Why Do Israelis Commit Massacres? Manifestations of the Doctrine of Erasure and Extermination

“When I want to replace an old building with a new one, I must first demolish the old one.” – (Theodor Herzl)

Dozens of Palestinian families were buried under Israeli airstrikes at dawn on September 10, along with their tents in the Al-Mawasi area in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip. The question that arises is what were the Israeli messages and objectives behind this massacre, which blatantly targeted a shelter for displaced people—an area Israel had previously designated as a humanitarian safe zone. As usual, the Israeli occupation army issued its statement, recycling its typical clichés, claiming that it had targeted Hamas military positions among the displaced people’s tents. The irony was taken further by stating that “numerous steps were taken to minimize civilian casualties, including the use of precision munitions, aerial surveillance, and additional measures.”

There’s no need to delve into Israeli lies, including their absurd claims of using precision munitions and safeguarding civilians. However, we do need to discuss the repeated question after each Israeli massacre: what message does the occupation intend to send? Although this question is inherently flawed, it carries significant meaning in revealing the Israeli contempt for Palestinian blood, where massacres are used as a vehicle for delivering their messages. Palestinian civilians, refugee shelters, urban and architectural landmarks, and every form of clinging to life—from local administrations to health services, civil defense, and aid distribution centers—are all transformed by Israel into a postbox of blood and fire. Yet, the flaw in this question lies in its implicit isolation of Israeli massacres from one another and from their broader foundational context.

While we cannot deny that each massacre may serve short-term political purposes, they are all part of a broader, longstanding agenda. The massacre in Al-Mawasi joins a previous one in July, both involving deliberate attacks on refugee shelters. These massacres are but instances of a wider campaign of genocide aimed at displacing the Palestinian people in Gaza. So far, this campaign has claimed 41,000 martyrs and left over 94,000 injured amidst widespread displacement, starvation, and total destruction. This genocide portrays every Gazan as guilty, dehumanizes them, and calls for their starvation until death or surrender. Some Israeli leaders have even proposed the use of nuclear bombs to kill tens of thousands of Palestinians in one strike.

This ongoing genocide is a continuation of the 1948 Zionist extermination campaign aimed at erasing the Palestinian presence from their land. Regardless of the conceptual debate over the distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing, both can be placed under the broader framework of “erasure.” This term was notably used by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, leader of the Religious Zionism party, when he called for the “erasure” of the town of Huwara, south of Nablus. The Israeli existence was founded on a comprehensive process of erasure: erasing the historical memory of the Palestinian land, replacing it with a fabricated, mythical memory to justify Zionist colonization, and erasing the national identity and political sovereignty of the indigenous population. This erasure extends to the dehumanization of Palestinians, stripping them of their dignity, political rights, and identity.

The doctrine of erasing Palestinians from their homeland is rooted in the colonial nature of Zionist settler-colonialism in Palestine. It mirrors European colonial models that exterminated entire nations in the New World. In order to establish a Jewish settler state in Palestine for Western interests, a Jewish majority had to be imposed, which required the erasure of Palestinians. This project also involved creating a national myth for the settler community, which in turn denied the historical presence of the indigenous population. This imagined settler memory is built upon a clear discourse of extermination, as expressed by Ben-Gurion, who linked the Israeli Defense Forces to the historical exterminations carried out by Joshua in Canaan. There is no fundamental difference between Ben-Gurion and Meir Kahane, nor between secular and religious Zionism in their views on the indigenous population.

This illustrates the error of separating Israeli massacres from each other, or viewing the erasure policies in isolation. Israeli policies, both past and present, cannot be divided along lines of political parties or factions. For example, some commentators attributed the recent Israeli campaign in the northern West Bank to the religious-nationalist policies of Netanyahu’s government, reinforcing the strange notion that Israel’s violence began with Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. As if these figures were the ones killing Palestinians for decades, not the army or Shin Bet!

Israelis are united on the necessity of uprooting any Palestinian resistance in the West Bank before it grows, and both the army and Shin Bet are responsible for this. However, they may differ on softer containment tactics and the extent and form of settlement expansion and provocation.

It is also wrong to separate Israel’s erasure policies into violent and soft forms. The violent erasure, through killing and forced displacement, cannot be isolated from the softer form aimed at stripping Palestinians of their identity by denying their history and political rights, replacing them with economic incentives. The violent erasure is always poised, connected to Zionist ideological foundations that claim this land cannot accommodate two nations. This belief, from Herzl’s early writings to the doctrines of both Christian and Jewish Zionists, portrays the land as one that must be cleared of its indigenous population.

Misinterpreting Israeli acts of erasure as isolated incidents or responses to Palestinian resistance misses the core issue. Some intellectuals today wrongly argue that Israel’s genocidal policies are triggered by Palestinian defiance, implying that without the victim’s resistance, there would be no genocide. This thinking is riddled with contradictions and moral failings, which we have explained before and will continue to address, God willing.