Genocide: The Domestic Violence Defence.

Marc Lamont Hill recently spoke to Ami Ayalon, the Former Commander in Chief of the Israeli Navy and former Director of Israel’s Secret Service Shin Bet. As always, Hill was taking no prisoners and, at points, had Ayalon literally tripping up over his words. Things got so heated at one point that Ayalon threatens to end the interview. This was, by all accounts, an astonishing exchange and is well worth a watch because it offers an incredible insight into the mind set of some key political and military figures inside Israel.

Ayalon starts by telling us that he wants to see an end to Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories because he believe this is the only way to ensure Israel’s security. Unlike Netanyahu, Ayalon actually believes that there should be a Palestinian state. He points out that practically the entire world wants to see a Palestinian state now, including most of the western world, most Arab nations and even Russia and China. He sees it as “the only realistic view, in order to bring an end to this conflict.” However, when pressed on another growing global consensus that Israel has committed war crimes and contravened international law, Ayalon chooses to simply dismiss the accusations. He believes Israel is engaged in “a just war.” Hill isn’t prepared to accept that answer and presses on, pointing out that whatever someone’s understanding might be about the reasons for this war, there is still clearly a debate to be had about Israel’s conduct “in the practice of war,” especially given that 30,000 people have been killed, 2/3rds of whom happen to be women and children, and because there have been violations of the Geneva Convention (i.e. not to bomb mosques, schools or hospitals etc). Ayalon digs in, arguing that there is no international consensus on any violations, although it may be the view on the streets, and it has no legal consensus. In his view, Israel has the right to hit any target that it deems to be military target and civilian deaths are just an ‘unfortunate’ inevitability of war. Hill isn’t satisfied with this answer, pointing out that international law does not allow indiscriminate killing of civilians and that Israel has a responsibility to evacuate civilians from target sites. Hill also points out that hospitals, schools and mosques are not deemed legitimate military targets unless they lose their status (i.e. as hospitals, schools and mosques) and even with legitimate targets, they would still be required to give civilians time to evacuate. Not only that, he adds, if civilians choose not to leave a target site, Israel is still not allowed to blow it up. Ayalon side steps the argument, choosing instead to argue that Israel had evidence that Hamas were using civilians as human shields. Shockingly, when challenged to provide the evidence, Ayalon directs Hill to a so-called 'Hamas website', telling him the evidence is all there. According to Ayalon, Hamas have admitted that they use civilians as human shields on this website, and that their entire strategy is to draw the Israeli military into populated areas in order to kill as many civilians as possible and make Israel look bad in the eyes of the world. It would appear then, from this, that Israel are pushing the domestic violence ‘she made me do it’ defence, but, unfortunately for Israel, the human shields argument has a fatal flaw. We have to remember that it’s Israel, not Hamas, from day 1 of this genocide, who have been instructing over 2 million Gazan’s to evacuate, location after location after location, and it’s Israel who have been directing civilians to so-called designated ‘safe areas’ (which they then subsequently bombed). Given all the intelligence Israel claim to have about massive underground networks of Hamas tunnels, why is Israel relocating civilians to where they know Hamas is operating? Perhaps this is not a case of Hamas trying to make Israel look bad at all? Perhaps it's more to do with Israel trying to make Hamas look less palatable to Palestinians? Either way, it's the civilian population, and especially the children, who are paying the price.

Incidentally, on that so-called Hamas website... Skwawkbox recently reported a story about a fake Hamas website, set up by Israel, loaded with viruses and hacks designed to compromise the system security of any visitors. It’s primary objective appears to be to entrap and hack Palestine Solidarity Activists. Wouldn't the former Commander in Chief of the Israeli Navy and former Director of Israel’s Secret Service (Shin Bet) be aware of this when he directed Hill to ‘the Hamas website’? - https://skwawkbox.org/2024/03/09/israel-running-fake-hamas-website-to-hack-palestine-solidarity-activists/ . 

Ayalon gets extremely heated under the collar at this point and dives into a monologue about an alleged “huge underground city of Gaza” apparently built by Hamas and “used only by Hamas activists and Hamas commanders.” Hill interjects.. “if it is true, that Hamas’s strategy is to hide in the middle of civil society and surround themselves with civilians… are you suggesting that you then have a right to attack them there and indiscriminately kill civilians?” Ayalon argues that Israel is justified if they believe they have a legitimate military target, to which Hill then responds with more stats – 30,000 killed, 2/3rds of which are women & children, including over 12,500 children, 10 children lose limbs every day (these figures are already out of date) and asks.. “do you still believe the military is doing exactly what they have to be doing?” Ayalon simply side-steps this question and offers an answer to a question he wasn’t asked. He tells Hill that he believes Israel has achieved all the military goals it can achieve and that they must now stop the military action immediately. He explains how, in his view, there’s nothing more to be achieved by military action... if anything, military action has created a humanitarian disaster, which is exactly what Hamas wanted to happen (again suggesting that Hamas wanted Israel to kill civilians because they knew it would make Israel look bad). Hill isn’t having it. He reminds Ayalon that Israeli soldiers recently shot at a crowd of Gazans while they were standing around aid trucks, waiting for flour… “how is that Hamas’s fault” he asks. That question really hit a raw nerve because a very angry Ayalon suddenly threatens to end the interview, but Hill simply doubles down… “what does Hamas have to do with some of these actions?” Again, Ayalon is not happy with the line of questioning and reminds Hill that there are rules to interviewing people, to which Hill responds.. “just as there are rules to war, and we have to abide by the rules, and my question for you is.. 112 people are killed seeking humanitarian aid by Israeli military forces, is that Hamas’s fault or is that purely the fault of the Israeli military?” Ayalon’s response, again, is to deflect blame and just call it a humanitarian disaster but adds that this is exactly what Hamas wanted to happen because they knew how Israel would respond and how it would make Israel look on the world stage… “my view is that we have to agree to a ceasefire immediately because we are losing the war of ideas..” He then goes on to explain that there are a lot countries (including most Arab nations) who are united behind a two state solution and, in his view, only a two state solution will defeat Hamas, because then Hamas would no longer serve a purpose. 

Ayalon also believes that there are too many radical and fundamental “chaos agents” in Israel, referring to politicians like Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who use the same playbook as ISIS and Al-Qaeda and who want to create a humanitarian disaster in Gaza, but he still refuses to accept that Israel is responsible for the humanitarian disaster because, ultimately, he argues that it’s Hamas’s fault - Hamas wanted the disaster to happen because they felt it would reflect badly on Israel and shift sympathy toward the Palestinians. Hill then points out that falling into Hamas’s trap (if that was what happened) doesn’t absolve Israel of its responsibilities under international law and doesn’t absolve it from the crime of genocide. This set’s Ayalon on an angry rant about what defines a genocide, where he offers his own interpretation. To this, Hill offers him the recognised definition, outlined in international law, that clearly describes the killing of a people “in whole or in part” based on racial, ethnical or national identity as genocide. Ayalon still insists that the instructions of Israeli generals has always been not to hit civilians but Hill then presses him to explain who he thinks is responsible for the flour massacre. At this point, Ayalon concedes that the flour massacre was “a huge mistake” but then he attempts to mitigate the IOF’s actions by (once again), blaming the Palestinians – describing them as an "out of control" mob who "attacked" the convoy.

The conversation eventually moves on to how to end the war and move forward. Ayalon advocates for the release of Marwan Barghouti, a key political figure for the Palestinians (seen as their Nelson Mandela) as part of the prisoner exchange / ceasefire deal (something that Hamas are also calling for). Ayalon explains that it’s important to look at what’s on the political horizon and, in his opinion, Barghouti is an acceptable leader (to some Israelis at least) for the Palestinians because he is not a Hamas activist and, unlike Hamas who have traditionally refused to recognise the state of Israel (although they appear to have shifted their position slightly over recent years), Barghouti believes in a 2 state solution. Ayalon explains that although Barghouti is an activist and believes in fighting the State of Israel, he fought only because he believed that this was the only way the Palestinians would ever get their own state. It does seem, with this statement, that Ayalon is recognising what expects will be the imminent recognition of the state of Palestine. Certainly he thinks it's on the horizon and it's close enough to becoming a reality that he’s advocating in favour of a possible leader that Israel might consider acceptable.