The mobilization of arms in the Middle East is doubled by the mobilization of words. On October 15, 2023, scholars and practitioners of international law are forced to sound the alarm about the “genocidal potential of Gaza” (here, on November 4, the number of “known” signatories reached 880). Arguments of their position: continuous and indiscriminate bombing of Israeli forces; a complete siege of the Gaza Strip with a simultaneous cutoff of fuel, electricity and water supplies; the forced movement of Palestinians from the north to the south of the Gaza Strip; escalating violence, arrests, expulsions and destruction of Palestinian communities in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Central to the recognition of the crime of genocide is the establishment of “intent” (to commit genocide). The signatories of the statement perceive as evidence of a genocidal plan the statements of Israeli officials on October 7, 2023, “which appear to reproduce the rhetoric and tropes characteristic of genocide and incitement to genocide.” Thus, the Minister of Defense of Israel, Yoav Gallant, said on October 9 that “we fight with people and animals and act accordingly.” Galant later announced that “Gaza will not return to what it was before. We will liquidate everything.” On October 10, the army coordinator for government actions in the territories, Major General Hassan Alyan, addressed the people of Gaza with the following message: “Human animals must be treated as such. There will be no light and water, only destruction. You wanted hell, you will find hell.” Other “evidence” of incitement to genocide would be statements by elected officials (for example, Knesset member Ariel Kallner’s call on October 7, “Goal Nakba! [catastrofa pentru palestinieni] A Nakba that will eclipse the Nakba of 1948”) and banners placed in Israeli cities demanding “zero population in Gaza”.

In November, accusations of genocide against Israel will unfold. Accusations will be repeated at pro-Palestinian demonstrations around the world. (I kept the warning: these are anti-Israel or pro-Hamas protests[i].) Hezbollah leader Sayed Hassan Nasrallah and Iran’s foreign minister will repeat it – only they! At a meeting with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on November 5, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas spoke about the “genocide committed by Israel in Gaza.”

How serious are the arguments of “many scholars and practitioners” regarding genocide “perpetrated by Israel”?

Israel is waging an all-out war with the forces of Hamas, which it will surely lose. The conditions of the confrontation are dramatized by Hamas’ use of treacherous means: treating Palestinians as human shields, creating shelters in or under hospitals and schools, using ambulances during trips, falsifying the authors of disasters and numbers, etc. Upon arriving in Israel, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken outlined the situation: “Hamas cynically and horrifyingly deliberately uses people — men, women and children — as human shields, establishing their command posts, establishing their leadership, creating their fighters. , lay down their weapons, place ammunition under hospitals or even in them – schools, mosques – makes this an incredibly difficult task” (here).

The United States did not limit itself to supporting Israel. Anthony Blinken linked the solution to the current crisis with a future project that will create conditions for lasting peace. The way forward would be to create “two states for two peoples,” “the best guarantor — and perhaps the only guarantor — of an Israel that lives in security and democracy, and the state to which the Palestinians are entitled.”

Blinken will tell the US Congress: “It would be most appropriate for an effective and reborn Palestinian Authority to be responsible for the governance and ultimately the security of Gaza.” In the meantime, to get there, there may be “interim arrangements” involving “international agencies to help provide both security and governance” ( here ).

What is happening to the civilian population in Gaza is a tragedy. Military objectives must be balanced with humanitarian ones. Israel has an obligation to protect civilians both as an obligation under international law and as an obligation of decency towards its own people. This debt is made all the more apparent because “keeping Gaza poor and under the control of Hamas” was part of the strategy devised by Netanyahu. The Prime Minister of Israel relied on the fact that a weakened Hamas serves Israel’s interests. Since negotiations with Hamas were impossible, negotiations with the Gaza government were also unnecessary. “So Netanyahu actually facilitated and allowed the funding of the Hamas government with money from Qatar, a state that openly supports Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood” (here).

The governments of Tel Aviv bear their responsibility. But how?, how?, how? Can the ongoing tragedy be stopped? The diplomatic tour of the US Secretary of State in the Middle East cannot immediately reconcile the cause of the war, the humanitarian problems at the moment and the project of a safer future in the region. The war will continue to wreak havoc in the coming weeks. A possible truce, unwittingly hinted at in recent statements by Tel Aviv to halt the invasion of Gaza in exchange for the release of hostages, hinges on the “justification” of the Hamas crime group.

***

This is the context in which we must consider the examples of “many scholars and practitioners” who claim that the State of Israel has genocidal intent. They are childhood, rather proof that the authors of the “alarm signal” did not find reasonable arguments for their interpretation. Statements by Israeli generals, politicians and journalists express anger, a desire for revenge, and a determination to act. But interpreting them as a plan for genocide is simply ridiculous. There is no precedent in international judicial practice regarding the crime of genocide that interprets such statements as genocide.[ii]

The genocidal actions of Hamas

In November, nine Israeli families who became victims of the terrorist attack on October 7 appealed to the International Criminal Court with complaints, accusing Hamas of genocide.[iii]. The war crimes they referred to were documented by the terrorists themselves through films of their atrocities, which they also broadcast widely. The issue of the complaint is the issuance of international warrants for the arrest of Hamas leaders by the ICC.

The genocidal acts of Hamas are so obvious that I do not understand how the ICC prosecutors can deny their nature. The terrorist organization’s goal is a Palestine without Israel. Although the desire for the disappearance of the state of Israel and the propaganda to that end is not genocide, this fact is significant in combination with other elements. The October 7th attack consisted in the systematic killing of Jews (and their guests) regardless of age, gender or any other criterion, the terrorists destroyed everything in front of them from the face of the earth. They continued to do so until they were stopped by the armed forces. Had it not been for this military confrontation, Hamas fighters would have continued to kill Israelis to the last.[iv]

By definition, such actions, even if they do not lead to the complete destruction of the population, are genocide: they are aimed at the destruction of at least a relevant part of the population for ethno-national and religious reasons. Participation and conspiracy in genocide are international crimes. The leaders of Hamas are not the only ones to blame for the genocide; but also the fighters who participated in the attack and the remaining members of Hamas who conspired to commit genocide. By the nature of the facts and the clarity of intent, the October 7 Hamas attack describes an act of genocide much more clearly than other recognized acts of genocide, such as those in the former Yugoslavia and Sudan.

Shyness to declare the actions of some radical Islamist formations as genocide

I wonder why the label of “genocidal action” was not immediately placed on the shoulders of Hamas on October 7? This “timidity” is an addition to the previous genocidal actions of the Islamist formations against the “infidels”. The most striking example is the atrocities of ISIS, which the governments of Great Britain and Canada have refused to recognize as genocide. Other Western governments have shied away from taking a stand on the issue. The authorities of these states were directly involved in the fact that their citizens became fighters of a fierce organization. Their citizens were punished at least for conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to genocide, attempted genocide, and complicity in genocide.[v]

In 2017, the American Center for Law and Justice reached out to several states expressing disappointment that they were evading their obligations: “It is shocking that the United Nations has not formally recognized that the atrocities committed by the Islamic State against Yazidi Christians and of other religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq, Syria and other regions is genocide, therefore the obligations of the international community under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the clearly established obligations to ensure protection are fulfilled.”[vi]

In Germany, a former member of the “Islamic State” was sentenced to 10 years in prison for “aiding and abetting crimes against humanity by enslavement, attempted murder and aiding and abetting war crimes by attempted murder by omission and membership in a foreign terrorist organization.” .[vii] But the German magistrates also did not use the criminalization of genocide.

Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro