The author is a professor and researcher in international relations. She published the book Lose the South (Éditions Écosociété, 2020) and edited the work Feminist Perspectives in International Relations (PUM, 2022).
In international law, genocide is determined primarily by the question of intent. There must be intent to physically destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group (in whole or in part). This intention must be proven. What is happening in Gaza right now is neither just a conflict, nor just a war, nor just a massacre. The actions of several senior figures in Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government amount to genocide in the eyes of international law and they must be brought to justice as such.
It’s not (just) me saying this, but human rights lawyer Craig Mokhiber, who recently left a high office at the United Nations to speak out against the situation. This is also what seven United Nations special rapporteurs warned us against on November 2, in an unequivocal statement: “We remain convinced that the Palestinian people are at serious risk of genocide. »
The term genocide was coined by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, following the atrocities of the Second World War. The Greek prefix genos means “race” or “tribe” and the suffix cide is equivalent to “kill”. A genocide in principle does not have to be linked to active war, unlike war crimes or crimes against humanity. Genocidal means include in whole or in part assassination, serious harm to the physical or mental integrity, limitation of the life span or prevention of births of members of the group or the forced transfer of children.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was finally unanimously approved on December 9, 1948 at the UN. This was followed by the adoption of different anti-genocide laws by the parliaments of different countries (but not all). The Israeli Knesset has one.
The actions of the Israeli government, like those of Hamas, also defy international humanitarian law, the most important document of which is the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. This codifies the distinction between civilians and combatants (including including civilian buildings, such as hospitals), but above all proportionality and precaution in the attack.
Several reasons suggest that we are indeed facing a risk of genocide in Gaza.
1. Internal Israeli documents released by WikiLeaks outlined a plan to expel (albeit hypothetical) Gaza residents to the Sinai desert in Egypt. An expulsion “plan” is considered under international law, even if it is not carried out in its entirety.
2. Benjamin Netanyahu urged the Israeli population to “remember what Amalek did to you”. In the fifth book of the Torah, Amalek is a nation of sworn enemies of the Israelis, whom they are called to exterminate. Although Benjamin Netanyahu generally speaks about Hamas in his speech, his remarks can legitimately be extended to the Palestinian people.
3. The intention to destroy the Palestinian population in whole or in part has been publicly repeated by different members of the government. Whether it is the Minister of Defense, Yoav Gallant, who mentions that “we are going to eliminate everything” in Gaza, or General Ghassan Alian, who draws parallels between Gazans and animals to be slaughtered.
4. The military authorities knew that the bombing of the Jabaliya refugee camp would cause the deaths of dozens of Palestinian women and children, but explained them as “collateral deaths”. Dozens of emaciated bodies, only to find a single Hamas leader. Furthermore, asking the Gazan people to move south at the risk of being bombed did not make sense when we see the density of the Gaza Strip. There is therefore no legitimate attempt to prevent civilian deaths.
The evidence is piling up
Contrary to what some specialists assert, I think it is impossible to certify that Israel’s response was “spontaneous” following the terrible attacks of October 7 perpetrated by Hamas. The actions of the Israeli authority, repeated and systematic since well before this date, speak for themselves.
Although the attacks over the past month follow a despicable act of terrorism by Hamas, there is a disproportionate use of retaliatory force here. However, post-September 11 history has taught us that avenging the deaths of civilians with more civilian deaths ultimately only serves to populate the cemeteries.
It is true that intention is always difficult to establish, but the evidence leading to it is accumulating. As Craig Mokhiber stated, the evidence in this case is even public. Very public.
Except that this trial of intentionality will not take place in public opinion, but in a legal arena, which will probably take place long after the horrors have ended. And that only if our multilateral legal organizations, like the International Criminal Court, have the courage to stand up.
In the meantime, the massacre continues before our amazed eyes, marked by the inaction of our governments. Canada and Quebec continue to support the State of Israel and recognize its “right to defend itself in accordance with international law”. It remains to be hoped that international law will have the last word.