By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Israeli reporters, denying accusations of genocide in Gaza and dismissing claims of a starvation policy. He stated that if Israel intended to commit genocide, it could have been accomplished swiftly. Netanyahu also falsely claimed that Israel never halted all humanitarian aid to Gaza, despite previously enacting such a policy. These comments were made in defense of the government’s planned offensive in Gaza City, which has faced significant international backlash due to reports of widespread starvation and malnutrition.
Read the original article here
Netanyahu: ‘If we wanted to commit genocide, it would have taken exactly one afternoon.’ This statement is a bold one, isn’t it? It’s the kind of thing that stops you in your tracks, forcing you to consider the implications of the words themselves, and the context in which they were uttered. It’s a statement that almost dares you to disagree, playing on the raw power and capability of the Israeli military. It highlights a truth about military power – that overwhelming force can be decisive and swift, and if deployed without restraint, could lead to devastating consequences.
The immediate reaction, and probably the most common one, seems to be one of disbelief, and even disgust. It’s a statement that many see as a “weird flex,” a way of trying to appear powerful but instead coming off as callous. It’s a sentiment echoed by many who hear the statement, that it is not a “mic drop” moment, but rather an admission of power that highlights a capacity for immense destruction, and a failure to exercise restraint. This is because the world is not going to accept the slaughter of innocents. The immediate response would be too great to contend with and therefore the power can’t be applied to its fullest extent.
It’s hard to ignore the accusations that this statement unintentionally confirms, that the slow-burn approach to the conflict, the prolonged suffering, is a deliberate choice. The idea that the situation is prolonged because they “enjoy playing with their food”, as some have put it, is a dark one, and it casts a shadow on the motives behind the actions. It’s difficult to reconcile the statement with the claims of adhering to a moral high ground.
The question then becomes, why make such a statement? One could argue it is a dangerous game, one that could be interpreted as a warning, a threat, or simply a demonstration of power. The argument can also be seen as a way to deflect from accusations of intentionality. It shifts the focus from the current course of action, which is a complex and protracted conflict, to a hypothetical scenario – one that didn’t happen. It’s a way to point out how much they can do while allowing some other people to make accusations.
Another point to consider is the comparison to other situations in which rapid military action has been considered. It brings to mind the invasion of Ukraine, where a quick victory was anticipated. This illustrates that a swift, decisive military action isn’t always possible, even when capabilities are present. The statement also touches on the reality of international relations. Israel’s reliance on the support of the United States and other nations is a key factor. The implication being, that if Israel were to disregard these relationships and pursue a course of action that would be considered morally reprehensible, it would face severe consequences, including the loss of that support.
However, even if such a course of action is within the realm of military capability, it does not mean it is a viable option, because of what has been mentioned. Therefore the statement is a false argument. Simply because a nation *could* commit genocide, does not mean that not doing so implies that they *don’t want to* do so. The conclusion that some have drawn from the statement is a dangerous one to make.
Ultimately, Netanyahu’s words have sparked a heated debate about the nature of power, responsibility, and the ethics of warfare. While the statement may be intended to convey a sense of strength and control, it has instead raised profound questions about the motivations behind Israel’s actions and the potential consequences of its choices.