Words have meanings. Crimes have elements. And one of the gravest accusations in human history should require more than repetition.

For nearly three years, Israel has been accused of committing genocide in Gaza. The accusation has moved from protests and social media into newspapers, universities, human rights organizations and political speeches. Eventually, repetition begins to masquerade as proof.

But genocide is not a synonym for a terrible war.

It is a specific crime.

Under the Genocide Convention, prohibited acts must be committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such.

That final requirement matters enormously.

Civilians can die in horrifying numbers without genocide occurring. Cities can be destroyed without genocide occurring. People can be displaced without genocide occurring. None of these facts makes the suffering less real. They simply do not, by themselves, establish the specific intent that genocide requires.

We understood this distinction in other wars.

The United States and its allies fought ISIS in Mosul in an extraordinarily destructive urban battle. An Associated Press investigation estimated that between 9,000 and 11,000 civilians died during the nine month battle, with at least 3,200 killed by Iraqi or coalition airstrikes, artillery or mortar fire. Yet few people seriously argue that the coalition therefore intended to destroy Iraqis as a people. 

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima killed tens of thousands of civilians almost immediately, with many more dying afterward. Sam Harris recently invoked Hiroshima and Nagasaki to make a useful distinction: enormous civilian death does not, by itself, establish genocide. Whatever one thinks about the morality of the atomic bombings, the question of intent remains indispensable.

Because body count and genocidal intent are different questions.

That distinction seems to disappear when the country fighting is Israel.

What the ICJ actually said

One of the most persistent claims about this war is that the International Court of Justice found that Israel was committing a “plausible genocide.”

In April 2024, Joan Donoghue, who had been president of the ICJ when the court issued its January 2024 provisional measures order, explained the point explicitly. The court had determined that at least some of the rights asserted by South Africa under the Genocide Convention were plausible, including the right of Gazans to be protected from acts of genocide. It had not decided that the allegation that genocide was occurring was itself plausible.

The court’s own order is explicit that it was considering the plausibility of the rights for which South Africa sought protection pending a decision on the merits. 

That distinction was widely blurred.

It matters because “the ICJ says genocide is plausible” became one of the most powerful talking points of the entire war. The court had said something considerably narrower.

This does not prove that Israel could never commit genocide. It means the case still has to be made.

And that brings us back to intent.

Look at what Israel actually did

If........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)