In the context of the ongoing tragedy in Gaza, some choose to be outraged by the accusation of genocide against Israel rather than by the atrocities it has committed. They dismiss an accusation that would amount to "crossing a moral threshold," echoing the words of French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné in January. While the concept, created by Raphaël Lemkin in 1944 to characterize the deliberate intention to annihilate a nation or an ethnic group, does indeed carry considerable symbolic weight – particularly with respect to a state designed as a refuge for Holocaust survivors – it is legally defined both by conventional law and by international jurisprudence. Amid the tumult of a historical conflict that exacerbates passions, fears and hatreds, international law serves as a useful compass.
Contrary to what is sometimes suggested, genocide is not limited to the extermination of all the members of a protected group. Article 2 of the 1948 Convention includes, in addition to murder, four acts constituting this crime, including causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group and deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
It is precisely because of the inhumane living conditions imposed by Israel on the Gazan population, notably the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and the systematic destruction of their housing and environment, that led the judges of the ICJ to assess, on January 26, that there was a "plausible risk of genocide" in Gaza and to order strict provisional measures – reinforced on March 28 – to attempt to prevent it or put an end to it. This also is what led the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, to request the issuance of an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
For an act to be qualified as genocide, it must be committed "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such," which fundamentally distinguishes it from other international crimes. However, it is not necessary for all the state leaders to share this criminal intent. In fact, it is sufficient that some high-ranking military or political officials possess such a specific intent.
Reinventing 'just war'
This is precisely what the ICJ judges emphasized when they noted in their order, the potential intent expressed in statements by Israeli officials, such as President Isaac Herzog’s promise to "break the backbone" of Gaza's civilians and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s comparison of them to "human animals. In her March 25 report, Anatomy of a Genocide, Francesca Albanese, the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied, draws firmer conclusions from these statements. She concludes that "there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel's commission of genocide is met."
You have 50.33% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.