In South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s weekly newsletter (dated Monday, 8 April 2024) to fellow South Africans, the president emphatically declared that “the world cannot stand idly by as another genocide is carried out, this time against the people of Palestine in the besieged Gaza Strip.” Following the brutal terror attacks against Israel on October 7, 2023, references by South African government officials to Israel’s attacks on Gaza have been rife. Terming the war in Gaza “genocide” is, however, gross error and counter-productive. This, of course, is not to deny that every life lost – Palestinian, Jewish or, for that matter, those of any others anywhere else in the world – is tragic and that every reasonable care should be taken to minimise civilian casualties in war and provide access to, inter alia, food and aid. Also, there have indeed been shocking incidents which, after investigation, might turn out to be war crimes, and which the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) will have to account for (the recent death of seven World Kitchen Aid workers constituting a prime example). It is, however, worth stressing that the Israeli government has accepted responsibility for the latter attack and has already launched a nationwide investigation.
However, to term an action “genocide” is a serious accusation and one that has particular legal hurdles to overcome before the act can be deemed as such. South Africa will do well to remember that, in delivering its verdict in the case of the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel), the ICJ did not reach the conclusion that Israel is guilty of the crime of genocide. In fact, in issuing the provisional order, the court’s president, Joan Donoghue, was careful in stating that the ICJ cannot at this stage of the proceedings conclude that Israel is guilty of genocide. Yet the South Africa government and its officials persist in labelling the war in Gaza as “genocide”. In the domestic context, this amounts to declaring the accused in any legal proceedings guilty before a judge, after having duly considered the evidence, has passed judgement on the matter. Condemning Israeli action in Gaza as genocide is not confined to the South African government only, but is pervasive in our and many other societies across the world.
According to Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, an act can be considered “genocide” only when committed with the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. The word “intent” is of paramount importance here. While we may not agree with the way Benjamin Netanyahu is conducting the war (indeed, some Israelis are also unhappy with his handling of the war), and while the situation on the ground is indeed deplorable and tragic, the issue of “intent” remains central. From what I have been able to glean from reports and the media, I have severe doubts whether there is a clear indication of intent on the part of Israel to commit genocide. Lest I be misunderstood, I am not commenting here on the tragic loss of civilian lives in the Gaza Strip, but instead questioning whether this loss amounts to genocide, ie whether there is sufficient evidence of a clear intention on the part of Israel to commit the acts stipulated in the Genocide Convention. The death of civilians in war, however tragic, does not in and of itself constitute genocide. It is, of course, true that the ICJ may yet in the future judge Israeli actions to be constitutive of genocide; however, we have not yet arrived at this destination, and neither does the current evidence suggest that genocidal intent is part and parcel of Israel’s actions. I am not alone in this assessment. John Spencer, chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point and an expert on urban warfare, has made a compelling case for reconsidering arguments that link the “excessive” death toll in Gaza to wholesale Israeli destruction to exterminate (as an act of genocide) the Palestinian people.
In more ways than one, as Spencer notes, Israel “has taken more measures to avoid needless civilian harm than virtually any other nation” engaged in urban warfare or, for that matter, warfare in general. Of particular importance, the context and geography in which the Israeli military operation plays itself out, in which the enemy is deeply entrenched in and among civilians and civilian buildings (including, as it has now been confirmed, in several hospitals), are often ignored, as is the unprecedented actions undertaken by the IDF to minimise civilian casualties. Unsurprisingly, global attention and scrutiny followed shortly after the IDF began its operation at the al-Shifa hospital located in the Gaza Strip. What was often not conveyed to global audiences was the unprecedented precautions undertaken by the IDF in this operation, ranging from attempts to minimise civilian casualties, doctors accompanying IDF soldiers to tend to injured civilians, and soldiers delivering medical aid and other necessities to civilians in the hospital. Avoiding all civilian casualties becomes well near impossible given the particular context and geography of this conflict, as is the case with warfare in general. It is worth noting that the wide-ranging initiatives undertaken by the IDF, ranging from unprecedented warning time of impending attacks (including dropping some seven million flyers, 13 million text messages, 70 000 direct phone calls prior to attacks, providing IDF maps of military operations and specifying when these operations will occur) to widespread use of precision guided munitions (PGMs), have often been downplayed or wholly ignored by the South African government. Furthermore, while the unofficial death toll in the Gaza Strip stands at more than 33 000, John Spencer notes that at least 13 000 Hamas operatives have been killed, thus suggesting some 20 000 civilians have died in Gaza. That Hamas inflates the civilian death toll is very possible. This equates to a ratio of roughly 1 combatant to 1,5 civilians, a ratio that, according to Spencer, “is historically low for modern urban warfare”. To put this into perspective, all of the United Nations, European Union and other relevant sources estimate that a ratio of 1:9 (ie 9 civilian deaths for every soldier killed in battle) has been the norm in modern warfare. Although the uptick in the death toll reported in Gaza seems to belie this, the IDF have indeed been successful in implementing measures to minimise civilian deaths, though, of course, more can and should be done. Accordingly, these and other actions by the IDF are hardly consistent with a military and government set on committing a genocidal act.
Refraining from labelling Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip as genocide is also important for a different set of reasons. Although South Africa declares itself neutral in this case (an argument, of course, that no one really buys), any pretension to act as a mediator or, generally, to work for peace in this case is thwarted when one of the parties to the conflict (in this case Israel) is deemed to be guilty of a crime – a serious one, I should add, and one also deeply personal to the Jewish people – before legal proceedings have been completed. The insistence by the South African government on calling Israeli action in the Gaza Strip “genocide” (before the ICJ has concluded its judgement on the matter) does not nothing more deepen animosities within and across societies, adding to the polarisation of the world. Ultimately, whether IDF actions constitute genocide or not will be judged in due time by the ICJ. Until that day, let us refrain from making judgements.
Eben Coetzee, Department of Political Studies and Governance, University of the Free State
Kommentaar
No, let's not refrain from calling it what it plainly is. To remain silent is to be complicit.
You say it's all in the intent? Well, the surrounding (circumstantial) facts prove the intent. A murderer usually denies that he or she had the intent to murder, but the facts usually prove otherwise; the facts detailing the murderer's actions. In this case:
Israel has not been under attack since 7 October. It's no longer self-defence, which requires a continuation of the attack. The imbalance between the "attacker's" weapons and the IDF's bombs, drones and rockets. not to mention rifles and grenades, is totally one-sided.
The duration of the follow-up action (hot pursuit) is well past its legitimate use.
The extent of the destruction and its effect on civilians - including aid-workers and journalists by the hundred - are beyond what is reasonable to root out some terrorists.
The deliberate targeting of infrastructure essential for survival - such as hospital, food supplies - is evidence an intention to target the local civilian population.
The refusal to stop indiscriminate bombing of civilians AFTER the scale of deaths of women and children (obviously innocent non-combatants) became known, proves that they are regarded as legitimate targets.
The blocking of aid to the million-and-a-half displaced Palestinians is further proof of a murderous intent.
The shoot-from-the-hip conduct of individual IDF soldiers demonstrates that the Palestinians women and children included - are regarded by them and their commanders as Untermenschen.
250 IDF soldiers dead. More than 32 000 civilians so far, more than 20 000 of them women and children. Totally disproportional. As in grossly exceeding the bounds of self-defence.
I could go on.
Let's call it what it is. It's genocide. And let's not forget who's occupying the other's land here.