I've read Bret Stephens' New York Times op-ed, “No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza,” multiple times, and with each pass, its flaws become more glaring, its reasoning more strained, its omissions more inexcusable. That the Times published this muddled defense of Israel’s actions is astonishing, not just for its intellectual laziness, but for how perfectly it embodies the kind of rhetoric that enables atrocities to continue unchecked. Let’s walk through exactly how this piece fails, step by step, in its duty to truth.
A Shell Game of Definitions
Stephens’ central argument hinges on a sleight of hand: If Israel wanted genocide, wouldn’t it have killed more people by now? This is like saying a serial killer isn’t a murderer because he only shot five people instead of ten. By that logic, the Holocaust wasn't genocide; Hitler could've killed all Jews. The absurdity speaks for itself. Genocide isn’t defined by some arbitrary death threshold, it’s defined by intent and systematic destruction. The UN Genocide Convention explicitly includes acts like imposing conditions meant to destroy a group (e.g., starvation), forced displacement, and mass civilian targeting, all of which Israel is doing in Gaza.
Yet Stephens waves this away, pointing to Israel’s warnings before airstrikes as proof of restraint. But warnings don’t negate genocide, not when Israel then bombs the very "safe zones" it designates, not when it blocks food and medicine to create famine, not when its leaders call Palestinians "human animals" and invoke biblical annihilation1. The International Court of Justice saw through this charade, ruling that Israel’s actions plausibly constitute genocide. Stephens ignores this entirely, pretending the debate is just about body counts rather than intent.
False Equivalences and Historical Amnesia
Then comes Stephens’ most dishonest maneuver: comparing Gaza to Dresden or Mosul, as if this is just another ugly war. But Dresden wasn’t under a 17-year blockade before it was bombed. Mosul wasn’t systematically starved before its destruction. The Allies didn’t openly vow to erase German or Iraqi identity. Israel’s assault on Gaza isn’t collateral damage, it’s calculated destruction, designed to make the territory uninhabitable.
Stephens also conveniently ignores that Hamas’s atrocities on October 7th, however horrific, don’t give Israel carte blanche to commit genocide in response. International law doesn’t work on a tit-for-tat basis. Yet the op-ed treats this as a moral math equation: Hamas killed X, so Israel gets Y. That’s not justice, that’s vengeance, and it’s precisely the logic that perpetuates cycles of violence.
Straw Men and Smears
Rather than engage with the actual legal and moral arguments against Israel’s conduct, Stephens sets up straw men. He dismisses critics as an "anti-Israel chorus" and implies that calling out genocide is just a cover for antisemitism. This is a cheap silencing tactic. The ICJ, UN experts, and human rights groups—including Jewish voices—aren’t "anti-Israel" for documenting war crimes. They’re doing their jobs.
Meanwhile, Stephens downplays Israel’s diplomatic cover by cherry-picking Trump’s rhetoric and stock market stats, as if global protests, UN resolutions, and international court cases don’t exist. It’s a textbook red herring, distracting from the central issue with irrelevant data points.
The Most Chilling Line
But the op-ed’s most revealing moment comes when Stephens asks, "Why isn’t the death count higher?" This isn’t just bad logic; it’s morally grotesque. By this reasoning, any regime could argue it’s not committing genocide because, hey, it could be worse. It’s the same logic that lets abusive governments claim they’re "not that bad" because they haven’t killed everyone yet.
The Verdict
This isn’t just a poorly argued op-ed; it’s a dangerous one. It distorts facts, misrepresents law, and dismisses overwhelming evidence of genocide as mere "anti-Israel bias." The New York Times should be ashamed for platforming such a transparently flawed defense of atrocities. If this is the best case that can be made for Israel’s actions, then the case is already lost.
The world is watching. History won’t forget. And no amount of op-ed word games will change the reality unfolding in Gaza.
Footnotes:
0 comments