Israel committing genocide in Gaza, world’s top scholars on the crime say

The reason people say it isn’t proven is because a few idiots tossing off some hyperbole is not evidence of a planned and executed crime. You have to demonstrate that what they said was not just rhetoric, but translated into orders to troops etc. Many of the most objectionable statements were made by people with no actual role in directing the war.

I don't think anyone has suggested we could broadcast daily a plea for potential terrorists in the UK not to hurt us or to stop plotting atrocities and they wouldn’t give it a second thought.
I have no idea who thinks that would be effective. Where is the concerted effort from the international comunity, particularly in the middle east to defeat Hamas and come up with a credible path to peace that assures Istael's security?

I totally agree with all you’ve said. The genocidal rhetoric throughout this conflict has been deeply disturbing as the pain and suffering has gone on and on. I find it hard when people are pro-Israel and don’t show any concern about such statements or when people suggest it’s just a couple of powerless blokes talking sh*t. I think a lot of the case SA brought is related to rhetoric.

People have previously had a problem with me suggesting that more should be expected from a western/liberal democracy than a terrorist group but that obviously has to be the case. I’m not infantilising Hamas or absolving them of responsibility - it’s just being realistic about terrorists. We could broadcast daily a plea for potential terrorists in the UK not to hurt us or to stop plotting atrocities and they wouldn’t give it a second thought. They simply don’t care.

On the flip side, as you say, we shouldn’t agonise over the details more when it’s one of ‘us’ - genocide is what it is no matter who is doing it.

Firstly I think the previous poster hit the nail on the head, in saying this only highlights the flaws in our international legal system. What is obvious is genocidal intent, if intent is taken to mean a dominant narrative of dehumanisation of the Arabs (cockroaches, vermin, etc) together with clear actions to, as you say, reduce the population of Gaza. If the aim is to prevent future genocides then dehumanisation is a key indicator.

The pp mentions holes in the codification of genocide as a crime, assessed through increasingly complex legal and scholarly definitions. It’s a philosophical debate almost, conceptualising ‘intent’: which is now an abstract concept and even when members of the knesset say things like:

“Gaza should be handled like Hiroshima”
“Whoever stays there should be eliminated”
“There is one and only solution, which is to completely destroy Gaza before invading it... Every child, every baby in Gaza is an enemy.”
(all actual quotes, you can look them up)

It is still considered ‘complex’ and ‘not proven’.

I think alongside this, it’s relevant to note Israel is a middle- high income country, for all intents and purposes a Western democracy. We have seen on this and other threads people complaining Israel is held to a higher standard than other countries, Sudan for example is a contemporary situation that is often quoted. And I guess they are right, in the sense that a Western democracy, yes, will probably be held to different standards. And there is what I think is the problem. A Western country is committing what is obviously genocide, so let’s get out the statute books and find loopholes in the legal fine print.

Small details that just don't help Israel's case here, issue #9273636 or so:

The Israeli High Court ruled that, yes, Israel actually does have to ensure that people held in its prisons have access to the bare minimums required for meaningful survival.

The Israeli state's reaction?
"We have already become accustomed to the fact that Supreme Court judges are not content with their judicial role and are taking over running the state. It turns out that even that is not enough, and now they have also crowned themselves judges on Master Chef," the minister wrote in a statement to the media.

"While the hostages are starving in the tunnels, a pair of High Court judges (Daphne Barak-Erez and Ofer Grosskopf) are requiring that the food provided to the worst of terrorists be improved. This ruling is more proof, for those who still need proof, of the magnitude of the harm the Supreme Court is causing to Israel's security." (Source: Haaretz)

This kind of stuff if where legals nails in the coffin are forged: openly vindictive. Openly in favour of "yes, we should have the right to starve people under our total control ... because [insert reasons]." The thing is: people die without food. That is regardless of who and where they are. It's hard to argue this is "incidental".

Thank you for the discussions all, sorry to be signing off before you've had a chance to respond - not trying to run off with the last word @Beachtastic, I promise... but I also have to call it an evening.

Best wishes to you and everyone in the thread.

Yes, that's also my experience exactly

You're not being thick, it's exactly the kind of question that has to be answered to decide whether e.g. the war on Vietnam was genocide. If there are systematic disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks, then you have to take a step back and consider the possibility of genocide.

Could those people - or that civilian infrastructure etc. - be being targeted due to perceived membership (or belonging in the case of those things that are necessary to sustain cultural identity, such as religious or cultural infrastructure) of a distinct (usually, but not necessarily) non-belligerent group, say some protected identity group of civilians.

Genocide is systematic: so is war, usually. There comes a point where the systematic destruction of war might be grounds for the accusation of genocide, when that destruction also achieves the destruction (in part etc. etc.) of a group as such. When war blurs the line between collective punishment and the pursuit of military objectives, you have to consider the possibility of genocide.

Yes, one thing that has often struck me in these debates is how often the very words levelled at me (or others expressing similar views) express precisely how we feel about the opposite perspective. I'm pretty sure an analysis of the conversations would show the same things being said in both directions.

It's quite bizarre!

Yes, I'm aware of the 'in part' bit- although I admit I struggle with it. When is the 'part' big enough to constitute genocide? Because wars always include killing a part of a group... we don't generally call all wars genocide yet a part of a specific group always gets wiped out...

Anyway I need some lighter thoughts for the rest of the evening so I'm off now.

I feel that way sometimes too, and I think that's a great way of putting it.

I have Israeli family members in my extended family who I was close to who have become more extreme in their view of Israel, and friends who have ties to Israel similarly shifted to a more extreme position, all of whom I considered to be more-or-less of the same worldview as myself who I have had to cut out of my life, and who have cut me out of their lives in turn. It is a rift that I don't think I will ever be able to understand, given that the moral dimensions seem so clear to me. I expect that they would say exactly the same of me. All are intelligent and reasoned people.

But doesn't that mean all wars are genocide?

Sorry if I'm being thick here!

Just going to add that genocide doesn’t mean killing everyone:

”acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group”

The Sri Lankans argued that the Tamil genocide (obviously not their framing) could have been stopped by the surrender of the Tamil Tigers. This, of course, wasn't the case, and nor is it the case with the surrender of Hamas. The Israeli political and military leadership has made it very clear that the operation in Gaza will not end with the release of hostages and the surrender of Hamas. It might be what is said in their English-language public relations, but in Hebrew, it is a completely different story. This will not end with the surrender of Hamas.

The destruction in part of Palestinians as a distinct group in Gaza is being effectuated by Israel, not just through killing - as I said above, genocide can occur without even a single death - but through the wholesale destruction of Gaza. It comes down to the same misunderstanding about the threshold for intent: the doctrine of double effect does not fly as a defence against genocide; you cannot claim that a genocide was a foreseen but unintended consequence of some other action or system of actions, and I really doubt that you could argue that the consequences of Israel's actions in Gaza were unforeseen, when genocide scholars and international bodies devoted to the prevention of genocide were warning of that exact outcome one week after October 7th.

I cant think of another conflict that so splits informed opinions.

I don't believe in god or gods, but if I did, I'm sure the Cosmic Joker must be having a merry old time laughing at this absolute impasse for humanity. It's like an insanely ingenious endgame where black and white are completely reversed depending which way you look at it.

Yes - I’m parroting a couple of sources here but one scholar discussed whether the aim is to study genocide in an abstract sense or, as many are arguing, to actually prevent genocide form happening now or in the future. If the latter is the aim, then the insistence that the only reason an accused state is taking action is with the intent to commit genocide is an unrealistic bar, especially in war when one action could be done for multiple reason (e.g destroy Hamas and, more broadly, reduce the population of Gaza.

I agree with the idea that genocide law or scholarship should be there predominantly to prevent it happening again.

Mladic literally destroyed the Muslims of Srebrenica by killing all of the men. The group was destroyed. So, by his actions, and the result of his actions, we can safely assume his intent.

Israel hasn't actually destroyed the Palestinians of Gaza. It has killed a fair few of them. But the group has not been destroyed. Israel will argue they have attempted to keep civilians alive by asking them to evacuate, providing some aid, occasionally, and consistently saying the aim of the war is to destroy Hamas. In my opinion, Hamas will help Israel in their defence with the absolute contempt with which they view the lives of their own. I cant think of a genocide that could have been stopped by the surrender of the victim party at any time. I wish this could all just end now, with Hamas accepting terms.

The 2 cannot currently be compared, or one situation used to highlight another.

I respect your opinion and your rights to have it and really appreciate you coming to the discussion without constantly insisting those defending Israel are happy to see children killed etc.

I cant think of another conflict that so splits informed opinions.

I hope you have a good evening.

"Permissible" means those things that can be done legally, either because they are allowable or justifiable. What is your view on what permissible means?

The war on Gaza never satisfied the requirement of necessity.

I don't think there's much point us arguing the toss over this, you clearly have a very different view of what's "permissible."

You do you, as MN says 🤷🏻‍♀️

When a member state to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide finds reasonable grounds to believe that genocide is being committed, it triggers obligations. Those reasonable grounds have been met, and indeed the ruling from the ICJ is one such trigger point.

The "we" is the international community; we as a global humanity.

If you suspect someone of murdering someone else in the street, do you wait until they are found guilty in a court to intervene? No, you act at the point of exigency. The time to act against genocide is not after it has been determined to have occurred in court: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4

Hard to ignore the fact that permissibility in war is not determined by what is or isn't a good idea, but rather by what does or does not satisfy the principles of the ethics of war. Nonetheless, first off, Israel had no recourse to war in the first place given their status as a belligerent occupier. Secondly, the recourse to war must be the final recourse. It wasn't. Israel never had to go to war to achieve its stated objectives of the war (if you even believe those stated objectives).

Targeted demolition, by which I understand that you mean (as reported in the snapshot above) 78% of the structures of the Gaza Strip, is, in this instance, a feature of the Palestinian genocide. Genocide is not just the killing of people (indeed, if you look at subsection e of article 2 of the Genocide Convention - forgive me if I get the specific article/subsection wrong, I'm on my phone - you'll see that genocide can occur without any killing at all).

I have a hard time believing that you would consider the wholesale destruction of Tel Aviv permissible simply because the IDF are deeply embedded within the civilian infrastructure, both above and below ground, given that Israel has not only positioned itself to be able to carry out the annihilation of Palestine, but has also carried out the annihilation of over half of Palestine within the last 100 years.

Again, just because you can do a thing does not mean you have the right to do it. The war on Gaza never satisfied the requirement of necessity. And I am amazed that anyone could entertain the idea that the consequent destruction might be proportionate.

It was huge! Very inspiring to see people come together.

@SharonEllis Thank you for being at the march today, it is clearly much needed. I am sorry I couldn't be there.

I haven't had a chance to read everything as I have been on the march against antisemitism most of the day.
However I could not disagree more strongly with this.
It is a basic legal concept and foundation stone of civilised society that one is innocent until proven guilty.

You ask which is worse that we call Israel out for genocide, and we are wrong, or that we don't call them out, but it is genocide, and they are not held to account?

You suggest that if we don't call it genocide now then Israel may not be held to account. That's a legal nonsense. Israel will be held to account because there are legal proceedings. You don't preempt those proceedings by deciding they are guilty. And who decides? Who has the authority outside the established process?

Secondly you are suggesting that its important that 'we' (still not sure who 'we' is) call out genocide because if we dont Israel are not held to account. But you say that 'we' might be wrong? But Israel will have already been 'held to account'. Tha is a total perversion of established principles of legal justice.

So no, I do not agree that its more dangerous to not call it genocide than to falsely call it genocide.

As said before just because its not genocide doesn't mean international law shouldnt be followed, doesnt mean that if war crimes are committed they shouldnt be prosecuted.

Whether we call it genocide or not, the most important thing is to bring pressure to bear on Hamas to release the hostages, surrender and disarm. Why thid is not the focus of everyone's efforts I have no idea.

Hamas has spent the past two decades investing $1 billion or so in building an entire system aimed at annihilating Israel, rather than improving life for Gazan citizens. Putting this elaborate network out of action strikes me as a very good idea. And yes, I think the actual death toll being so low (given the circumstances) is remarkable and, to me, points to targeted demolition rather than genocide.