History says the genocide in Gaza will be recognised
Over the past 20 months, I have often asked myself: how long does it take to recognise crimes against humanity?
In Gaza, one would think the genocidal intent of the Israeli military campaign and the scale of the tragedy are self-evident. And yet, the genocide continues. Why?
It turns out the world has a dismal record when it comes to recognising – and acting against – crimes against humanity while they are being committed.
Take, for instance, the case of colonial-era genocides.
Between 1904 and 1908, German colonists massacred 65,000 Herero and 10,000 Nama people in Namibia in what is often considered the first genocide of the 20th century. This campaign of extermination was Germany's response to a tribal uprising against the colonial seizure of Indigenous lands.
The atrocities of this period were described as 'one long nightmare of suffering, bloodshed, tears, humiliation and death'. Oral testimonies from survivors were recorded and published in a British government document known as the Blue Book in 1918. At the time, it was 'a rare documentation of African voices describing the encounter of African communities with a colonial power'.
But in 1926, all copies of the Blue Book were destroyed in an effort to ensure that the African perspective on the genocide would 'no longer be found and preserved in a written form'.
Germany formally recognised the massacre as a genocide and issued an apology only in 2021.
A similar pattern unfolded during the Maji Maji uprising in present-day Tanzania in 1905, which was triggered by German attempts to force the Indigenous population to grow cotton. Germany's scorched earth response killed an estimated 300,000 people. Rebels were publicly hanged, and some of their skulls and bones were sent to Germany for use in pseudoscientific experiments intended to 'prove' European racial superiority.
An apology for these atrocities came only in 2023 when German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier spoke at the Maji Maji memorial in Songea, southern Tanzania.
Even in the years leading up to the Holocaust, little was done to protect Jewish people fleeing persecution.
Following the Nazi rise to power in 1933, Jews in Germany were subjected to a growing number of laws stripping them of their rights, along with organised pogroms. Well before the outbreak of the second world war, many German Jews had already begun to flee. Yet while many host countries were well aware of the rise of antisemitism under Adolf Hitler's regime, they maintained highly restrictive immigration policies.
In the United Kingdom, a rising tide of anti-Semitism shaped government policies. Authorities enforced strict immigration controls and declined to dedicate significant resources to provide shelter or humanitarian aid for Jewish refugees. The United States similarly maintained restrictive quotas and systematically denied visa applications from German Jews, citing what contemporaneous officials described as an 'anti-alien climate' in Congress and 'popular opposition to the prospect of a flood of Jewish newcomers'.
Today, apartheid in South Africa evokes near-universal condemnation. But this was not always the case.
The UK's relationship with apartheid South Africa is revealing. Historians have shown that successive Labour and Conservative governments between 1960 and 1994 – prioritising colonial ties in Southern Africa and economic interests – repeatedly refused to impose economic sanctions on the apartheid regime.
History casts an equally harsh light on President Ronald Reagan and Henry Kissinger.
Reagan's policies of 'constructive engagement' and opposition to sanctions were driven by the desire to undermine the African National Congress (ANC), which his administration viewed as aligned with communism. After receiving the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, Archbishop Desmond Tutu described Reagan's approach as 'immoral, evil and totally un-Christian'.
Kissinger, as US secretary of state under President Gerald Ford, gave prestige and legitimacy to the apartheid regime with a visit to South Africa in 1976 – just three months after the Soweto massacre, when security forces gunned down unarmed students protesting against the forced use of Afrikaans as a medium of instruction. Reportedly, neither apartheid nor the massacre were discussed during his visit.
In 1994, more than 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered in Rwanda over 100 days. Sexual violence was systematically used as a weapon of war, with an estimated 250,000 women raped. Hutu militias reportedly released AIDS patients from hospitals to form 'rape squads' to infect Tutsi women.
Despite warnings from human rights groups, United Nations staff, and diplomats that genocide was imminent, the world did nothing. UN peacekeepers withdrew. France and Belgium sent troops – not to protect Rwandans, but to evacuate their own nationals. US officials even avoided using the word 'genocide'.
It was only in 1998 that US President Bill Clinton issued a formal apology during a visit to Kigali: 'We did not act quickly enough after the killing began … We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide.'
Given this history, it is hard to feel hopeful about the situation in Gaza. But as with other crimes against humanity, a day of reckoning may come.
What Israel has carried out in Gaza is a genocide in real time – one that is being livestreamed, documented, and archived in unprecedented detail.
Sniper fire killing Palestinian children. The assassination of poets. The bombing of hospitals and schools. The destruction of universities. The targeted killing of journalists. Each act has been captured and catalogued.
Israeli politicians have made public statements indicating that the campaign's goal is ethnic cleansing. Videos show Israeli soldiers looting Palestinian homes and boasting of the destruction.
Human rights groups have meticulously documented these crimes. And a growing number of governments are taking action, from diplomatic rebukes to the imposition of sanctions.
There is a saying in Hindi and Urdu: Der aaye, durust aaye. It is often translated as, 'Better late than never.' But as a colleague explained, the phrase originates from Persian, and a more accurate translation would be: 'That which comes late is just and righteous.'
Justice for Palestine may come late. But when it does, let it be correct. And let it be righteous.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Can divided European powers help end Israel's war on Iran?
The three largest European nations by population, Germany, France and the UK, held talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Geneva, Switzerland, on Friday, in an effort to avert a protracted war in the Middle East. US President Donald Trump, who has said he will decide within two weeks whether to join the assault on Tehran, denounced the talks with European leaders as a failure. 'Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one,' he told reporters. Araghchi had said Iran was not attending the talks in Geneva to negotiate anyway, only to listen. However, he added, 'There is no room for negotiations with the US [either] until the Israeli aggression stops,' as Iran and Israel traded salvoes of missiles and drones. The US has been Israel's chief ally and supporter in all its wars, and is the only country with major military assets deployed in the region, which might be able to alter the course of the war. Why are the Europeans getting involved? Germany, France and the UK – referred to as the E3 in the context of Iran talks – helped negotiate a 2015 treaty with Iran. The 2015 treaty, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), saw Iran agree to develop only peaceful nuclear programmes and to submit to independent monitoring. Russia, China and the United States also helped negotiate it, as did the UN. But Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA in May 2018, during his first term as president. The E3 tried to keep the treaty alive but failed. Iran abandoned it a year after the US did. On Saturday, the EU high commissioner for external action, Kaja Kallas, who also attended the talks on Friday, issued a statement reaffirming 'commitment to Israel's security' and 'longstanding concerns about Iran's expansion of its nuclear programme, which has no credible civilian purpose, in violation of almost all the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) provisions'. But Israel's war in Gaza has divided the E3 over their approach to Israel, weakening European foreign policy unity further, although all want to avoid another war on Europe's doorstep. How are the E3 divided in their approach towards Israel? The E3 positions on Israel have diverged since Israel's war in Gaza began in October 2023. Germany has remained the most ardently pro-Israel, refusing to criticise Israel for indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Gaza and halting its funding to UNWRA, the UN agency assisting Palestinian refugees, which Israel accuses of aiding Hamas. Originally pro-Israel, the UK somewhat changed its stance after Labour's election victory last year. Earlier this month, the UK joined four other countries in formally sanctioning Israel's far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, for 'incitement of violence' against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Israel called the decision 'outrageous' and 'unacceptable'. France is even more sceptical towards Israel. It was one of four EU members that started calling for a Gaza ceasefire in April last year. A year later, on April 9, French President Emmanuel Macron said he would formally recognise the state of Palestine within months, partly because 'at some point, it will be right', and partly to encourage Arab states to recognise Israel. France was reported to be lobbying other European nations to follow suit. Spain, Norway and Ireland all formally recognised Palestine the following month. What leverage do the E3 have with Iran or Israel? They are the three biggest economies in Europe, with a collective gross domestic product (GDP) of about $11 trillion. Two of them, France and the UK, possess aircraft carriers and expeditionary forces that have deployed to the Middle East and North Africa regions. They are also nuclear powers. Ultimately, though, none of these things is enough to sway either Iran or Israel on matters of national security. The true value of the E3 lies in their 'acceptability' to both Iran and Israel as good-faith mediators and their ability to work towards common goals with the US. 'Germany, France and the UK have attempted to mediate for more than 20 years, and their approach has been milder than that of the US,' George Tzogopoulos, a lecturer in international relations at the European Institute in Nice, told Al Jazeera. 'The same is happening now. We have a war crisis, and these three prioritise diplomacy for the conflict to stop if possible and for negotiations to restart.' Could the E3 broker a deal between Iran and Israel? It would be difficult, given their failure to resuscitate the JCPOA without the US. 'The main reason [the E3 failed with the JCPOA] is the conclusion, made by both the Trump administration, President Trump himself, and the Israeli government that diplomacy cannot work in the case of Iran and, therefore, the role of the three was sidelined,' said Tzogopoulos. But it is also difficult for them to coordinate with the US. Trump has now sidelined his own intelligence community to adopt the Israeli view that Iran is developing a bomb. On Friday, Trump told reporters that his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was 'wrong' when she testified that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not re-authorised the country's suspended nuclear weapons programme. 'If Israel has evidence that Iran was dashing for a bomb, I think it needs to come out more publicly and share that, because nobody else is confirming that assessment,' said Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, a nongovernmental organisation based in the US. 'If there is some coordination between the US and the E3, we might be more optimistic, but for Europe, for the E3 to act autonomously, I wouldn't bet my money on their potential success,' he said. 'The Europeans have very low chances,' agreed Angelos Syrigos, a professor of international law at Panteion University in Athens. 'The only people who can intervene seriously are the Americans. But I don't know if the Iranians are open to that. To have final peace, you usually need a decisive defeat,' he said, referring to the Yom Kippur War between Israel and Egypt of 1973, which led to the Camp David agreement six years later, and US intervention in the Yugoslav War, which led to the Dayton Accord in 1995. 'One party has to understand there is no military solution.' Could the United Nations Security Council find a diplomatic solution? No, say experts, because China, Russia and the US disagree on Israel and Iran. 'The Security Council won't find a solution to this,' said Syrigos. 'Either the US or Russia or China will veto it. The difference is mainly between the US and China. The Chinese have invested a lot in Iran in recent years. That's where they buy most of their oil; they send [Iran] materials for nuclear weapons. It's China that is mostly connected to Iran.' Russia has called on the US not to attack Iran, because of the risk of destabilising the region. But Russia also does not have the power to come to Iran's aid, said Syrigos. 'Right now, Russia is going along with the US. It doesn't want to get involved. It hasn't the power. So, it's turning a necessity into a voluntary act,' he said. 'The logic of war will guide diplomatic efforts at this point, and we cannot know how the war will go, or the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear programme,' said Tzogopoulos.
Al Jazeera
8 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Gaza boy inconsolable after father killed by Israeli air attack
Gaza boy inconsolable after father killed by Israeli air attack NewsFeed A young boy in Gaza was filmed wailing over the boy of his father, who was killed in an Israeli air attack on Jabalia. Israel's bombing of Gaza has not subsided despite it's escalating military campaign on Iran. Video Duration 01 minutes 22 seconds 01:22 Video Duration 00 minutes 40 seconds 00:40 Video Duration 01 minutes 42 seconds 01:42 Video Duration 00 minutes 42 seconds 00:42 Video Duration 01 minutes 22 seconds 01:22 Video Duration 00 minutes 33 seconds 00:33 Video Duration 01 minutes 32 seconds 01:32
Al Jazeera
13 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US judge blocks Trump's bid to ban Harvard from enrolling foreign students
A federal judge in the United States has blocked President Donald Trump's bid to block Harvard from enrolling foreign students, delivering the prestigious university another victory as it challenges multiple government sanctions amid a battle with the White House. Friday's order by District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston preserves Harvard's ability to host international students while a lawsuit filed by the Ivy League school plays out in the courts. Burroughs, however, added that the federal government still had the authority to review Harvard's foreign admission policies through normal processes outlined in law. Harvard found itself embroiled in a polarising debate about academic freedom and the right to protest against Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza as its pro-Palestine students demanded full disclosure of the country's oldest and wealthiest university's investments in companies linked to Israel and divestment from those companies. Trump and his allies claim that Harvard, and other US universities that saw similar protests, are unaccountable bastions of liberal, anti-conservative bias and 'anti-Semitism'. In May, Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security after the agency abruptly withdrew the school's certification to enrol foreign students and issue paperwork for their visas, skirting most of its usual procedures. The action would have forced Harvard's roughly 7,000 international students – about a quarter of its total enrolment and a major source of income – to transfer or risk being in the US without the necessary documents. New foreign students would have been barred from coming to Harvard. The university said it was experiencing illegal retaliation for rejecting the White House's demands to overhaul Harvard policies related to campus protests, admissions and hiring. Trump, who has cut about $3.2bn of federal grants for Harvard and tried numerous tactics to block the institution from hosting international students, said that his administration has been holding negotiations with Harvard. 'Many people have been asking what is going on with Harvard University and their largescale improprieties that we have been addressing, looking for a solution,' Trump said in a post on Friday on Truth Social. 'We have been working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so,' he said. 'If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be 'mindbogglingly' HISTORIC, and very good for our Country.' Trump did not provide any details about the purported 'deal'.
