The article delves into allegations of genocide against Israel in its ongoing war with Gaza since October 2023. It explores historical and legal contexts of genocide. It examines international responses, including United Nations reports and International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings, highlighting the dire humanitarian situation. Despite symbolic rulings by global courts, enforcement remains unlikely due to geopolitical dynamics, notably U.S. support for Israel, raising questions about accountability amid worsening conditions in Gaza.
Dr Aftab Alam
Professor & Hod Strategic Security Studies, Aligarh Muslim University, for The News Analytics Journal
a 4 mins read.
It is ironic that Israel, whose own origin and identity are deeply intertwined with the crime of genocide, has been accused of committing the same heinous crime against Palestinians in its ongoing war against Hamas that began on October 7, 2023. A recent United Nations (UN) report released on November 14 by a special committee investigating Israel’s actions in Gaza found that its military assault is consistent with the characteristics of genocide. The Committee noted that “through its siege over Gaza, obstruction of humanitarian aid, alongside targeted attacks and killing of civilians and aid workers, despite repeated UN appeals, binding orders from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and resolutions of the Security Council, Israel is intentionally causing death, starvation and serious injury, using starvation as a method of war and inflicting collective punishment on the Palestinian population.”
Similarly, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, a Geneva-based independent organisation for the protection of human rights, in its report marking one year of the Gaza war, also traces the clear elements of genocide perpetrated by the Israeli army. On December 5, Amnesty International declared that there is sufficient evidence to believe that Israel’s conduct in Gaza amounts to genocide. Since the start of the Gaza war last year, more than 45,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli army, the majority being women and children. Additionally, approximately 100,000 have been injured, with thousands of bodies still lying under the rubble and in the streets, unreachable by rescue and medical teams. More than 62,000 are reported to have died of starvation. According to the UN, the war has also caused the displacement of at least 1.9 million people, about 90% of Gaza’s current population of 2.1 million people.
Raz Segal, an Israeli historian and director of the Holocaust and Genocide Studies program at Stockton University, described the Israeli counter-offensive against Hamas in Gaza as a “textbook case of genocide.” Similar sentiments have been echoed by Craig Mokhiber, former director of the New York office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who described Israel’s Gaza onslaught as the “most clear-cut case of genocide that he had seen in his career.
HISTORY OF GENOCIDE
It is pertinent to recall that Israel was founded as a Jewish state in the aftermath of the systematic state-sponsored genocidal killing of six million Jews in the Holocaust by Nazi Germany. It was in this context that Raphael Lemkin, a Polish lawyer of Jewish descent, coined the term genocide in 1944 by combining two words, “genos,” which means race, nation, or tribe in ancient Greek, and “cide,” meaning to kill in Latin, to describe the horrors of the world’s most heinous crime. He initiated a global movement to outlaw genocide, which finally culminated in the adoption of a Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on December 9, 1948, by the UN General Assembly, which recognised it as an international crime.
The Genocide Convention defines genocide as “any of the …acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such.” The acts include “killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and/or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” The crime of genocide has two elements: intention and execution, both of which have to be proven when accusations are made.
Amid growing international criticism of Israel’s relentless operations in Gaza, South Africa moved the ICJ on December 29 last year, alleging that Israeli actions in Gaza were in breach of the Genocide Convention. In its 84-page application to the ICJ, South Africa accused Israel of committing genocidal acts, including killing Palestinians, causing serious mental and bodily harm and deliberately inflicting conditions meant to “bring about their physical destruction as a group,” as evident in the mass levels of deaths and destruction and the total siege of basic necessities.
Since these acts alone cannot constitute genocide unless committed with a specific intent to destroy Palestinians, in whole or in part. South Africa cited the incendiary statements and dehumanising rhetoric of Israeli officials calling for the “total destruction” and “erasure” of Gaza, and the need to “finish them all.” It also accused Israel of failing to hold its senior officials and others accountable for their direct and public incitement to genocide.
The historical irony of these allegations is striking, given Israel’s foundation after the Holocaust and the coining of the term “genocide” to describe Nazi atrocities.
ICJ RULINGS
In a significant development, the ICJ delivered an interim judgment on January 26, ruling that at least some of Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide. Though the ICJ failed to order an immediate cease-fire as sought by South Africa, but categorically ruled that Israel must take all possible measures to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. It ordered six provisional measures, including limiting the death and destruction caused by its military campaign, preventing and punishing direct and public incitement to genocide, and taking immediate and effective steps to ensure that humanitarian assistance is provided to civilians in the besieged Gaza Strip. Most crucially, the court also ordered Israel to preserve evidence of genocide and to submit a report to the ICJ within a month.
Later, on March 28, in view of the worsening conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, the ICJ again directed Israel to take all necessary and effective measures to ensure the unhindered provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance, including food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene and sanitation requirements, as well as medical supplies and medical care to Palestinians throughout Gaza. The court also directed to ensure that its military does not commit acts that constitute a violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza under the Genocide Convention.
In view of the Israeli military offensive in Rafah and the risk of irreparable harm to Palestinians, the ICJ on May 24, rendered its third order on the indication of provisional measures. The court noted that steps taken by Israel to ensure the safety of the civilian population in Gaza were not sufficient. The court also held that the measures indicated in its previous orders were not ‘sufficient to address the change in the situation.’ The court ruled that Israel must immediately “halt its military offensive and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
It must also be noted that soon after the ICJ’s January order, a United States (U.S.) federal court in California ruled that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza “plausibly” amounts to genocide. The lawsuit was filed seeking an order directing the president and other U.S. officials to exert their influence over Israel to stop its bombing, lift the siege in Gaza and stop providing or facilitating the sales of weapons and arms to Israel.
International scrutiny has intensified as reports from the UN, Amnesty International, and other global bodies classify Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.
INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
In theory, the ICJ’s genocide rulings are legally binding, but the court has no mechanism to enforce its judgments. In situations of non-compliance, the only recourse left is to approach the Security Council, the UN’s highest decision-making body, with a request to take special measures to enforce the ICJ’s judgment. Israel, however, has managed to avoid international obligations because of the unconditional backing of the U.S. and its European allies, who have vetoed almost all UN Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, without fear of any repercussions.
It would be naive to expect Israel to abide by the ICJ rulings or that they would have any practical consequences, but still they have certainly immense symbolic value in the decades-long struggle of those who wanted to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international legal norms applicable during armed conflicts as the conditions in Gaza are worsening day by day. The decision may undoubtedly contribute to building international public opinion against Israel’s conduct of military operations in Gaza.
(Dr Aftab Alam, is a Professor who teaches international law at Aligarh Muslim University and heads its Strategic and Security Studies Programme. The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The News Analytics Journal.)
