Israel faces the serious charge of genocide in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Given the appalling number of civilians killed in the campaign to uproot Hamas, has Israel committed genocide as defined in international law?
No. Genocide is one of the few crimes in international law with a precise definition, which Israel’s conduct does not meet. This does not mean, of course, that the loss of life in Gaza does not violate international law in other respects.
In perspective, the word “genocide” was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-born lawyer who lost much of his family in the Holocaust. Lemkin’s definition was enshrined in a 1948 convention outlawing genocide and setting up the ICJ as the body to adjudicate accusations of genocide.
In common usage the term has been applied to any and all cases of massive killing; accusations of genocide have been made to the ICJ in over 35 cases. But the convention itself defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." In practice we can extend this to the deliberate killing of people just for being who they are, as in the Rwandan, Bosnian, or Myanmar genocides.
Israel’s bombardments in Gaza, however horrendous, target Hamas and not Palestinians as a people. Were it otherwise, casualties would be infinitely greater.
In accusing Israel of genocide before the world court, South Africa has to prove an intent to destroy Palestinians as a national or ethnic group, which under the genocide convention might include “inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” South Africa has tried to meet this standard by focusing on Israel’s occupation policies in Gaza (and the West Bank) since 1967, on the statements by right-wing extremists in Israel’s current government, and on prospective humanitarian crisis in Gaza that raises the prospect of death and displacement.
Regarding occupation policies, if there has been intent to depopulate the occupied territories in any way, the project has been a miserable failure. Gaza’s population has grown almost sixfold since 1967, while the Palestinian population of the West Bank has increased fivefold.
On the second point, unfortunately the half-wits in Israel’s current government have provided accusers with no end of extremist remarks, supposedly as proof of genocidal intent. Talk of nuking Gaza, of expulsion, and invocation of the Biblical call to destroy Amalek, have all been gleefully cited in the South African accusation. But this foaming at the mouth, even of Israel’s current Prime Minister, does not translate automatically into military strategy on the ground in Gaza, and no connection has been shown.
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza, if it comes to create “conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction” of Palestinians as a people, is a legitimate argument. This may not be the intent of the Israeli government, but in controlling the flow of essential goods to keep relief from teaching Hamas, it needs to err on the side of humanitarian needs of the general population.
Will the ICJ recognize that Israel’s military campaign, whatever other international laws if may violate, is not genocidal? The court has the option, invoked in other cases, of ordering measures to reduce killing and suffering without using this sinister label. Maybe it will take this path.
It should be recalled that the Hamas assault of October 7, with the killing of Jews as Jews, was genocide by the extended definition. Israel’s response – a just war with sometimes unjust methods – has not been.
Alan, I found our comments enlightening, particularly that a judgement of genocide requires "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." Establishing intent is crucial. Clearly Hamas' October 7 attack had destructive intent, and, as you note, qualifies as genocidal. But if, through starvation and disease, a significant fraction of the population of Gaza ends up dying, I have a hard time accepting that outcome as accidental and unintentional. "israel: We did not intend for half a million people to die -- it was an accident." Au contraire, I would judge Israel guilty, in such a case, of intent, and hence of genocide. Please correct me if my reasoning is wrong. Ed Walbridge