Understanding Genocide: A Critical Analysis of the Scenario in Israel
Genocide is a horrendous crime, possessing unique brutality that isn’t determined merely by victims’ tally. Although the death rate in Stalin and Mao’s gulags and famines surpassed the nearly 6m Jews exterminated by the Nazis, the Holocaust’s monstrosity triggered the UN to adopt the Genocide Convention. Consequently, a new agreement was reached – never again would the world permit an attempt to exterminate a population or a portion of it due to their nationality, race, religion or ethnicity.
Broken Promises and Failed Commitments
Unfortunately, this promise repeatedly fell through, as evidenced by the atrocities in Bosnia, Darfur, and Rwanda, among others. Each case brought to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague should ideally serve as an opportunity to fulfill this promise and strengthen genocide’s taboo by clarifying countries’ responsibilities to prevent and penalize it.
The Charge Against Israel
Shockingly, South Africa accusing Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians at the ICJ this week is a misuse of the term. It not only weakens the taboo and jurisdiction striving to prevent it but also clouds the genuine concern about Israel breaching war laws. Moreover, it diverts attention away from the unacceptable fact of permanent occupation.
The Implications
South Africa has urged the ICJ to enforce a unilateral ceasefire on Israel, leaving it defenseless against Hamas. Designated as a terrorist organization, Hamas’s founding charter calls for Jews’ elimination. In their attempt to make Israel solely responsible for Palestinian deaths, they effectively validate Hamas’s strategy of engaging combat from civilian locations to provoke global outrage at the resultant civilian casualties.
The Court’s Future Actions
Given South Africa’s weak argument, it is unlikely that the judges will be convinced Israel has committed genocide. However, the judges will need to decide in the upcoming weeks if South Africa’s claim possesses any plausibility to implement ‘provisional measures’. Although it’s a less demanding requirement, a provisional ruling indicating such would widely be interpreted as Israel’s guilt of genocide, even if later ruled otherwise.
Israel would surely argue it is being treated unfairly, which isn’t baseless. This ruling would not only fail to restrain Israel but would encourage them to ignore international criticism, leading them to conclude that they are doomed regardless of their actions.
The Terrible Precedence
South Africa’s attempt is setting a dangerous precedent that is more political than legal, with much spectacle and little principle. They even welcomed Sudanese génocidaires into their country, undermining the credibility of their stance. This political grandstanding may trivialize future legitimate accusations of genocide, allowing them to be easily dismissed.
The Need for Justice
While genocide may have been the only charge South Africa could have brought forth in this situation, this one-dimensional focus detracts from the fact that Israel might be infringing upon war laws. These laws obligate Israel to differentiate between civilians and combatants and to minimize civilian casualties through proportional force.
The increasing death toll among women and children raises serious questions about Israel’s adherence to these laws. Israel may also be shirking its responsibility to provide necessary medicine and food as mandated by the Geneva Convention. As Gaza edges towards famine, the need of the hour is not political grandstanding, but practical help. The Israeli Leaders must recognize that if they block supplies, they will be accountable in the court of public opinion- the most potent court of all.
