Lawyers say that genocide is among the most difficult crimes to prove in international law because it requires demonstrating the specific intent to destroy a group, “in whole or in part,” something that Israeli leaders have persistently denied is their intent in Gaza.
In a rare move, the Israel chapter of Amnesty International protested the findings of the report, saying “the majority” of local members “holds that the claim that Israel is committing a genocide is not sufficiently substantiated”.
Still, the local chapter said it was worried “serious crimes” were being perpetrated in Gaza and that the killing and destruction in Gaza was at “catastrophic proportions and must cease immediately”.
The chapter later said it was worried “serious crimes” were being perpetrated in Gaza and that the killing and destruction in Gaza was at “catastrophic proportions and must cease immediately”.
The chapter later said that four members of its board resigned over differences of opinion on the report. The organisation didn’t clarify whether those who resigned were in favour of or against the report.
More than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the war, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which doesn’t distinguish between combatants and civilians. Nearly 2 million people have been displaced, and cities have been reduced to rubble.
Amnesty International said it took into account acts by Israel between October 2023 and July 2024, including what it described as “repeated direct attacks on civilians” and extensive restrictions on humanitarian aid.
Israel says it is waging a war against Hamas in Gaza and not civilians. It has also blamed the United Nations for mismanaging the delivery of aid and accused Hamas of looting it.
In a statement, the Israeli military said it “takes all feasible measures to mitigate harm to civilians” during its operations, including “providing advance warnings to civilians in combat zones whenever feasible”. Allegations of intentional harm, the military said, were “unfounded”.
The genocide accusation is acutely sensitive for Israel, which was founded in 1948 in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Many Israelis argue that it is Hamas that should face charges of genocide after its attack October 7, 2023, when about 1200 people were killed in Israel and about 240 were taken captive, according to Israeli officials.
While the Amnesty report didn’t focus on the October 7 attack, it said militants from Hamas and other armed groups conducted “deliberate mass killings, summary killings and other abuses, causing suffering and physical injuries”. It said war crimes committed by Hamas would be the subject of a separate report.
Under a convention adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 in the wake of the Holocaust, genocide is defined as carrying out certain acts of violence with the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
In the case before the International Court of Justice, South Africa has argued that inflammatory public statements made by Israeli leaders are proof of intent to commit genocide. Part of Israel’s defence is to show that whatever politicians may have said in public was overruled by executive decisions and official orders from Israel’s war Cabinet and its military’s high command.
Amnesty International said it used the 1948 convention to make its determination that Israel was committing genocide, and it warned against narrow interpretations of what constitutes intent.
Janina Dill, co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, said the Amnesty report was not necessarily an indication that the International Court of Justice would reach the same conclusion.
She said Amnesty appeared to be using a standard for establishing whether Israel had intent to commit genocidal acts that was closer to a “preponderance of evidence,” whereas the International Court of Justice has held a higher bar in past cases.
“The report is critical and important to establish the facts of what has happened in Gaza, but I don’t think it is decisive for how we should expect the ICJ case to unfold,” she said.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Written by: Adam Rasgon
©2024 THE NEW YORK TIMES
