Neutrality is not an option in the face of humanitarian crises

Israeli and Palestinian flags intertwined.

What’s better, noodles or burgers? How about the latest Marvel or DC flick?

Such questions can earn a shrug of the shoulders and a reply of, “I don’t have an opinion. Both can be bad and good in their own ways.”

When it comes to global crises, a neutral response is useless. Many of us have the ability to do our due diligence and educate ourselves about the historical, cultural and political impacts of Israeli occupation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

With readily available resources for many of us there is little excuse to remain neutral on such an event where a neo-colonial power continues to restrict aid, leaving around 400,000 Northern Gazans without food.

Israeli occupation is not new, but the attack on Oct. 7, 2023 has sparked unrest in the region, forcing the global community to confront uncomfortable truths about justice, human rights and the role of silence in perpetuating violence.

When genocide and ethnic cleansing are alleged, as in the case of Gaza, neutrality does more than maintain the status quo—it emboldens the perpetrators.

The repercussions of this occupation ripple far beyond the borders of Israel and Palestine, affecting political and social relationships abroad, revealing the moral contradictions in international responses to such crises. Humanitarian organizations and independent entities, including the United Nations and Amnesty International, have repeatedly warned of the dire human rights violations in Gaza and describe the situation as one of the world’s most prolonged humanitarian crises.

Despite these dire warnings, many international actors opt for “neutrality,” preferring diplomatic ambiguity or avoidance of condemnation altogether. This stance, often framed as a refusal to take sides, is misleading.

Political divisions over Israel’s treatment of Palestinians have deepened and are not confined to the Middle East as pro-Palestinian movements continue to gain traction since the attack on Oct. 7.

In recent months, student-led protests in support of Palestinian rights have surged. From Columbia University to University of California Irvine, young activists are calling for an end to the occupation, divestment from companies that profit from it and accountability for Israel’s actions. But these demonstrations have often been met with force.

This suppression often follows pressure from powerful donors and political groups who label any critique of Israel’s policies as antisemitism.

“As we have made clear, anti-Zionism is anti-semitism,” said former US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo in a 2020 press statement.

Pompeo’s statement contributes to the common belief that to identify as anti-Zionist is to be anti-Semitic.

But this is a dangerous conflation that halts legitimate discourse and delegitimizes the experiences of Palestinians. Jewish Voice for Peace is a US-based organization that is critical of Zionism, particularly its modern political expression. They argue that it prioritizes a Jewish ethno-state at the expense of Palestinian self-determination and human rights.

While JVP acknowledges the historical context of Zionism as a response to Jewish persecution, they believe that its current form, especially in the context of Israel’s policies, is incompatible with justice and equality for all people in the region. Modern-day Zionism “has always hierarchized Jews based on ethnicity and race” and discriminated against Jews from the Middle East and North Africa (JVP).

In a conflict where political (particularly military and technological) power is so unequally distributed, neutrality benefits the occupier, not the occupied.

When it comes to genocide, neutrality is a form of complicity. Choosing not to condemn an aggressor while atrocities are committed means choosing the side of oppression. Neutrality, in this case, is particularly dangerous because it legitimizes a status quo where Palestinian lives are devalued on the international stage.

Former US army major and intelligence analyst officer Harrison Mann worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in the Middle East/Africa Center. After three years, Mann resigned in protest due to the ongoing US complicity in the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

“Nobody was mentioning outloud any apprehensions that the same humanitarian catastrophe that we were seeing unfolding was connected in any work we were doing to support the Israeli military,” Mann said. “That contradiction was increasingly frustrating for me.”

Mann had also said that it became clear that there existed no level of government that would take serious steps in attempting to moderate the amount of overwhelming support the US was giving Israel. There was a clear disregard for civilian life, and that was “putting it quite lightly.”

The failure to hold Israel accountable for its actions perpetuates the suffering of millions and erodes the credibility of international human rights frameworks.

We are shaped by the political and social realities that surround us, whether we choose to engage with them or not. The occupation of Palestine is not a distant geopolitical issue; it affects the world’s sense of justice and humanity. It tests our commitment to human rights and to speaking out when those rights are trampled upon.

Comments

comments