The Spectre of Auschwitz: Pankaj Mishra’s “The World After Gaza” and the Demonization of Israel
Pankaj Mishra’s controversial book, “The World After Gaza,” has ignited a firestorm of debate, thrusting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the harsh spotlight of historical analogy. Mishra, a prominent Indian intellectual associated with the radical left, argues that the recent war in Gaza represents a civilizational turning point on par with the Holocaust. He portrays Israel as a colonial oppressor, a white, privileged power brutally subjugating the indigenous Palestinians, echoing the horrors of Auschwitz. This provocative comparison, equating the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces with the Nazi genocide, forms the disturbing core of Mishra’s argument. He further accuses the West of standing idly by, mirroring its alleged indifference to the Jewish plight during World War II, thus compounding the moral outrage of the situation.
Mishra’s narrative, steeped in post-colonial theory and neo-Marxist ideology, recasts Israelis as modern-day Nazis and Palestinians as victims of a contemporary Holocaust. This framework, embraced by segments of the far left, strips Israel of its historical legitimacy, portraying it as a colonial outpost destined for eventual demise. He invokes the writings of various Jewish thinkers, including some Israelis, seemingly to bolster his claims, yet simultaneously drawing visual parallels to the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto, a manoeuvre critics see as a manipulative distortion of history. This depiction of Israel as inherently illegitimate, devoid of any historical connection to the land, is a central theme in his condemnation.
The reception of “The World After Gaza” has been predictably polarized. While lauded by the far left, the book has also faced intense scrutiny from literary critics, even those sympathetic to Palestinian grievances. They point to factual inaccuracies, gross exaggerations, and blatant historical distortions that undermine the book’s credibility. The conspicuous absence of any substantive condemnation of Hamas, the militant group controlling Gaza, and its atrocities, along with a perceived downplaying of Jewish suffering, raise serious questions about Mishra’s objectivity. Critics question his omission of key historical facts, such as the Soviet Union’s initial support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland and the millennia-old connection of the Jewish people to the region.
Despite the controversy and scholarly criticism, “The World After Gaza” has garnered awards and accolades, a fact that raises concerns about the resurgence of anti-Zionist sentiment disguised as anti-colonial critique. This echoes the disturbing precedent set by the 1975 UN resolution equating Zionism with racism, later revoked but whose underlying sentiment appears to persist in certain circles. While publicly condemning the book might be cathartic, it’s unlikely to sway those entrenched in their ideological convictions. More effective, perhaps, would be concrete actions by Israel that address legitimate criticisms and demonstrate a commitment to human rights.
Sever Plocker, in his analysis of the situation, suggests a three-pronged approach. First, Israel should establish a national commission of inquiry to investigate not only the security failures that led to the Hamas attacks of October 7th but also the conduct of the subsequent military operation in Gaza. This would demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability, potentially mitigating international criticism. Second, Israel should unequivocally reject the extremist ideologies of far-right, Kahanist, messianic, and ultranationalist elements within its own society. This clear disavowal of expansionist ambitions would help to counter the narrative of Israel as a colonial power.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Israel must demonstrate compassion and acknowledge the suffering of Palestinian civilians caught in the crossfire. While mourning its own losses, Israel should also publicly express empathy for the Palestinian women and children killed and wounded in Gaza. Such a gesture, far from being a sign of weakness, would demonstrate moral strength and humanity in the face of unimaginable violence. This approach, while not guaranteed to change the minds of those like Mishra, could resonate with a broader audience and help to reshape the narrative surrounding the conflict. It offers a path towards reclaiming the moral high ground and fostering a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy. Ultimately, the goal is not to appease those irrevocably hostile to Israel but to engage with the broader public and counter the dangerous spread of misinformation and historical distortion.
