Slovenia Against Genocide

I began my professional career more than thirty years ago in the then barely established Slovenian diplomatic service. I soon went to work for an international organization, but I always remained in touch with the work of many excellent Slovenian diplomats and experts in international affairs. The problem of Slovenian foreign policy has never been its people, but above all the lack of interest, ideas and self-confidence of Slovenian politics in the field of international relations. If we leave aside the EU presidencies, which come to Slovenia in alphabetical order, and its first membership of the UN Security Council, its more visible successes in this field can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Symptomatic is an anecdote told to me by a Slovenian diplomat from the time of Karl Erjavec’s tenure as minister, who for all kinds of situations and important decisions in international organizations gave one single instruction: Vote with the majority.

So it was—until today. Slovenian foreign policy has taken a different position on the genocidal bloodshed in Gaza. Since the recognition of the Palestinian state in June last year, there has been a series of diplomatic, political and economic decisions and actions that have placed Slovenia among those European countries most resolutely advocating increased pressure on Israel and the earliest possible end to the slaughter in Gaza. Is this enough? Can we start patting ourselves on the back? Certainly not—above all because Israel is still continuing its actions, and in Gaza dozens of people are still dying every day—if not in bombings, then from lack of humanitarian aid, food, medicines and basic health care.

Why did our foreign-policy stance change? There is undoubtedly no single answer, but public pressure was an important factor. Slovenian public opinion—appalled by Israel’s rampage in Gaza and at the same time by the lukewarmness of European politics—sent Slovenian politicians a clear message that it demanded a different, more resolute stance. The Slovenian political leadership understood that message. It became clear to them—unlike some other European politicians—what consequences further hesitation and indifference would have while unpunished inhumanity unfolds before the eyes of the world.

I believe this is not (merely) about political positioning or scoring points, but about understanding the historic turning point of the times we live in. Politics that has its mouth full of democratic and humanist values but forgets them when they are most needed is itself preparing the ground for those who would rule without democracy, without humanity and without respect for human rights. As Palestinians die in Gaza, the chances for the survival of democracy are dying too—everywhere it is still being kept alive.

A more resolute Slovenian policy may not yet show direct effects on Israel’s conduct, but it contributes to greater pressure on European countries that, for one reason or another, are still looking for excuses for why they are doing nothing—or at least not enough. This is important and creates the possibility that things may move after all. Let us hope as soon as possible. Resolutely advocating an end to Israeli violence in Gaza also holds up a mirror to Slovenian politicians who, by parroting clichés about “support for Hamas” and labeling every criticism of Israeli policy antisemitism, above all expose themselves.

But Palestinians in Gaza are still dying—every day. So the question is how to move forward. For Slovenian foreign policy the direction is clear: even more resolute advocacy of pressure on Israel and of stopping the dying of Palestinians. The Slovenian public, too, must not let up the pressure—it has played a key role so far. But I also have a few thoughts on how to avoid traps that are not only morally questionable but objectively harm efforts for peace.

First: our attitude toward Hamas’s crimes of October 7 and the taking of hostages. Condemning Hamas’s crimes in no way relativizes Israel’s responsibility for what happened before and after October 7 and in no way diminishes the effectiveness of our support for the Palestinians—on the contrary, it strengthens it. Attempts to justify what Hamas did offer Netanyahu and his allies convenient excuses with which to justify their conduct before the Israeli and world public. Let us stop helping them do so.

Second: justified outrage at Israel’s actions too often slips into dangerous generalization—attributing responsibility for genocide to all Israelis or even all Jews. Far be it from me to accuse the majority of appalled and concerned people—among whom I count myself—of antisemitism. But there is nonetheless a not insignificant number of people who cannot resist the “temptation of justified hatred of Jews.” It recalls the bitter Jewish joke: An antisemite is someone who hates Jews more than they deserve.

Flirting with antisemitism—even in emotional fervor—is not only reprehensible in itself but also undermines efforts to end the genocide and achieve legal accountability for the acts committed. Recently I got into a debate on social media triggered by one user’s statement about a “mad and murderous nation.” I believe the expression was used in the heat of the moment, but that makes it no less objectionable. The comments were symptomatic too—from rejecting “political correctness” (which is classic far-right rhetoric) to the statement: “Hitler knew what he was doing.”

In public discourse, Zionism has become a synonym for Netanyahu’s policy toward Gaza and the Palestinians—and that is problematic. Zionism is a complex concept whose meaning depends on context. At its core it is the national movement of Jews to establish their own state. The Council of Europe’s 2022 Recommendation on passing on remembrance of the Holocaust and preventing crimes against humanity stresses the need for an “assessment of the key factors that shaped the history of the Jewish people in the modern era, including Zionism in the context of rising antisemitism at the end of the 19th century and as a movement for national independence modeled on the revolutions of 1848, in order to avoid dangerous and problematic oversimplification.”

It is of course legitimate and necessary to take a critical position on what happened after the founding of Israel and on how that state treats the Palestinians. It becomes problematic, however, when anti-Zionism is expressed as denial of Israel’s right to exist. Setting aside the beliefs of some Orthodox Jewish sects that reject it for religious reasons, the conviction that the cause of the conflict is Israel’s existence leads us to a logical conclusion: the only solution is the destruction of Israel. Ending one genocide with another?

We will not stop the genocide in Gaza by attributing guilt for it to all Israelis—still less to all Jews. Just as we cannot blame all Russians for the aggression against Ukraine. Reducing such conflicts—which are otherwise very different in their circumstances—to the ethnic level only makes it easier for the responsible individuals to hide behind the facade of “defending the nation against a hostile world.”

The temptation of justified hatred is not a theoretical invention. Recently, at a gas station near Milan, a French Jew was beaten in front of his underage son because he was wearing a traditional Jewish head covering. Such incidents are becoming more frequent—and that must worry us. Not only because they harm our efforts to end Palestinian suffering, but also because of our own European history—which is evidently always closer than we would like to admit.