Preface

About a year ago, DichterDenker published an open letter to Chancellor Olaf Scholz, regarding his assertion about Germany’s responsibility towards Israel, under the heading:

historische_verantwortung_deutschland = israel + palestina – konflikt?

On the imminent occasion of the end of office of Chancellor Scholz, and considering developments internationally and in Germany since the publication of DichterDenker’ s open letter, the Cranky Philosopher has decided to publish an English translation of this open letter.

Of decisive relevance to this decision were these factors:

• An address by Holocaust survivor Eva Szepesi before the German parliament (‘Bundestag’) on the occasion of its Holocaust Remembrance Service on 31 January 2024 [various sources; citing here from the Handelsblatt, 31 January 2024; “Wer schweigt, macht sich mitschuldig” (“Whoever remains silent is complicit”)];
• Israel breaking the ceasefire agreement with Hamas on 18 March 2025, and resuming sprawling bombing campaigns, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of civilians in the Gaza strip [NBC News, March 19, 2025]; this event regarded in context with the reports: “Trump gave ‘green light’ to Israel before Gaza bombing” (The Independent, 18 March 2025) and “Trump doubles down on plan to empty Gaza (AP News, 12 February 2025);
• The invitation to visit Germany, extended by German Chancellor-candidate Merz to Israeli premier Netanyahu [ZDFheute Liveblog Nahost-Konflikt, 20 March 2025]

The Cranky Philosopher will not remain silent, but name the Israeli “defence against Hamas terrorists” by what it factually is: genocide. Claiming Israel’s military actions to constitute ‘defence’ is disingenuous, considering that it is bombing out not only terrorists, but also civilians, on Israeli soil, not in some enemy country. The Israeli government would have administrative jurisdiction and policing powers in Gaza just like in any other part of Israel, if it chose to exercise these. Concerted policing powers, even if they had to be exercised by the Israeli military, as contemplated by DichterDenker in the translated article following below, under the heading: ‘Right to defend against terrorists, or genocide?’, would in a humane manner have sufficed to suppress terrorism by Hamas. The disingenuousness of the Israeli claim to defence has left the Cranky Philosopher ominously contemplating the following fictitious scenario: In the German parliamentary elections of 2025, the party considered as partly right extremist achieved majority support in the eastern federal German states, which had previously constituted the German Democratic Republic. This party also widely being regarded as ‘a threat to democracy in Germany’, imagine the Federal Government deciding to ‘defend’ Germany against this threat by carpet bombing these eastern states.

It has become abundantly clear that the right extremist Netanyahu government conspires to rid itself of the Palestinian people, now with the aid of the neo-colonial terrorist power Great America under the ‘leadership’ of President Donald ‘Vladimir Putin’ Trump, and will not even recoil from committing genocide to achieve this end. Between these two ‘leaders’, they have now established a ‘Washington – Jerusalem axis of genocide’. Add to this the loathsome attitude of another ‘would-be-leader’, Friedrich Merz, the man set to become Germany’s next chancellor, in contemplating means of welcoming Netanyahu in Germany despite the ICC arrest warrant against him, and despite Germany’s law and order duty to effect such an arrest in Germany. Germans will need to exercise frank and honest introspection, and decisively act accordingly, to prevent Germany from becoming part of a ‘Washington – Jerusalem – Berlin triangle of genocide’.

Where are the hundreds of thousands of protesters, who during the elections demonstrated against right extremism in cities all across Germany, now?

Translated re-publication of the open letter to Chancellor Scholz, originally published in German in the DichterDenker blog on 20 February 2024

Salutation

Dear Chancellor Scholz,

In your government statement on the situation in Israel to the German Bundestag in Berlin on 12 October 2023, you rightly expressed Germany’s solidarity with Israel after the terrorist attack by Hamas on 7 October 2023 [1]. DichterDenker supports the principles in the statement of the Federal Republic of Germany, as announced in your speech. However, principles should be universally valid. There is also nothing to “relativize” about this, to borrow this term from your speech.

From the „Universal Declaration of Human Rights“ [2]:

Preamble
„Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…“
Article 01
„All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

DichterDenker assumes that Israelis and Palestinians have an equal right to a homeland in the “Holy Land”, as well as to peace, freedom and self-determination in this land.

In your speech, however, you also announced the following statement by the Federal Government:

“Israel’s security is Germany’s reason of state. Our own history, our responsibility arising from the Holocaust, makes it our perpetual task to stand up for the existence and security of the State of Israel.”

In the following, DichterDenker takes the liberty of relativizing this statement.

Concerns

The Palestine-Israel conflict has been going on for more than a hundred years, if its beginning is traced back to the destruction of the Ottoman Empire as a result of the First World War. During this period, three Nobel Peace Prizes were awarded for peacebuilding in this conflict, in 1950, 1978 and 1994 [3]. But all efforts were in vain. In retrospect, one impression remains above all others: the failure to find a sustainable peaceful solution can be attributed to extremists on both sides, and above all to the fact that the extremists on both sides received the continued support of foreign powers, which in turn were only ruthlessly pursuing their own political goals (read: “reason of state”). Without this influence, it is impossible to understand such an enduring irreconcilability between two peoples who are essentially not so different.

The following circumstances are also cause for concern:

After Netanyahu and his far-right supporters narrowly toppled Yair Lapid’s government in June 2022, their first goal was to reform the judiciary in Israel; among other things, to protect Netanyahu from corruption charges. Protests against the proposed reform put Netanyahu’s government under increasing pressure, and on September 22, 2023, around 3,000 Israelis and American Jews protested outside the UN headquarters in New York as Netanyahu addressed the General Assembly there [4]. It stands to reason that Netanyahu and his government saw their “mene tekel on the wall.” And then something happened that could have seemed almost like manna from heaven to this government: the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7, 2023. Apparently surprising, although the Israeli authorities had been aware of this imminent attack for about a year [5]. Now united with Israel against Hamas, Netanyahu and his government were “saved” for the time being. For how long is still questionable: on January 17, 2024, the Yesh Atid and Labour parties announced a vote of no confidence in Netanyahu’s government in the Knesset [6]. They do not yet have a majority, but the “mene tekel is back on the wall”.

As an IT nerd, DichterDenker decided to use the Python programming language to determine what he thinks of your idea, Mr. Chancellor, regarding Germany’s responsibility towards Israel. Below is the result:

Insofar as the German people have a historical responsibility in the sense of human rights, this lies in opposing the hatred of Jews in Germany, and also in counteracting it in general. In the latter regard, your unfortunate implicit link between the historical suffering of millions of Jewish people during the Holocaust, on the one hand, and the State of Israel under the notoriously right-wing extremist Netanyahu government, on the other, was not helpful. Germany’s historical responsibility is about people and human dignity (Article 1(1) of Germany’s Basic Law), and not about states and their governments.

This has nothing to do with “reason of state”. DichterDenker found no basis in the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany for the formation of a reason of state. However, he found the following paragraph in Article 9:

‘(2) Associations whose purposes or activities are contrary to criminal law or which are directed against the constitutional order or the idea of international understanding (“Völkerverständigung”) shall be prohibited.’

Instead of just formalizing the ban, how about we also focus on promoting international understanding? DichterDenker promptly set about trying to relativize the words “Völkerverständigung” and “Staatsräson” (reason of state). Here is the result from Google, about the period of the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, and your speech to the German Bundestag:

Figure 1: Word Search – Source: Google Trends

A poverty indictment. At best.

Hereby a definition of the “reason of state” [7]:

‘The concept of reason of state means the striving for security and self-assertion of the state by any means. According to Wolfgang Kersting, the reason of state is a “rule of precedence for conflicts of interest and legal conflicts”. This usually refers to the classical trinity according to Machiavelli: “voluntas, necessitas and utilitas” (“will, necessity, utility”) as legitimizing factors of state actions.

If this definition doesn’t mean anything to you, you should remember that 85 years earlier, in Nazi Germany, the extermination of the Jews was part of the reason of state.

In the 1970s, the recently deceased diplomat Henry Kissinger, who was highly revered and praised for his pragmatism, developed a realpolitik for the United States – the self-proclaimed “leader of the free world” – that put interests above values and did not judge allies by their human rights record. DichterDenker, as an engineer, also considers himself a pragmatist, and can thus understand Kissinger’s pragmatism. The latter, however, is to be understood in connection with the fact that Kissinger, as a diplomatic advisor and representative of the “leader of the free world”, stood on the side of a might that could claim an absolute right to reason of state. Because might is right.

DichterDenker still vaguely but embarrassingly remembers the occasion when former German Chancellor Dr Angela Merkel was presumably confronted with this insight herself. At that time, it became known that the “leader of the free world” had tapped her cell phone. As far as DichterDenker remembers, she objected to the then leader of the “leader of the free world”, President Obama, in the sense: That’s not nice – might shouldn’t be right.

Machiavelli was a clever reasoner. DichterDenker, as a scientist and pragmatist, suspects, however, that he, Machiavelli, and Kissinger had come to the same statement of principle: “Might is right; this is the law of nature.” After this point, however, ‘opinions are divided’. Subsequently, DichterDenker comes to further conclusions:

• “Rights oblige the fulfilment of duties”. A similar conclusion was already made in the times of the monarchies: “noblesse oblige”; in today’s zeitgeist of democracy, best interpreted as “privilege obliges”, with privilege conferred on politicians by the might of the people. This is not a law of nature – this is ethics. Something that is lacking in the reason of state of the “leader of the free world”.
• “Fulfilment of duties is only possible through socially conscious reciprocity.” This is both natural law and human dignity. While ignoring this rule can give opportunists short-term benefits, it is not sustainable. Neglect in the long run has been proven to lead to hatred, strife, war and ruin.
• “Reciprocity is based on the recognition of human dignity, otherwise it would be based either on oppression or even slavery.”
• “Democracy is ultimately an expression of socially conscious reciprocity, while recognizing human dignity.”
• And finally: Social consciousness is what has made us humans the only truly social (compared to eusocial insects, for example), and thus dominant, species [8].

An alternative definition of reason of state states:

“In this sense, the reason of state is a rational calculation of the interests of a government, regardless of the form of government, and is committed solely to the maintenance of the functioning state structure.”

Mr. Chancellor, in the event that you and your Federal Government have the latter definition in mind, DichterDenker takes the liberty of subjecting “reason” to the test in the following. But first, some history; especially since we humans, despite all lip service to the contrary, appear selectively (or “state reasoning”?) forgetful when learning from history.

Historical background on Israel

Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman or Turkish Empire controlled much of southeastern Europe, western Asia, and North Africa between the 14th and early 20th centuries. (Figure 2.1). Its history is marked by wars, conquests and losses. The second constitutional era of the Young Turk Revolution of 1908 transformed the empire into a constitutional monarchy. A radicalized Committee for Unity and Progress created a one-party regime in a coup d’état in 1913. This regime allied the Ottoman Empire with Germany on the side of the Central Powers during World War I. After World War I, part of the territory of the Ottoman Empire was occupied by the Allies, with the southern territories divided between the United Kingdom and France. The Turkish War of Independence against the Allied occupying forces, which ended in 1923 with the Treaty of Lausanne, led to the emergence of the Republic of Turkey in the Anatolian heartland and the abolition of the Ottoman monarchy. [9], [10].

Mandatory Palestine

The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after the end of the First World War gave rise to Mandatory Palestine (Figure 2.2). In 1920, Britain received a mandate from the League of Nations to administer Palestine until the territory was able to stand on its own. The MacDonald White Paper of 1939 called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within 10 years. As Malcolm MacDonald (a diplomat in the British colonial office) explained at the 1939 meeting of the Permanent Mandate Commission, it was not clear at the time what form such a state would take. He is cited as having stated:

‘As I say, it would be premature now to attempt even to sketch the constitutional provisions which would be most appropriate to secure “the essential interests” of the Arabs and the Jews. It may be that the State should be formed on a unitary basis; it may be that it should be a federal state. It may be that the best arrangement would be to establish a predominantly Arab province or provinces, and a predominantly Jewish province or provinces, and to give to each of these political units a large measure of local autonomy under a central government dealing with matters of common concern between them. What is essential is that each people, both the Arabs and the Jews, should be free to live its own life according to its own traditions and beliefs and genius.’. [11].

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine 1947

On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly, by Resolution 181 (II), adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine, which recommended a partition of the Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate. (Figure 2.3). The partition plan called for the territory to be divided into a Jewish and an Arab sovereign state and an international Jerusalem [12].

1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

Palestine had been under the control of the British government since 1920, and remained the subject of a struggle between Palestinian and Zionist nationalists, both of which groups opposed both the British Mandate and each other. After the adoption of the partition plan for Palestine, outbreaks of violence quickly escalated into a civil war between the two ethnic groups. The beginning of the war is considered to be November 30, 1947, the day after the United Nations vote. British forces failed to prevent the escalating violence, and on May 14, 1948, the British ended the mandate [13], [11].

Establishment of the State of Israel

The Jewish Yishuv formally established the State of Israel through the Israeli Declaration of Independence on May 14, 1948, the last day of the British Mandate. On May 11, 1949, Israel was admitted as a full member of the United Nations (UN).

The borders of the State of Israel were not defined in the Declaration of Independence. Paragraph 14 merely expressed a willingness to cooperate in the implementation of the UN partition plan. Paragraph 13 of the Declaration provides that the State of Israel will be founded on freedom, justice and peace, as envisaged by the prophets of Israel. The State will guarantee full equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants, regardless of religion, race or sex [14].

1948 Arab-Israeli War

After the establishment of the State of Israel, the civil war of 1947-48 escalated into the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 [15]. The beginning is considered to be May 15, 1948, the day after the founding of the State of Israel. The war was fought between Israeli forces and expeditionary forces of Egypt, Transjordan and Syria invading Israel from Iraq. The war lasted until March 1949, ending with Israel’s signing of armistices with Egypt, Lebanon and Transjordan. As a result of the treaties between those States, certain territories within the State of Israel (which essentially included the entire territory of the former Mandatory Palestine, since Israel’s borders had not been otherwise defined in the Declaration of Independence) were referred to as the ‘West Bank’ and the ‘Gaza Strip’. (Figure 2.4). The Arab League set up the All-Palestinian Government for these designated territories, but it proved ineffective.

Opinions differ widely on Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip (before the withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers in 2005) and the West Bank. The international community considers these territories to be occupied territories and considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in these occupied territories to be a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council have confirmed, among other things, that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the territories occupied by Israel. On the other hand, Israel argues that the settlements do not violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. The disputed country could not be regarded as an “occupied territory” because there had previously been no internationally recognised legal sovereign. While Israel does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies de jure, it has stated that it will de facto regulate these areas on humanitarian matters through its provisions, without specifying what these are. [16]

Ongoing Arab-Israeli conflicts

In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel took full control of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem (with a claim to the entire city as its capital), the Sinai Peninsula (Egypt), and most of the Syrian Golan Heights [10]. After the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Israel withdrew all troops and settlers from Sinai. Thus, Israel retained de facto control over the entire territory of the former Mandatory Palestine, as well as the Golan Heights as occupied territory. In 2005, Israel withdrew its troops and settlers from Gaza, creating a de facto border with the Gaza Strip. The UN has always regarded Gaza and the West Bank as a single occupied Palestinian entity.

Palestine Liberation Organization

On the initiative of the Arab League in Cairo, the Palestine Liberation Organization was founded on 2 June 1964 to represent the Palestinian people [17]. The PLO, headquartered in Al-Bireh in the West Bank, has enjoyed observer status at the United Nations since 1974. Initially, the PLO sought the establishment of an Arab state over the entire territory of the former Mandatory Palestine and advocated the elimination of the State of Israel. With the Oslo I Accords of 1993, the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace, and accepted United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (“… Inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory through war and the need to work towards a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, in which every state in the region can live in security…”), while Israel recognized the PLO as the legitimate authority to represent the Palestinian people. While the UN recognizes the PLO as a governmental entity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, its basis is not clear, as none of these territories is recognized as a state under international law. Germany does not recognize Palestine diplomatically.

Historical comparison: Former German-South West Africa to Namibia

German Colonial Period

At the time before the author’s death in 2005, the detailed and factually documented website of the “Namibia Library of Dr.-Ing. Klaus Dierks” was rightly described as “the first complete chronology of Namibian history from the pre-colonial times to the independence date on 21 March 1990 and the first ten years thereafter” [18]. When studying this chronology, it becomes clear how complex and confused the history of the former colonial territory “German-South-West Africa” is. The wide diversity of today’s views on this should not be surprising.

DichterDenker confines himself to an abridged version, based on Wikipedia [19] [20], which is limited to what is essential for this appeal.

Around 1884/85, the German Empire declared a territory (excluding the area of Walvis Bay under British rule) on the southwestern coast of Africa to be the colony of German-South West Africa, with initially undefined borders. The first German officials arrived in 1885. A “Schutztruppe”, beginning under Curt von François, initially defended mainly German commercial interests, and an initially slow influx of German agricultural settlers. Increasing agricultural conflicts of interest between natives and settlers led to increasingly harsh interventions by the colonial power against the natives, primarily Namas and Hereros, under the pretext of protecting German settlers. The conflicts ultimately degenerated into a colonial war against the Hereros and Namas, which was decided in 1904 with the Battle of the Waterberg. Most of the Herero then fled to the almost waterless Omaheke. Von Trotha had them sealed off, and those who had been hunted into the desert were told in the so-called extermination order: “The Herero are no longer German subjects. […] Within the German border, every Herero will be shot with or without a rifle, with or without cattle, and I will no longer take in women or children, drive them back to their people, or have them shot at as well. […] and the shooting of women and children is to be understood as shooting over them in order to force them to run. I suppose with certainty that this decree will lead to the avoidance of capturing male prisoners, but will not degenerate into cruelty against women and children.”

The colonial war and its aftermath are estimated to have cost the lives of 60,000 to 70,000 men, women and children by 1908.

As a result of the First World War, the Union of South Africa took control of the former German colonial territory with an armistice on 9 July 1915.

South African administration until independence

Hereroland, Damaraland and Kaokoveld were established in 1968 as geographically defined Bantustans as part of South Africa’s Odendaal Plan [21]. After the Turnhalle Constitutional Conference, 1975-77, the system of Bantustans was replaced in 1980 by homelands with representative authorities functioning on the basis of ethnicity. The representative authorities had executive and legislative powers, with elected legislative assemblies. As second-level authorities, which formed an intermediate level between the central government and the local government, the representative authorities were responsible for land ownership, agriculture, education up to primary level, teacher training, health services, and social welfare and pensions, and their legislative assemblies had the power to pass legislative decrees. All homelands in South West Africa were abolished in May 1989, at the beginning of the transition to independence.

With independence on 21 March 1990, new regions and municipalities were declared (Article 102, Namibian Constitution), each of which is led by a democratically elected regional council with an executive and administration. Regional councils elect members of the National Council in parliament. The legislative component in parliament is the National Assembly, which is democratically elected by all citizens. In addition, a council of traditional leaders was established to advise the president on the control and use of communal land. As a link between regional councils and the central government, the President of the Republic appoints a governor in each region. Due to the historical ethnic distribution of the Namibian population, the various regions are largely ethnically influenced, which is also reflected in the elected regional councils and administrations.

On 28 May 2021, Germany asked for forgiveness for the genocide of Hereros and Namas during the German colonial period, in the words of Foreign Minister Heiko Maas:

“I am glad and grateful that we have been able to reach an agreement with Namibia on how to deal with the darkest chapter of our common history. After more than five years, Ruprecht Polenz and his Namibian counterpart Zed Ngavirue were able to conclude the negotiations they conducted on behalf of our two governments and at the request of our two parliaments. Representatives of the Herero and Nama communities were closely involved in the negotiations on the Namibian side. Our goal was and is to find a common path to genuine reconciliation in memory of the victims. This includes naming the events of the German colonial era in today’s Namibia and, in particular, the atrocities in the period from 1904 to 1908 without embellishment. We will now officially call these events what they were from today’s perspective: genocide. In light of Germany’s historical and moral responsibility, we will ask Namibia and the descendants of the victims for forgiveness.” [22]

In the following relativization arguments, DichterDenker essentially refers to his personal experience in Namibia, which at that time was still known as South West Africa under the South African administration, or briefly as SWA. From 1983 to 1988 he was employed by the SWA Roads Branch as a regional engineer for the northwestern roads region, based in Otjiwarongo. The roads administration area under DichterDenker comprised the areas of today’s Kunene and Erongo regions, as well as the regions of Otjozondjupa and Omaheke about half each. At that time, the homelands of Kaokoveld (population: Himba, related to the Herero), Damaraland and Hereroland were part of the said roads administration area.

Today’s events and history

Course of events

The events in the Middle East conflict have been and continue to be reported on an ongoing basis. In the following, DichterDenker confines himself to a few key points from the initial events, which are essential for the following relativization arguments from events and history.

• Large-scale attack on Israel by the terrorist organization Hamas from the Gaza Strip, October 7, 2023:

About 1,200 people have been killed in Israel, according to official figures. In addition, Hamas took more than 240 people hostage. [23]

• The events on the terrorist attacks in Israel, from US President Biden’s speech on October 10, 2023:

“You know, there are moments in this life … when the pure, unadulterated evil is unleashed on this world. The people of Israel lived through one such moment this weekend. The bloody hands of the terrorist organization Hamas — a group whose stated purpose for being is to kill Jews. More than 1,000 civilians slaughtered … in Israel… Parents butchered using their bodies to try to protect their children. Entire families slain. Young people massacred while attending a musical festival to celebrate peace — to celebrate peace. Women raped, assaulted, paraded as trophies … You all know these traumas never go away. There are still so many families desperately waiting to hear the fate of their loved ones, not knowing if they’re alive or dead or hostages … It’s abhorrent … This is terrorism.” [24]

• Israel responds with airstrikes, ground troops have also advanced as far as Gaza City. The Hamas authority says more than 13,000 Palestinians have been killed [23].
• Netanyahu – Israel Continues War Against Hamas Until All Goals Are Achieved:

This included the release of all Israeli hostages and the annihilation of Hamas, Netanyahu said. The continuation of the ground offensive in the Gaza Strip is “indispensable” for this. “Our soldiers have been preparing for a total victory against Hamas in the days of the ceasefire,” Netanyahu said in his first press conference since the ceasefire ended. [23]

• Israel Confirms Reports of Planned Gaza Buffer Zone:

“Israel will need a security shell,” said Mark Regev, the Israeli government’s security adviser. “There will no longer be a situation where Hamas people are at the border that they can cross and kill our civilians.” He did not give specific details about the planned safe zone, but said Israel had no interest in reoccupying or permanently dominating the Gaza Strip. At the same time, he said that Israel must maintain control over the security of the coastal strip after the war. The aim is to “create a new reality in Gaza so that Israeli civilians no longer have to live in constant fear of Hamas, in fear that they will cross the border and slaughter their children.” [23]

Criticism

Criticism of the events was and is also reported on an ongoing basis, and thus DichterDenker limits itself in the following to essential points from the criticism.

• Remarks by the UN Secretary-General to the Security Council – on the Middle East, 24 October 2023:

“I have condemned unequivocally the horrifying and unprecedented 7 October acts of terror by Hamas in Israel. Nothing can justify the deliberate killing, injuring and kidnapping of civilians – or the launching of rockets against civilian targets. All hostages must be treated humanely and released immediately and without conditions.

It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum. The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation. They have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished. Their hopes for a political solution to their plight have been vanishing. But the grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify the appalling attacks by Hamas. And those appalling attacks cannot justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people. Even war has rules.

The relentless bombardment of Gaza by Israeli forces, the level of civilian casualties, and the wholesale destruction of neighbourhoods continue to mount and are deeply alarming.

The protection of civilians is paramount in any armed conflict.

Protecting civilians does not mean ordering more than one million people to evacuate to the south, where there is no shelter, no food, no water, no medicine and no fuel, and then continuing to bomb the south itself.

I am deeply concerned about the clear violations of international humanitarian law that we are witnessing in Gaza.

Even in this moment of grave and immediate danger, we cannot lose sight of the only realistic foundation for a true peace and stability: a two-State solution. Israelis must see their legitimate needs for security materialized, and Palestinians must see their legitimate aspirations for an independent State realized, in line with United Nations resolutions, international law and previous agreements.

Finally, we must be clear on the principle of upholding human dignity.” [25]

• U.S. Will Not Allow Forced Displacement of Palestinians:

According to Vice President Kamala Harris, the US will not allow forced resettlements of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. She said this to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on the sidelines of the world climate summit, according to the US president’s office. She also spoke to Sisi about ways to rebuild, secure and govern the Gaza Strip. This requires clear political prospects for the Palestinians and a state of their own. [23]

• US urges Israel to rethink its war strategy:

US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin calls on Israel to ensure the protection of the civilian population in Gaza. He had “learned a thing or two about warfare in urban areas” during his time in the military, Austin said at a defence forum in California. “Like Hamas, ISIS was deeply embedded in urban areas. […] The lesson is that you can only win a war in urban areas by protecting civilians.” When armed forces “drive civilians into the arms of the enemy,” they “turn a tactical victory into a strategic defeat,” the US Secretary of Defence warns. [23]

• France questions Israel’s war aims:

French President Emmanuel Macron is questioning Israel’s war aims. The war against Hamas has “reached a point where the Israeli authorities need to define more precisely their goal and desired end state,” Macron said, adding: “What is the complete destruction of Hamas and does anyone believe that this is possible? If so, the war will last for ten years.” Macron also criticized the continuation of the bombardment in the Gaza Strip: “The real fight against terrorism is not systematic and permanent bombing.” He again called for an immediate ceasefire. [23]

• How Will the Gaza War Continue?: Israel Wants ‘Deterrence and Retribution’

Middle East expert Daniel Gerlach warns: In addition to the fight against Hamas and other terrorist groups, Israel was also concerned with deterrence and retaliation; to hit the population hard so that they withdraw their support for these groups. A corresponding Israeli military doctrine is known as the “Dahieh Doctrine”. Israel can only achieve its goals by accepting thousands more civilian casualties. The priority of the Israeli leadership seems to be the killing of Hamas troops; But if one takes this rhetorically repeatedly emphasized war goal seriously, one must be clear about the dimensions: According to estimates, Hamas had up to 30,000 men in Gaza before the start of the offensive. The Israeli magazine “+972” [26] reported on the use of artificial intelligence, which produces targets for air strikes at high speed. The requirements on how many civilian casualties may have been inflicted on attacks are said to have been significantly relaxed. If, so to speak, the machine plans the killing, the human being seems to have less of a moral dilemma. [27]

• On a political solution to the Middle East conflict, ZDFheute interviewed Middle East expert Daniel Gerlach [27]:

The Europeans, and to some extent the Americans, have probably tried to get the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA), headed by Mahmoud Abbas, on board. However, the latter appears to be unable to act, and has done little in the eyes of the public. The few Fatah members with broad popular support, such as Marwan Barghouthi, are in Israeli prisons. PA Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh made it clear at the outset that they would not take control of Gaza in the shadow of Israeli tanks. They would be willing to take responsibility, but only if there was a plan for Gaza and the West Bank. Israel will not want that at the moment. Benjamin Netanyahu, in particular, has so far wanted to separate the two areas as much as possible from each other, thus pushing the two-state solution further into the distance. As long as Hamas existed, there was no need to worry about it. Placing both areas under one administration would run counter to this programme. One possibility, which would only exist if the Gaza Strip is not reduced to rubble, would be a multinational Arab force to temporarily take police and military control. To do so, Israel would have to provide far-reaching guarantees, including free access to Gaza. The Arabs will have no interest in taking control of a field of ruins or a large cemetery.

• The Israeli Military Could Go Beyond Self-Defence and will enter a dangerous period in which Israel’s legal authority of self-defence will be undermined by its own actions, and will lose both its legal and moral authority. This warning was issued by Ben Wallace, former UK Defence Secretary and current Conservative UK MP for Wyre and Preston North. He warned that the bombing and destruction of the Gaza Strip was likely to “fuel the conflict for another 50 years” and radicalize new generations. The action may have snuffed out the voice of moderate Palestinians who want a two-state solution, rather than the extremists. [28]

• PLO Secretary General Hussein al-Sheikh: Following a meeting between White House adviser Jake Sullivan and Abbas and Sheikh in Ramallah on December 15, 2023, Sheikh called on all Palestinian factions, including Hamas, to seriously address the failure of their policies to achieve freedom for their people. The political path under the Oslo Peace Accords would not achieve the aspirations of the Palestinian people for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders. Although Washington had verbally offered support for a Palestinian state, it had not proposed any concrete mechanisms or policy initiatives. Sheikh reiterated Abbas’ call for an international peace conference to forge a new route. He claimed that the Palestinian Authority was the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and was ready to take control of Gaza after the war. With regard to Hamas, Sheikh considered it unacceptable to believe that its method and approach to dealing with the conflict with Israel was the best. He said that 60% of the Gaza Strip had been destroyed and that it would cost $40 billion to rebuild over decades. [29]

• Israel’s previously ambiguous relationship with Hamas and Palestine:

Berliner Zeitung, 06.09.2022. Israel’s ex-ambassador: “What is happening in Palestine is apartheid”. Two former Israeli ambassadors to South Africa are calling on the World Council of Churches to condemn Israel’s settlement policies as apartheid. [30]

Times of Israel, 8. October 2023. For years, Netanyahu has propped up Hamas. Now it has blown up in our faces. The prime minister’s policy of treating the terror group as a partner at the expense of Abbas and Palestinian statehood has led to wounds that Israel will take years to heal. [31]

The Telegraph, 16. October 2023. How Benjamin Netanyahu empowered Hamas … and broke Israel. Polls show that the majority blames the prime minister not only for military failures, but also for supporting the terrorist group in the first place. [32]

CNN, December 11, 2023. Qatar sent millions to Gaza for years – with Israel’s backing. Qatar has come under fire from Israeli officials, American politicians and media for sending hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Gaza Strip, which is ruled by the Palestinian militant group. All of this was done with the blessing of Israel. [33]

Jerusalem Post, December 17, 2023. Netanyahu lied about supporting a two-state solution, says former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk. He was speaking a day after Netanyahu boasted that he had thwarted the creation of a Palestinian state during his more than 16 years in office. [34]

Protests

Here is only a brief overview of protests that are most important against a colonialist background to the following relativization arguments from events and history.

• Rally in Cape Town calls for an end to the genocide of the Palestinians [35]:

End the genocide was the call of thousands of people who took to the streets in Cape Town to support the Palestinian people. The protest against Israel united Christians, Jews and Muslims in condemning Israel for its war against Palestine. Among the demands were the immediate cessation of hostilities and the pursuit of a two-state solution.

• South Africans call for permanent ceasefire in Gaza during pro-Palestine march [36]:

Members of South African political parties and civil society organizations marched through the streets of Johannesburg calling for a permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip as they marked the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. Further protests were planned in South Africa, where many, including President Cyril Ramaphosa, have compared Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank to South Africa’s previous apartheid regime of racial segregation.

• Israel’s war in Gaza also has an impact on African geopolitics [37]:

Africa has always been of strategic importance to Israel and Palestine. The 55 member states of the AU represent an important voting bloc in the United Nations and other international bodies. Both Israel and Palestine prioritized their foreign policy with African states. Now, however, the escalation in Gaza threatens to undo Israel’s diplomatic successes in Africa. In a statement released on the day of the Hamas attack, the AU blamed Israel for the conflict, stating that the denial of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, especially those of an independent and sovereign state, was the main cause of the permanent Israeli-Palestinian tensions. At the end of October 2023, around 35 African states voted in the UN General Assembly in favour of a resolution calling for the “protection of civilians and compliance with legal and humanitarian obligations” in Gaza. Even countries that had normalized their relations with Israel voted in favour of the resolution. Kenya, Israel’s largest ally in the Horn of Africa, has withdrawn from its original statement of solidarity with Israel. The AU bloc is now divided into three major camps, characterized by opposing positions on the Gaza war:

1. Those who expressed their support for Palestine; in particular, Zimbabwe and South Africa, as well as Arab League states: Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan and Chad. Zimbabwe, South Africa and Algeria in particular share a common history of colonialism.
2. Those who openly support Israel; such as Ghana, Zambia, Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
3. Those in the middle, whose neutrality is not to support either side and call for de-escalation; such as Nigeria and Uganda.

• “Stop the occupation”: Another major pro-Palestine rally takes place in London [38]:

The demonstration, which was attended by tens of thousands, followed Britain’s decision to abstain from the UN Security Council resolution on an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. Activists criticized British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak for failing to push for a ceasefire despite the rising death toll. Lindsey German, president of the Stop the War Coalition, pointed out that all the resolutions submitted to the UN Security Council to end the apartheid regime in South Africa were rejected by Britain with the support of the US, and that the same injustice is now being repeated against the Palestinians. Jeremy Corbyn, former leader of the Labour Party, described the failure of the UN Security Council to pass a ceasefire resolution as shameful. He stressed that life in Gaza had become untenable. The inhabitants of the Gaza Strip have been displaced since the founding of Israel and are now being pushed into the Sinai desert. One protester criticized the fact that the Israelis have been talking about the two-state solution for decades but continue to steal Palestinian land, rapidly reducing the feasibility of a two-state solution.

• Pro-Palestinian protests on the rise in the US [39]:

After the October 7 attack, most demonstrations in the U.S. were organized in solidarity with Israel. Data suggests that within a week of the start of Israeli military action, pro-Palestinian protests began to outpace pro-Israel protests. As Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip and the death toll increased, the share of pro-Palestinian demonstrations grew. According to opinion polls, younger Americans in particular have developed more sympathy for the Palestinians since the beginning of the conflict.

Relativization of events and history

Colonialism?

As a rule, colonialism is the action of a power that, for mainly mercantile interests, subjugates, exploits and sometimes even robs a population that is completely alien to it culturally and geographically, as well as also causes external control of the development of the subjects. DichterDenker would have expected to find something to that effect in the German Duden dictionary, but in vain. The Israeli state is widely accused of colonialism, which was also clearly expressed in the protests, especially in South Africa. According to DichterDenker’s quest, however, it seems that everyone should be free to construct their own definition of colonialism. Looking at the history leading up to the creation of the State of Israel, the term ‘colonialism’ seems completely inappropriate. While DichterDenker began his reflections on history with the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, it is obvious to draw on the ‘biblical history’ of the ‘Holy Land’ as well. Although sacred to Christians, Jews and Muslims, the country has had a brutal history since time immemorial, which continued until the end of the Ottoman Empire. It is evident that Jews were expelled from this land throughout this history. The right of Jews to return to this country, as soon as the course of history made it possible, should be taken for granted. However, it should also be self-evident that a peaceful settlement could have taken place between the returnees and the already resident population (before the outbreak of the Gaza war, DichterDenker would have used the word “should” instead of “could” – a pity that the prospects for a peaceful settlement seem remote today!). It is history that the British, as the colonial power in Mandatory Palestine at the time, tried to do this, but in vain. In any case, the words of the British diplomat Malcolm MacDonald at the 1939 meeting of the Permanent Mandate Commission had offered a reasonable approach.

„Apartheid“?

Calling Israel an “apartheid” state also has a long history, which is also reflected in the protests; especially in South Africa. Israel – rightly so – considers this term to be inappropriate. However, it seems that it is mainly a dispute about semantics. “Apartheid” was a specifically South African policy of racial segregation between “black” and “white”, with DichterDenker deliberately using these words despite possible ethical concerns, as they were also used in “apartheid” politics.

It may be debatable to what extent the “apartheid” policy was “racist”. The stated goal of the policy was a separate development of blacks and whites, which was partly implemented through pseudo-autonomous homelands for the “non-white” population (another term used instead of “blacks”). To critics who consider this policy to be “undeniably racist”, DichterDenker presents the following words for consideration, expressed by the already introduced diplomat MacDonald at the meeting of the Permanent Mandate Commission of 1939:

“It may be that the best arrangement would be to establish a predominantly Arab province or provinces, and a predominantly Jewish province or provinces, and to give to each of these political units a large measure of local autonomy under a central government…’; and

“What is essential is that each people, both the Arabs and the Jews, should be free to live its own life according to its own traditions and beliefs and genius.”

Such critics may also consider the fact that the UN General Assembly finally decided on 29 November 1947 to divide Mandatory Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, and that the United Nations – DichterDenker hereafter deliberately uses this full term, referring to the multitude of nations, instead of the common abbreviation “UN” for the monolithic organization – have continued to insist on partition (“two-state solution”) ever since. DichterDenker will come back to this below.

Under South African administration, a corresponding policy was pursued in SWA. As already described, the roads administration in the homelands of Kaokoveld, Damaraland, and Hereroland, among others, fell under DichterDenker’s administrative area. Of relevance here is that the planning and execution of road works in the homelands, the same as in the rest of the area, were carried equitably out in relation to road conditions and traffic, and that no “settler” allowed himself to “occupy” land in these homelands.

It is indisputable, however, that the “apartheid” policy also served land grabbing from the native population of South Africa. Something similar is expressed in the relationship between the ruling Jews and the de jure stateless Palestinians in the State of Israel. DichterDenker deliberately uses the term “State of Israel” for the entire former Mandatory Palestine because:

• The borders of the State of Israel were not declared otherwise in the 1948 Declaration of Independence.
• The State of Israel was admitted to the United Nations as a full member in 1949; however, the admission of a state with indeterminate borders is inconceivable under international law, so it must be assumed that the United Nations had accepted the borders of the State of Israel as equal to the borders of the former Mandatory Palestine.
• The armistice treaties between Israel, in 1949, and its adversaries Egypt, Lebanon and Transjordan, could not have created borders recognized under international law for areas such as “Gaza” and “West Bank”, since the adversaries had also occupied the respective territories in violation of international law.
• In the 1967 Six-Day War, the Israeli government took full control of the entire area, has since retained much of that control, and has always indicated that it has no intention of relinquishing that control. The withdrawal of troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005 does not significantly change this under international law. In the aftermath of the withdrawal, the State of Israel supported a pseudo-government run by Hamas, and lost, or rather relinquished, control over the formation of terrorists under the increasingly radicalized Hamas in Gaza.

Although the term “apartheid” does not apply to Israel, what about the United Nations’ insistence on “separation” and “two-state solution”? Israel certainly rejects a “two-state solution.” Are the Palestinians calling for a “two-state solution”? With humanitarian exceptions, demands of the Palestinians have so far gone unheeded by the German government. DichterDenker’s concern expressed at the outset seems to be most accurate: extremists on both sides constantly receiving the support of foreign powers, which in turn only pursue their own political goals. One of them is your government, Mr. Chancellor, which considers a “two-state solution” to be the “only solution” [40].

Looking back at history, it is striking that the decision to adopt a “two-state solution” was made during the period of the colonial spirit that still prevailed at the time. In this spirit, claims to ethnic, and also religious, exclusivity were still a matter of course. For example, although slavery was abolished by law in the United States in 1865, it was not until a hundred years later, in 1965, that people of colour were granted full voting rights. However, this attitude has changed dramatically since then. Under pressure from the United Nations, SWA became the “independent” state of Namibia in 1991, and South Africa became an inclusive “democratized” state in 1994. The reason why the founding of the state of Namibia was called “independence” lies in its separation from South Africa before the latter’s “democratization”.

The seemingly narrow-minded, persistent insistence of the United Nations on a “two-state solution” for Israel/Palestine, thirty years after the last true colonial state was peacefully transformed into a comprehensive democracy at the insistence of the United Nations, is incomprehensible to DichterDenker. A commitment to democracy in today’s zeitgeist is insincere when coupled with an insistence on ethnic and religious exclusivity. Subject to such exclusivity, a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict is hardly conceivable. On the other hand, in the case of Namibia and South Africa, the renunciation of such exclusivity led to a peaceful solution between peoples with significant cultural differences.

DichterDenker cannot help but condemn the contrary stance of the United Nations in the case of Israel/Palestine as a divided ethics. As a pragmatist, DichterDenker puts conflict resolution above all else, and considers it counterproductive to seek to allocate guilt under this intent. In conclusion, however, he cannot escape the impression that the United Nations, with their narrow-minded clinging to a “two-state solution” – contradictory to a truly democratic spirit – are a major contributor to the current Gaza catastrophe.

Critics may argue that South Africa, as well as other African states, were rocked by increasing corruption and power struggles between native leaders after their decolonization, and the initial peace eventually led to enmities between indigenous peoples. However, it is an inevitable risk of democracy that extremists will continue to try to gain might (and rights) – in Africa as well as elsewhere. DichterDenker still remembers the occasion when, as president of the Engineering Professions Association of Namibia, he attended a meeting of regional engineering associations in Harare, Zimbabwe. When asking a colleague how the people of Zimbabwe feel about President Robert Mugabe, the colleague replied diplomatically and sagely: “Mugabe is our experiment”. Democracy remains an experiment, but if we may believe Sir Winston Churchill, it is still the least bad of all previous experiments.

Churchill's words are likely to resonate with the CDU/CSU and the SPD parties of Germany. At the time of writing, both parties were engaged in an election campaign with the same, though not united, slogan: "Vote for us! We are the least bad of all parties!" Only the CDU/CSU seemed to have benefited from this.

Right to defend against terrorists, or genocide?

As an introduction to the following arguments to the above question: DichterDenker is not a militarist, but he experienced a “terrorist war” first-hand during his work in SWA, and completed a short defence-oriented training in the weapons and methods used. One side called it a “terrorist war”, the other called it a “freedom struggle”. Anyone who thinks that the difference was like between “white” and “black” is mistaken. DichterDenker will call it guerrilla warfare. This term takes into account a certain public ambiguity as to whether a fight by or against guerrillas is a war. From a legal point of view, the assumption of war in this case is doubtful. A fundamental, general view, as evident from martial law, is that war is a violent confrontation between sovereign states, usually conducted with military personnel and heavy military weapons under the control of the state. In SWA, guerrilla warfare was practically “gun in hand”. On the side of the territorial power supported by armoured cars with machine guns, and on the side of the guerrillas by mines and bazookas. On the side of the territorial power, there was an effort to maintain the administration, public services, and the provision of the entire population, and to remain as far as possible in favour of the population. DichterDenker and his road construction teams had to continue their work without military protection and with “homemade” mine-protected vehicles and road construction machines, and had to stoically bury their dead.

After the first horrific news about the Hamas terrorist attack on October 7 – and that it was terrorism should be taken as indisputable – DichterDenker had some naïve thoughts, based on his own experience in SWA. Out of two million people in Gaza, there could be about twenty thousand terrorists. Other sources put the figure at up to thirty thousand. According to news reports, Israel should have a force of about three hundred thousand. The “leader of the free world,” as Israel’s strategic ally, should also be able to contribute about the same number of troops. A force of about half a million should be able to take control of a civilian population of two million in a small area like Gaza with a lightning attack as quickly as in a military coup, and then focus on “extinguishing” of the terrorists, who in such a case would have been forced to hastily hide in their “tunnels”. There is no doubt that this would have cost casualties in terms of military personnel, but a large and organized invasion force would in itself have been the best precaution to keep casualties on one’s own side as low as possible. Such an approach would truly have been consistent with defending against terrorists. After all, the terrorists had no artillery, no bombs, no planes, no tanks. Their missiles were capable of inciting terror among a civilian population, but were proven to be ineffective as military weapons. Like a Palestinian woman said in a press interview on site: “If the Israelis really had strength, they would not attack defenceless civilians. Instead, they should confront the fighters, not kill people who seek refuge in their homes.” (ZDFheute Broadcast, 19h00, 2023-12-26)

The number of half a million of troops may sound unrealistically high, but it should not be seen as a response force like in a regular war (comparison: the build-up of Russian troops before the attack on the Ukraine). A defence against terrorists (as opposed to a foreign military power) would have required the entire civilian administration hitherto led by the terrorists to be placed under military administration in the shortest possible time. Among others, this would have required the stationing of a sufficient number of security forces at all relevant facilities to protect the administration against armed terrorists, to manage civil order, and to secure supply logistics for security troops and civilians.

Naively thought. Cunning rationalizers decided to declare war, invoking the right to self-defence enshrined in martial law, which also allows for unavoidable civilian casualties. Thus, the way was clear for “revenge” and “extermination” [41], “deterrence and retaliation” (see Criticism for references), and “smashing”. As the son of a farm manager, DichterDenker also had his own experiences with the latter in SWA. Pretty much the biggest terror for farmers is bush fires, and attempts to “smash” a bush fire can quickly become dangerous. So he learned it to be far more effective to “extinguish” a bush fire by creating several small, controlled, counter-fires.

Instead of supplementing his strategic partner’s troops, which would have been insufficient for a rapid seizure, with his own troops in order to be able to effectively engage the terrorists equipped with small arms directly, the “leader of the free world” offered his partner support mainly through propaganda and the admonition to abide by martial law. Ergo, instead of fighting the terrorists, the civilian population was mostly attacked with bombs and “artificial intelligence” [26]. Foreign Minister Baerbock aptly described what this approach has achieved in addition to revenge, deterrence and retribution: “We see in a dramatic way not only the suffering, but hunger also feeds further terrorism.” [42].

By the way: For those who want to broaden their perspective on terrorism, DichterDenker can warmly recommend the autobiography of Nelson Mandela, South Africa's first inclusively democratically elected president: "The Long Walk To Freedom". For those who want to gain an impression of how to raise terrorists according to the principle of "might is right", without the addition "rights oblige the fulfilment of duties", DichterDenker can recommend the Booker Prize 2023 winning novel "Prophet Song" by Paul Lynch. However, only with a queasy feeling, because the impression gained is deeply unsettling. The Irish author moved the plot of his novel to his homeland, but a corresponding plot could just as easily be moved elsewhere.

Thoughts on a peaceful solution

The prerequisite for the following ideas is a drastic rethinking by the United Nations: to reject the call for a “two-state solution” and to resolutely demand a democratic “one-state solution” that includes Jews and Palestinians. This also requires resolutely rejecting terms such as “Gaza Strip” or “West Bank”. A “one-state solution” must be just that. The thoughts expressed by Malcolm MacDonald before the Permanent Mandate Commission of 1939 still apply to a “one-state solution”:

• What is essential is that every people, both Palestinians and Jews, should be free to live their own lives according to their own traditions, beliefs and geniuses.
• One way to do this would be to create traditional-cultural units of government, and to give them a high degree of local autonomy under a central government.

On the latter, it is worth mentioning that the model of government introduced in Namibia with independence has largely met the needs of at least eleven indigenous ethnic groups.

Another prerequisite is the effective extinguishing (not “smashing” – that would be a completely futile endeavour) of Hamas as a terrorist organization, and a continuous prosecution of any burgeoning terrorist activity. This must be a matter of might, right, and duty. Only the Israeli Government can exercise might and right in the State of Israel, and must therefore be held accountable for performing this duty in a humane manner that complies with international law. The aim of this duty must be to imbue in both peoples the hope of a common and better future.

That the United Nations should “grant” such power to the State of Israel may offend some critics. Realistically, however, they should bear in mind that the Palestinian people, who after all are not terrorists, would in no way be helped by exposing them to the arbitrariness of a government clique that would ultimately seek to regain power through terrorism.

Finally, it will be necessary to create a peaceful and equal future for all peoples in an inclusive State of Israel. This means granting equal rights to all residents of that state, including civil rights, voting rights, and the right to freely acquire land under commercial law. Here are just two key points, in addition to the self-evident necessity of rebuilding devastated areas:

• Although terms such as “Gaza Strip”, “West Bank”, or “West Bank” should no longer have a place in an inclusively democratized state of Israel, it will be necessary to protect current and traditionally designated residential areas of the Palestinians for a prolonged transitional period so that they actually “have a place” in the State of Israel. For example, in Namibia there are still such protected, traditional areas. This prevents residents from being evicted from their land by commercialism.
• In particular, with regard to the need to eradicate and suppress any spark of terrorism, a solution for a transitional period would be to issue a “green card” to all (still stateless) Palestinians. Hereby, DichterDenker is not merely thinking of a peaceful colour, but also of the example of the “green card” that is issued to holders of permanent residence in the USA. In addition to the right to vote, the US “green card” grants its holders largely the same rights as American citizens. In addition, it opens a way to acquire U.S. citizenship according to a prescribed time and procedure. Such regulations should be linked to an Israeli “green card” for Palestinians with regard to the inclusive democratized state of Israel.

Otherwise, in a continued insistence on a “two-state solution,” DichterDenker sees – ironically – only one advantage: endless opportunities to win more Nobel Peace Prizes for Middle East peace-making in the future. The likely next leader of the “leader of the free world”, Donald Trump, might take hope.

Conclusion

At the time of writing, Israel stands accused of genocide before the International Court of Justice in The Hague [43]. The Court might not pass its verdict for a few years. History will pass its own judgment later. DichterDenker does not intend to pre-empt such judgments, but voices a fair misgiving.

The Gaza Strip is not a sovereign territory recognized under international law, and its borders are a politically opportunistic fiction, tolerated at best by the United Nations. Suppose it were to be found that the Israeli government had decided to “declare war” on terrorists on its own territory, the State of Israel, in which the Israeli government was, or could reasonably would have been, able to exercise authority to suppress terrorism. In this case, the Israeli government could not have legally invoked martial law to justify bombing the population of the Gaza Strip. A verdict of genocide would then be close to hand.

Germany, and your Federal Government, Mr. Chancellor, may at present consider itself to be on the side of “might and right” with its professed “historic responsibility” towards the Israeli Government. Within somewhat more than a hundred years, Germany has undergone several dramatic changes in power. Power transitions are part of the course of history, and Germany risks one day no longer being on the side of “might”, but on the wrong side of “right”. History may some day judge:

“In the space of a hundred years, the Germans have been guilty of genocide twice, and yet they have now joined in again. It seems like they can’t resist…”

Mr. Chancellor, do you think you have a mandate to lead the German people into such a risk?

The vernacular already knows how history operates:

“A lot of people can be fooled for a long time;

A few people can be fooled always;

But you can’t fool all of the people for all of the time.”

Bibliography

[1] O. Scholtz, ‘Government Statement by Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz on the Situation in Israel’. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023. Available: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/service/bulletin/regierungserklaerung-von-bundeskanzler-olaf-scholz-2230150

[2] United Nations, ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, United Nations. Accessed: Dec. 07, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

[3] NobelPrize.org, ‘The Nobel Prize’, NobelPrize.org. Accessed: Dec. 20, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/all-nobel-prizes/

[4] Wikipedia, ‘2023 Israeli judicial reform protests’, Wikipedia. Jan. 18, 2024. Accessed: Jan. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Israeli_judicial_reform_protests&oldid=1196812015

[5] ZDFheute, ‘Did Israel Know Hamas’ Attack Plans a Year in Advance?’, ZDFheute. Accessed: Jan. 14, 2024. Available: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/ausland/israel-terror-plaene-hamas-angriff-voraus-100.html

[6] Middle East Monitor, ‘Netanyahu government faces vote of no confidence over hostage issue’, Middle East Monitor. Accessed: Jan. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240118-netanyahu-government-faces-vote-of-no-confidence-over-hostage-issue/

[7] Wikipedia, ‘Staatsräson’, Wikipedia. Nov. 26, 2023. Accessed: Dec. 21, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Staatsr%C3%A4son&oldid=239480244

[8] E. O. Wilson, The Social Conquest of Earth, 1st ed. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2012.

[9] Wikipedia, ‘Ottoman Empire’, Wikipedia. Jan. 01, 2024. Accessed: Jan. 01, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ottoman_Empire&oldid=1192909780

[10] BBC News, ‘Israel’s borders explained in maps’, BBC News. Accessed: Dec. 16, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54116567

[11] Wikipedia, ‘End of the British Mandate for Palestine’, Wikipedia. Oct. 29, 2023. Accessed: Jan. 01, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=End_of_the_British_Mandate_for_Palestine&oldid=1182395919

[12] Wikipedia, ‘United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine’, Wikipedia. Jan. 01, 2024. Accessed: Jan. 01, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine&oldid=1192915500

[13] Wikipedia, ‘1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine’, Wikipedia. Dec. 21, 2023. Accessed: Dec. 31, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1947%E2%80%931948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine&oldid=1190994527

[14] Wikipedia, ‘Israeli Declaration of Independence’, Wikipedia. Dec. 30, 2023. Accessed: Jan. 01, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence&oldid=1192624946

[15] Wikipedia, ‘1948 Palestine war’, Wikipedia. Dec. 30, 2023. Accessed: Dec. 31, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Palestine_war&oldid=1192585609

[16] Wikipedia, ‘International law and Israeli settlements – Wikipedia’. Accessed: Dec. 18, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements

[17] Wikipedia, ‘Palestine Liberation Organization’, Wikipedia. Dec. 13, 2023. Accessed: Dec. 31, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine_Liberation_Organization&oldid=1189688124

[18] K. Dierks, ‘Namibia Library of Dr. Klaus Dierks’. Accessed: Jan. 07, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.klausdierks.com/

[19] Wikipedia, ‘Namibia’, Wikipedia. Dec. 24, 2023. Accessed: Jan. 07, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Namibia&oldid=240493726

[20] Wikipedia, ‘History of Namibia’, Wikipedia. Dec. 23, 2023. Accessed: Jan. 07, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Namibia&oldid=1191466146

[21] Wikipedia, ‘Hereroland’, Wikipedia. Nov. 26, 2023. Accessed: Jan. 11, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hereroland&oldid=1186870314

[22] Federal Foreign Office, ‘Foreign Minister Maas on the conclusion of the negotiations with Namibia’, Federal Foreign Office. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2024. Available: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/newsroom/-/2463396

[23] ZDFheute, ‘Israel: Current news on the escalation with Hamas and Gaza – ZDFheute’. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023. Available: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/ausland/israel-palaestinenser-hamas-gewalt-eskalation-liveticker-100.html

[24] The White House, ‘Remarks by President Biden on the Terrorist Attacks in Israel’, The White House. Accessed: Jan. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/10/10/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-terrorist-attacks-in-israel-2/

[25] A. Guterres, ‘Secretary-General’s remarks to the Security Council – on the Middle East’. Accessed: Jan. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2023-10-24/secretary-generals-remarks-the-security-council-the-middle-east-delivered?

[26] B. Reiff, ‘“A mass assassination factory”: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza’, +972 Magazine. Accessed: Jan. 18, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/

[27] ZDFheute, ‘Gaza War: Israel Wants ‘Deterrence and Retribution’, ZDFheute. Accessed: Jan. 13, 2024. Available: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/ausland/gaza-krieg-hamas-loesung-verhandlungen-israel-100.html

[28] C. Panella, ‘Israel’s destruction of Gaza will fuel Hamas and conflict for another 50 years, former UK defense chief warns’, Business Insider. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.businessinsider.com/israels-destruction-of-gaza-will-fuel-hamas-conflict-uk-politician-2023-12

[29] Reuters, ‘Palestinians must find new path from Israeli rule after war, top official says’, Reuters. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinians-must-find-new-path-israeli-rule-after-war-top-official-says-2023-12-17/

[30] I. Baruch and A. Liel, ‘Israels Ex-Botschafter: „Was in Palästina geschieht, ist Apartheid“’, Berliner Zeitung. Accessed: Jan. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/kultur-vergnuegen/kommentar-siedlungspolitik-israels-ex-botschafter-in-suedafrika-ilan-baruch-dr-alon-liel-was-in-palaestina-geschieht-ist-apartheid-li.263951

[31] T. Schneider, ‘For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces’. Accessed: Jan. 18, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

[32] N. Nuki, ‘How Benjamin Netanyahu empowered Hamas … and broke Israel’, The Telegraph. Accessed: Jan. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/16/how-benjamin-netanyahu-empowered-hamas/

[33] N. E. Ebrahim Barbara Arvanitidis, Alex Platt, Nadeen, ‘Qatar sent millions to Gaza for years – with Israel’s backing. Here’s what we know about the controversial deal’, CNN. Accessed: Jan. 18, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/middleeast/qatar-hamas-funds-israel-backing-intl/index.html

[34] Jerusalem Post, ‘Netanyahu lied about backing two-state solution, former US envoy says’, The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-778417

[35] E. Mashaba, ‘Cape Town rally calls for end to Palestinian genocide – SABC News – Breaking news, special reports, world, business, sport coverage of all South African current events. Africa’s news leader.’ Accessed: Dec. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/893050-2/

[36] Al Jazeera, ‘South Africans demand permanent Gaza ceasefire during pro-Palestine march’, Al Jazeera. Accessed: Dec. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/29/south-africans-demand-permanent-gaza-ceasefire-during-pro-palestine-march

[37] A. Gaestel, ‘Israel’s War in Gaza Also Impacts African Geopolitics’, Inkstick. Accessed: Dec. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://inkstickmedia.com/israels-war-in-gaza-also-impacts-african-geopolitics/

[38] A. Bicer, ‘“Occupation no more”: Another huge pro-Palestine rally takes place in London’, AA. Accessed: Dec. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/occupation-no-more-another-huge-pro-palestine-rally-takes-place-in-london/3078304

[39] R. Mukherjee and S. Gordon, ‘Pro-Palestinian protests on the rise across the U.S.’, Axios. Accessed: Dec. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.axios.com/2023/12/09/palestinian-protests-us-israel-gaza-war

[40] Z. der J. in D. K.d.ö.R, ‘Baerbock: Two-state solution is the ‘only solution’, Jüdische Allgemeine. Accessed: Feb. 17, 2024. Available: https://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/politik/baerbock-zwei-staaten-loesung-ist-einzige-loesung/

[41] ZDFheute, ‘Israel: Netanyahu announces revenge for Hamas attacks – ZDFheute’. Accessed: Nov. 23, 2023. Available: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/ausland/israel-netanjahu-rache-hamas-100.html#xtor=CS5-281

[42] ZDFheute, ‘Baerbock warnt: “Hunger in Gaza nährt Terrorismus”’, ZDFheute. Accessed: Dec. 12, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/ausland/hunger-gazastreifen-terrorismus-baerbock-israel-102.html

[43] ZDFheute, ‘UN Court: Israel must face accusations of genocide’, ZDFheute. Accessed: Jan. 05, 2024. Available: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/ausland/un-gericht-israel-voelkermord-vorwurf-israel-100.html

© The Cranky Philosopher 2025