Many people who like to use the word "genocide" know perfectly well there is no such thing, it is only a political tactic, and an effective one for ignorant people.
But only because the ultimate arbiter, the UNSC, hasn't branded it such. Nor the ICC. But the ICJ is very close to doing so, and the campaign that Netanyahu is preferring for Rafah might change their mind.
Today, the ICJ unanimously demanded Israel immediately make available basic services and humanitarian assistance. This unanimity is important, because so far, all ICJ orders have been qualified by the lack of support from Vice-President Sebutinde and/or Judge ad hoc Barak > https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240328-pre-01-00-en.pdf
Even if these high political and legal institutions will not call it genocide, it nevertheless has the stench of it: too many senior Israeli political and military decision-makers have expressed genocidal intent publicly (see pp59-67 https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf); with the majority of Gazan domiciles now uninhabitable, and with famine and pestilence rife, another part of the definition of genocide - deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction - makes Israel's conduct of this war a de facto genocide.
Furthermore, the herding of civilians into Rafah with no way out is another dimension to this cataclysm. Egypt must take the blame aswell for this, keeping its gate firmly locked. And this too is important, because it's not an either/or but a both/and: just because Israel has forced this upon Gazan noncombatants doesn't mean that Egypt is off the hook. And in the same way, just because Hamas have committed the atrocity (and in my book a war crime) of 7 October does not absolve Israel of all subsequent actions. Israel has always had a choice.
I pray that Netanyahu makes the choice not to assault Rafah, because otherwise the ICJ will brand Israel a genocidal state, a marker that cannot be erased from the history books. And Caitlin will earn vile money by selling the T-shirt.
Sorry, but I don't care what the so-called international community thinks, or the ICC, or the ICJ. Screw them. Accusing Israel of genocide is an expression of antisemitism, plain and simple. As for the war, everything that has happened on October 7, 2023, and since is the responsibility of Hamas, which started this war and could end it at any time by surrendering.
And no, Israel has no choice. Allowing Hamas to slither off the hook would undermine, perhaps fatally, the Jewish state's security and deterrence posture. What, should Israel rely on the UN or the US to guarantee its security? We all know that such guarantees are utterly worthless. The world community has reminded the Jews that they can rely no no one except themselves.
Again you are right, Thomas, this time to assert Israel "can rely on no one except themselves" as that is the nature of the international system: there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. It's no different for Israel than for any other state.
A permanent war of all against all would mean the life of the state would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. It's why all states, instead of deciding at every opportunity to beat the crap out of their neighbours, choose to cooperate. Strangely enough, this is a choice that Israel also makes, having made peace with Egypt and Jordan, having negotiated Oslo 1 and 2, having formal diplomatic relations with most states and informal ones with all, and having alliances too. It even espouses many of the ideas and behaviours of the so-called international community: it went to and is represented at the Hague this very day, 28 March 2024.
In that court of law, Israel is innocent of genocide: those who accuse it are on the wrong side of the judges' decisions. But only so far and by the finest of margins; the judges have indicated provisional measures for Israel to adhere to in order to remain Not Guilty. Let's see what Israel chooses.
Hamas in no way represents an existential or "fatal" threat to Israel. An Arab world angered into war would, though. Egypt has over 1000 Abrams tanks, Jordan once overran and held Judea and Samaria, Syria with its many battle-hardened armies could pose a major problem, as could Lebanon's Hizbullah which, standing alone, has fought the IDF to a truce. These together with another Intifada could be fatal. I think Israel will choose cooperation. I think it will choose the international community.
Many people who like to use the word "genocide" know perfectly well there is no such thing, it is only a political tactic, and an effective one for ignorant people.
Perfectly stated, down to the word. Thank you.
You are right, Thomas, it isn't genocide. Yet.
But only because the ultimate arbiter, the UNSC, hasn't branded it such. Nor the ICC. But the ICJ is very close to doing so, and the campaign that Netanyahu is preferring for Rafah might change their mind.
Today, the ICJ unanimously demanded Israel immediately make available basic services and humanitarian assistance. This unanimity is important, because so far, all ICJ orders have been qualified by the lack of support from Vice-President Sebutinde and/or Judge ad hoc Barak > https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240328-pre-01-00-en.pdf
Even if these high political and legal institutions will not call it genocide, it nevertheless has the stench of it: too many senior Israeli political and military decision-makers have expressed genocidal intent publicly (see pp59-67 https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf); with the majority of Gazan domiciles now uninhabitable, and with famine and pestilence rife, another part of the definition of genocide - deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction - makes Israel's conduct of this war a de facto genocide.
Furthermore, the herding of civilians into Rafah with no way out is another dimension to this cataclysm. Egypt must take the blame aswell for this, keeping its gate firmly locked. And this too is important, because it's not an either/or but a both/and: just because Israel has forced this upon Gazan noncombatants doesn't mean that Egypt is off the hook. And in the same way, just because Hamas have committed the atrocity (and in my book a war crime) of 7 October does not absolve Israel of all subsequent actions. Israel has always had a choice.
I pray that Netanyahu makes the choice not to assault Rafah, because otherwise the ICJ will brand Israel a genocidal state, a marker that cannot be erased from the history books. And Caitlin will earn vile money by selling the T-shirt.
Sorry, but I don't care what the so-called international community thinks, or the ICC, or the ICJ. Screw them. Accusing Israel of genocide is an expression of antisemitism, plain and simple. As for the war, everything that has happened on October 7, 2023, and since is the responsibility of Hamas, which started this war and could end it at any time by surrendering.
And no, Israel has no choice. Allowing Hamas to slither off the hook would undermine, perhaps fatally, the Jewish state's security and deterrence posture. What, should Israel rely on the UN or the US to guarantee its security? We all know that such guarantees are utterly worthless. The world community has reminded the Jews that they can rely no no one except themselves.
Again you are right, Thomas, this time to assert Israel "can rely on no one except themselves" as that is the nature of the international system: there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. It's no different for Israel than for any other state.
A permanent war of all against all would mean the life of the state would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. It's why all states, instead of deciding at every opportunity to beat the crap out of their neighbours, choose to cooperate. Strangely enough, this is a choice that Israel also makes, having made peace with Egypt and Jordan, having negotiated Oslo 1 and 2, having formal diplomatic relations with most states and informal ones with all, and having alliances too. It even espouses many of the ideas and behaviours of the so-called international community: it went to and is represented at the Hague this very day, 28 March 2024.
In that court of law, Israel is innocent of genocide: those who accuse it are on the wrong side of the judges' decisions. But only so far and by the finest of margins; the judges have indicated provisional measures for Israel to adhere to in order to remain Not Guilty. Let's see what Israel chooses.
Hamas in no way represents an existential or "fatal" threat to Israel. An Arab world angered into war would, though. Egypt has over 1000 Abrams tanks, Jordan once overran and held Judea and Samaria, Syria with its many battle-hardened armies could pose a major problem, as could Lebanon's Hizbullah which, standing alone, has fought the IDF to a truce. These together with another Intifada could be fatal. I think Israel will choose cooperation. I think it will choose the international community.