GNITN - Special Edition

Israel At War – Day 96

War Crimes Looming

War Crimes Charges

I haven’t addressed this up until now, but Israel is facing charges of genocide for their war on Hamas. If true this would mean that the International Court of Justice in the Hague would be ruling that Israel is intentionally murdering Palestinians and even intending on wiping all of them out. Here is how this the United Nations defines genocide from their web site :

The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.

According to some, these charges are to be taken seriously by Israel. As we read in this article from The Times Of Israel:

Israel, on Thursday, will for the first time in its history find itself in the dock in the International Court of Justice in The Hague — charged with genocide.

Although the idea that Israel is committing genocide in the war in Gaza, meaning intentionally murdering Palestinian civilians, might seem outlandish to some, the allegations are extremely serious and even an interim ruling against Israel could have a severe impact on its international status and global reputation, with potentially dire diplomatic and political consequences.

A ruling against Israel could even affect the ongoing conduct of the war against the Hamas terror group’s regime in Gaza.

The charges are being brought to the court by South Africa who sees the killing of Palestinians and keeping humanitarian aid from getting to them are enough to constitute the need for bringing them:

The application to the ICJ against Israel by South Africa alleges that Israel has violated the Genocide Convention, to which it is a signatory. It cites the large number of Palestinian civilians killed during the war, and the severely reduced access to food, water, and medical care of the Gazan population, which South Africa alleges are the result of a planned Israeli effort to commit genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.

Critically, the numerous inflammatory statements made by Israel government ministers about Palestinians in Gaza have given South Africa a platform to allege that the State of Israel has the intent to commit genocide, a crucial aspect of any genocide charges.
A Ruling Could Take Years

As both sides can make their cases, a ruling on the charges might take years to decide and by then the war in Israel may very well be over:

Although a final ruling will likely take years, South Africa has requested the court issue provisional orders against Israel that could range from demanding a total and immediate ceasefire — which Israel and the US firmly oppose because Hamas has yet to dismantled — to more moderate orders such as insisting that more humanitarian aid be allowed in.

An interim order, however, would imply that the court believes there is validity to the charges:

But it would be the interim ruling itself, that there is even plausibility to South Africa’s allegations, that would be the most damaging to Israel’s standing.

Critically for Israel, the bar to establish plausibility of genocidal actions is much lower than a final definitive determination, and this puts the Jewish state in significant potential peril. For a start, it would certainly be more challenging for the US, or any other country inclined to stand with Israel, to do so if the ICJ determines the country might be committing genocide.

Why Did South Africa Make The Charges?

The motivation for such charges is a good question. Let’s go back to the article to see more about that:

South Africa’s application to the ICJ alleges that Israel has violated several articles of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide — to which Israel is signatory — during the war, including committing genocide, incitement to genocide, attempted genocide and failure to punish incitement to genocide.

It alleges that 70 percent of Gazan casualties are women and children, and details the heavy aerial bombardment of Gaza conducted by the Israeli Air Force and its use of large and sometimes unguided bombs.

It also points to “reports of unarmed people… being shot dead on sight,” noting the incident in December in which three Israeli hostages who managed to escape their captors were mistakenly shot dead by IDF forces even though they were waving white flags.

The document also details Gazans’ reduced access to food, water, and medical treatment as a result of the war and Israeli policies regarding the entry of such items, and fuel, into the Gaza Strip.

Interestingly, the war of words is also mentioned as contributing to the case:

And it lays out what it sees as highly problematic comments by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, all of whom are members of the critical security cabinet which makes policy decisions on the prosecution of the war. The application alleges that these comments either dehumanized Palestinians, threatened indiscriminate attacks on Gaza or could be understood as threatening Gazan civilians.

So sticks and stones can hurt their bones AND words will also harm them:

“The acts and omissions by Israel complained of by South Africa are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group,” the application charges.

Curious Omissions

Did South Africa just not hear the chants by Palestinians and their leaders of “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free?” Are they deaf to the constant statements of wanting to kill all Jews everywhere? Hamas uses tactics that they accuse the IDF of doing as we read further from the same report:

In the entirety of its 84 pages, South Africa’s application makes no mention of Hamas’s documented practice of embedding its military installations and combatants in all aspects of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, mosques, schools, homes, UN facilities and other similar sites, even when mentioning Israeli attacks on such infrastructure.

Hamas’s massive network of tunnels, much of which is located under civilian locations and which is used exclusively for military purposes, is mentioned once — and then only to raise concerns over the ecological impact of flooding such tunnels, which Israel has carried out.

Can Israel Get A Fair Trial?

It doesn’t take much research to see that Israel will have an uphill battle to defend itself:

A crucial component of the ICJ proceedings is whether Israel can receive a fair hearing.

The 15 permanent judges who serve on the court are appointed by the United Nations General Assembly, and come from countries with greatly differing levels of judicial independence.

The president of the court is Judge Joan Donoghue from the United States, and other judges come from democratic countries such as France, Germany, Australia, India, Slovakia, Jamaica, Japan and Brazil.

Both South Africa and Israel are sending judges they have nominated as ad hoc members of the panel hearing the case. Israel’s judge will be former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak.

But other judges come from places where their countries could easily have been charged and where justice is hardly a strong point:

But other judges come from Russia, China, Morocco, Somalia, Lebanon and Uganda, which are all either autocracies or very flawed democracies where judicial independence from those countries’ political leadership is dubious, to say the least, said Prof. Robbie Sabel of the Faculty of Law at the Hebrew University.

“If it [the ICJ proceedings] was strictly legal, then it wouldn’t be possible to say this is genocide,” said Sabel.

“But since there is a bloc of anti-Israel judges, we should be worried,” he continued, arguing that the selection of judges in the UN General Assembly is political and pointing out that no Israeli judge has ever been elected to the court.

Objectively, Israel should be seen as doing everything they can to be humane:

Sabel contended that if Israel wanted to commit genocide against Gazans it could have caused far greater civilian casualties given the power of the army, and that combined with the IDF’s efforts to avoid such casualties and the humanitarian aid Israel has allowed into the territory, “an impartial court” could not determine that it was plausible that Israel was committing genocide.

Justice in a world court is hard to find and with the current atmosphere of antisemitism clouding it, well Israel is likely to be seen as the guilty before proven innocent. The more we hear about these charges and who will be hearing it, pray that Israel will get at least a fair shake. But, as I’ve said before, Israel is getting to a point where they are going to have to act alone if they want to be free of terrorism.