A New Blood Libel?

The Italian New Weapons Committee, an NGO whose mission is “understanding effects of new war technologies,” has released a report condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza. They claim that Israel’s bombs poison the soil, thereby dooming the Palestinians to environmental destruction.

Jewish and pro-Israel groups, however, have responded by labeling the accusations a new “blood libel.” Claiming that the arguments are eerily reminiscent of European claims that Jews poisoned well water, organizations like the European Jewish Congress and the NGO Monitor dismiss the claims of the NWC.

There certainly must be some validity to the claim of the NWC; there is no doubt that weapons leave behind metals and chemicals that present a danger to the soil, wherever they are dropped. Like many after-effects of war, this type of environmental degradation is rarely discussed. Moreover, the long-term viability of an independent, peaceful Palestinian state alongside Israel requires a livable environment in Gaza.

However, there does seem to be some implication that Israel is doing permanent damage to its neighbor on purpose. A study about the environmental effects of bombs necessarily ignores the political situation that caused those bombs to be dropped in the first place. Indeed, if we were to study only the effects of war without understanding the causes, the whole concept of violent conflict would be unthinkable. Additionally, Israel is not the only involved entity that uses bombs and rockets. I don’t see any study about soil quality in Sderot as a result of continued shelling.

It is this implication, and not necessarily the “facts” of wartime environmental degradation, that has Jews responding with the term, “blood libel.” To believe that Israel deliberately wants to destroy the environment of its neighbors, despite the fact that its defense minister is petitioning the UN for help in the resumption of peace talks, requires one to believe that the Israelis are dirty, deceitful war criminals. If someone starts with the belief that Israelis (or Jews) are evil, then it’s likely that his argument will contain anti-Semitic traces. Moreover, the argument that an Israel bent on regional domination would do such a thing is self-defeating; if Israel really was hell-bent on removing the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank and giving their land to Israelis, then they would have even more reason not to permanently damage the soil.

Whether or not the Italian group meant to imply that Jews were deliberately poisoning Palestinian land is still unclear to me. While it is certainly effective for the Jewish community to evoke the images of Europe terrorizing its Jewish population, the disingenuous use of such imagery can be ultimately damaging to the fight against Israel’s true enemies. On the other hand, there does seem to be an implication that Israel deliberately destroys the very soil on which Palestine is built.

Ultimately, the real “loser” in this debate is the Earth. Despite the fact that the group bringing the claims is an environmental group, the argument (almost by necessity) becomes about the greater context of the conflict. The real issue here is that violent conflict harms the Earth herself; in reducing war, we better the planet. Hopefully, as the smoke clears on this debate, this lesson will remain.