Nachman Oz constructs a provocative, historically dense argument that reframes the current war in Gaza not as an unprecedented moral catastrophe, but as the latest iteration of a century-long pattern of ethnic conflict where the term 'genocide' is applied selectively. He challenges the reader to look past the immediate horror of the smartphone age and examine whether the ultimate goal is extermination or a brutal, historical precedent of population removal and pacification.
The Weight of History and the Definition of Genocide
Oz begins by juxtaposing the brutal tactics of the Comanche Empire with the biblical narrative of Esther to illustrate a recurring theme: the use of extreme violence to secure survival or dominance. He writes, "One by one, the children and young women were pegged out naked beside the camp fire... finally burned alive by vengeful women." This graphic historical reference serves to anchor his argument that violence in this region is not new, but rather a cyclical struggle where the stakes are perceived as existential.
The core of Oz's argument rests on a semantic and historical distinction regarding the word 'genocide.' He asserts that while American actions in Japan and Iraq resulted in higher death tolls, they were not genocidal because the intent was not "population extermination or extraction." In contrast, he argues that Israel's neighbors have "never accepted her," citing a continuous timeline of rejection from 1936 through 2023. Oz writes, "My view is that Israel's actions in Gaza are not genocidal, and the future in the region as messy as ever." This framing attempts to strip the moral panic from the current conflict by placing it within a long arc of regional hostility.
Critics might note that equating the strategic bombing of cities in World War II with the current siege of Gaza risks minimizing the specific intent and the disproportionate impact on a trapped civilian population that cannot flee. The distinction between 'intent to destroy' and 'intent to pacify' is legally and morally significant, yet Oz treats it as a matter of historical precedent rather than legal definition.
Historical Precedents of Pacification and Removal
To support his thesis, Oz surveys three specific historical examples where mass violence or displacement was used to achieve political stability. He details the Chechen wars, noting that despite the destruction of Grozny and high civilian casualties, the conflict "did not inflame the Muslim world against Russia" and resulted in a "totally compliant polity." He then points to the post-World War II expulsion of 12 to 14 million ethnic Germans, a move sanctioned by the Allies to create ethnically homogeneous states, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Oz draws a parallel to the 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey, where 1.5 million people were moved to reduce ethnic tension. He writes, "The homogenisation of these states was understood to reduce ethnic tension." By invoking these examples, Oz suggests that the current suffering in Gaza might be a necessary, albeit brutal, step toward a similar resolution: either a compliant Gaza akin to modern Chechnya or a population transfer similar to the German expulsions.
The reality is that how we perceive this war will depend on its outcome. If Gaza is beaten to a pulp and nothing changes, it will be an ugly failure: a spasm of retribution by one traumatised polity on another.
This section is the most controversial, as it implicitly normalizes the concept of ethnic cleansing as a viable, if harsh, tool of statecraft. While Oz presents these as historical facts that worked to end conflict, he glosses over the long-term trauma and the moral cost of such "solutions," which many international observers argue are violations of fundamental human rights regardless of the outcome.
The Rejection of Coexistence and the "Bone in the Throat"
Oz argues that the fundamental issue is not Israeli policy, but the refusal of Arab neighbors to accept a Jewish state. He quotes historical figures to illustrate this, including Hafez al-Assad's vow to "pave the Arab roads with the skulls of Jews" and Saddam Hussein's declaration that "The Jews must be exterminated." He contends that accusations of genocide against Israel are often a form of projection, given the explicit genocidal rhetoric of the PLO and Hamas.
He highlights the historical Israeli desire to avoid ruling over the Palestinian population, quoting David Ben Gurion, who said, "If I believed in miracles I would want it to be swallowed up by the sea." Oz notes that Israel has repeatedly tried to offload responsibility for Gaza, from 1956 to the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, only to be refused. He writes, "Israel has never wanted to rule Gaza... Gaza was a 'bone stuck in our throats'."
The author then shifts to the concept of "Israeli nihilism," suggesting that the population's indifference to Palestinian suffering stems from repeated betrayals of peace efforts. He cites Ariel Sharon's memoir, where Sharon describes a 1971-1972 operation that killed 104 terrorists and arrested 742 others with "absolute minimum of harm to the civilian population," resulting in only two accidental civilian deaths. Oz uses this to argue that a different timeline is possible, one where security and normalcy coexist.
What mad man would want to keep Gazans in Gaza? For whom?
This rhetorical question encapsulates Oz's ultimate proposal: that the only viable solution is the removal of the Palestinian population from Gaza to join their brethren in Jordan or other Arab states. He argues that the Palestinian problem is "convenient for the Arabs" and that the population explosion in Gaza is a result of this convenient stagnation.
Critics would argue that this perspective ignores the right of return, the international legal protections for displaced persons, and the reality that Jordan and other nations have explicitly refused to absorb the Palestinian population, viewing it as a threat to their own sovereignty. The argument assumes a willingness among Arab states to accept millions of refugees that has not existed for decades.
Bottom Line
Oz's piece is a stark, unapologetic defense of realpolitik that challenges the moral consensus surrounding the Gaza conflict by leaning heavily on historical precedents of ethnic homogenization and pacification. Its strongest element is the rigorous use of historical analogies to question the uniqueness of the current violence, forcing the reader to confront the brutal mechanics of state survival. However, its greatest vulnerability lies in its dismissal of the humanitarian and legal frameworks that have evolved since the mid-20th century, treating the displacement of millions as a mere logistical solution rather than a profound moral catastrophe. Readers should watch for how this framing of "necessary brutality" influences future policy debates, particularly regarding the viability of a two-state solution versus forced migration.