To the Editor:
Re “What I Believe as a Historian of Genocide,” by Omer Bartov (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Nov. 10):
Mr. Bartov, a Holocaust scholar, warns that Israel is very likely committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza that can devolve into genocide. To show “genocidal intent,” he cites furious Israeli statements made immediately after Oct. 7.
But these do not reflect actual Israeli policies toward civilians. Israel’s targets are military: Hamas’s soldiers, tunnels, headquarters and weapons stocks. By placing military targets in and under civilian structures, it is Hamas that violates laws of war.
The 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention mentions demonstrable intent to destroy a national, racial or religious group. Mr. Bartov is mute about Israel’s hundreds of phone calls to Gazans warning them to leave buildings in which Hamas fighters were located. Israel has urged civilians to evacuate to the south to escape battle. A government intent on genocide would do the opposite.
A cease-fire now would leave Hamas’s leadership and its massive tunnel structures intact. Hamas would declare victory and prepare for the next round of killing. Mr. Bartov’s article and the demonstrations around the world accusing Israel of genocide would, intentionally or not, have the effect of consigning Israel to live next to a terrorist state committed to its destruction. No state in the world would accept such a situation.
Norman J.W. Goda
Jeffrey Herf
Mr. Goda is a professor of Holocaust studies at the Center for Jewish Studies, University of Florida. Mr. Herf is professor emeritus of history at the University of Maryland, College Park.
To the Editor:
In an urgent effort to prevent genocide, Omer Bartov writes about the horrific carnage committed by Israel in Gaza. He also speaks forcefully about the massacre by Hamas. In the course of doing it, just by doing it, he also illustrates the total insanity of “rules of war.” I say this with great respect for what he is trying to do.
But to live and die in a world that makes distinctions between crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, proportionality, etc., you can lose sight how all of it is utter madness. Just as “no option is off the table” means that nuclear war is somehow a rational final option. Equally disturbing is that anything short of that might be considered acceptable.
Robert Roth
New York
To the Editor:
Re “Measuring Israel by the Yardstick of a ‘Just War,’” by A. Walter Dorn (Opinion guest essay, Nov. 13):
Professor Dorn examines whether Israel is adhering to the moral framework of “just war” theory. Yet he reveals himself to be unserious when he suggests that Israel should negotiate with Hamas because “negotiation with adversaries, however distasteful, has often proven successful.”
Hamas leaders have made it quite clear that they have no interest in peace with Israel. They wish to destroy the Jewish state and slaughter its Jewish inhabitants. Just ask them.
The only chance for peace is for Hamas to be removed from the equation. Tragically, many Palestinian civilians who are being used as human shields will lose their lives in the process.
David Westrich
Teaneck, N.J.
To the Editor:
The plight of the Palestinian civilians in Gaza has captured attention around the world. Supplies of food, medicine, water and fuel are desperately needed. The situation in the hospitals is especially concerning.
These problems can be alleviated quickly, and the power to do this lies with Hamas. Release all the hostages in return for a cease-fire. Move any Hamas fighters at the hospitals elsewhere so that the hospitals are no longer in the battlefield.
Many demonstrations around the world are well motivated but are not aimed at the proper target: Hamas.
Robert N. Cahn
Walnut Creek, Calif.