The Perils of Wielding the Term "Genocide" in the Israel-Palestine Conflict
The International Court of Justice faces criticism for its handling of the genocide case against Israel, while a proposal to hold Palestine accountable raises complex legal and political questions.
The Story:
Genocide is a uniquely horrific act, not because it is the bloodiest, but because its an attempt at wiping out a group of people based on their nationality, race, religion, or ethnicity. The Holocaust , for example, was seen as so monstrous that the United Nations adopted the Genocide Convention, promising never again to allow an attempt to wipe out a group based on specificities.
However, this promise has been repeatedly broken in various parts of the world. South Africa's claim that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians, currently being heard by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, is seen by many as a mockery of the court.
The term ‘genocide’ would dictate that Israel is killing people in Gaza simply for being Palestinian, but the reality is that Israel is targeting Hamas fighters in response to deadly attacks on its territory. Some far-right Israeli politicians have used hateful language, but this is not reflective of government policy.
South Africa's case is more of a political act than a legal one, as it is calling on the ICJ to impose a unilateral ceasefire on Israel, which would leave it unable to defend itself against Hamas, a terrorist group whose founding charter calls for the killing of Jews. By trying to hold Israel solely responsible for the death of Palestinians, South Africa is vindicating Hamas' tactic of fighting from schools and hospitals, knowing that the death of civilians killed in the crossfire will inflame global public opinion. The ICJ is unlikely to offer a final ruling on the case for years, and it is highly unlikely that South Africa's flimsy arguments will convince the judges that Israel has committed genocide.
However, a provisional ruling that Israel has a "plausible" claim of genocide would be widely seen as a finding that Israel is guilty, even if the court later rules otherwise. This could embolden Israel to dismiss all international criticism, as it would feel it is being treated unfairly. South Africa's case sets a terrible precedent, as it will make it easier for countries to brush off charges of genocide in the future, regardless of their merits.
The focus on an implausible crime also diverts attention from the possibility that Israel is breaching the laws of war, such as the requirement to distinguish between civilians and combatants and to minimize civilian casualties.
The View:
The accusations of genocide against Israel made by South Africa in the International Court of Justice are a blatant attempt to politicize the legal process and undermine the legitimate right of Israel to defend itself against the terrorist group Hamas.
The case brought by South Africa is a clear mockery of the court, as it fails to meet the high legal bar for proving genocide, which requires the intent to destroy a protected group solely based on their identity. The court's decision to even consider the "plausibility" of South Africa's claim is a concerning development that could have far-reaching consequences.
A provisional ruling in favor of South Africa's position would be widely interpreted as a finding of guilt, despite the lack of substantive evidence to support such a conclusion. This would severely damage Israel's standing in the international community and embolden its critics, even if the court ultimately rules that the accusation of genocide is unfounded.
The real tragedy is that the focus on this baseless charge of genocide distracts from the genuine humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza, where the lives of innocent civilians are at risk due to the ongoing conflict. Israel's actions in the region must be subject to rigorous scrutiny, particularly regarding its adherence to the laws of war and its obligations to provide for the basic needs of the occupied population.
However, South Africa's political grandstanding is not the appropriate avenue for addressing these pressing concerns. The international community must resist the temptation to politicize the legal process and instead focus on finding constructive solutions to the complex issues at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Accusations of genocide, when not supported by overwhelming evidence, only serve to undermine the credibility of international institutions and make it more difficult to achieve a just and lasting peace. The ICJ must uphold the principles of impartiality and rule of law, rather than succumbing to the political agendas of its member states.
TLDR:
The case brought by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for alleged genocide is seen as a "mockery" of the term and the court.
Genocide is a uniquely horrific crime, and the ICJ proceedings risk weakening the taboo against it by failing to meet the high legal bar required for such a charge.
Instead of focusing on an implausible genocide claim, the court should examine whether Israel has breached the laws of war in its actions in Gaza, which have resulted in significant civilian casualties.
A proposal to have the ICJ simultaneously hear a case against Palestine for its actions, particularly those of Hamas, is considered legally and politically complex, but could potentially influence the court's overall approach and rulings.
The uneven application of international law and the court's legitimacy are major concerns, as Israel feels it is being singled out, while its adversary remains beyond judgment.
Ultimately, the political nature of the genocide claims against Israel, rather than adherence to the legal principles, is seen as undermining the court's ability to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza effectively.
Insights From:
Charge Palestine With Genocide Too - The Atlantic
Charging Israel with genocide makes a mockery of the ICJ - The Economist