Talking About Genocide
Jan. 14, 2024
Since Hamas’s horrific October 7 attack on Israel, genocide is a word that has become fraught for the great majority of the U.S. political class and, with some exceptions, the corporate media that mirrors their views. South Africa’s “Application Instituting Proceeding” at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) charging Israel with genocide in its assault on the Gaza Strip compelled the international community to mention the word “genocide” repeatedly. South Africa has requested that the ICJ “indicate provisional measures to protect the rights” of the people of the Gaza Strip “from imminent and irreparable loss.”Predictably, Secretary of State Blinken, declared South Africa’s charges “meritless” before the oral arguments were presented. The Biden administration, he said, believes the ICJ proceeding “distracts the world” from securing the release of the 136 hostages still held by Hamas, addressing the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, and preventing the conflict from spreading.
These are indeed urgent matters of the highest priority. Nothing would do more to advance their achievement than a lasting ceasefire. But that too is a suspect, if not unspeakable, word for the Biden administration, the Washington DC foreign policy blob, and the Israeli government (though not the families of the Israeli hostages and their supporters).
The Israeli hasbara (explanation, or more crudely, propaganda) machine denounced the ICJ proceedings. Nonetheless, Israel is taking them seriously and appearing to answer charges against it in an international body for the first time.
Israel and South Africa have the right to appoint an ad hoc judge to the court since none of those currently serving are its nationals. Israel appointed Aharon Barak, perhaps its most prominent jurist. He has been the target of verbal abuse and even death threats by members and supporters of the current Israeli government and excoriated as a “liberal.” His liberalism is limited to domestic civil liberties issues. Barak defended the legitimacy of the occupation and almost always upheld the legitimacy of the actions of Israel’s defense establishment when they came before the High Court of Justice during his tenure as president from 1995 to 2006.
Israel is treating the proceedings seriously because there is a prima facie case that leading members of the government, including the prime minister and minister of defense, high-ranking military officers, and others have made public statements that apparently constitute incitement to genocide, which is also a violation of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (quoted in pp. 59-67 in South Africa’s “Application Instituting Proceeding”).
South Africa’s presentation to the ICJ on January 11 is here (there are formalities before they begin because it’s the first day, so the substantive arguments begin at about 25:00 minutes in). Israel’s response is here. The 3-hour-long presentations and the 84 pages of South Africa’s “Application Instituting Proceeding” are perhaps intimidating. That should indicate that this is a serious question, not one to be dismissed out of hand.
Israeli-born Omer Bartov, Samuel Pisar Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Brown University, wrote an op-ed in the NYT on Nov. 10 concluding “There is still time to stop Israel from letting its actions become a genocide. We cannot wait a moment longer.” Peter Beinart interviewed Bartov during his weekly Zoom meeting on Friday Jan. 12. The recording isn’t available yet but will be offered to subscribers (I highly recommend subscribing). Bartov noted that he wrote that article in mid-October. So perhaps the line was already crossed by the time it appeared or in the two months since? Bartov cautiously did not come to any conclusion.
He did say that South Africa had a serious case. Others have noted that a large element of Israel’s defense is that it acted in self-defense after an attack in which Hamas committed many atrocities. The South African presentation acknowledges this and counters that committing genocide is not a permitted form of self-defense.
If the court’s provisional assessment is that Israel is causing irreparable harm, it may issue “provisional measures” ordering Israel to desist within months. Such measures would require Israel to refrain from certain actions until the court delivers its final judgment, which will take years.