Wajeeha Najam
The current conflict between Israel and Palestine, especially in Gaza, needs to be examined in terms of genocide, US intervention, and the influence of international law. A historical reflection on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) offers a compelling framework to analyze the competing claims and the apparent contradictions in how genocide is addressed or overlooked in this case.
The Genocide Convention emerged from the ashes of World War II, driven by the world’s collective horror at the Holocaust. Its drafters, led by figures like Raphael Lemkin, envisioned a binding commitment to prevent and punish acts intended to destroy groups based on race, religion, ethnicity, or nationality. History, however, reveals the fragility of this commitment. From Rwanda to Bosnia, and now, arguably, in Gaza, the convention’s principles often strike with geopolitical realities, especially when powerful states exercise their influence to shield allies. Gaza presents a blunt test of this tension.
Under the Genocide Convention, genocide involves acts such as killing members of a group, causing serious harm, or creating conditions designed to destroy the group. Critics argue that Israeli actions in Gaza repeated military campaigns causing mass casualties, the blockade that cripples essential services, and provocative speech by some Israeli leaders fit this definition. Military campaigns in Gaza have disproportionately affected civilians. Entire neighborhoods have been flattened, families annihilated, and essential infrastructure destroyed. Proponents of the genocide claim argue that this is not mere collateral damage but part of a systematic effort to decimate the Palestinian population in Gaza.
The blockade imposed since 2007 has led to dire living conditions, limiting access to food, medicine, and essential goods. While Israel justifies this as a security measure, critics see it as an intentional act to make life unlivable for Palestinians, fulfilling the criteria of ‘deliberately imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s destruction.’
Statements by certain Israeli political figures, which associate Palestinians to ‘animals’ or suggest erasing Gaza, echo the rhetoric that historically precedes genocides. Such language fosters a permissive environment for violence and heightens the parallels with earlier atrocities. Yet, others strongly reject these claims, arguing that labeling the situation as genocide diminishes the term’s gravitas and legal precision.
The convention is clear: genocide requires specific intent to destroy a group. Israel and its supporters argue that no such intent exists in Gaza. Instead, they assert that Israeli actions are defensive measures against Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the US, and others. Israel claims its military operations target Hamas’s infrastructure, not civilians, and that civilian casualties are the tragic but inevitable consequence of urban warfare.
The use of human shields by Hamas, they argue, complicates compliance with international humanitarian law. Critics of the genocide argument contend that the devastation in Gaza, while severe, is not evidence of genocidal intent but of disproportionate force in an asymmetrical conflict. The absence of explicit state policies aimed at exterminating Palestinians, they argue, separates this from historical genocides like the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide.
The US’s unwavering support for Israel complicates any effort to apply the Genocide Convention to Gaza. This support, manifested through vetoes in the UN Security Council and billions in military aid, raises questions about American complicity in potential violations of international law. The US has consistently vetoed resolutions critical of Israel, including calls for investigations into military actions in Gaza.
This undermines the international community’s ability to determine whether genocide is occurring and creates a perception that some nations are above international law. The US has invoked the Genocide Convention in other contexts such as Darfur and Myanmar but remains silent on Gaza. This double standard weakens the global consensus on genocide prevention and exposes the selective enforcement of international law. By providing military aid without conditions, the US risks being seen as enabling actions that may constitute genocide or war crimes. Under international norms, aiding a state engaged in atrocities could render the supporter legally and morally complicit.
The history of the Genocide Convention is marred by selective enforcement. In Bosnia, despite clear evidence of genocidal acts, geopolitical concerns delayed intervention. In Rwanda, the world’s inaction allowed genocide to unfold unimpeded. Gaza reflects a similar failure to act decisively when allegations of genocide arise. What separates Gaza from other historical cases is the consistent shielding of one party-Israel-from international scrutiny. While the world condemned Serbian leaders for Srebrenica and sanctioned Sudan over Darfur, similar actions against Israel are politically unthinkable due to US influence.
Recent developments have further tested the efficacy of international mechanisms. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for individuals suspected of involvement in crimes under its jurisdiction. This raises the possibility of investigations into actions in Gaza, which could bring greater clarity and accountability. However, the ICC faces immense political pressure, particularly from powerful states like the US, which has historically opposed its jurisdiction over allies such as Israel. This dynamic complicates the court’s ability to act independently and effectively.
The Genocide Convention was meant to stand as a protection against impunity. Yet Gaza underscores its limitations. When powerful states use their geopolitical clout to protect allies, they erode the convention’s legitimacy. For Palestinians in Gaza, this means that international law offers little protection against overwhelming force. To honor the Genocide Convention’s legacy, the international community must address its failures in Gaza. The United Nations Security Council’s ability to act should not be paralyzed by a single state’s veto.
Reforming this system, especially in cases involving potential genocide, is essential for restoring credibility to international law. States providing military aid to Israel must ensure compliance with international humanitarian norms. Aid should not fund actions that disproportionately harm civilians or violate international law. The ICC or another independent body should investigate allegations of genocide and war crimes in Gaza. Accountability is critical for justice and for deterring future violations.
Gaza challenges the global community to confront uncomfortable truths about its commitment to preventing genocide. While debate rages over whether Israeli actions meet the legal threshold, the inability or unwillingness of the US and international bodies to apply the Genocide Convention equitably undermines its promise. As the shadow of inaction looms, Gaza risks becoming another tragic chapter in the history of the world’s failure to uphold ‘never again.’
The author is a Research Officer at Rabita Forum International (RFI).
