This is complete nonsense. To use the word genocide to describe the Gaza war trivializes the term. That court is not legitimate; it is a circus influenced by Islamists and Communist China. The high civilian casualty figures from that war reflect Hamas's use of them as human shields, or as they put it, martyrs for Islam. This is a well-known tactic by Hamas to create the false impression that the IDF is in the wrong. In fact, the IDF abided by the terms of international law and warned civilians to leave the war zone before attacking, and in some cases, escorted them out even when Hamas was trying to force them to stay. Hamas does this as part of its propaganda war. I don't know who you are or how I became subscribed to your newsletter, but it's disappointing to see what is essentially Islamist propaganda being repeated and taken seriously. If Israel wanted to commit genocide, it would have. The only genocidal intent in that war is on the part of Iran and Hamas, which openly call for the annihilation of Israel's entire Jewish population.
If Sheri Oz's article contested the use of the term "genocide" to describe the conflict, then I misread her article and apologize. I will have to re-read her article to determine that.
But your main issue with my comment seems to be that I am incorrect, in your view, to state that there was a high civilian death rate in the Gaza war.
This seems to be a matter of interpretation. Some sources say it is high, but this would depend on Hamas' statistics, which are unreliable, and there's also the issue of who is a jihadi and who is a civilian. The line is blurred so much that it's hard to make that distinction. So, seeking the truth, I looked this up:
The Gaza Mortality Survey (The Lancet, Feb 2026), which claims to be "an independent, population-representative household survey conducted in Gaza, estimated that approximately 75,200 violent deaths occurred through January 2025—a figure significantly higher than the local health ministry's reports at the time." And "The Max Planck Institute, 2025, using different methodologies like pseudo-Bayesian modelling, estimated conflict-related deaths had likely surpassed 100,000 by October 2025."
Are these figures accurate, and are these studies objective? I have no idea. Nor am I certain that your claim that civilian casualties were relatively low is correct since you didn't provide a source. You also note the distinction between urban and non-urban warfare, which adds nuances to the claims. It would be good to know what the truth is, since claims about this diverge widely.
Anyway, thank you also for the comment. It is only through debate that we can hope to arrive at the truth.
1. "What Happens When You Compare It to Rwanda, Armenia, and the Holocaust"
Rwanda, Armenia and the Holocaust are interesting historical examples. But there has been only incident of genocide, Srebrenica, found by the ICJ. Bosnia v. Serbia 2007 is the leading authority, followed by Croatia v Serbia 2015.
Genocide is a crime created by treaty. Article 11 of the relevant treaty appoints the International Court as the authority to interpret the treaty. The facts of those cases are the most important facts for determining the elements of the crime. Rwanda, Armenia and the Holocaust are instructive, but Bosnia v Serbia is authoritative. Srebrenica should be the standard reference for determining the facts of genocide.
2. "The accusation is serious. It requires careful scrutiny."
The crime is serious. The accusation is preposterous, given the high evidentiary standard ruled by the ICJ which could not be met in Gaza unless military operations had ceased, all hostages recovered, and killings on a vast scale occurred, the intent of which was not to defeat the enemy or release hostages, but only to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza.
3. So-called experts alleging Genocide in Gaza, like Mearshimer, are charlatans. Genocide is a crime, which is a matter of law; not political science or international relations. Opinions that do not deal with the basic legal issues, most important of which is specific intent, are activist claptrap and should not be considered authoritative.
4. Will the ICJ determine that what happened in Gaza was or was not a genocide?
If they follow their own precedent they will not find genocide (unless some evidence emerges of mass executions of a substantial part of the group "Palestinians in Gaza" which the court defined as the protected group. That would require execution of tens if not hundreds of thousands of "Palestinians in Gaza" after military operations had ceased.)
If the ICJ abandon their own precedent, then anything could happen. We have seen this in recent ICJ Opinions, which departed from precedent in the Congo v. Uganda case and as far back as the Wall Opinion, which departed from the Western Sahara precedent.
Anything is possible with a 'get-Israel' activist court.
5. Specific intent. This is the crux of the matter. A crime has two components: actus reus - the act and mens rea - the intent. It is easy to find the actus reus. Killing members of a protected protected group would fall within the definition of the acts described in Article 2 of the Convention. In Croatia v. Serbia there were numerous findings of actus reus of genocide, but no mens rea was found.
Specific intent is clearly defined in para 373 of Bosnia v. Serbia. This is the leading authority.
"The dolus specialis, the specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in
part, has to be convincingly shown by reference to particular circumstances ... and 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."
There you have it. If a pattern of conduct - not politicians statements - could point to an intent other than destruction of the protected group, the charge fails, as it did in Croatia v. Serbia in seventeen charges and Bosnia v Serbia in eleven of the twelve charges.
True and an important point. This is a common misconception propagated by so-called experts that genocide can be inferred from the scale of death and destruction. The court rejected this claim in the first sentence of para 373 of Bosnia v. Serbia.
"Turning now to the Applicant’s contention that the very pattern
of the atrocities committed over many communities, over a lengthy
period, focused on Bosnian Muslims and also Croats, demonstrates the
necessary intent, the Court cannot agree with such a broad proposition."
Death and destruction alone do not imply genocidal intent.
7. Your table omits reference to the Srebrenica massacre, which is the genocide on which the current law relies and in which 8,000 men and boys, or one fifth of the Bosnian Muslim male population, were executed for no other possible intent than destruction of the protected group. Srebrenica is the standard for assessing genocide according to the law.
8. Statements made by Israeli officials are not conduct from which genocidal intent can be inferred. This is another misconception propagated by the charlatan 'experts'.
9. "In Gaza, the same body of evidence can be read in more than one way."
If a 'body of evidence' or a 'pattern of conduct' does not point to one intent and only one intent, then genocidal intent is irrebuttably presumed not to exist. If the same body of evidence "can be read in more than one way" it does not point to 'only one intent'. The ambiguity of intent precludes an inference of genocidal intent. So any 'pattern of conduct' of the IDF in Gaza which could point to the intent of defeating the enemy, Hamas, or recovering hostages, would preclude a finding of genocide - if the court acts in good faith and applies its own precedent from Bosnia v. Serbia 2007. It's that simple.
I put a summary of the legal requirements for genocide at the beginning of this article.
Why are Palestinians in Gaza a protected group?why doesn’t the ICJ say anything about Egypt’s refusal to allow civilian refugees? How can Israel be accused of genocide when it was supplying aid to the citizens and warning them of bomb attacks? Why isn’t Israel regarded as a protected group when the genocide of Jews is taught all over the Islamic world?
Short answer: The ICJ has characterized them as part of a protected group. Probably as being part of a nation, one of the categories protected under the Convention.
Long answer: The Genocide Convention defines genocide as the destruction, in part or in whole, of a religious, ethnic, national or racial group. Presumably Palestinians are a national group. ‘Palestinians in Gaza’ are part of that protected group, according to the Court, following South Africa’s characterization:
Order of January 26th, 2024,
“22. The Applicant (South Africa) further submits that … “Israel, its officials and/or agents, have acted with the intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, part of a protected group under the Genocide Convention”.”
In para 45, the Court adopts South Africa’s formulation:
“45. The Palestinians appear to constitute a distinct “national, ethnical, racial or religious group”, and hence a protected group within the meaning of Article II of the Genocide Convention. The Court observes that, according to United Nations sources, the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip comprises over 2 million people.Palestinians in the Gaza Strip form a substantial part of the protected group.”
This characterization produces two problems:
If the protected group is ‘Palestinians in Gaza’, following the Srebrenica precedent, destruction would have to reach around 400,00 souls before the ‘one fifth standard’ applied in that case would be met in Gaza. Bad tactical move on South Africa’s part. I would have claimed that Gazans are the protected group and part of the group was ‘Gazans in Rafah’ or some other smaller unit. But, no, no. We can’t have the Gazans be a separate nation, even if it means losing the case.
Political groups are not protected. Hamas is a political organization; not a racial, ethnic, national or religious group. Their destruction cannot be considered genocide. Therefore, anyone alleging genocide in Gaza would have to show that the people ‘destroyed’ were not Hamas. The onus would be on South Africa, not Israel, to show that members of the protected group were killed. That would be a tall order.
So Palestinians are the protected group, Palestinians in Gaza are a substantial part of the group. There are 2 million of them. In order to pass the substantiality test South Africa would have to show that Israel destroyed with intent a substantial part of those 2 million, which, following the Bosnia v. Serbia precedent, would need to number around one fifth, more or less, of the population, or 400,000 Gazans who were not members of Hamas. Unlikely.
“why doesn’t the ICJ say anything about Egypt’s refusal to allow civilian refugees?”
ICJ has no jurisdiction to say anything about Egypt, because it is not a party to the case. Article 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states:
“The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.”
“How can Israel be accused of genocide when it was supplying aid to the citizens and warning them of bomb attacks?”
Accused? Because there are bad faith actors like South Africa who know Israel is not committing genocide, but who have no other way to ‘get Israel’. The Genocide Convention provides the only hook, through compulsory jurisdiction.
Judge Nolte alludes to this folly in his separate opinion of Jan 26, para 14:
“The Applicant must be expected to engage not only with the stated purpose of the operation, namely to “destroy Hamas” and to liberate the hostages, but also with other manifest circumstances, such as the calls to the civilian population to evacuate, an official policy and orders to soldiers not to target civilians, the way in which the opposing forces are confronting each other on the ground, as well as the enabling of the delivery of a certain amount of humanitarian aid, all of which may give rise to other plausible inferences from an alleged “pattern of conduct” than genocidal intent. Rather, these measures by Israel, while not conclusive, make it at least plausible that its military operation is not being conducted with genocidal intent.”
And if it is plausible that Israel is not committing acts with genocidal intent, no intent can be inferred.
So, Israel can be accused, but the accusation doesn’t stand up.
I am not so hopeful. The whole genocide case against Israel is just a bad faith libelous PR scam. South Africa does not expect to win unless they can persuade the court to abandon established precedent which is possible. They expect to fuel bad faith activists with lies and misrepresentation. The case will go on for years, during which time activists will make all sorts of spurious, libelous, claims, like 'the court found plausible genocide'. (They found plausible rights under the Convention, not plausible genocide.)
The court is in a bind. They are an organ of the UN which supports the fake genocide claim. We've already seen how the UN treated Alice Wairimu Nderitu, Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, when she refused to toe the genocide libel line. She was pressured and abused. Her contract was not renewed. The UN supports the genocide scam and it would be difficult to see the court disappointing its master, given the lack of independence that we have seen in the recent ICJ Opinions.
I do not accept the UN description of genocide I do not accept the UN as a serious world order as it is under the control of despotic 3rd world idiots. The US is no longer funding the UN for good reason, and our leader, Comrade Carney, doesn't care.
I agree with you. The UN is an activist organization that undermines its own credibility with such clownish charlatans as Albanese reappointed to her position as antisemite in chief. But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the proverbial bath water. The ICJ, which is an organ of the UN, has both good, rigorous, legally sound, decisions, and activist nonsense, which departs from established principle, sometimes by ignoring it and, as in the Congo case, by misrepresenting it. The two genocide cases, Bosnia v. Serbia and Croatia v. Serbia fall into the former category. They are rigorous and apply precedent and do a good job of interpreting the Convention.
One of the most consistent phrases one hears amongst antizionists is their invocation of a “live-streamed genocide.” The phrase is meant to create an aura of undeniability and a sense that all are “watching,” eyes glued. In reality, it connotes complete gullibility and a refusal to think critically, as if the propaganda, staging, and selective framing of the Gazan regime were unmediated direct presence, and as if every war did not involve tragic suffering whose legal and moral stakes require genuine interpretation. Here, “seeing” replaces thinking; the image substitutes for knowledge. Most of all, the “live-streamed genocide” is a projection-inversion of the real live-streamed genocide committed on October 7th, an atrocity now re-coded until everyone forgets not only what happened, but how to think. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1GNNPFbBbK/
“Live-streamed genocidal intent” is what the world could see in the body cams of Hamas terrorists. It would have turned into “live-streamed genocide” and not “just” a pogrom had we not been able to eventually gain the upper hand.
Comparing U.S. Justifications for the Al Qaeda Hunt after 9/11 and Israel's Rationale for the Gaza Invasion after 10/7: A Critical Analysis:
• The U.S. suffered over 3000 casualties while Israel had around 1200 plus some hostages.
• Less than 1% of Americans know someone killed in 9/11 whereby many Israelis knew families that were affected. This is due to U.S. population of over 330 million vs only 13 million Israelis.
• The U.S. did not suffer rapes, torture, family executions as did the Israelis. As tragic as 9/11 was, there were no recordings of individual killings.
• The Americans retaliated during the next 10 years by killing over 900,000 Muslims in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq among other Middle East countries. Israel has supposedly killed 80,000 Palestinians. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/WarDeathToll
• The U.S. decided not to send troops to Tora Bora when CIA evidence pointed to the presence of Osama bin Laden. Instead, they indiscriminately carpet bombed the area killing most humans except bin Laden who was hiding in a luxury cave. The Israelis have used troops in Gaza to surgically root out Hamas and strategically kill them. Of course, in any war, there are incidental casualties.
I could go on and on, but it occurs to me that Israel is more careful about civilian casualties and willing to risk their own troops in doing so. Thus, where was the pushback on U.S. Post 9/11 deaths VS. what we are currently seeing in Gaza?
I've made this transcript of JNS TV's video about this report; feel free to use it:
“The Gaza Genocide Claim: What Happens When You Compare It To Rwanda, Armenia, and The Holocaust”:
“The word ‘genocide’ has a legal meaning that requires proof of intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Not destruction or displacement, and not the outrage of the extent of the tragedy. Intent. And that’s the hardest thing to prove.
“The report’s author lines up Gaza and compares it with the data over other events. In Rwanda, 70 percent of the Tutsi population was wiped out in 100 days. In the Holocaust, two-thirds of European Jewry were exterminated. In Armenia, over a million people were killed. In Namibia, entire tribes were nearly erased. Even the Yazidi genocide, which had a lower proportional death rate, involved systematic killing, mass rape, forced conversion, and the explicit intent to destroy the group.
“The numbers in Gaza simply do not resemble these patterns. They do not come even close in scale, in proportion, or in demographic impact.
“The author also looks at timing. Real genocides are either recognized immediately, like the ones in Rwanda and the Yazidis, or after decades of investigation, like the Holocaust and in Armenia. Gaza, the author notes, is still in the middle of contested evidence, disputed numbers, and ongoing legal proceedings. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) case is still under way. A final ruling is still years away.
“Then the author goes through the five UN criteria for genocide: Killing, serious harm, destructive conditions, preventing births, and transferring children. In recognized genocides, multiple criteria are met with clear evidence of intent. She shows that in Gaza, killings and harm occurred in the context of urban warfare. Other criteria are alleged or disputed, and the evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. And she makes one key legal point: If the same evidence can support more than one interpretation, the ICJ does not infer genocidal intent. That’s the legal precedent--not her opinion. And it’s not a political statement.
“The author ends with a simple conclusion: The accusation is serious. It therefore deserves serious scrutiny. And hashtags, slogans, street protests, [memes]---they’re not substitutes for legal adjudication. That is why there is an ICJ. And that is why the comparisons matter.
“If people were serious, they would not engage in the selective application of international law and crafting accusations to fit an agenda, and manipulating circumstances. They would address it seriously, as the author has done. When you look at how international law is being applied today, you can’t ignore the selective outrage. The way legal terms are stretched, shrunk, or weaponized, depending on who’s involved. When it comes to Israel, it’s all about agendas and the manipulation of circumstances to fit a predetermined narrative. And when you wonder [how we can safely say] this is a predetermined narrative, very simply, we were attacked on October 7. And on October 8, even before Israel responded, they were already demonstrating in the streets of the United States and European capitals, accusing us, already then, of genocide.”
This is complete nonsense. To use the word genocide to describe the Gaza war trivializes the term. That court is not legitimate; it is a circus influenced by Islamists and Communist China. The high civilian casualty figures from that war reflect Hamas's use of them as human shields, or as they put it, martyrs for Islam. This is a well-known tactic by Hamas to create the false impression that the IDF is in the wrong. In fact, the IDF abided by the terms of international law and warned civilians to leave the war zone before attacking, and in some cases, escorted them out even when Hamas was trying to force them to stay. Hamas does this as part of its propaganda war. I don't know who you are or how I became subscribed to your newsletter, but it's disappointing to see what is essentially Islamist propaganda being repeated and taken seriously. If Israel wanted to commit genocide, it would have. The only genocidal intent in that war is on the part of Iran and Hamas, which openly call for the annihilation of Israel's entire Jewish population.
If Sheri Oz's article contested the use of the term "genocide" to describe the conflict, then I misread her article and apologize. I will have to re-read her article to determine that.
But your main issue with my comment seems to be that I am incorrect, in your view, to state that there was a high civilian death rate in the Gaza war.
This seems to be a matter of interpretation. Some sources say it is high, but this would depend on Hamas' statistics, which are unreliable, and there's also the issue of who is a jihadi and who is a civilian. The line is blurred so much that it's hard to make that distinction. So, seeking the truth, I looked this up:
The Gaza Mortality Survey (The Lancet, Feb 2026), which claims to be "an independent, population-representative household survey conducted in Gaza, estimated that approximately 75,200 violent deaths occurred through January 2025—a figure significantly higher than the local health ministry's reports at the time." And "The Max Planck Institute, 2025, using different methodologies like pseudo-Bayesian modelling, estimated conflict-related deaths had likely surpassed 100,000 by October 2025."
Are these figures accurate, and are these studies objective? I have no idea. Nor am I certain that your claim that civilian casualties were relatively low is correct since you didn't provide a source. You also note the distinction between urban and non-urban warfare, which adds nuances to the claims. It would be good to know what the truth is, since claims about this diverge widely.
Anyway, thank you also for the comment. It is only through debate that we can hope to arrive at the truth.
A few comments:
1. "What Happens When You Compare It to Rwanda, Armenia, and the Holocaust"
Rwanda, Armenia and the Holocaust are interesting historical examples. But there has been only incident of genocide, Srebrenica, found by the ICJ. Bosnia v. Serbia 2007 is the leading authority, followed by Croatia v Serbia 2015.
Genocide is a crime created by treaty. Article 11 of the relevant treaty appoints the International Court as the authority to interpret the treaty. The facts of those cases are the most important facts for determining the elements of the crime. Rwanda, Armenia and the Holocaust are instructive, but Bosnia v Serbia is authoritative. Srebrenica should be the standard reference for determining the facts of genocide.
2. "The accusation is serious. It requires careful scrutiny."
The crime is serious. The accusation is preposterous, given the high evidentiary standard ruled by the ICJ which could not be met in Gaza unless military operations had ceased, all hostages recovered, and killings on a vast scale occurred, the intent of which was not to defeat the enemy or release hostages, but only to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza.
3. So-called experts alleging Genocide in Gaza, like Mearshimer, are charlatans. Genocide is a crime, which is a matter of law; not political science or international relations. Opinions that do not deal with the basic legal issues, most important of which is specific intent, are activist claptrap and should not be considered authoritative.
4. Will the ICJ determine that what happened in Gaza was or was not a genocide?
If they follow their own precedent they will not find genocide (unless some evidence emerges of mass executions of a substantial part of the group "Palestinians in Gaza" which the court defined as the protected group. That would require execution of tens if not hundreds of thousands of "Palestinians in Gaza" after military operations had ceased.)
If the ICJ abandon their own precedent, then anything could happen. We have seen this in recent ICJ Opinions, which departed from precedent in the Congo v. Uganda case and as far back as the Wall Opinion, which departed from the Western Sahara precedent.
https://bartonlaw.substack.com/p/icj-abandons-precedent-reason-and?r=izczy
Anything is possible with a 'get-Israel' activist court.
5. Specific intent. This is the crux of the matter. A crime has two components: actus reus - the act and mens rea - the intent. It is easy to find the actus reus. Killing members of a protected protected group would fall within the definition of the acts described in Article 2 of the Convention. In Croatia v. Serbia there were numerous findings of actus reus of genocide, but no mens rea was found.
Specific intent is clearly defined in para 373 of Bosnia v. Serbia. This is the leading authority.
"The dolus specialis, the specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in
part, has to be convincingly shown by reference to particular circumstances ... and 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."
There you have it. If a pattern of conduct - not politicians statements - could point to an intent other than destruction of the protected group, the charge fails, as it did in Croatia v. Serbia in seventeen charges and Bosnia v Serbia in eleven of the twelve charges.
https://bartonlaw.substack.com/p/is-israel-committing-genocide-in?r=izczy
6. Scale alone does not indicate genocide.
True and an important point. This is a common misconception propagated by so-called experts that genocide can be inferred from the scale of death and destruction. The court rejected this claim in the first sentence of para 373 of Bosnia v. Serbia.
"Turning now to the Applicant’s contention that the very pattern
of the atrocities committed over many communities, over a lengthy
period, focused on Bosnian Muslims and also Croats, demonstrates the
necessary intent, the Court cannot agree with such a broad proposition."
Death and destruction alone do not imply genocidal intent.
https://bartonlaw.substack.com/p/totality-of-evidence-fallacy-another?r=izczy
7. Your table omits reference to the Srebrenica massacre, which is the genocide on which the current law relies and in which 8,000 men and boys, or one fifth of the Bosnian Muslim male population, were executed for no other possible intent than destruction of the protected group. Srebrenica is the standard for assessing genocide according to the law.
8. Statements made by Israeli officials are not conduct from which genocidal intent can be inferred. This is another misconception propagated by the charlatan 'experts'.
https://bartonlaw.substack.com/p/no-genocidal-intent-cannot-be-inferred?r=izczy
9. "In Gaza, the same body of evidence can be read in more than one way."
If a 'body of evidence' or a 'pattern of conduct' does not point to one intent and only one intent, then genocidal intent is irrebuttably presumed not to exist. If the same body of evidence "can be read in more than one way" it does not point to 'only one intent'. The ambiguity of intent precludes an inference of genocidal intent. So any 'pattern of conduct' of the IDF in Gaza which could point to the intent of defeating the enemy, Hamas, or recovering hostages, would preclude a finding of genocide - if the court acts in good faith and applies its own precedent from Bosnia v. Serbia 2007. It's that simple.
I put a summary of the legal requirements for genocide at the beginning of this article.
https://bartonlaw.substack.com/p/is-israel-committing-genocide-in-72d?r=izczy
It's a good starting point on the law.
Why are Palestinians in Gaza a protected group?why doesn’t the ICJ say anything about Egypt’s refusal to allow civilian refugees? How can Israel be accused of genocide when it was supplying aid to the citizens and warning them of bomb attacks? Why isn’t Israel regarded as a protected group when the genocide of Jews is taught all over the Islamic world?
Good points
“Why are Palestinians in Gaza a protected group?”
Short answer: The ICJ has characterized them as part of a protected group. Probably as being part of a nation, one of the categories protected under the Convention.
Long answer: The Genocide Convention defines genocide as the destruction, in part or in whole, of a religious, ethnic, national or racial group. Presumably Palestinians are a national group. ‘Palestinians in Gaza’ are part of that protected group, according to the Court, following South Africa’s characterization:
Order of January 26th, 2024,
“22. The Applicant (South Africa) further submits that … “Israel, its officials and/or agents, have acted with the intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, part of a protected group under the Genocide Convention”.”
In para 45, the Court adopts South Africa’s formulation:
“45. The Palestinians appear to constitute a distinct “national, ethnical, racial or religious group”, and hence a protected group within the meaning of Article II of the Genocide Convention. The Court observes that, according to United Nations sources, the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip comprises over 2 million people.Palestinians in the Gaza Strip form a substantial part of the protected group.”
This characterization produces two problems:
If the protected group is ‘Palestinians in Gaza’, following the Srebrenica precedent, destruction would have to reach around 400,00 souls before the ‘one fifth standard’ applied in that case would be met in Gaza. Bad tactical move on South Africa’s part. I would have claimed that Gazans are the protected group and part of the group was ‘Gazans in Rafah’ or some other smaller unit. But, no, no. We can’t have the Gazans be a separate nation, even if it means losing the case.
Political groups are not protected. Hamas is a political organization; not a racial, ethnic, national or religious group. Their destruction cannot be considered genocide. Therefore, anyone alleging genocide in Gaza would have to show that the people ‘destroyed’ were not Hamas. The onus would be on South Africa, not Israel, to show that members of the protected group were killed. That would be a tall order.
So Palestinians are the protected group, Palestinians in Gaza are a substantial part of the group. There are 2 million of them. In order to pass the substantiality test South Africa would have to show that Israel destroyed with intent a substantial part of those 2 million, which, following the Bosnia v. Serbia precedent, would need to number around one fifth, more or less, of the population, or 400,000 Gazans who were not members of Hamas. Unlikely.
“why doesn’t the ICJ say anything about Egypt’s refusal to allow civilian refugees?”
ICJ has no jurisdiction to say anything about Egypt, because it is not a party to the case. Article 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states:
“The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.”
No binding force means not jurisdiction.
“How can Israel be accused of genocide when it was supplying aid to the citizens and warning them of bomb attacks?”
Accused? Because there are bad faith actors like South Africa who know Israel is not committing genocide, but who have no other way to ‘get Israel’. The Genocide Convention provides the only hook, through compulsory jurisdiction.
Judge Nolte alludes to this folly in his separate opinion of Jan 26, para 14:
“The Applicant must be expected to engage not only with the stated purpose of the operation, namely to “destroy Hamas” and to liberate the hostages, but also with other manifest circumstances, such as the calls to the civilian population to evacuate, an official policy and orders to soldiers not to target civilians, the way in which the opposing forces are confronting each other on the ground, as well as the enabling of the delivery of a certain amount of humanitarian aid, all of which may give rise to other plausible inferences from an alleged “pattern of conduct” than genocidal intent. Rather, these measures by Israel, while not conclusive, make it at least plausible that its military operation is not being conducted with genocidal intent.”
And if it is plausible that Israel is not committing acts with genocidal intent, no intent can be inferred.
So, Israel can be accused, but the accusation doesn’t stand up.
Thank you, you give me hope.
I am not so hopeful. The whole genocide case against Israel is just a bad faith libelous PR scam. South Africa does not expect to win unless they can persuade the court to abandon established precedent which is possible. They expect to fuel bad faith activists with lies and misrepresentation. The case will go on for years, during which time activists will make all sorts of spurious, libelous, claims, like 'the court found plausible genocide'. (They found plausible rights under the Convention, not plausible genocide.)
The court is in a bind. They are an organ of the UN which supports the fake genocide claim. We've already seen how the UN treated Alice Wairimu Nderitu, Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, when she refused to toe the genocide libel line. She was pressured and abused. Her contract was not renewed. The UN supports the genocide scam and it would be difficult to see the court disappointing its master, given the lack of independence that we have seen in the recent ICJ Opinions.
https://bartonlaw.substack.com/p/icj-abandons-precedent-reason-and?r=izczy
I do not accept the UN description of genocide I do not accept the UN as a serious world order as it is under the control of despotic 3rd world idiots. The US is no longer funding the UN for good reason, and our leader, Comrade Carney, doesn't care.
I agree with you. The UN is an activist organization that undermines its own credibility with such clownish charlatans as Albanese reappointed to her position as antisemite in chief. But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the proverbial bath water. The ICJ, which is an organ of the UN, has both good, rigorous, legally sound, decisions, and activist nonsense, which departs from established principle, sometimes by ignoring it and, as in the Congo case, by misrepresenting it. The two genocide cases, Bosnia v. Serbia and Croatia v. Serbia fall into the former category. They are rigorous and apply precedent and do a good job of interpreting the Convention.
One of the most consistent phrases one hears amongst antizionists is their invocation of a “live-streamed genocide.” The phrase is meant to create an aura of undeniability and a sense that all are “watching,” eyes glued. In reality, it connotes complete gullibility and a refusal to think critically, as if the propaganda, staging, and selective framing of the Gazan regime were unmediated direct presence, and as if every war did not involve tragic suffering whose legal and moral stakes require genuine interpretation. Here, “seeing” replaces thinking; the image substitutes for knowledge. Most of all, the “live-streamed genocide” is a projection-inversion of the real live-streamed genocide committed on October 7th, an atrocity now re-coded until everyone forgets not only what happened, but how to think. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1GNNPFbBbK/
“Live-streamed genocidal intent” is what the world could see in the body cams of Hamas terrorists. It would have turned into “live-streamed genocide” and not “just” a pogrom had we not been able to eventually gain the upper hand.
Comparing U.S. Justifications for the Al Qaeda Hunt after 9/11 and Israel's Rationale for the Gaza Invasion after 10/7: A Critical Analysis:
• The U.S. suffered over 3000 casualties while Israel had around 1200 plus some hostages.
• Less than 1% of Americans know someone killed in 9/11 whereby many Israelis knew families that were affected. This is due to U.S. population of over 330 million vs only 13 million Israelis.
• The U.S. did not suffer rapes, torture, family executions as did the Israelis. As tragic as 9/11 was, there were no recordings of individual killings.
• The Americans retaliated during the next 10 years by killing over 900,000 Muslims in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq among other Middle East countries. Israel has supposedly killed 80,000 Palestinians. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/WarDeathToll
• The U.S. decided not to send troops to Tora Bora when CIA evidence pointed to the presence of Osama bin Laden. Instead, they indiscriminately carpet bombed the area killing most humans except bin Laden who was hiding in a luxury cave. The Israelis have used troops in Gaza to surgically root out Hamas and strategically kill them. Of course, in any war, there are incidental casualties.
I could go on and on, but it occurs to me that Israel is more careful about civilian casualties and willing to risk their own troops in doing so. Thus, where was the pushback on U.S. Post 9/11 deaths VS. what we are currently seeing in Gaza?
Genocide? Not even close!
I've made this transcript of JNS TV's video about this report; feel free to use it:
“The Gaza Genocide Claim: What Happens When You Compare It To Rwanda, Armenia, and The Holocaust”:
“The word ‘genocide’ has a legal meaning that requires proof of intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Not destruction or displacement, and not the outrage of the extent of the tragedy. Intent. And that’s the hardest thing to prove.
“The report’s author lines up Gaza and compares it with the data over other events. In Rwanda, 70 percent of the Tutsi population was wiped out in 100 days. In the Holocaust, two-thirds of European Jewry were exterminated. In Armenia, over a million people were killed. In Namibia, entire tribes were nearly erased. Even the Yazidi genocide, which had a lower proportional death rate, involved systematic killing, mass rape, forced conversion, and the explicit intent to destroy the group.
“The numbers in Gaza simply do not resemble these patterns. They do not come even close in scale, in proportion, or in demographic impact.
“The author also looks at timing. Real genocides are either recognized immediately, like the ones in Rwanda and the Yazidis, or after decades of investigation, like the Holocaust and in Armenia. Gaza, the author notes, is still in the middle of contested evidence, disputed numbers, and ongoing legal proceedings. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) case is still under way. A final ruling is still years away.
“Then the author goes through the five UN criteria for genocide: Killing, serious harm, destructive conditions, preventing births, and transferring children. In recognized genocides, multiple criteria are met with clear evidence of intent. She shows that in Gaza, killings and harm occurred in the context of urban warfare. Other criteria are alleged or disputed, and the evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. And she makes one key legal point: If the same evidence can support more than one interpretation, the ICJ does not infer genocidal intent. That’s the legal precedent--not her opinion. And it’s not a political statement.
“The author ends with a simple conclusion: The accusation is serious. It therefore deserves serious scrutiny. And hashtags, slogans, street protests, [memes]---they’re not substitutes for legal adjudication. That is why there is an ICJ. And that is why the comparisons matter.
“If people were serious, they would not engage in the selective application of international law and crafting accusations to fit an agenda, and manipulating circumstances. They would address it seriously, as the author has done. When you look at how international law is being applied today, you can’t ignore the selective outrage. The way legal terms are stretched, shrunk, or weaponized, depending on who’s involved. When it comes to Israel, it’s all about agendas and the manipulation of circumstances to fit a predetermined narrative. And when you wonder [how we can safely say] this is a predetermined narrative, very simply, we were attacked on October 7. And on October 8, even before Israel responded, they were already demonstrating in the streets of the United States and European capitals, accusing us, already then, of genocide.”
https://youtu.be/IrCIhRRAiBQ?si=2JItxUMEcMkxb6_n, 10:40 to 14:06
Summary of the report The Gaza Genocide Claim: What Happens When You Compare It To Rwanda, Armenia, and The Holocaust”, https://ozsheri.substack.com/p/the-gaza-genocide-claim-what-happens