Literal denial is manifested in the Israeli blockade on the entrance of international journalists into Gaza since war\u2019s outbreak on October 7, 2023. Witnessing by impartial observers is crucial to the flow of knowledge in any armed conflict. In this one, Israel has taken the extreme step of forcing international media to rely exclusively on local journalists and occasional visitors to Gaza, such as medical teams.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the meantime, it has killed over two hundred journalists<\/a> in Gaza. This is literally a way of withholding information in the hope that the facts on the ground will be contested.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Gaza civilians constitute \u201ccollateral damage\u201d in the war on terror. The problem is that the so-called \u201ccollateral\u201d actually represent the bulk of the casualties in this war<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Denialist discourse on Gaza is more sophisticated than literal negation, however, as it tends to shift between interpretive and implicatory denial. One example of interpretative denial is the association made between \u201cbackground diseases\u201d and images of famine in Gaza. In July, a malnourished toddler, Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, sparked accusations against the New York Times<\/strong> and The Guardian<\/strong> for not informing<\/a> their readers about the child\u2019s several serious illnesses<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This argument on misrepresentation implies that only the already vulnerable suffer dearly in Gaza. But isn\u2019t it bad enough that this is the situation of sick children?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part of our mission in the Forum for Regional Thinking is to crack small openings in the walls of denial by presenting testimonies and interpretation from inside Gaza to Hebrew readers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the first months of the war, we used WhatsApp voice messages to record a podcast<\/a> with Laila, a young, displaced Gaza woman who described her daily routine<\/a> in self-taught Hebrew. Recently, we translated a video by Gazan YouTuber Anwar Nimer documenting his daily routine as he risks his life to obtain food at the deadly aid distribution points in Gaza. Our director, Assaf David, translates testimonies of genocide survivors on his Facebook page into both Hebrew<\/a> and English<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main form of denial is what Cohen defined as implicatory. The case in point is the general framing of the destruction of Gaza as \u201cwar\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Recently, human rights attorney Alon Sapir explained on our website<\/a> that Israel\u2019s main method of killing in Gaza \u2014 namely, classifying a target as legitimate under international law (i.e., identified with Hamas) \u2014 is based on a new method Sapir terms “statistical proportionality”<\/a>. The IDF strikes a target assuming that civilians would be killed, but this assumption is not based on concrete verification (such as observation), but rather on general calculations based on estimates of Gaza’s population density.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sapir\u2019s observation is critical of Israel\u2019s conduct of the war, but it is also crucial for understanding the role of international law (or norms) in condoning Gaza\u2019s annihilation. What legitimizes Israel’s continued onslaught is the barely conceivable notion that Gaza civilians constitute \u201ccollateral damage\u201d in the war on terror. The problem is that the so-called \u201ccollateral\u201d actually represent the bulk of the casualties in this war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The idea that causing as much collateral damage as possible is in fact the purpose of this \u201cwar\u201d is reinforced by the recent reemergence of declarations by former Israeli generals, such as ex-IDF chief of staff Herzi Halevi, who told his wife<\/a> on October 7 that Gaza would be destroyed. Similarly, former Chief of Intelligence Aharon Haliva, explained<\/a> that fifty thousand dead Palestinians in Gaza would be a \u201cnecessary and required response for future generations.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n The program of Trump\u2019s era shifted to the economic realm. Gazans would no longer have to undergo deradicalization, but rather leave voluntarily in exchange for a handful of Bitcoins<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Denial\u2019s close companion is fantasy. One fantastic notion that has resurfaced since October 7 is \u201cvoluntary migration\u201d<\/a>. Maybe, one day, thousands of planes will land in Gaza and hundreds of thousands of contented inhabitants will board them to start new lives in Somaliland or South Sudan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The purpose of cultivating this illusion is to argue \u2014 precisely at the moment when Gazans are herded at gunpoint into concentration camps \u2014 that there is a humanitarian alternative, only someone is throwing a wrench into the works. The establishment of the camps in the Mawasi was, therefore, preventable. Gazans were given an offer, but once again missed an opportunity to miss the opportunity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The illusion of promoting “voluntary migration” is part of policy programs that Israel and the United States have been exchanging over the past two years. Our research fellow Elitzur Gluck recently read two of these programs and identified the changes<\/a> in them from Biden\u2019s era to Trump\u2019s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first program defined Gaza as part of a regional defense alliance, or a moderate anti-Iran axis, which Gazans would join after undergoing \u201cderadicalization.\u201d The new program abandoned the alliance pipedream that had prevailed under Biden and shifted instead to the economic realm. Gazans would no longer have to undergo deradicalization, but rather leave voluntarily in exchange for a handful of Bitcoins. \u201cThe fact that such programs create a \u2018mirror world\u2019 reveals\u201d, Gluck concludes, \u201cIsrael\u2019s real true intentions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the wake of the ceasefire, it is important to recall that these plans were exactly that \u2013 a distorted postcard from a mirror world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How should one deal with denial? The strength of Stanley Cohen\u2019s thesis lies in the insight that denial is a component of any large-scale act of violence. Since discourse of denial predicts violence, conceals it in real time, and justifies it after the fact, there is little reason to expect it to change through discussion and persuasion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Denialism forces us to think about the way we collect, analyze, and share knowledge. Dealing with denialism requires more than collecting additional facts, building stronger arguments, or refuting lies. The importance of such practices is self-evident. Rather, we must confront denialism together. Often, it is better to talk with those who wish to listen, rather than with those who insist on arguing. Sometimes it is necessary to persuade the already persuaded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These initiatives demonstrate to the Hebrew-speaking audience that Palestinian testimonies deserve trust like any others, and perhaps even more so<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Collective action is the hallmark of Israeli anti-genocide collectives that have emerged in the past two years. These include \u201cBearing Witness\u201d<\/a> by historian Lee Mordechai, which documents the genocide in Gaza; the “Black Flag”<\/a> movement in Israeli academia; or \u201cEyes on Gaza,\u201d<\/a> by lecturers at the University of Haifa. Our colleagues Leena Dallasheh<\/a>, Dotan Halevy<\/a>, Shmuel Lederman<\/a>, and others have contributed to these projects with public lectures online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The importance of these projects lies in the connection they forge between knowledge, solidarity, and activism. These initiatives demonstrate to the Hebrew-speaking audience that Palestinian testimonies deserve trust like any others, and perhaps even more so. They offer a support network for opponents of genocide, and provide a foundation for joint action \u2014 from donations to Gaza\u2019s displaced to calls for international pressure on Israel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, denial minimizes the ceasefire\u2019s likelihood of leading to a solution. The end of the direct killing in Gaza \u2013 a welcome relief for everyone between the river and the sea \u2013 do not mean that this agreement would bring long-term justice or peace, or even stability. To turn this ceasefire into a meaningful step forward demands tough political work. For peace to last, this will have to include confronting and dismantling the mechanisms of denial. This is a task best undertaken together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
The implications of statistical killing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"AI](\"https:\/\/www.regthink.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/gaza-future-plan.png\")
\n
Flight of fancy<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Solidarity against denial<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n