Genocide?

One need not look far nor for more than the briefest of instants to hear the accusation leveled against Israel of committing genocide.  Countless politicians, celebrities, “influencers” and others have condemned Israel for this crime.  Yet, I wondered, are they in fact correct?  In short, they are not. 

As those who know me can attest, I reluctantly am an attorney.  To make matters worse, I must admit that I graduated from New York University School of Law, which is now infamous for its erstwhile Student Bar Association president publicly issuing the organization’s newsletter with a statement blaming the deaths of the Israelis on 10/7 on Israel itself.  Compounding my embarrassment, the current dean of the Law School was a classmate of mine, but his feckless statement – which took him two tries to proffer to boot – was hardly a profile in courage. 

While owning up to matters, I should also make clear that I am a corporate attorney, which essentially means I do very little “real law.”  Nonetheless, I did graduate in good standing from the law-school-whose-name-shall-no-longer-be-mentioned and can understand laws or, in this case, quasi-laws.  To that end, I decided to undertake what I assume a good lawyer would do:  Look up the definition of the crime alleged and see if the facts support the accusation.   

Typically, when I seek to know the meaning of a term, I first turn to the dictionary.  According to Oxford Languages, genocide is “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.”  Note the key term in the definition – “aim”.  Aim is evidence of intent.  In other words, merely accidental or collateral killing would not satisfy this definition. 

Yet I am sure many of the Israel-haters out there would state that a dictionary is not the appropriate place to look for a definition (when it does not comport with their aims, that is).  Thus I have also gone to the United Nations’ website to see what that organization’s preferred definition is.  The UN refers to the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948 Entry into force: 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XIII” for its definition.  That definition is:  “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”  (emphasis added) 

To put this in plain English, to be guilty of the charge of genocide, a party must intend to destroy another.  Applying this definition to the actual facts, I fail to see how one can make any case consistent with an intent to destroy the Palestinians.  I offer as support that, typically, when trying to destroy another, one does not suggest that the other remove itself from the danger zone.  And, I am guessing, usually those who intend to destroy others do not bother to first call them on their mobile phones to warn them. 

In criminal law, the concept of intent is essential.  Nonetheless, sometimes one can be deemed to be liable even if it did not strictly intend to commit the crime but was so reckless in its disregard of its actions that it might as well have been intentional.  Yet again, the facts do not support even a charge of recklessness.  Isarel’s actions are calculated.  Warnings, as discussed above, are given.  Flyers are dropped.  These are not acts without regard to consequences. 

To further elucidate why Israel is not guilty of genocide, one need look no further than a comparison with Hamas’s own charter and actions, the former of which states, “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”  I do not think a reasonable individual could interpret this as anything other than an intention to completely destroy a people, and their actions on 10/7 demonstrate this willingness.  Whether they have the means to carry it out, as some have proffered in their defense, is not part of the definition of the crime. 

For those who would prefer non-legal arguments, I would simply reiterate what so many others have recently stated to refute the baseless claims of genocide:  That if Israel, with its superior weapons and forces, had truly intended at any point to obliterate the Palestinians then how does one reconcile that with the fact that there are more Palestinians today than ever?  Is Israel just incompetent at it? 

I suggest not.  For if there are any people on this planet that know something about genocide, it is tragically the Jews.  And the fact that this term is leveled against the survivors and the descendants of true genocide – which was a major impetus for the adoption of the Convention’s definition – is morally repugnant. 

Israel is not perfect.  No nation is.  But it is not intent on committing genocide.  The invoking of the most painful of all memories of the Jewish people against them for others' misguided, selfish and malevolent purposes must stop.