Official public statements by a
government’s officials obviously trade on rhetoric—manipulation by wording
being a part of statecraft—but when the rhetoric is so self-serving and
divorced from facts on the ground (i.e., empirically), wording can be
indicative of the underlying mentality, which is real. I submit that the
statements of Israel’s prime minister Netanyahu and Israeli foreign-ministry
spokesman Oren Marmorstein in May, 2025 amid the Israeli military offensive in
Gaza reveal the surprising extent that hatred can warp human perception and
cognition without the warping itself being grasped by the very people in its
grip.
Facing pressure from the E.U.
and, to a lesser extent, the U.S. in May, 2025, the Israeli government made a
decision that the media described as lifting of the two-month-old Israeli ban
on humanitarian food and medicine entering Gaza as over a million residents
there were facing starvation and a lack of medical care. The so-called lifting
of the blockade in actuality consisted in allowing in less than ten trucks
on the first day, and between twenty and forty on the second day, with none
being able to distribute through distribution centers. As a result, the food—a mere
trifle spread over 1.2 million souls—did not reach any hungry mouths. Incredibly,
Netanyahu admitted publicly that he was intent to allow in just enough
food and medicine that would relieve the Israeli government of the pressure
from its allies. Whereas during the ceasefire earlier in 2025 when Israel was
allowing 600 trucks into Gaza per day, the “lifting” of the blockade would only
permit a maximum of 100 trucks. In essence, the crime against humanity
of exterminating a people was ongoing, given how far short 100 trucks’ worth of
food (and the trucks also contained boxes of medicine and medical supplies) is in
being able to feed 1.2 million people. Meanwhile, the Israeli military was
upping its bombing in Gaza, with 100 residents killed on one day and 48 on the
next day after the “lifting” of the blockade. In effect, the Israeli government’s
cabinet was increasing the demand for medical supplies and medicine
while intentionally minimizing the number of humanitarian trucks that could
enter Gaza and making it very difficult for the trucks that did get in to
unload at distribution centers such that the food and medicine could reach the
actual residents of Gaza. Netanyahu’s stated goal of riding Gaza of
Palestinians continued unfettered.
It is in that context that the
E.U. took the decision to review the “wide-ranging trade and cooperation pact”
with Israel “over its intensified offensive in Gaza.”[1]
The E.U.’s foreign minister, Kaja Kallas, stated on May 20, 2025 that the E.U. “would
examine if Israel has violated its human rights obligations under Article 2 of
the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which defines the trading and diplomatic
relations” bilaterally.[2]
That the Israeli military had already killed over 50,000 residents of Gaza over
more than a year begs the question of what took the E.U. so long even just to review
the agreement. The constitutional, or basic law, provision for unanimity on
foreign policy in the European Council and the Council of the E.U. and that the
E.U. state of Hungary had been serially exploiting its veto-power on the federal
level is the obvious explanation.
Less well-known, however, is
the sheer gradualism in the machinery of any government, federal or unitary, in
reacting beyond words in ways that a strong enough to make a real
difference “on the ground.” Aggressor regimes around the world benefit from the
refusal of legislatures to off-set the inherent gradualism of government by
enacting a fast-track option. Both in reacting quicker to Russia’s invasion of
Ukraine and Israel’s bombing of Gaza, the E.U. could arguably have made a
difference, whereas entrenchment is much more difficult to counter after a year.
Ongoing entrenchment has the
benefit to the aggressor of being able to set the contours of debate concerning
the militarization of an occupation or an outright invasion and extermination
of a people. For example, in responding to the E.U.’s decision just to review
the agreement, Marmorstein of the Israeli government wrote on social media
that the “war was forced upon Israel by Hamas, and Hamas is the one responsible
for its continuation. Ignoring these realities and criticising Israel only
hardens Hamas position and encourages Hamas to stick to its guns.”[3]
There a number of problems with this reply.
Firstly, whether or not Israel
rejects the decision of the E.U. to review the trade and diplomatic agreement,
the decision is solely for the E.U. concerning its own review, so this is not
something for the counterparty to accept or reject. Secondly, not even Hamas—not
to mention the 1.2 million residents of Gaza—forced Israel to kill over
50,000 and decimate entire neighborhoods. Nor did any counterparty force Israel
to block humanitarian aid from entering Gaza as people on a mass scale were
starving. Behind the rhetoric is a warping of social reality in being incorrect
in terms of being forced to make decisions, as if at gunpoint. Thirdly, the
extremely disproportionate number of guns and bombs that Israel had over Gaza
undercuts the claim that Hamas was “sticking to its guns,” and that this forced
Israel to disproportionately bomb and kill in Gaza, especially during its
offensive in May, 2025. Fourthly, the claim that Israel was militarily on the
defensive is so contrary to the facts that, beyond the rhetorical use of the claim,
it points to a rather severe cognitive and perceptual warping. I submit that
hatred is the underlying culprit behind the cognitive and perceptional
displacement.
Shortly after Hamas’s unjustified attack and kidnapping on October 7, 2023, the president of Israel said publicly that every resident of Gaza was culpable. Such over-reach of accusation, even considering that Hamas had democratic legitimacy in Gaza, bespeaks hatred, and is consistent with the UN’s finding of reason to believe that Israel was guilty of the crime of trying to exterminate a people, which is easier to prove than genocide. Furthermore, Netanyahu’s admission that he would allow only a minimum of humanitarian food-aid into Gaza in May, 2025 and only to satisfy the U.S. and E.U. points to an underlying hatred like smoke suggests the presence of fire.
Also indicative of hatred in the Israeli government, Yair Golan, a former deputy chief of staff of the Israeli army, said at the time that the Israeli government was “rejecting” the E.U.’s decision to review the trade and diplomatic agreement: “A sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a pastime, and does not engage in mass population displacement.”[4] This revealing glimpse both of the intent of Israel’s cabinet and what atrocities had been going on in Gaza strongly implies that hatred was a, or even the motivator, for what else other than sadistic pleasure could explain killing babies as a pastime. Furthermore, the statement belies the claim that Israel was being forced by its adversary to hit, and hit hard in Gaza. The refusal to take responsibility for one’s own decisions and even blame a counterparty as if it had made the decisions or forced them is suggestive of a sordid character and even delusion. It is probably that Israeli government’s officials have continued to be so angry and demeaning of a people deemed in effect (and ironically!) as sub-human that the policy of extermination has continued unabated even by the so-called lifting of the blockade of humanitarian aid that might keep the population from continuing to shrink as intended and desired by the Israeli officials.
It is no wonder that the ICC has issued arrests warrants; it is more astonishing that the world has allowed the Israeli officials to continue to commit war crimes and a crime against humanity with only slight pressure to let some humanitarian aid into Gaza. While certainly not as culpable, the E.U.’s delay in even reviewing its agreement with Israel is astonishing. Is there a threshold of atrocity beyond which a coalition of countries would take immediate action against an aggressor-state? Given the impunity of not only Israel, but also Russia in Ukraine, it seems unlikely that there is such trigger even when a squalid, hateful, and over-reactive aggressor-character is on the loose as if it were in Hobbes' state of nature.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Astha Rajvanshi, “Ex-Israeli General Hits Out at Government for ‘Killing Babies as a Pastime’ in Gaza,” Nbcnews.com, May 20, 2025.
