Risk and Extortion XXIX: Lies, Staatsräson and Genocidal Intent

On November 2, 1917, the Balfour Declaration was published. With it, the goal of the European Zionist movement—“A land without a people for a people without a land”—was implicitly adopted into British foreign policy. But this phrase is a double lie.

The first lie should already be widely known: what was then called Palestine was not a land without a people. Of course, the word people (Volk) already poses significant problems, as it projects identity-based thinking onto collectives, allowing ruling elites to co-opt them in the service of a nation-state. The identity thinking invested in the term “people” is always bound up with the violence of arbitrariness. When one is addressed as a member of a people, it implicitly demands the readiness to die for the land of that people—for the territory, so to speak. I have already explained that in terms of the relationship between Nation and State, there is a simple rule: Those most often called upon to die for “their” land usually own far less of it than those making such demands. The more land you own, the less likely it is that you’ll have to die for it.

The first lie—that Palestine was a land without a people—is exactly the denial that Palestinians are human beings. (Israel has the right to defend itself—Palestinians, apparently, do not.) The rejection of the humanity of Palestine’s inhabitants has led to a situation today in which we are not allowed to speak of genocide in Gaza, even though what is happening there precisely fits the definition of genocide—not based on numbers of those killed, but on intentionality. The numbers are supposedly too small, and the people supposedly not human enough—even children are labeled as terrorists—to justify use of that horrific word. But the first step of every genocide is the denial of the target group’s humanity. That is why there is constant talk of Hamas and terrorism. It makes human rights violations and war crimes easier to justify.

Perhaps it is less obvious, that the second part of the Zionist goal—“a people without a land”—is also a lie. And this lie strikes at the heart of modern antisemitism. The claim that Jews in Europe were a people without a land can only be affirmed if one agrees with the basic premise of antisemitism—namely, that Jews do not belong in Europe. This core idea is the same one that casts Jewish people as “the enemy among us”, which was at the centre of many forms of nationalist propaganda, including that of National Socialism. It is a widely emphasized, that the emergence of Zionism in Europe was deeply connected to the rise of antisemitism. And that rise was itself a consequence of the ethnic-identity-based thinking of nationalism. It is therefore completely logical that the speech I am now giving could be considered dangerous from the perspective of Germany’s reason of state (Staatsräson).
If the legitimation of Zionism is linked to antisemitism as a foundational element of national identity thinking—in this case, German—then one is essentially saying that every form of ethnic nationalism needs antisemitism to justify itself.

Nationalism, as a form of identity thinking, claims that belonging to a people is more important than friendship, health, or even life itself. German Staatsräson demands that we subordinate justice—understood as universal human rights—to the interests of the nation-state. German Staatsräson demands that we accept lies and suppress truths. German Staatsräson demands that we ignore or even obstruct international law. German Staatsräson demands that we diminish our humanity—honesty, truth, courage, loyalty, justice, and care—in order to uphold the inhumanity of Staatsräson. German Staatsräson demands that Palestinians take on the guilt of the Shoah and repay it with interest. Those interests are, of course, cashed in with cynical smiles by shareholders in the arms industry and their investment brokers like BlackRock.

Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem are now not only illegally occupied by the Israeli state but simply being annexed.What happens to the displaced seems to be a side matter, as we have already seen through the total destruction of Gaza. Those who ignore, downplay, or even justify these acts of violent crime have already had to give up much of their humanity. Those who implement these policies financially or militarily have lost even more. That is the price of ethnic nationalism, the ideology we are told we should be willing to die for.

Perhaps it is now time to look at some legal arguments. Legally speaking, the term genocide does not depend on a specific number of civilian deaths—including women and children. Instead, genocide is defined by the intention behind the acts, not the number of victims. According to the United Nations Genocide Convention (1948), genocide refers to acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, such as: Killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life aimed at destroying the group physically, imposing measures to prevent births, and forcibly transferring children to another group. Even a relatively small number of deaths can legally qualify as genocide if intent can be proven. Conversely, even a large number of civilian deaths, tragic as they are, do not fall under the legal definition of genocide if there is no specific intent to destroy the group as such.

Proving genocidal intent in relation to Gaza is remarkable simple. Several statements by Israeli government officials since October 7, 2023, have been interpreted by legal experts, human rights organizations, and international institutions as potential indicators of genocidal intent against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. These are being examined under the Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as actions with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group in whole or in part.

Here are five striking examples:

1. Yoav Gallant (Defense Minister) – On October 9, 2023, Gallant announced a full siege of Gaza and said: “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. We are fighting human animals, and we act accordingly.”This dehumanizing language was condemned worldwide and cited before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a possible call for genocide.
2. Bezalel Smotrich (Finance Minister) – On April 29, 2024, Smotrich declared: “Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat – total annihilation. ‘You shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.’ There is no place for them under the sky.”This biblical reference to the total eradication of Amalek has widely been interpreted as a call for genocide.
3. Avi Dichter (Agriculture Minister) – Dichter referred to the war as “Gaza’s Nakba,” alluding to the mass expulsion of Palestinians in 1948. This was seen as endorsing another mass displacement.
4. Isaac Herzog (President of Israel) – In October 2023, Herzog stated: “This talk that the civilian population knows nothing and is uninvolved is not true. That is absolutely not the case.”This was criticized as assigning collective responsibility to all Gazans.
5. Galit Distal Atbaryan (Minister for Public Diplomacy) – In a Facebook post, she wrote: “Gaza must be wiped out. A vengeful and cruel IDF is required here. Anything else would be immoral.” This direct call for the destruction of Gaza was cited by legal experts as an indication of genocidal intent.

These statements have intensified international concern over Israeli military operations in Gaza. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has already instructed Israel to prevent and punish incitement to genocide and to preserve evidence of possible violations.  By now, Gaza is not just a crime against two million Palestinians—it is a crime against the entire world. We are all Palestinians now, because international law no longer applies.

For Palestinians, it rarely ever truly did, but now, it has been suspended for all of us. Any military power can now impose its will through violence and arbitrariness, without regard to law. We are all subjected to the arbitrariness of Staatsräson. Thus, we are right back where the lessons of the Third Reich should have begun. History always repeats itself twice: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. The time will come when even those who today lack the courage to take a stand against war crimes, human rights violations, racism, and genocide, will say that they were always against it, because they will no longer be able to say: “We didn’t know.”