By all accounts, including South Africa’s, Israel has the undeniable military capability to completely destroy the entire Gaza Strip in a matter of minutes if it so desired. Noticeably, Israel has not done so, and instead has taken extreme measures to protect Gazan civilians. Compare that complete lack of genocide and/or genocidal intent with the actions and intent of Hamas, a group that does not have the capability to destroy Israel but has repeatedly and officially vowed to, and tried to commit genocide.
BIDEN SPARKS BACKLASH FOR SAYING HE’S ‘WORKING HARD’ TO GET ISRAEL OUT OF GAZA
The application is also remarkably wrong on both the facts and the law. In the entire 29 pages South Africa devotes to describing the “genocidal acts committed against the Palestinian people,” Hamas is mentioned just twice, in passing, in two sentences about the temporary pause that Hamas later broke.
The Geneva and Hague Conventions involve orders on conducting sieges in accordance with foreign law, and Israel has followed those regulations to the letter.
The entire context of the Israeli army’s reaction is completely and indefensibly ignored; Nowhere did the request, not even the option that Israel’s movements are legal under doctrines of, say, the necessity of the army, proportionality, cover of forces, or deterrence in reaction to a terrorist organization, set us up to kill its entire population. This omission absolutely destroys the essence of South Africa’s argument: because the acts in question were even arguably legal, there is no evidence of genocidal action or intent.
In fact, each of the acts described in those 29 pages is perfectly consistent with foreign humanitarian law, and South Africa has refused to properly implement it, or even mention it. Yes, blockades and sieges may simply be war crimes, but nevertheless, they are not in this case; the Geneva and Hague Conventions involve orders on the conduct of sieges in accordance with foreign law, and Israel has followed those regulations to the letter.
ISRAELI-AMERICAN RAPPER KOSHA DILLZ FEARLESSLY EMBRACES HERITAGE, SKEWERS ANTISEMITISM IN VIRAL VIDEOS
Yes, Israel has killed doctors and fought in hospitals; Of course, however, those doctors are also terrorist commanders, and those hospitals undeniably command bases, i. e. , valid military targets under foreign law.
Yes, Israel has killed a lot of people in Gaza, but South Africa does not make any distinction between terrorists and civilians, and cannot point to a single instance in which Israel purposely targeted a civilian.
It is true that as a result of its crusade against Hamas, innocent Palestinians have suffered collateral suffering and that each and every civilian death is tragic, but that does not mean that those deaths are illegal and, in fact, not genocidal.
As experts have already noted, per the ICJ’s own jurisprudence on genocidal intent, “for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of its existence, it would have to be such that it could only point to the existence of such intent” (Bosnia v. Serbia (2007)).
Genocidal intent deserves to be “the only inference that can be drawn from the acts in question” (Croatia v. Serbia (2015)), and the popular evidence required for this inference is “entirely conclusive. “
To claim that the only conceivable conclusion is genocide would require doing precisely what South Africa actually did: blindly pretending that Hamas is not there, continuing to fire rockets indiscriminately at innocent Israeli civilians, while cruelly using its own comrades as dead human shields. But Hamas is there, holding hostages and committing war crimes on a daily basis, despite Israel’s repeated claims that if it surrenders, the war would end.
No matter what one thinks of the Israeli army’s response, no moderate user can simply conclude that the only conceivable conclusion here is that Israel intends to commit genocide.
BIDEN ADMIN TO THROW ‘MORALE BOOSTER’ PARTY FOR STAFF AMID RENEWED INTERNAL BACKLASH OVER ISRAEL: REPORT
South Africa feebly tries to get around the lack of intent by cobbling together an assortment of cherrypicked, out-of-context, and sometimes flat-out imaginary statements allegedly made by Israeli politicians and pundits that they claim are somehow dispositive despite all evidence to the contrary. This section continues to ignore the existence of Hamas, boldly asserting that quotes about destroying terrorists are actually about innocent civilians.
For example, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s reference to the biblical command to eliminate Amalek is cited as a prima facie example of genocidal intent. Except, of course, for the last few sentences, in which Netanyahu explicitly says he is referring to the “destruction of Hamas. “
South Africa also gives some examples of others using incautious language to describe retaliation against a barbaric enemy that attacked them and their families, some of the comments that obviously deserve never to have been made. But even after those who did not make decisions apologized and explained that they were only speaking metaphorically, Israeli leaders continued to criticize them, clarified Israel’s genuine project and position, distanced themselves from such views, and, in some cases, even suspended officials for making such comments.
FILE – A view of the exterior view of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, on March 31, 2021. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong, File)
The South African candidacy does not once mention Israel’s official position, repeated ad nauseam by the prime minister, president, defense minister and IDF spokesman: that “this war is opposed to Hamas, not the other peoples of Israel. “Gaza. “
Again,under UN jurisprudence, incitement to genocide cannot be “a mere vague or indirect suggestion” and to pretend that Israeli officials are calling for a genocide by cribbing sentences, ignoring facts, and selectively including outlying (and widely condemned) comments by people without authority who do not have decision-making authority, that are clearly against official policy and bear no resemblance to what is actually factually happening on the ground, is nothing short of ludicrous.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
By comparison, the U. S. did not commit genocide when it destroyed ISIS, even though President Trump once recommended that we use a nuclear bomb against its strongholds.
FILE – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a press conference with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Cabinet Minister Benny Gantz at the Kirya military base in Tel Aviv, Israel, Saturday, Oct. 28, 2023. (Abir Sultan/Pool Photo AP)
Nor did we dedicate genocide in Iraq or Afghanistan, General Mattis once said: “It’s like a laugh to shoot them, you know. . . Guys who slap women for five years because they didn’t wear veils. America fait. ne t dedicates genocide in Vietnam only because the Chief of Staff of the Air Force once said that he thought the Americans deserved to “bomb them back to the Stone Age. “
Nor did the Allies commit genocide against the Germans when they bombed their cities during World War II, although Winston Churchill once admitted that “if the other inhabitants of London were asked tonight to vote on whether it is worth holding a conference to prevent the bombing of all cities, the overwhelming majority would cry out: “No, we will apply to the Germans the measure, and more than the measure, that has been imposed on us. “
These statements did not turn those wars into genocide, because even the poorly worded comments of those that were in force in the heat of the moment do not replace the fact that they were obviously not the genuine positions of the parties involved.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Hopefully, the ICJ will see this cynical ploy for what it is: another example of an anti-Semitic victim being blamed by abusers who are deeply unfair for the Jewish people to protect themselves, with facts, laws, and condemned Jewish lives.
This is the only conclusion a moderated user can draw.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM MARK GOLDFEDER
Dr. Mark Goldfeder is a former professor and co-author of the five-volume treatise “Religious Organizations and the Law” (West).