could potentially be worse.
There’s also this belief that genocide should be inherently “systematic.” Certainly, the Holocaust showcased a disturbing level of orchestrated hatred. Yet, as seen in Rwanda or during the Armenian genocide, mass atrocities can occur in varying forms. The forced deportations there led to extensive suffering and death, highlighting that systematic methods aren’t the only way genocide can manifest.
Speaking of suffering, we should return to Gaza. Following the awful Hamas attack on October 7th, Israel responded with bombings that resulted in the deaths of numerous civilians—many of whom were women and children. The rationale has been flimsy at best. Historically, many nations have been criticized for not trying hard enough to minimize civilian casualties during conflicts. Even Israeli organizations today are calling out the government for failing to differentiate between combatants and non-combatants.
Sieges have often been a means to break the will of a population. However, in today’s context, the morality of using starvation as a weapon is debatable. Historians continue to examine instances of forced hunger to determine if they meet the criteria for genocide.
During the siege of Leningrad, mass starvation was employed as a tactic, leading to the deaths of approximately one million Russians. The Holodomor in Ukraine is classified as genocide due to its intentional orchestration by the Soviet regime aimed at suppressing Ukrainian independence. Arguably, even Britain’s historical grain exports during Ireland’s famine could be viewed through a similar lens.
The justifications for Israel’s conflict with Hamas are clear; this group has governed Gaza with malicious intent. However, the notion that depriving Gaza of food and medicine will somehow weaken Hamas is misguided.
It’s troubling to imply that those advocating for the alleviation of civilian hardship are somehow complicit with Hamas. Figure like Mandy Patinkin, who have voiced opposition to Israel’s strategies, face unwarranted accusations of supporting terrorism.
While Hamas poses a real threat, the way forward lies in improving the lives of Palestinians, providing them with security and prosperity. Many families in Gaza care less about political affiliations and more about survival.
The heartbreaking images of hungry children in Gaza are undeniable, and there’s little argument against the implications of limiting access to essential resources. Discussions about one-state or two-state solutions are important, as is finding effective ways to reduce Hamas’ influence. Still, it’s crucial to remember the lessons learned from the Holocaust. Many Americans, influenced by survivors and educators, consider the situation in Gaza as fitting the definition of genocide against Palestinians.
We learned the phrase “never again” for a reason: to ensure such horrors don’t repeat. That’s why so many Americans, from diverse backgrounds, have spoken out against Israel for its actions.
