After nearly two years marked by devastating violence in Gaza, Senator Bernie Sanders has finally acknowledged the situation as genocide. In an op-ed published on his official Senate website, he stated plainly: “The intent is clear. The conclusion is unavoidable: Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.”
However, similar to declarations from the United Nations and the International Association of Genocide Scholars, this recognition arrived far too late. More troublingly, Sanders framed his statement in a way that raises serious concerns. He opened his piece by implying that “Hamas initiated the conflict,” a stance that not only shifts blame onto the victims but also erases decades of systematic dispossession, violence, and ethnic cleansing endured by Palestinians.
This perspective is not only ethically flawed but also legally irrelevant, setting a perilous precedent. It suggests that any colonized or occupied group that resists oppression must surrender unconditionally or face annihilation, effectively warning oppressed peoples that their survival hinges not on international justice or human rights, but on total submission to their oppressors.
The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, wholly or partially, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These prohibited acts encompass the full range of Palestinian experiences in Gaza, the West Bank, and historic Palestine: killing members of the group, inflicting serious physical or mental harm, deliberately creating conditions designed to bring about physical destruction, imposing measures to prevent births, and forcibly transferring populations.
Importantly, this legal framework allows no exceptions or qualifications. There is no clause stating “unless the other side provoked it,” no concept of “proportional genocide,” and no justification for genocide under any circumstances.
Sanders’ assertion that Israel has a “right to defend itself” is legally unfounded in this context. International law prohibits a state from exercising control over a territory and then claiming self-defense against the population it occupies, labeling them as a foreign threat.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed this principle in its 2004 advisory opinion on Israel’s apartheid wall in the West Bank. The ICJ ruled that Article 51 of the UN Charter, which permits self-defense, does not apply to Israel’s actions against Palestinians under occupation.
Since 1967, Israel has exercised complete control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, and maritime access. It regulates all movement in and out, effectively determining who lives and who dies. Under these conditions, Israel cannot claim a right to self-defense against a population it fully controls.
Moreover, international law explicitly recognizes Palestinians’ right to resist occupation. UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43 affirms the legitimacy of struggles for independence, territorial integrity, and liberation from foreign domination by all available means, including armed resistance.
This recognition does not excuse attacks on civilians. Like all lawful resistance, Palestinian actions must adhere to international humanitarian law, distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. Nonetheless, resistance itself is not unlawful and cannot be used to justify genocidal retaliation.
By prefacing his acknowledgment of genocide with “But Hamas,” Sanders not only blames the victims but also denies Palestinians the rights international law grants them, while endorsing Israeli claims that international law explicitly rejects.
This “But Hamas” rationale is dangerously misleading. It implies that a people’s right to exist free from genocide depends on their absolute pacifism and submission to oppression. Such reasoning would retroactively justify historical genocides. For instance, the Herero and Nama peoples resisted German colonial rule in Namibia-did that resistance legitimize their extermination? Native American tribes fought European settlers-did that justify their mass slaughter? Jewish resistance during the Holocaust, such as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, did not warrant the horrors inflicted upon them.
Furthermore, Sanders’ framing erases over a century of history. The current genocide did not begin on October 7, 2023. It is the culmination of a long-standing campaign that started in the late 1800s with Zionist settlers aiming to establish a Jewish state with minimal Palestinian presence. The 1948 Nakba saw Zionist forces forcibly expel 750,000 Palestinians-over half the native population-destroying more than 500 villages and seizing 78% of historic Palestine. Between 1947 and 1949, over 15,000 Palestinians were killed.
In the decades since, Israeli governments have continuously pursued policies aimed at ethnic cleansing and the realization of Greater Israel, stretching from the Sinai Peninsula to the Euphrates River. Israel’s genocidal actions did not suddenly emerge in 2023; they are the result of a long-planned agenda.
Yet, some, including Sanders, continue to hold Palestinians responsible for their own destruction.
Genocide is rightly termed the “crime of crimes” because it marks a boundary that must never be crossed, regardless of provocation or context. Once exceptions are made-once we say “but they started it”-we undermine the principle that all human lives hold equal value.
History will judge us by whether we recognized genocide for what it truly is: an absolute violation without caveats, without excuses, and without the comforting falsehoods that allow the powerful to ignore the suffering of innocent children torn apart by war and starvation. Failing to understand this fundamental truth means failing not only Palestinians but all oppressed peoples who may one day be told their resistance justifies their annihilation.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the editorial position of this website.
