Israel and The Banality of Evil

CrossFireArabia
Opinion
September 25, 2025

By Ismail Al Sharif

‘…As though you and your superiors had any right to determine who should and who should not inhabit this world – we find that no one, that is no member of the human race, can be expected to want to share the earth with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, for which you deserve to be hanged,” – Hannah Arendt, German-Jewish philosopher.

When you read the sentence: “We had to create conditions more painful than death,” you might think it’s taken from a horror novel or a dystopian narrative that depicts future or imaginary societies in which values collapse, injustice prevails, and environmental and social devastation rages. It’s the “corrupt city,” the exact opposite of utopia, the ideal city.

You might think the sentence appeared in one of Ahmed Khaled Tawfik’s “Utopia,” George Orwell’s “1984,” or Albert Camus’s “The Plague.” You might think it was a line in the testimony of a serial killer who plagued the police for a full decade before dozens of bodies were discovered buried in his garden.

But would you believe that this statement was uttered by Minister of “Zionist Heritage,” Amichai Eliyahu? He wasn’t angry, he wasn’t agitated, and no spittle was flying from his mouth. He said it with calm, measured calm, wearing a smart suit and tie, his face sporting a trimmed beard that, at first glance, you might mistake for a dignified sheikh or a holy man.

His statement was devoid of any emotion, like a routine uttering from a government employee, explaining to people that the power outage was due to a heat wave, or that the road closures were due to temporary maintenance work.

Have you ever wondered how decisions to commit genocide are made? And how countries became complicit in these?

My direct answer: Decisions to commit genocide are made when they are put on the agenda, when they are announced from golf courses or discussed at dinner tables. When children and women are killed by bombs, and hospitals and shelters are destroyed, a dapper bureaucrat takes the stage.

He starts his day with a jog around his house, has breakfast with his children, kisses his wife goodbye, asks her what she needs from the market, and instructs his children to behave.

This same bureaucrat takes center-stage to defend genocide, beautifying it, whilst sanitizing it linguistically, using flowery terms such as: “Precision strikes,” “human shields,” “collateral damage.”

He like other bureaucrats are creative in manipulating the vocabulary: Torture is transformed into “interrogation,” starvation into “economic pressure,” and ethnic cleansing into “security buffer zones” or “humanitarian cities.” Even death traps are remarketed under glamorous names, such as the “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.”

Let’s return to the Minister of “Zionist Heritage,” who concludes his statement by saying: “Death is no longer enough. It must be painful, prolonged, and free from any international accountability.”

Even the most brutal of tyrants in history were careful to conceal their intentions when committing crimes. When the Qarmatians slaughtered pilgrims in Mecca in 317 AH, they claimed they were doing so to destroy idols. When the pilgrims committed the Euphrates Massacre against the people of Iraq, the pretext was “sedition.” Even when the United States committed the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War, it described it as “military engagement.”

But this time, and for the first time in history, this man comes out publicly and admits to committing genocide, while dressed in his finest suit and tie. It is the most brutal and horrific genocide in our modern history and under our eyes.

Perhaps, one day, criminals like him will be brought to justice and charged with war crimes. They will defend themselves coldly: “We were following orders,” or “it was just a business procedure,” without pain, without remorse, and without the slightest sense of guilt or responsibility.

This is exactly what Hannah Arendt described as the “banality of evil.”

This article by Ismail Al Sharif was originally written in Arabic for the Addustour daily.

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

News Opinion

World Cup, Wimbledon Kicks: Flags, Nepotism, Red Cards and a Watermelon!

Saleem Ayoub Quna
July 9, 2026

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

For a change I would like to give credit to President Trump’s, latest attempt to support the American team before facing off Belgium’s team on July 6, when the day before, and despite his tight and loaded schedule, he called “his friend” Gianni Infantino, FIFA’s President, and asked him for a second look at the punishment against the American striker Folarin Balogun, who made a foul against a Bosnia-Herzegovina player in the match they played earlier on July 2, and which the US won 2-0.

FIFA regulations stipulate that when a player gets a red card during a match for an offense he makes against the other team, he should be suspended from playing in the following match! Mr. Infantino obliged and lifted the ban against the American player. But the match against Belgium in which Balogun played was won by Belgium 4-1.

This intervention episode by Trump on behalf of the American national soccer squad did not end there and led to a controversy that would not be settled before the closing of the 32nd round of the current international tournament.

Infantino was criticized by many within and outside the FIFA body and was asked to resign his post as head of this huge powerful organization. In brief, this episode shows that behind the broad smiles and nice words, sits a huge monster of nepotism and even possible corruption!

Also it means that sports, as a human “noble” endeavor, is not immune from certain uncouth and loath viruses that can affect and may shatter the dreams of other less resourceful nations!

Then we have the phenomenon of waiving national flags when a team wins a match. This occasion is ceased by some staff of the winning teams and players to demonstrate their support for a certain political or human cause or admiration of a person. This is exactly what Hossam Hassan, head-coach of the Egyptian team did when his players defeated Australia on July 3 as they scored 4 goals against Australia which scored only 2 goals, in the final shootout play of the match.

Coach Hassan came down to the pitch and waived the Palestinian flag in a sign of support for the Palestinians in beleaguered Gaza, which celebrated Egyptian performance at the tournament. Israel protested this solidarity gesture with Palestinians and labeled it as anti-Semitic, but FIFA officials maintained that flags belonging to FIFA members, (including Palestine) are allowed to be waived on this occasion!

On the other side of the Atlantic, and in London to be precise, another major sports event is underway, known as the Wimbledon grand slam championship. Wimbledon is known for its strict rules starting with the must-wear white attire, by all players and staff!

On June 29, the Turkish Tennis player, Zeynep Sonmez, ranked 51 by WTA, defeated American player Ann Li 2-1. Sonmez wanted to waive a sign of support for the Palestinians, but could not and according to Jamie Baker, the Wimbledon Tournament Director: “Wimbledon rules do not allow political massaging from players”!

So, what does Ms. Zeynep Somez do?! She sticks a small rubber shock absorber to her racket in a shape of a watermelon composed of the four colors of red, white, black and green! To that subtle demonstration, the Wimbledon people could not raise a finger or blow a whistle!

In this regard, other sources insisted that some people among the audience waived the Israeli which was received by a blind eye!

So next time I attend an important tournament or watch it on TV, I will keep my eyes open on tactics and kicks of this sort, which actually might add to the fun of watching!

Opinion

New York: AIPAC Stranglehold No More !

CrossFireArabia
July 8, 2026

By James J. Zogby

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has long held sway in elections, threatening and intimidating any opposition. When a critic of Israel was defeated, they boasted of victory as a lesson for others. In last week’s Democratic primary elections in New York City, three insurgent critics of Israeli policies defeated AIPAC-endorsed candidates, pointing to the potential end of an era for the pro-Israel lobby.

 AIPAC’s approach to politics and elections was smart. Formed by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, they were connected from the outset to an impressive national network of American Jewish leaders, activists, and donors they used to effectively influence members of Congress to embrace pro-Israel positions.  They’d visit elected officials in Washington seeking endorsements of legislation and enlist local leaders in a congressperson’s district to make the pitch.

They’d have local representatives offer to help write new candidates’ Middle East policy positions. Implicit were the promise of support if the official or candidate did what was asked—and the threat of opposition if they didn’t.  AIPAC also spawned a network of PACs—political action committees—to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to distribute for or against candidates depending on their positions on Israel.  Strategic in their operations, not everyone benefited from AIPAC’s largesse.

Chairs of important congressional committees and very supportive congressmembers facing tough reelections received bundled contributions. When elected officials repeatedly stepped out of line, their opponents would benefit from PAC monies and bundled contributions from individual pro-Israel donors.  Overall, the amounts were not overwhelming but sufficient to send a message. When an election went their way, the lobby would crow about the victory, whether or not their support had been a factor. Their goal was communication: “Fear us, or you too can be defeated.”  

With the end of federal oversight of independent election expenditures, AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups created “super-PACs” to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars each cycle. In 2022 and 2024, they effectively targeted a few candidates critical of Israel and spent millions to defeat them.  After Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, we’ve witnessed a dramatic collapse of public support for Israel—especially among Democrats. AIPAC can no longer make examples of just a few candidates, with well over 100 electeds now critical of Israel. Add to this that AIPAC has become so toxic they’ve been forced to create new entities or rely on alternates to distribute funds to candidates.  Meanwhile, Israel’s behaviors alienate more voters. And the more money AIPAC spends, the more toxic its brand—even when they win, their heavy-handed tactics lead to declining support.

This brings us to last week’s New York primaries, a turning point in US politics when two prominent pro-Israel members of Congress were defeated by challengers critical of Israeli policies and supporters of Palestinian justice, and a former leader of pro-Palestinian campus protests won an open race. Not only did AIPAC and its allies spend millions and fail, but also these elections were upfront about Israeli policies and Palestinian rights.  

A hallmark of pro-Israel groups’ past campaign involvement was the lengths they’d go to not make support for Israel a public issue. They’d raise money from their supporters based on Israel, but their expenditures would pay for ads criticizing a candidate’s age or “radical agenda,” never mentioning the candidate’s position on Israel. In these NY contests, many issues mattered to voters, especially frustration with the Democratic establishment’s failed policies—but they were also about Israel, and voters knew it.   

In predictable reactions from the pro-Israel side, some accused the targeting of AIPAC’s money and influence as unfair or even antisemitic—ignoring decades of AIPAC boasting about its money and influence as the source of its power. Others claimed that with the election’s results, “Jews no longer feel safe in New York,” ignoring that the most prominent contest’s victor is Jewish—a self-proclaimed progressive Zionist who strongly opposed Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. Finally, some desperately attempted to dismiss the entire election as just about New York with no larger significance, ignoring the changed national political landscape as similar contests emerge everywhere.   

The bottom line is that after a half-century AIPAC’s hold over politics has been weakened. It won’t go away anytime soon, but a real debate over US Middle East policy can now take place. Thank you, New York voters

James J. Zogby is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute  and contributed this article to The Jordan Times