The World After Gaza was written by radical-left Indian thinker Pankaj Mishra and has been frequently quoted in recent weeks in Western political discourse. The book’s arguments are not only deeply anti-Israeli, or even anti-Zionist, but go further. Its core message, evident from its title, is that just as the Holocaust and Auschwitz marked a turning point in global civilization, so too has the war in Gaza.
According to Mishra, Israel’s bombs represent the epitome of colonialist evil—a war waged by a privileged, white colonial power against an indigenous, third-world population that includes the Palestinians.
3 View gallery
Pro-Palestinian sign held up during a demonstration in Malmo, Sweden
(Photo: REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger)
In both his book and subsequent interviews, Mishra unnecessarily invokes dozens of Jewish—some even Israeli—thinkers and draws visual parallels to the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. But in his narrative reversal, Jewish Israelis become the new Nazis, while Palestinians are cast as the victims of a modern-day Holocaust.
“As the world stood by when the Nazis slaughtered the Jews,” Mishra writes, “so too does the Western world stand indifferent to the Jews slaughtering the Palestinians.” He argues that the lack of a decisive response to Israel's war crimes in Gaza is an inexcusable stain on the conscience of the moral West.
Mishra is not alone. His views reflect a significant strain of neo-Marxist, post-colonial thought in which Zionist Israelis are the new Nazis, while the Gaza Strip is likened to Auschwitz or the Warsaw Ghetto. According to these thinkers, Israel is a white-colonialist outpost with no right to exist—its fate in history already sealed.
Mishra's book has received mixed reactions in the West. The deep left embraced it enthusiastically, but serious literary critics could not ignore its inaccuracies, exaggerations and, most of all, its blatant historical distortions. Some questioned why Hamas is mentioned so infrequently and why, when it is, the terror group is portrayed in a positive light, without explicit condemnation of its October 7 massacre.
Even the literary critic of the left-wing Guardian asked whether Mishra assigned any value at all to Jewish lives lost. Other critics wondered if Mishra had simply disregarded the Jewish people’s millennia-old connection to Israel or ignored the Soviet Union’s support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play: https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store: https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv
Yet despite its historical distortions, the book has received awards and commendations. This could, of course, be attributed to blind antisemitism or the moral depravity of the far left. But even if that were the case, it should still concern us—just as we were alarmed when the UN passed its 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism. Although that resolution was repealed in 1991, its spirit has since been resurrected.
There is no point in publicly tearing up Mishra’s book, as then-UN Ambassador Chaim Herzog famously did with the UN resolution. But actions—especially those that align with our national interests—could sway segments of the public who are not inherently biased against Israel.
First and foremost, Israel must establish a national commission of inquiry not only into the failures that led to the October 7 massacre but also into the conduct of the war itself. Ending the war in Gaza is also a prerequisite for securing the release of the remaining hostages. The ongoing conflict is taking a severe toll on the Israeli public, leading to unnecessary losses and strengthening what remains of Hamas.
Additionally, Israel must publicly reject the far-right, Kahanist, messianic and nationalist positions held by some in its leadership, along with their imperialist fantasies.
Sever Plocker Photo: Yair SagiFinally, a public display of human compassion—after 500 days of war—would make a difference. Acknowledging the suffering of Palestinian women and children killed or wounded in Gaza’s bombardment, even as we mourn our own losses, is not a sign of weakness but of strength. We must not lose our humanity as our enemies have.
The views of Mishra and those like him cannot be changed. Their ideological dogmatism is too deeply ingrained. But we still have a chance to reach others who shape public opinion—and they remain the majority.
First published: 09:14, 02.21.25