August 13th, 2025. British author and journalist Stephen Pollard shares his reaction to a banner displayed shortly before a UEFA Super Cup game. The banner reads, “STOP KILLING CHILDREN.
Genocide hinges on intent. If Israel is committed to exterminating the Palestinians, and its attacks do not serve a military purpose, then it is committing genocide. If it is committed to defeating Hamas, to eliminating it as a military or political power, and its actions are consistent with that goal, then it is at war.
To bridge the gap between us, I want to discuss the subtler kind of dehumanizing that I see towards the Arabs in Western media coverage of the war. It seems as though the Jews can be responsible for what they do, but Hamas and the Arabs cannot. Hamas is committed thoroughly, and in writing, to the extermination of the Jews. 10/7 was a genocide by the UN definition. They intended and caused the death of part of the Jews, a non-trivial part. They also intended to kill the Palestinian people. They built a vast underground complex to hide in, built right under the closely packed homes of the Gaza Palestinians. They then committed an atrocity to draw Israel into war with it, knowing that thousands of Palestinians would die as a result.
Part of the UN definition of genocide is "Deliberately inflicting conditions of life intended to cause physical destruction." This is what Hamas did. Their intention is a new kind of thing: seeing to the mass murder of the people you politically and militarily control, expecting it to be blamed on your enemy, and thus further your genocidal intentions towards that enemy.
Another dimension of the media dehumanizing the Arabs is to ignore the war between the Islamists and the vast majority of Arabs whose leaders voted unanimously to tell Hamas to submit to Israel's conditions. Hamas invaded, in part, to head off peaceful relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and they have not succeeded. As far as I can see, the Saudis (and Egyptians and Emiratis) are still on board to sponsor a government which can rule Gaza peacefully (i.e. not Hamas or the corrupt and widely discredited PA, unless it is massively reformed). The war for the future of the Muslims is hugely important, and not just in Gaza. The US, the Israelis, the Europeans, will all benefit, but it will be transformational for the Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular.
"If Israel is committed to exterminating the Palestinians, and its attacks do not serve a military purpose, then it is committing genocide"
I strongly suspect we move in very different informational ecosystems, but can you honestly say you believe that Israel's attacks have all served a military purpose? I can find quotes if you need them, but there is a litany of evidence from Netanyahu on down that this isn't the case, that the purpose is to make Gaza (and the West Bank) unlivable and to kill as many Palestinians as politically possible in order to "encourage" the Palestinians'...ahem, "voluntary expulsion."
I mean, God, we're 23 months in now! Over a dozen former heads of Mossad and Shin Bet and various other Israeli security agencies have come forward to call for an end to this "war." Netanyahu's military advisers have been saying the same thing for over a year.
As for this claim that the Palestinians aren't responsible for what they do, I'm not going to get drawn into speaking for anybody else, though I believe this is almost entirely a strawman, but I'm certainly not arguing that the Palestinians aren't responsible for what they do.
It's just that there are two problems here.
First, and most obviously, ~99.7% of Palestinians didn't do anything. They had nothing to do with the 10/7 attacks or with the planning of them, so most of the world is rightly holding them responsible for nothing (just to head off a common and ridiculous complaint, over 50% of the population of Gaza weren't even born when Hamas was voted into power and 0% of them knew what would happen 19 years later).
And second, I'm not arguing that the people who DID take part in the attacks aren't responsible for their actions and shouldn't be held accountable for them. Hamas very, incredibly obviously committed war crimes on 10/7. The ICC issued arrest warrants for all of the leaders on this basis, and had they survived, I would be wholeheartedly in favour of seeing them face accountability for those crimes.
Again, I don't know a single person who would object to this. The idea that people who object to this genocide don't hold Hamas responsible for their actions seems to be entirely a strawman
Actually, I'd argue that there's a far stronger abdication of responsibility in the genocide-apologia camp. How often have you heard the claim, "Hamas is wholly responsible for all the civilian deaths in Gaza"?
One could argue that Hamas started this "war" if they ignore all of recorded history before 10/7, but you can't argue that the people dropping the bombs and shooting the sniper rifles and blocking the aid aren't at least a little bit responsible for the deaths their actions are causing, can you?
So yes, if you want to describe Hamas' actions as genocidal, that's fair enough. As I'm constantly pointing out to people on your side of the debate, I have never had any issue condemning Hamas and seeing them for what they are. The "gap" between us arises because you (I'm presuming) struggle to do the same thing for Israel when they commit orders of magnitude greater crimes.
You seem focused on making a moral judgement. You accept that Hamas has done evil things and you want me to accept that Israel has done evil things.
I see Israel as being at war. Wars are filled with horror, terror and cruelty. I want Israel to win the war and have it be the last one. I see Israel as being much more moral than you do, but I'm not sure winning that moral conduct contest makes a decisive difference. If Israel was accepted as being more moral, but it leads to its eventual extermination, I will consider that a horrible tragedy. I am certain that you don't wish for that outcome, but I'm just letting you know where my focus is.
As has been pointed out many times, if Israel wins, the fighting stops and the rebuilding can begin. Let me set aside the shape of that rebuilding for a moment. If Israel loses, its people will be exterminated. That is not theoretical. Perhaps Hamas will have a road to Damascus conversion and give up the idea that the redemption of Islam starts with the extermination of the Jewish people. But I think they are deeply committed to that idea.
Hamas is seriously weakened, so if the war ended today the things I'm concerned about won't happen immediately. But in Hamas' eyes and the eyes of their supporters they will have won the war, and redeemed the Palestinians with blood. How confident are you that the PA or some other organization can create a new future for the Palestinians if Hamas is rebuilding itself?
I think it's a fair analogize to WWII and say "What if Germany had not been forced to surrender unconditionally, and the Nazis hounded from power? Wouldn't the same thing happen if Hamas does not surrender its arms and all of its political power." Fanatics are notably persistent.
But if Hamas is decisively defeated and are seen as causing the devastation of Gaza for nothing, then something life affirming has a chance to arise. After 75+ years the Arab world is warming to the idea of using abundance as a new way to bring peace and a different kind of redemption and rebirth. That is a peace that Israel would welcome, and it changes the context in which the future of Gaza (and the West Bank) is considered. In that context Ben Gvir and Smotrich lose whatever political cache they have. Israeli politics would grab the opportunity, I feel certain, and be transformed.
I see this as the moment like when the European Common Market arose and two world wars were finally, decisively over. That's the side I'm on.
Okay, let’s accept this framing. Does war make the killing of innocent people acceptable in your view?
Do you accept that from the Palestinian point of view, they are at war with Israel, the occupying force that has had them under military control for 58 years in the case of the West Bank and 19 years in the case of Gaza?
Do you accept that Israel has no right at all to be in or control the West Bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem and yet they control the lives of all ~5 million people living there in brutal ways? And are on the record, repeatedly, stating that they will block any attempts to end this occupation and allow the establishment n of a Palestinian state?
Do you accept that this ongoing act of aggression long predates 10/7 even if we ignore the Nakba and everything that preceded it?
The entire reason we’re all horrified by what happened on 10/7 is the brutal attacks on civilians, right? Regardless of whether Hamas see themselves as at war with Israel, the civilian toll is unacceptable.
I’m simply applying the same principle to Israel. Crying “war” doesn’t and never has excused you from any actions you take.
Okay, let’s accept this framing. Does war make the killing of innocent people acceptable in your view?
Mike: Unfortunately, yes. I just googled "How many civilians died in WW2?" and the answer was "Approximately 40 to 50 million civilians died in World War II, representing the vast majority of the total death toll, which is estimated to be between 70 and 85 million people". And Hitler and Tojo weren't trying to amplify civilian casualties, like Hamas does.
War is a horror. Your enemy civilians may not be free but do they not bear some moral responsibility for the actions of the people who govern them? If their leadership chooses to put them at risk, how is the weight of that choice on the people their leadership if making war on?
As the leader of a nation at war, the protection of your own people, both soldiers and civilians, trumps any obligation you have to enemy civilians. The Allies chose to carpet bomb enemy civilians on the theory that it would put pressure on the enemy leadership. You can certainly question whether it was wise or effective. But if you were convinced that it would shorten the war and bring victory and that victory would save your people, then you'd have a moral obligation to do so. As the head of the US Army Urban Warfare center tells anyone who will listen: Israel goes to unprecedented lengths to warn civilians and get them as much out of harm's way as they can. But they don't let enemy civilians prevent them from fighting effectively.
Steve: Do you accept that from the Palestinian point of view, they are at war with Israel, the occupying force that has had them under military control for 58 years in the case of the West Bank and 19 years in the case of Gaza?
Mike: Gaza was controlled for 38 years; we are 3 days short of the 20th anniversary of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. Israel turned Gaza over to the PA to govern, and Hamas overthrew the PA there. It began making terrorist rocket attacks and importing weapons, so Israel blockaded them and has maintained the blockade ever since. That one is entirely on Hamas -- they could have lived in peace with Israel and delivered peace and good government to their people. They chose not to. Instead they made war, and once again, the moral burden on the Israeli leadership is to protect its citizens.
Steve: Do you accept that Israel has no right at all to be in or control the West Bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem and yet they control the lives of all ~5 million people living there in brutal ways? And are on the record, repeatedly, stating that they will block any attempts to end this occupation and allow the establishment n of a Palestinian state?
Mike: Israel signed a heralded agreement with Yassir Arafat trading land for peace. He then betrayed it in the most gaudy and violent ways he could think of. All Israel has ever wanted was peace. They are not blind, however. They see the man in the suicide vest coming to kill them, and they respond accordingly. They consider governing Palestinians as a burden, and would gladly accept a genuine, committed, reliable, demonstrated peace in exchange for the West Bank and Gaza.
Steve: Do you accept that this ongoing act of aggression long predates 10/7 even if we ignore the Nakba and everything that preceded it?
Mike: There were anti-Jewish riots in the area now called Israel from the 1800's on. The Hebron riots of 1929 were the worst, and left Hebron, the original capital of Israel, and the site of tombs of the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs, Judenrein. All of Israel's wars have been defensive.
Israel has fought all those wars with the knowledge that if they lose, their extermination is always on the table. They fight hard and effectively, but appropriately within their moral obligation to protect themselves.
Steve: The entire reason we’re all horrified by what happened on 10/7 is the brutal attacks on civilians, right?
Regardless of whether Hamas see themselves as at war with Israel, the civilian toll is unacceptable.
I’m simply applying the same principle to Israel. Crying “war” doesn’t and never has excused you from any actions you take.
> I was horrified on 10/7 that another gratuitous war had begun. The cruelty amplified the outrage for sure, but the fact of war, and the threat of attacks from all sides, e.g. Iran and all its proxies, was a larger reason to be horrified, for me. Over time, I was pleasantly surprised that the Arab world did not join the war. That's the key to how this endless conflict can end.
Most media attention is on Israel. It is not curious about the Arabs and their internal struggles and how their experience shapes their response. That's the bigger story.
The real Israel story is actually pretty simple: refugees from European monstrousness return to their ancient homeland in desperation, and have sought to make an accomodation with their neighbors ever since. The neighbors have refused, often quite violently, and Israel has fought back successfully, but also with decisive violence. The possibility of success is on the horizon. Hamas tried to prevent that, but has, I think, failed, though the fight is not yet over.
But what is the Arab story? The real Nakba starts with Napoleon easily defeating the Arabs in Egypt in the early 1800's. This hit like a thunderbolt. The Arabs suddenly realized how weak they had become. Where once they threatened France and Austria, now they could be knocked over like tin men. This was a crisis and caused them to explore ideas that were popular in Europe, like Nazism and Marxism over the next two centuries.
When the Jews, massively outnumbered, were able to beat them it was 10x worse. France at least was a major power in the early 1800's. The Jews were poor stragglers who had come within an inch of being exterminated in Europe. And they had now beaten five Arab armies. Land that had been ruled by Muslims ever since they conquered the land of Israel and occupied and settled it, was now being ruled by the pathetic Jews, and the Arabs were too pathetic to stop them.
These wars are not about what Israel does. Syria's government, in the last few years, killed 100's of thousands of its own civilians and drove millions into exile and no one cared.
The real issue is this: the Arabs need a new future. The sleepy old Ottomans tried to keep up with Europe, but failed. The Arabs rode the same currents of thought from the French Revolution to Nazism and Marxism (Baathism starts by admiring Hitler and Stalin, and adding a touch of Arab chauvinism). These have all failed. Having exhausted all other possibilities, they are doing the right thing (to paraphrase Winston Churchill's line about the US).
Out of the Horror of this catastrophe, something beautiful might emerge.
Genocide hinges on intent. If Israel is committed to exterminating the Palestinians, and its attacks do not serve a military purpose, then it is committing genocide. If it is committed to defeating Hamas, to eliminating it as a military or political power, and its actions are consistent with that goal, then it is at war.
To bridge the gap between us, I want to discuss the subtler kind of dehumanizing that I see towards the Arabs in Western media coverage of the war. It seems as though the Jews can be responsible for what they do, but Hamas and the Arabs cannot. Hamas is committed thoroughly, and in writing, to the extermination of the Jews. 10/7 was a genocide by the UN definition. They intended and caused the death of part of the Jews, a non-trivial part. They also intended to kill the Palestinian people. They built a vast underground complex to hide in, built right under the closely packed homes of the Gaza Palestinians. They then committed an atrocity to draw Israel into war with it, knowing that thousands of Palestinians would die as a result.
Part of the UN definition of genocide is "Deliberately inflicting conditions of life intended to cause physical destruction." This is what Hamas did. Their intention is a new kind of thing: seeing to the mass murder of the people you politically and militarily control, expecting it to be blamed on your enemy, and thus further your genocidal intentions towards that enemy.
Another dimension of the media dehumanizing the Arabs is to ignore the war between the Islamists and the vast majority of Arabs whose leaders voted unanimously to tell Hamas to submit to Israel's conditions. Hamas invaded, in part, to head off peaceful relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and they have not succeeded. As far as I can see, the Saudis (and Egyptians and Emiratis) are still on board to sponsor a government which can rule Gaza peacefully (i.e. not Hamas or the corrupt and widely discredited PA, unless it is massively reformed). The war for the future of the Muslims is hugely important, and not just in Gaza. The US, the Israelis, the Europeans, will all benefit, but it will be transformational for the Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular.
"If Israel is committed to exterminating the Palestinians, and its attacks do not serve a military purpose, then it is committing genocide"
I strongly suspect we move in very different informational ecosystems, but can you honestly say you believe that Israel's attacks have all served a military purpose? I can find quotes if you need them, but there is a litany of evidence from Netanyahu on down that this isn't the case, that the purpose is to make Gaza (and the West Bank) unlivable and to kill as many Palestinians as politically possible in order to "encourage" the Palestinians'...ahem, "voluntary expulsion."
I mean, God, we're 23 months in now! Over a dozen former heads of Mossad and Shin Bet and various other Israeli security agencies have come forward to call for an end to this "war." Netanyahu's military advisers have been saying the same thing for over a year.
As for this claim that the Palestinians aren't responsible for what they do, I'm not going to get drawn into speaking for anybody else, though I believe this is almost entirely a strawman, but I'm certainly not arguing that the Palestinians aren't responsible for what they do.
It's just that there are two problems here.
First, and most obviously, ~99.7% of Palestinians didn't do anything. They had nothing to do with the 10/7 attacks or with the planning of them, so most of the world is rightly holding them responsible for nothing (just to head off a common and ridiculous complaint, over 50% of the population of Gaza weren't even born when Hamas was voted into power and 0% of them knew what would happen 19 years later).
And second, I'm not arguing that the people who DID take part in the attacks aren't responsible for their actions and shouldn't be held accountable for them. Hamas very, incredibly obviously committed war crimes on 10/7. The ICC issued arrest warrants for all of the leaders on this basis, and had they survived, I would be wholeheartedly in favour of seeing them face accountability for those crimes.
Again, I don't know a single person who would object to this. The idea that people who object to this genocide don't hold Hamas responsible for their actions seems to be entirely a strawman
Actually, I'd argue that there's a far stronger abdication of responsibility in the genocide-apologia camp. How often have you heard the claim, "Hamas is wholly responsible for all the civilian deaths in Gaza"?
One could argue that Hamas started this "war" if they ignore all of recorded history before 10/7, but you can't argue that the people dropping the bombs and shooting the sniper rifles and blocking the aid aren't at least a little bit responsible for the deaths their actions are causing, can you?
So yes, if you want to describe Hamas' actions as genocidal, that's fair enough. As I'm constantly pointing out to people on your side of the debate, I have never had any issue condemning Hamas and seeing them for what they are. The "gap" between us arises because you (I'm presuming) struggle to do the same thing for Israel when they commit orders of magnitude greater crimes.
You seem focused on making a moral judgement. You accept that Hamas has done evil things and you want me to accept that Israel has done evil things.
I see Israel as being at war. Wars are filled with horror, terror and cruelty. I want Israel to win the war and have it be the last one. I see Israel as being much more moral than you do, but I'm not sure winning that moral conduct contest makes a decisive difference. If Israel was accepted as being more moral, but it leads to its eventual extermination, I will consider that a horrible tragedy. I am certain that you don't wish for that outcome, but I'm just letting you know where my focus is.
As has been pointed out many times, if Israel wins, the fighting stops and the rebuilding can begin. Let me set aside the shape of that rebuilding for a moment. If Israel loses, its people will be exterminated. That is not theoretical. Perhaps Hamas will have a road to Damascus conversion and give up the idea that the redemption of Islam starts with the extermination of the Jewish people. But I think they are deeply committed to that idea.
Hamas is seriously weakened, so if the war ended today the things I'm concerned about won't happen immediately. But in Hamas' eyes and the eyes of their supporters they will have won the war, and redeemed the Palestinians with blood. How confident are you that the PA or some other organization can create a new future for the Palestinians if Hamas is rebuilding itself?
I think it's a fair analogize to WWII and say "What if Germany had not been forced to surrender unconditionally, and the Nazis hounded from power? Wouldn't the same thing happen if Hamas does not surrender its arms and all of its political power." Fanatics are notably persistent.
But if Hamas is decisively defeated and are seen as causing the devastation of Gaza for nothing, then something life affirming has a chance to arise. After 75+ years the Arab world is warming to the idea of using abundance as a new way to bring peace and a different kind of redemption and rebirth. That is a peace that Israel would welcome, and it changes the context in which the future of Gaza (and the West Bank) is considered. In that context Ben Gvir and Smotrich lose whatever political cache they have. Israeli politics would grab the opportunity, I feel certain, and be transformed.
I see this as the moment like when the European Common Market arose and two world wars were finally, decisively over. That's the side I'm on.
“I see Israel as being at war.”
Okay, let’s accept this framing. Does war make the killing of innocent people acceptable in your view?
Do you accept that from the Palestinian point of view, they are at war with Israel, the occupying force that has had them under military control for 58 years in the case of the West Bank and 19 years in the case of Gaza?
Do you accept that Israel has no right at all to be in or control the West Bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem and yet they control the lives of all ~5 million people living there in brutal ways? And are on the record, repeatedly, stating that they will block any attempts to end this occupation and allow the establishment n of a Palestinian state?
Do you accept that this ongoing act of aggression long predates 10/7 even if we ignore the Nakba and everything that preceded it?
The entire reason we’re all horrified by what happened on 10/7 is the brutal attacks on civilians, right? Regardless of whether Hamas see themselves as at war with Israel, the civilian toll is unacceptable.
I’m simply applying the same principle to Israel. Crying “war” doesn’t and never has excused you from any actions you take.
Steve: “I see Israel as being at war.”
Okay, let’s accept this framing. Does war make the killing of innocent people acceptable in your view?
Mike: Unfortunately, yes. I just googled "How many civilians died in WW2?" and the answer was "Approximately 40 to 50 million civilians died in World War II, representing the vast majority of the total death toll, which is estimated to be between 70 and 85 million people". And Hitler and Tojo weren't trying to amplify civilian casualties, like Hamas does.
War is a horror. Your enemy civilians may not be free but do they not bear some moral responsibility for the actions of the people who govern them? If their leadership chooses to put them at risk, how is the weight of that choice on the people their leadership if making war on?
As the leader of a nation at war, the protection of your own people, both soldiers and civilians, trumps any obligation you have to enemy civilians. The Allies chose to carpet bomb enemy civilians on the theory that it would put pressure on the enemy leadership. You can certainly question whether it was wise or effective. But if you were convinced that it would shorten the war and bring victory and that victory would save your people, then you'd have a moral obligation to do so. As the head of the US Army Urban Warfare center tells anyone who will listen: Israel goes to unprecedented lengths to warn civilians and get them as much out of harm's way as they can. But they don't let enemy civilians prevent them from fighting effectively.
Steve: Do you accept that from the Palestinian point of view, they are at war with Israel, the occupying force that has had them under military control for 58 years in the case of the West Bank and 19 years in the case of Gaza?
Mike: Gaza was controlled for 38 years; we are 3 days short of the 20th anniversary of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. Israel turned Gaza over to the PA to govern, and Hamas overthrew the PA there. It began making terrorist rocket attacks and importing weapons, so Israel blockaded them and has maintained the blockade ever since. That one is entirely on Hamas -- they could have lived in peace with Israel and delivered peace and good government to their people. They chose not to. Instead they made war, and once again, the moral burden on the Israeli leadership is to protect its citizens.
Steve: Do you accept that Israel has no right at all to be in or control the West Bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem and yet they control the lives of all ~5 million people living there in brutal ways? And are on the record, repeatedly, stating that they will block any attempts to end this occupation and allow the establishment n of a Palestinian state?
Mike: Israel signed a heralded agreement with Yassir Arafat trading land for peace. He then betrayed it in the most gaudy and violent ways he could think of. All Israel has ever wanted was peace. They are not blind, however. They see the man in the suicide vest coming to kill them, and they respond accordingly. They consider governing Palestinians as a burden, and would gladly accept a genuine, committed, reliable, demonstrated peace in exchange for the West Bank and Gaza.
Steve: Do you accept that this ongoing act of aggression long predates 10/7 even if we ignore the Nakba and everything that preceded it?
Mike: There were anti-Jewish riots in the area now called Israel from the 1800's on. The Hebron riots of 1929 were the worst, and left Hebron, the original capital of Israel, and the site of tombs of the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs, Judenrein. All of Israel's wars have been defensive.
Israel has fought all those wars with the knowledge that if they lose, their extermination is always on the table. They fight hard and effectively, but appropriately within their moral obligation to protect themselves.
Steve: The entire reason we’re all horrified by what happened on 10/7 is the brutal attacks on civilians, right?
Regardless of whether Hamas see themselves as at war with Israel, the civilian toll is unacceptable.
I’m simply applying the same principle to Israel. Crying “war” doesn’t and never has excused you from any actions you take.
> I was horrified on 10/7 that another gratuitous war had begun. The cruelty amplified the outrage for sure, but the fact of war, and the threat of attacks from all sides, e.g. Iran and all its proxies, was a larger reason to be horrified, for me. Over time, I was pleasantly surprised that the Arab world did not join the war. That's the key to how this endless conflict can end.
Most media attention is on Israel. It is not curious about the Arabs and their internal struggles and how their experience shapes their response. That's the bigger story.
The real Israel story is actually pretty simple: refugees from European monstrousness return to their ancient homeland in desperation, and have sought to make an accomodation with their neighbors ever since. The neighbors have refused, often quite violently, and Israel has fought back successfully, but also with decisive violence. The possibility of success is on the horizon. Hamas tried to prevent that, but has, I think, failed, though the fight is not yet over.
But what is the Arab story? The real Nakba starts with Napoleon easily defeating the Arabs in Egypt in the early 1800's. This hit like a thunderbolt. The Arabs suddenly realized how weak they had become. Where once they threatened France and Austria, now they could be knocked over like tin men. This was a crisis and caused them to explore ideas that were popular in Europe, like Nazism and Marxism over the next two centuries.
When the Jews, massively outnumbered, were able to beat them it was 10x worse. France at least was a major power in the early 1800's. The Jews were poor stragglers who had come within an inch of being exterminated in Europe. And they had now beaten five Arab armies. Land that had been ruled by Muslims ever since they conquered the land of Israel and occupied and settled it, was now being ruled by the pathetic Jews, and the Arabs were too pathetic to stop them.
These wars are not about what Israel does. Syria's government, in the last few years, killed 100's of thousands of its own civilians and drove millions into exile and no one cared.
The real issue is this: the Arabs need a new future. The sleepy old Ottomans tried to keep up with Europe, but failed. The Arabs rode the same currents of thought from the French Revolution to Nazism and Marxism (Baathism starts by admiring Hitler and Stalin, and adding a touch of Arab chauvinism). These have all failed. Having exhausted all other possibilities, they are doing the right thing (to paraphrase Winston Churchill's line about the US).
Out of the Horror of this catastrophe, something beautiful might emerge.