What Animal Allies owe to Palestinians

By Drew Robert Winter

This is an extended version of a statement read at the 2023 American Anthropological Association conference.

“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” said Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on October 9, 2023. He continued, “we are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

What does it mean to fight “human animals”? Let’s answer this question—first in fact, and then in theory.

In mid October, the Israeli military began shelling the Gaza Strip–a territory of about 365 square kilometers and a population of 2 million—one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. On October 27 it began a ground invasion. The Israeli military’s order that Palestinians leave Gaza has left 1.9 million displaced, and now much of their homes and neighborhoods have been vaporised. More than 22,600 people—including over 10,000 children—have been killed in less than two months. This is more child deaths from war than all other conflicts on Earth in the last four years combined. The number of dead and displaced is higher than the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that preceded the founding of the state of Israel, known to Palestinians as the “Nakba” (“catastrophe”).

Those who closely follow the abuse of animals, and the history of the word "animal," understand that it is much less a biological category than a moral one. When one refers to “animals” they are hardly ever referring to everything within the Kingdom Animalia—of which humans are members.

But this biological, secular knowledge that humans are animals does not, as a matter of fact, prohibit the use of the term “animal” from being ascribed to humans precisely in order to dehumanize them.

Derrida pointed to the violence that inhabits the very category of “animal,” which effectively serves only as a negation of the human—grouping all sentient life not human under the same header: “When one says “animals,” one has already started to not understand anything, and has started to enclose the animal in a cage.” All of the routine violence inflicted by humans, he asserted, “is engendered in this conceptual simplification.”

Putting a finer point on it, Donna Haraway pointed out that to be labeled “animal” is to be “made killable.” It is a demotion from what Georgio Agamben calls the “bios“ to “zoe.” To be “bios” is to have ethical and political standing, while “zoe” is “bare life”—organic life that lacks the respect we give to those with citizenship and rights. It is why you can kill a squirrel or an ant, but not murder one like you could a neighbor or coworker.

One of the most pervasive rhetorical moves to legitimize violence is to call the victims “animals” because, socially speaking, the definition of an “animal” is moral: an animal is someone who is not an object, but who may nearly be treated as one. But as animal rights activists and many philosophers have argued, this claim is fundamentally a self-justifying prejudice, not a sound argument. There is no evidence or proof behind the slur—it is a succinct way of saying (1) that someone is an “other” and (2) that others deserve what they get.

This is how we should situate Israeli Defense Minister Gallant’s remark that Israel is fighting “human animals.” The phrase “human animal” no longer seems an oxymoron: Gallant acknowledged the biological species of his target, but with the qualification that this fact is a minor taxonomic detail. What is important is their moral status: they are killable.

And they are being killed, in unprecedented numbers. Due to the Israelis halting virtually all supplies to Gaza, those who survive the 2000 lb American-made bombs are either trapped underneath the rubble or rushed to hospitals that lack critical supplies like clean water, reliable electricity, or anesthesia. In either case, a slow and painful death is common. 

It is the moral category of “animal” which Gallant marshaled to justify this systematic destruction of life he deemed to lack political standing. Gazans, to the Israeli government, are indeed non-citizens, and animals to be slaughtered. Animal allies know that “animal” is not a description of fact, but merely an excuse for violence. Because we know this, we owe our opposition to that rhetorical labeling—and any violence it purports to justify.

Animal rights activists object when someone justifies violence towards nonhumans because they are “animals” and should object just as strongly when doing the same towards humans. No external justification for killing excuses the term “animal”—a bigoted term used in lieu of a reason. To stop the wholesale slaughter of any group of beings, we must abolish that first rhetorical method of making them killable; we must annihilate the category of “animal.” Because of that fact, animal advocates owe our solidarity, our empathy, and our tools for justice to all who are violated with the label of “animal.”


References

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-no-power-food-or-fuel/

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-20/ty-article/1-7-million-palestinians-displaced-from-their-homes-in-gaza-un-says/0000018b-ee55-d6a0-a7ff-ee779f3f0000

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/7/israel-intensifies-daily-raids-on-occupied-west-bank

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/29/more-childrens-deaths-in-gaza-in-3-weeks-than-annual-total-since-2019-ngo

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/13/biden-lawsuit-alleged-failure-prevent-genocide-israel-palestine 

https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-flash-update-85

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/15/war-is-stupid-and-i-want-it-to-end-injured-palestinian-children-say​ 

Khalidi, Rashid 2020 The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917–2017. Illustrated edition. Metropolitan Books.