Jonathan
Ofir
Wednesday,
a landmark report was issued by Amnesty International, titled: ‘You Feel Like
You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza.”
Displaced Palestinians flee past Israeli tanks following military orders
to leave Khan Younis and go toward Rafah near the Egyptian border in
the southern Gaza Strip, January 26, 2024. (Photo: Haitham Imad/EFE via
ZUMA Press APA Images)
Amnesty
is unequivocal – Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Agnés
Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General presented the report with
uncompromising terms. There are no ifs and buts, Israel has been committing
genocide, it still is:
“Amnesty
International’s report demonstrates that Israel has carried out acts prohibited
under the Genocide Convention, with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians
in Gaza,” Callamard said.
“These
acts include killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm and deliberately
inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life calculated to bring about
their physical destruction. Month after month, Israel has treated Palestinians
in Gaza as a subhuman group unworthy of human rights and dignity, demonstrating
its intent to physically destroy them.”
Israel’s
intent to commit genocide
The
crime of Genocide is known as the “crime of crimes”, and it is also considered
the crime against humanity which demands the highest level of proof as to
intent. It is not enough to refer to acts which in themselves may fall under
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(‘Genocide convention’) – genocidal intent must be proven as the
only possible conclusion of the analysis.
This
is why the reports conclusive language is so important, it says:
“There
is only one reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence presented:
genocidal intent has been part and parcel of Israel’s conduct in Gaza since 7
October 2023, including its military campaign.”
Since
the intent aspect is so singularly crucial in this, Amnesty dedicates nearly
one-third of the 296-page report to intent (81 pages inside the main section
“Israel’s intent in Gaza” p. 202-282, plus other parts on the matter in other
sections of the report).
The
genocide definition
The
report refers to three of the five items in the UN genocide definition Article
II and deems them fulfilled:
1.
Killing members of the group;
2.
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3.
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Any
one of these could constitute genocide, as it states that “any of the following
acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such” (my emphasis).
The
‘military necessity’ argument
Amnesty
concludes that “genocidal intent has been part and parcel of Israel’s conduct
in Gaza since 7 October 2023, including its military campaign” (p. 35).
The
claim of military necessity is a central claim of Israel, unsurprisingly so –
under the apparent idea that such goals legitimize the means applied to achieve
them. Israel is not an exception in this – the argument is often used in order
to rebuff charges of war crimes or crimes against humanity.
But
Amnesty rejects the either-or argument:
“Amnesty
International concedes that identifying genocide in armed conflict is complex
and challenging, because of the multiple objectives that may exist
simultaneously. Nonetheless, it is critical to recognize genocide when it
occurs in the context of armed conflict, and to insist that war can never
excuse it.”
Callamard
emphasizes:
“Israel
has repeatedly argued that its actions in Gaza are lawful and can be justified
by its military goal to eradicate Hamas. But genocidal intent can co-exist
alongside military goals and does not need to be Israel’s sole intent.”
So
the military intent can exist alongside the genocidal intent – but it does not
cancel the genocidal intent. If the genocidal intent is “part and parcel” of
Israel’s conduct, “including its military campaign”, then this means Israel’s
“war” is indeed a genocidal one.
Genocidal
statements by Israeli officials
In
the chapter on Intent, concerning the statements on the destruction of
Palestinians (7.3, p. 241), Amnesty limited itself to addressing 102 statements
of high Israeli officials:
“The
organization identified 102 statements that dehumanized Palestinians, or called
for, or justified, prohibited acts under the Genocide Convention or other
crimes under international law against Palestinians in Gaza, such as settlement
expansion, forcible transfer or indiscriminate attacks. They were made by
members of the war and security cabinets and senior members of the military, as
well as Israel’s president, in addition to some Knesset members and cabinet
ministers.”
To
be sure, statements inciting genocide are almost countless in Israel, and the
Law for Palestine project has a database with over 500 of these by leaders down
to journalists and influencers. But Amnesty applied the limitation also in
order to suffice Israel’s own claim to the International Court of Justice in
the Genocide case (South Africa vs Israel).
Amnesty:
“Given
Israel’s contention before the ICJ that the “policy and intentions” of the
Israeli government can only be determined through an examination of decisions
by the war and security cabinets, as well as an analysis of “whether particular
comments expressed conform, or not, with the policies and decisions made”,
Amnesty International limited its analysis to statements made by officials with
direct responsibilities over the conduct of the offensive on Gaza. With the
exception of Israel’s president, this included members of the war and security
cabinets and senior military officials. Amnesty International also limited its
analysis to statements that appeared to call for, or justify, the destruction
of Palestinians, including:
· Calls
to deny Palestinians in Gaza access to essential services and items critical
for the population’s survival until Hamas is destroyed or until hostages are
released;
· Statements
deliberately conflating Palestinians in Gaza with Hamas, thereby appearing to
justify direct actions against Palestinian civilians;
· Statements
calling for the physical destruction of Gaza, including its entire population
and civilian infrastructure, or calling for the destruction of Hamas by
physically destroying Palestinians in Gaza.”
Of
the 102 statements it reviewed, Amnesty International identified 22 such
statements. The remaining 80 statements either called for other crimes under
international law against Palestinians in Gaza, such as settlement expansion,
forcible transfer, or indiscriminate attacks or used racist and dehumanizing
language against Palestinians. The organization analyzed the 22 statements
apparently calling for or justifying the destruction of Palestinians in Gaza by
focusing on the identity of the speaker and his/her influence and the content
of the speech.”
These
genocidal proclamations have often used the Israeli hostages/captives as their
excuse. This has also come from Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
“Speaking
at a joint press conference with then Minister of Defense Gallant on 5 December
2023, Prime Minister Netanyahu explained that the war cabinet’s recommendation
to allow the entry of two to four trucks of fuel a day to meet “the minimum
humanitarian needs” of the population in Gaza, which authorities “assess every
day, even every few hours”, was designed to allow the fighting to continue:
“We
also know that if there is a collapse, plagues, diseases, groundwater
contamination, etc., this will stop the fighting. We understand that.
Therefore, we do not see a contradiction between the war effort, which… we have
already seen is the most effective factor in returning our abductees, and the
humanitarian effort that accompanies the war and is a major part of it.”
This
“reasoning”, by the way, was rampant across the Israeli political spectrum, and
even the current leader of the Labor-Meretz party “The Democrats” has stated
“you can die from starvation, it’s totally legitimate.”
Such
statements informed Israel’s military campaign in a clear way. Amnesty:
“The
statements of senior Israeli officials were heard and received by soldiers
engaged in the military campaign in Gaza, and appear to have communicated,
either explicitly or implicitly through known cultural references, a perceived
mission of the campaign.”
These
statements were then echoed by leading military officers, who were leading the
military campaign, and the actions of their soldiers were boasted on social
media through countless videos celebrating the genocidal destruction.
Amnesty
rebuffs Israel’s claim before the ICJ that these statements were merely
“rhetorical”:
“Amnesty
International recognizes that, at the start of the military offensive, Israeli
officials defined its objectives as dismantling the military and governing
capabilities of Hamas, subsequently adding to them the release of hostages and
captives. Following that, Prime Minister Netanyahu, then Minister of Defense
Gallant and Israeli army spokespeople publicly clarified on numerous occasions
that the offensive was directed at Hamas rather than the Palestinian people.
However,
they appear to have intensified such clarifications only following mounting
pressure from Israel’s Western allies over the scale of deaths and destruction
resulting from weeks of relentless bombardment. Crucially, as highlighted
above, there is a large amount of evidence of soldiers continuing to circulate
and make use of these officials’ earlier statements long after they were first
uttered.
Videos
point as well to soldiers making these calls while engaged in apparent acts of
destruction. This indicates the widespread circulation and impact of officials’
statements. It also shows that Israeli officials largely failed to build
alternative narratives. Indeed, the widespread circulation of statements
calling for the destruction of Gaza and civilian objects within it appear to
have been condoned and not adequately investigated, let alone punished, by the
Israeli authorities, which failed to take any action for months.
Furthermore,
throughout the nine-month period under review, Israel continued to carry out
unlawful attacks that killed and seriously injured Palestinian civilians, and
to deliberately impose conditions of life on the entire population of Gaza,
challenging Israel’s defence that the statements made by senior government
officials, and which reverberated through the military, were merely the type of
inflammatory comments that can be expected at the start of an armed conflict.”
But
the intent is not just to be inferred from statements, the acts confirm the
intents:
“In
assessing genocidal intent, Amnesty International analysed such violations of
international law, including those detailed in Chapter 6 “Israel’s actions in
Gaza”, in the context of the entire offensive: it reviewed them together and
cumulatively, taking into account their recurrence and their simultaneous
occurrence time and time again, compounding each other’s harmful impact.
Furthermore, the organization considered the scale and severity of the
casualties and destruction repeated over time, in spite of continuous warnings
by the UN and Israel’s own allies, as well as the multiple binding orders of
the ICJ” (p. 279).
Overall
context of Israeli apartheid
Amnesty
assesses Israel’s genocide in a historical context, to point out that the
“endemic dehumanization of Palestinians” has been a feature that preceded
October 7, 2023 – it has a long history, including systemic war crimes and
crimes against humanity:
“An
assessment of the historical context demonstrates that Israel’s offensive is
occurring in the context of its unlawful military occupation and system of
apartheid against Palestinians, including Palestinians in Gaza, a context
replete with serious violations of international law and predicated on endemic
dehumanization of Palestinians” (p. 278).
It
is a system of dehumanization of Palestinians in general, where Gaza in
particular has been made “uniquely vulnerable”:
“Indeed,
many high-level Israeli officials, as well as other politicians and public
figures with significant reach and influence in Israel, have used deeply rooted
dehumanizing, derogatory and racist language towards Palestinians for years,
without any genuine or effective accountability.
The
dehumanization of Palestinians has been a constant feature of Israel’s
apartheid system: they are treated as an inferior racial group undeserving of
basic human rights and necessities. To maintain this system of oppression and
domination, Israel has long subjected Palestinians, including those in Gaza, to
torture, arbitrary detention, forcible transfer and unlawful killings and
injuries. As part of this system of apartheid, Israel’s unlawful blockade of
Gaza had been slowly inflicting harmful conditions of life on Palestinians
there for 16 years prior to 7 October 2023, leaving them in a uniquely
vulnerable situation.”
Difference
between motive and intent
Similar
to the “military necessity” argument, people can claim various motives for
their genocidal acts – they may not consider them genocidal intent as such
(people rarely admit to that outright), and they may claim “security” or
“revenge” – but these motives do not cancel out genocidal intent:
“Finally,
Amnesty International recognizes that Israel’s policy towards Gaza may have
been driven by different motives held by various officials in the government.
Motive does not equal intent, though.
International
jurisprudence is clear that many motives may prompt genocidal acts, including a
desire for profit, political advantage and so on. Ultimately, as long as
genocidal intent is clear, the underlying motive of individual officials does
not matter – whether it be security, revenge, a resolve to remain in power, the
desire to show overwhelming strength in the region, or the pursuit of Gaza’s
resettlement” (p. 281).
Hesitancy
to point out genocidal intent regarding Israel
One
of Israel’s oft claimed points is the “double standards” point, saying that
Israel is being unfairly “singled out”. This point has also made it into the
notorious IHRA-definition of antisemitism, which conflates critique of Israel
with hatred of Jews.
The
8th IHRA example says “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior
not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
But
Amnesty points out the opposite – that there is precisely a double-standard of
hesitancy in terms of addressing Israel with genocidal intent – where it would
be easier done with other countries. It has proven harder for Amnesty’s
separate Israel branch to accept the genocide finding, so they went against the
findings of the international report – as was the case in 2022 with Amnesty
International’s Israel-Apartheid report. Although Amnesty boasts of being
“independent of any government [and] political ideology” (report, p. 2), local
political bias does exist. Amnesty calls for a universal standard:
“Amnesty
International recognizes that there is resistance and a hesitancy among many in
finding genocidal intent when it comes to Israel’s conduct in Gaza. This
resistance has impeded justice and accountability with respect to past
conflicts around the world and should be avoided in the future. Amnesty
International rejects a hierarchy among crimes under international law.”
Wake-up
call
The
world has been letting this happen, in a slumber of denial and Israel-bias that
has allowed the most televised genocide in history to go on for over a year.
Callamard
states: “Our damning findings must serve as a wake-up call to the international
community: this is genocide. It must stop now.”
Stopping
this includes a range of actions, not least by third states. Amnesty is calling
upon the International Criminal Court to upgrade its assessment of the
situation of Palestine to include genocide, also in terms of arrest warrants
like those issued for Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister
Gallant:
“Urgently
consider the commission of the crime of genocide by Israeli officials since 7
October 2023 in the ongoing investigation into the situation in the State of
Palestine… Consider how the Office of the Prosecutor’s investigations into the
situation in the State of Palestine could be further expedited. Where
appropriate, apply for arrest warrants against suspected individuals, including
for the crime of genocide.”
This
must be a great shock for those who believed that “never again” was under
Israeli monopoly, to protect the Jews forever. It turns out that the
self-proclaimed “Jewish state” is not immune to perpetrating genocide. Israel
can now only respond with the knee-jerk of “fake news”, and deny, deny, deny.
But
this report is no quick propaganda item. It is a lengthy and meticulous
documentation by one of the leading legal heavyweights, Amnesty International.
This will be adding weight to the growing international consensus on the
matter. And all of us are responsible, all of us must wake up now, for it is
already way too late.
No comments:
Post a Comment