By Nithu Ardithya
In delving into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is essential to scrutinize accusations of genocide through the lens of international instruments and established criteria. This comprehensive exploration aims to unravel the complexities, particularly examining how these criteria manifest in the ongoing conflict.
International Humanitarian Law (IHL), rooted in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and customary international law, serves as a crucial framework designed to mitigate the impact of armed conflicts. Its primary objectives include protecting civilians, individuals no longer actively engaged in combat, and regulating the use of weaponry and combat tactics. The provisions of IHL, binding on all parties involved, prohibit indiscriminate attacks, the targeting of civilians, and the imposition of collective punishment.
Since October 7, Israel’s bombardment of Gaza has raised serious concerns about adherence to International Humanitarian Law. Antonio Guterres, in his plea for a ceasefire, has constantly highlighted the violation of IHL in the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas. Recent events prompt a critical examination of Israel’s military actions in light of the principles outlined in the Geneva Conventions.
Genocide Criteria in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide characterizes genocide as the commission of specific acts with the deliberate intention to annihilate, either entirely or partially, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
These acts encompass killing group members, causing severe physical or mental harm, intentionally creating conditions leading to the group’s physical destruction, implementing measures to impede births within the group, and forcibly transferring the group’s children to another group.
Raphael Lemkin’s construct outlines acts committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Acts such as deliberate attacks on civilians and the imposition of conditions leading to physical destruction may be subject to scrutiny under these criteria. Evaluating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict against these criteria becomes imperative for an accurate assessment.
Attacks Against Civilians
Central to International Humanitarian Law is the principle of distinction, requiring parties to distinguish between combatants and civilians. However, the conflict has witnessed repeated attacks against civilians, constituting a blatant violation. According to informants, Israel has dropped more than 25 000 tons of explosives over 12,000 targets in the Gaza Strip which questions the intentions of Israel of attacking Hamas.
The prolonged blockade and frequent attacks have resulted in a significant number of civilian casualties, particularly children, prompting international organizations to demand investigations.
Over 20,000 Palestinians have died because of Israeli operations since October 7, raising concerns about the discriminatory and proportionate nature of these attacks. There are also serious allegations that Israel has employed white phosphorus, a substance with devastating effects on human tissue, in densely populated areas of Gaza.
In such cases, where the intentional targeting of civilians is conducted with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a particular group, it may also constitute an element of genocide. Armed organizations on the Palestinian side are charged with war crimes for deliberately hitting Israeli civilians, shooting rockets into Israeli territory without warning, and using people as human shields.
Since the conflict’s resurgence, the government has reported that these activities have resulted in about 1,400 Israeli deaths, which is again a violation of the fundamental rules of IHL. The reported toll on civilian lives prompts international organizations to demand investigations into Israel’s military actions.
War Crimes and Specific Contexts
Beyond genocide, the conflict raises concerns about war crimes and IHL. Applying these legal frameworks requires a nuanced understanding of the specific contexts in which deliberate targeting of civilians, hostage-taking, and indiscriminate attacks occur. Unpacking the legal implications becomes essential for accountability and justice.
While acknowledging valid critiques of Israeli policies, it remains paramount to emphasize that accusations of genocide should align with the specific intent outlined in the legal criteria. Misapplications risk diminishing the historical significance of genocides, such as the Holocaust, and may oversimplify the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Claims of “cultural” genocide add another layer to the discourse, necessitating a nuanced evaluation within the legal framework. Understanding the specific criteria related to cultural destruction becomes crucial in distinguishing rhetoric from legal realities and avoiding broad generalizations.
Role of International Community
Legal experts assert that the international community bears a responsibility to prevent atrocity crimes, including genocide, and should promptly engage in diplomatic, political and economic measures. They emphasize the urgent need for UN Member States and the entire UN system to take immediate action.
Short-term recommendations include urging Israel and Hamas to implement an immediate ceasefire, ensuring unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid, securing the safe release of hostages, and releasing arbitrarily detained Palestinians.
The experts advocate for opening humanitarian corridors, especially for the vulnerable groups affected by the conflict. Long-term measures involve deploying an international protective presence under UN supervision, collaboration with investigative bodies, implementing an arms embargo, and addressing the root causes by ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.
The international community, encompassing not only states but also non-state actors, should act to prevent the risk of genocide against Palestinians and ultimately put an end to Israeli apartheid and occupation. Experts emphasize that the consequences extend beyond the fate of Israelis and Palestinians, warning of a severe escalation in regional conflict and in human rights violations and suffering for innocent civilians.
In conclusion, untangling the legal threads of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a meticulous examination of the genocide criteria within the context of international instruments. By applying the established legal frameworks and criteria, we gain a more nuanced understanding of the complexities at play, fostering a foundation for informed dialogue and comprehensive approaches to peace in the region.
Nithu Ardithya is an undergraduate of KDU Faculty of Law who can be reached at nithuardithya@gmail.com.
Factum is an Asia-Pacific-focused think tank on International Relations, Tech Cooperation, and Strategic Communications accessible via www.factum.lk.
The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the organization’s.
