The New Poster-Child for Compassion Instead Incites Hate

August 16, 2024

by Dr. Walid Phares

and Gazelle Sharmahd

There is a disturbing trend in the West and on social media that ignores facts and speaks directly to the unfettered emotions of the youth and those who have no sense of history nor understanding of age-old tensions. The cries of genocide, the protests for a “free Palestine,” and the defacing of property, have been justified by the momentum gained from posting pictures of dead children to shore up a cause designed to protect and support terrorism.

The continued circulation of pictures of civilians harmed in Gaza is, unfortunately, nothing more than emotional manipulation. For all the emphasis on “humanitarian purposes,” evidence suggests the opposite.

If someone is posting pictures of dead children – without proposing an actionable solution to the problem of civilian harm amidst the conflict, there can be no humanitarian purpose for the pictures. The actual purpose must then be to fuel the division and stoke hatred, and the end result is ensuring more harm and more deaths of innocents.  

Advocating for saving lives may not be as fun or as trendy as committing violence in protest of violence.

Although understanding why this is so takes time and effort, let’s take a closer look at the case for this assessment:

1. Emotional triggers only serve the purpose of public outrage. While it’s important at times to get the public outraged against human rights atrocities that are underreported by media or completely ignored (#Bangladesh, #Sudan, #IranMassExecution), once the public and media attention is gained, the continued posting of such material for emotional manipulation is nothing but propaganda unless it’s used to gain support for practical solutions.
2. What should follow the “Look how horrific” phase are interventions which provide a solution to the problem. And such interventions require rational thinking – not strong emotions, fear, hate, or scapegoating. The negative emotional response, with no constructive outlet for solving the problem we were confronted with in pictures, serves a destructive, rather than constructive, end.
3. Those sharing all these horrific pictures and stories have taken no action themselves to actually save civilians. They haven’t even done anything to put pressure on any responsible party with the power to help save civilians. These pictures are being used as clickbait – and to create hate and false blame, exacerbating the problem. Clickbait, hate, and false blame do not help save civilians.
4. If those claiming advocacy for the Gaza civilian cause truly wanted to demonstrate compassion for the human beings whose images they are exploiting, they would have instead done one of the following:

• Advocate at the UN level for the establishment of an internationally managed Safe Zone for civilians only (no combatants, no Hamas, no IDF).

We proposed this solution earlier this year and have yet to see any NGOs or “Pro-civilian” organizations following through. We also have not seen any mass protesters chanting “SAFE ZONE NOW!”

• Advocate for a temporary safe refuge space in Egypt through the Rafa crossing.

As a corollary, ask the UN to stop all funding for Hamas-affiliated UNWRA and instead funnel the money to President Sisi of Egypt for the sole purpose of creating an emergency temporary refuge and providing humanitarian aid to that area, where Hamas cannot steal it.

We have not seen any slogans like “EGYPT SAFE SPACE!” Perhaps it isn’t as fun to chant as “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free!” (Even though this catchy phrase is uttered by many protestors who have no idea what that phrase is actually demanding/implying.)

• Advocate for mass evacuation by air, sea, or road, involving international organizations responsible for monitoring and ensuring no Hamas terrorists or weapons slip out.

There don’t appear to be any banners in these rallies demanding “MASS EVACUATION” for civilians. But the outrage-inducing phrases of “Genocide” and “Apartheid” are clearly seen on posters.

Advocating for saving lives may not be as fun or as trendy as committing violence in protest of violence, but it seems reasonable to believe that fewer false accusations and more advocating for life-saving measures might actually help save the very lives these new “social warriors” are so outraged about.

Now, perhaps there were some among these death-picture-posting social media warriors who did briefly think about saving civilians from Gaza through evacuation, but they must have quickly abandoned the idea – perhaps because they were told there were “Israeli blockages preventing civilians from leaving.” Even if that was/is the case, if these keyboard warriors truly cared about saving lives, they would not have given up on the idea so easily.   They don’t get tired of blocking freeways and burning flags that quickly. So why abandon reason without a fight and simply join the emotionally laden picture-posting brigade before giving any real thought to getting civilians out of harm’s way?

In the end, it is evident that the “Evacuate Gaza Now” messaging that would indicate an interest in saving human life doesn’t fit the approved narrative of Hamas as a resistance force and Israel as the evil occupier.

The UN and the Red Cross have reported that civilians in Gaza have sought to leave the area and then quickly blame Israel for blocking the exodus. If these reports are true, where are the statistics and concrete evidence of such claims? Where are the numbers from the UN and Red Cross? Media and humanitarian organizations never tire from releasing Hamas-created civilian death numbers, but none of these organizations have released the number of civilians attempting evacuation since October along with the number of those seeking refuge who were turned down.

Hamas has created (and/or released) numbers for every casualty of the conflict, from how many dead, how many wounded, to how many babies and how many journalists, all in a blink of an eye, but nowhere is there a report (Hamas-generated or otherwise) of how many civilians have attempted to get out of Gaza but were turned away.

Any casual observer might think that in an active war zone where a civilian is either killed or escapes, there would be tens, if not hundreds, of thousands at the various passages every day begging to get out.

There are no videos of the masses asking to be evacuated, no footage of civilians jumping on ships, or anything similar to Afghanistan where we saw people trying to hold on with bare hands to an airplane to get out. There is no evidence of anything like that that happening in Gaza, nor do we see any promotion or emphasis on the right or need for evacuation from an active war zone anywhere in the ever more prolific international rallies, encampments, lobby groups or media.

Hamas has no desire to protect civilians. If civilians could be saved from Hamas’s war, Hamas would have very few moves left. They use local civilians as pawns in the war, as human shields, and yes, as clickbait to provoke outrage, knowing their enemy has more compassion for these lives than they do.

This is further evidence that no one claiming to care about “genocide” or “the children” or “Palestinians” actually cares about the innocent human beings themselves.

It seems the common sentiment among the dead-child-post-promoters is to use the emotion provoked to demand “Ceasefire Now,” which actually means: “Stop going after Hamas.”

There is no urgent message to “Do whatever it takes to get the innocents out of the way so you can take down the terrorists.”

In the end, it is evident that the “Evacuate Gaza Now” messaging that would indicate an interest in saving human life doesn’t fit the approved narrative of Hamas as a resistance force and Israel as the evil occupier.

It is, at this point, important to note that the outrage produced is focused on painting Hamas as “the good guys,” but neither Hamas nor their “humanitarian” allies have publicly requested the establishment of a safe zone in Gaza for civilians.

Hamas has no desire to protect civilians. If civilians could be saved from Hamas’s war, Hamas would have very few moves left. They use local civilians as pawns in the war, as human shields, and yes, as clickbait to provoke outrage, knowing their enemy has more compassion for these lives than they do.

In fact, Israel has proposed Rafa and Al Mawasi as potential safe zones, but their proposal never received the support needed to finalize the establishment of these safe areas.

And further, one can look to Israel’s model to see what occurs when people really do care to save civilians:

Not only are there Israel’s widely reported warnings and precautions to move civilians within Gaza before airstrikes, but Israel has evacuated 200,000 of their own civilians in the war zones. 

The evacuations have been conducted in response to the significant threat posed by rocket attacks from Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north. And these are residents of cities like Sderot, Kiryat Shmona, regardless of ethnicity or religion. This means that not only Jewish Israelis, but also Arab Israelis, Druze, and other minorities were evacuated if they were living in danger zones.

Even with this stark difference between parties in the conflict, internationally, Israel is the pariah and made responsible for civilian deaths. And they are held solely responsible, not just without any consideration of the role Hamas plays in putting civilians in harm’s way, but without any consideration for the role of Egypt, who controls the south passage.

There are no mass demonstrations, no rallies and slogans demanding, “Egypt, let our people go!”

But it is also estimated that around 7,000 foreign nationals and dual nationals have been evacuated from Gaza through the Rafah crossing under Egyptian control. These individuals include citizens from the United States, the European Union, Canada, and other countries. So evacuation is possible, at least when Egypt doesn’t feel that among the civilians are terrorists—and when foreign nations push for it.

This is what is important to understand: The lack of visible mass gatherings at the Gaza crossings does not necessarily mean that civilians do not want to leave. We saw briefly, at the end of October, examples of families waiting at the border as well as families who got out and cursed Hamas for ruining their lives. But then the evacuations stopped.

Gaza is still ruled and occupied by Hamas, a terror group that views mass attempts to leave as a sign of weakness or as undermining their control. Civilians might fear reprisals from Hamas or other militant factions if they are seen as trying to flee or abandon Gaza, especially during a conflict where the terrorists are emphasizing the “resistance” narrative and placing themselves in the role of victim.

Hamas would most likely also oppose the establishment of a safe zone that is not under its own control. Such a zone might be seen as undermining its authority in Gaza or creating a space where international or opposing forces have influence, which Hamas would likely reject.

It is thus puzzling, then, that when it comes to Gaza, the international organizations are not interested in evacuation.

As mentioned above, Hamas has been widely accused of using civilian areas as shields for their military activities. A safe zone could complicate Hamas’s strategy, as it would require them to avoid these areas, limiting their ability to operate at will.

When someone understands that civilians want to leave Gaza but cannot publicly demonstrate that desire under Hamas rule, and when it is further understood that Israel has evacuated civilians but does not have the means to establish safe zones inside of Gaza on its own, if that someone is a caring individual who truly desires to save lives, such a person would not use photos of dead children as propaganda.

Instead, such photos and all other efforts would be better served to put pressure on the one global organization that could establish safe zones or evacuate civilians.

The UN Security Council (UNSC) has the authority to establish safe zones or humanitarian corridors under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which allows for the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. However, for such measures to be implemented, a resolution must be passed by the UNSC.

Yet that is not the message or solution being pushed for by all those supposedly outraged at the death of civilians. (Nor has the UNSC taken this action on its own.)

Let’s look at some historic examples of mass evacuations of civilians from war zones: 

• Approximately 7,000 people were evacuated by helicopter from Saigon in a single day during the Vietnam war.
• Operation Solomon was a covert Israeli military operation to airlift over 14,000 Ethiopian Jews from Sudan to Israel during the Ethiopian Civil War.
• Hundreds of thousands of Kosovars were evacuated to neighboring countries (Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro) during the Kosovo War, facilitated by international organizations such as NATO and the UN.
• Tens of thousands of civilians have been evacuated from cities like Aleppo, Eastern Ghouta, and Homs, during the ongoing Syrian war and moved to safer areas, either within Syria or to neighboring countries as refugees.

It is thus puzzling, then, that when it comes to Gaza, the international organizations are not interested in evacuation.

For over 10 months, there have been no documented formal proposals from international organizations, like the UN or NATO, specifically aimed at airlifting Palestinian civilians out of Gaza. This is a crucial point because, without such proposals, it is not accurate to claim that Israel is solely to blame for the state of civilians in Gaza. (Although it is likely that those who do wish to keep Israel solely to blame might argue – even though it has not actually ever happened – that Israel controls the airspace and is thus blocking all evacuation attempts by air as well.)

The situation is further complicated by the presence of Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S., the EU, and others.

Nor is there any international consensus or mandate from the UN for military intervention in Gaza. The presence of NATO or any other international military force would require an agreement among major powers and regional stakeholders.

Thus, arguments against military intervention might include how difficult it is to reach consensus in the region.

But again, we can look at history to see how valid such an argument might be.

NATO’s presence in Kosovo was part of a broader international effort to stabilize the region, supported by a significant number of countries despite the initial lack of a UN mandate for military action.

For those who counter that NATO cannot operate outside of Europe, following the 9/11 attacks, NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history. NATO forces, under the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), were deployed to Afghanistan to combat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and to stabilize the country. This mission lasted for nearly two decades, illustrating NATO’s willingness to operate well beyond Europe when the security of its members is perceived to be at risk. They also got involved in Libya, Africa, and Iraq when it served their interests.

This must mean, then, that NATO doesn’t see involvement in the Hamas-Israel war as in its interest.

The answer to saving lives, then, is not antisemitism and a photo campaign of dead children. The answer might well be, however, effectively demonstrating to the EU, Canada, and the US (and others), the direct threat the Gaza conflict places on their national security—and thus the need to save civilians without stopping the takedown of Hamas.

Campaigns showing the threat of the global intifada and unchecked terrorism and how it is infecting European cities could be much more effective at saving lives in Gaza – and shoring up security around the world.

Instead of posting about the corrupt lawsuit of South Africa against Israel, misquoting the ICC opinion regarding settlements in the West Bank – and instead of all those embarrassing notions of genocide and apartheid failure and of a blood liable, why not come together and form effective campaigns for safe zones and evacuations of civilians—solutions that actually would save people’s lives?

The reason is simple and obvious. Because it was never about saving lives. None of this international and social media outrage has anything to do with the human death toll of civilians in Gaza. It was instead about inciting hate. And because such life-saving campaigns don’t involve hating Jews and don’t glorify jihadists, they will never be supported by regime money – and no one will be paid to promote actionable compassionate measures.

It truly does seem that, just like the terror regimes themselves, these posts and protests are simply being used to promote or advance the “virtue signaler” who is intent on stirring up hate (not compassion).

Civilian harm is not an excuse for promoting hate. It should, however, be the reason to come together to implement actionable measures that have been demonstrated in the past to prevent further casualties and save innocent life.

______________

Dr Walid Phares is former foreign policy advisor to Donald Trump, Newsmax contributor, and co-host of “War & Freedom” Podcast and co-President of #EducateAmerica platform.   

Gazelle Sharmahd, daughter of German-American hostage in Iran, Jimmy Sharmahd, co-host of “War & Freedom” Podcast and co-President #EducateAmerica platform.