War is always a human tragedy and the suffering in Gaza has been terrible. Innocent civilians have been killed, families have lost their homes, and many children have suffered. No decent person can witness such horror without feeling deep sorrow. But it is important to acknowledge there has never been a war in which innocent people did not suffer.

Consider Yemen, where hundreds of thousands of people have died directly or indirectly from years of fighting, hunger, and disease. Yet despite the enormous humanitarian catastrophe, accusations of genocide have never become the defining way the world understands that conflict.

What makes one war a humanitarian disaster and another genocide?

I found myself asking that question again after reading widely differing accounts of Congressman Ro Khanna’s recent visit to the West Bank. I was reluctant to accept his description of the incident at face value—not because I knew it to be false, but because I had repeatedly heard him characterize Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide while giving far less attention to Hamas’s responsibility for starting the war and its strategy of embedding fighters and weapons among civilians. I therefore sought out additional accounts from Israeli journalists, military spokespeople, and others, and found a far more complicated picture than the initial headlines suggested.

What struck me, however, was something broader. Much of the public discussion about Israel’s conduct in Gaza proceeds with surprisingly little engagement with the work of leading military historians and urban warfare experts who have carefully studied the conflict. One need not agree with every conclusion reached by scholars such as John Spencer, Andrew Fox, David Deptula, or former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley. But when one of the gravest accusations in international law is being made, it is remarkable how rarely their assessments are part of the public conversation

The more serious the accusation, the greater our obligation to examine all the relevant evidence—including evidence that challenges our initial assumptions.

Unfortunately, that standard is not always met. In recent months, some widely read opinion pieces have advanced extremely serious accusations against Israel while relying, in the view of many, on sources that were insufficiently vetted or on evidence that remained highly contested. Given the rise in antisemitism around the world, journalists and editors have an especially important responsibility to distinguish between verified facts, disputed allegations, and conclusions that go well beyond the available evidence. 

Whether Congressman Khanna’s interpretation ultimately proves correct is almost beside the point. The episode illustrated how quickly competing narratives can harden into moral certainty before all the evidence has been carefully weighed. It also reminded me how difficult it has become to distinguish facts from narratives in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

How should we evaluate the gravest accusations made against Israel?

Part of the answer, I believe, requires understanding the long history of antisemitism. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks observed that antisemitism has repeatedly reinvented itself throughout history. Jews were first hated because of their........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)