Is genocide being redefined just to indict Israel?

There is a raging global debate about whether Israel's actions in Gaza qualify as genocide.

- Konstanty Gebert

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines the offence as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such” The convention then enumerates incriminating acts, starting with “killing members of the group”

Of course, such acts already constitute distinct crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. What makes them genocidal is the “intent to destroy’; which is easy to allege but difficult to prove in a court of law.

Moreover, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that genocidal intent must be “the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from the acts in question” This high standard of proof is what sets genocide apart from other crimes committed in wartime. The uniquely evil intention is what makes it the “crime of crimes”.

Of all the massacres committed in human history, the academic consensus about instances of known genocide applies to fewer than a dozen cases. Thus, it would be particularly shocking if Israelis — given the role the Shoah (Holocaust) played in their own history — were to join such a mercifully small group of perpetrators.

In this context, expert opinion is very important. Many have been waiting for the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) to weigh in on the matter, and on Sept 1, it published a resolution doing so. Endorsed by 86% of IAGS members who decided to cast a vote, the document is unambiguous: “Israel's policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide”