Israeli General Advocates Mass Retaliation Following October Attacks

A former Israeli military intelligence chief, Aharon Haliva, sparked controversy by stating that for every victim of the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas, 50 Palestinians should die. Haliva’s comments, aired by Channel 12, included a chilling assertion that the death toll of more than 50,000 Palestinians in Gaza was “necessary” to send a message to future generations. He stated, “It does not matter now if they are children,” emphasizing a brutal approach to retaliation.

Haliva’s remarks come in the wake of escalating tensions and violence in the region following the attacks, which resulted in approximately 1,200 fatalities, primarily among civilians, and over 250 individuals taken hostage. The former general’s comments reflect a broader narrative within parts of Israeli leadership and media, which has increasingly employed harsh rhetoric against Palestinians since the attacks.

Implications of Haliva’s Statements

Haliva described the ongoing conflict as a necessity, suggesting that Palestinians require “a Nakba every now and then to feel the price.” The term “Nakba,” meaning catastrophe in Arabic, refers to the mass displacement of Palestinians during the establishment of Israel in 1948. This rhetoric has drawn significant scrutiny, especially since collective punishment of civilians is illegal under international law.

The former general, who left his position in April 2024, appeared to validate casualty figures reported by Gaza health authorities, which Israeli officials often dismiss as propaganda. According to reports, the Gaza health ministry’s death toll surpassed 60,000 recently, with Haliva’s acknowledgment of these figures highlighting the substantial civilian cost of the ongoing conflict.

Haliva’s comments, recorded in recent months but undated, reflect a stark reality. His statement that “the fact that there are already 50,000 dead in Gaza is necessary and required for future generations” emphasizes the depth of the military strategy advocated by some Israeli leaders.

Reactions and Context

The reaction to Haliva’s statements has been mixed within Israel. While some media outlets reported on his critical views of the Israeli government and its intelligence failures, they largely avoided highlighting his calls for mass violence against civilians. Notably, Haaretz described the format of Haliva’s comments as reminiscent of an interview without direct questioning, raising concerns about the broader implications of such rhetoric.

Haliva’s criticism extended to the political landscape, where he noted that many viewed the October 7 attacks as a tragedy affecting left-leaning Israelis involved in peace movements. He quoted an internal critic from the intelligence directorate who suggested that had the victims belonged to right-leaning factions, the response would have been far less aggressive.

The vast gulf in perception regarding the conflict, both within Israel and internationally, underscores the complexity of the situation. While Haliva is often seen as a centrist figure, his recent comments have brought him under scrutiny and highlighted the urgent need for dialogue and accountability in addressing the ongoing violence.

The calls for retaliation and the framing of the conflict continue to pose significant ethical and legal questions about the conduct of warfare and the protection of civilians in armed conflict. As the situation evolves, the implications of Haliva’s statements will likely resonate throughout both Israeli and Palestinian communities, further complicating an already fraught landscape.