Intent in the genocide case against Israel is not hard to prove

A database of more than 500 statements showing Israeli incitement to genocide provides ample evidence of genocidal intent.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers a speech in which he compares the Palestinians to the Biblical people of Amalek on October 28, 2023 in Tel Aviv [File: Abir Sultan/Pool via Reuters]

This week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held a hearing for South Africa’s formal request for provisional measures against Israel over its military assault on Gaza. The South African legal team argued that Israel is committing acts of genocide and therefore should be ordered to stop its military activities in the strip.

The crime of genocide has two elements – intention and execution – both of which have to be proven when accusations are made. In Israel’s case, the apparent devastation of Gaza makes for a powerful argument that it is indeed carrying out genocide.

The mass killing of more than 23,000 Palestinians, almost half of whom are children and youth, with thousands more missing; the forced displacement of almost two million Palestinians who make up 90 percent of Gaza’s population; Israel’s imposition of “total siege” that now threatens to kill through hunger and infectious diseases hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the coming months; the laying of waste to Gaza through indiscriminate mass bombardments and the razing of whole residential neighbourhoods; the targeting of hospitals, doctors and other healthcare professionals; the damage and destruction of cultural, educational and religious sites, including hundreds of schools, universities, mosques, churches and libraries – all this is the visible execution of genocide, and the South African legal team laid it out clearly during the hearing.

Intention is usually harder to prove when accusations of genocide are made; the petitioner has to be able to prove “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such,” in the language of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. But in Israel’s case, intention too has been laid bare by an ample amount of evidence – as the South African legal team pointed out.

In arguing the case, they were able to draw on a new and comprehensive database, compiled by Law for Palestine, which meticulously documents and collates 500 statements that embody the Israeli state’s intention to commit genocide and incitement to genocide since October 7, 2023. The statements by people with command authority – state leaders, war cabinet ministers and senior army officers – and by other politicians, army officers, journalists and public figures reveal the widespread commitment in Israel to the genocidal destruction of Gaza.

Perpetrators of genocide rarely express their intentions in direct and explicit ways, so courts are left to infer such intent through an analysis of state actions or leaked memoranda. In the case of Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza, however, as the Law for Palestine database shows, people with command authority have been making genocidal statements repeatedly over the past three months.

They have dehumanised Palestinians in their rhetoric, and painted the population in Gaza, as a whole, as Israel’s enemy. Bolstered by the hubris of settler colonial power and the knowledge that it has killed, maimed, destroyed, expelled, humiliated, imprisoned and dispossessed with more than seven decades of impunity and by the continued material and moral support of the United States, Israelis are explicit and unashamed about their genocidal intent because they have imagined and prosecuted a war against people who they see as colonised “savages”.

Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant described Palestinians precisely in this way, as “human animals”, in his proclamation of the “total siege” on October 9. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described Gaza as “the city of evil” on October 7, and then on December 24, framed Israel’s attack as a fight against “monsters”. “This is a battle, not only of Israel against these barbarians, it is a battle of civilisation against barbarism,” he said.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog said a few weeks earlier, on December 5, that Israel’s attack on Gaza is “a war that is intended, really, truly, to save western civilisation… [from] an empire of evil”.

Netanyahu and other senior Israeli ministers have left no doubt that saving “Western civilisation” requires the total destruction of the Palestinians in Gaza by describing them as the Biblical people of Amalek – a people perceived in whole as an enemy that must be destroyed – and as Nazis.

This crude and dangerous weaponisation of religion and the Holocaust points to a genocidal state of mind: Perpetrators of genocide always see the group they are attacking as posing an existential threat to themselves, so that genocide, in their minds, is a legitimate and necessary defence. This is how the Nazis understood their genocidal assault on Jews during World War II, and this is how Israelis now view their genocide on Palestinians in Gaza.

The Law for Palestine database provides us with a comprehensive evidence base to trace the language that drives Israeli genocide. In view of this unashamed genocidal language by people with command authority in Israel, “the ICJ faces a stark choice”, as international law expert Moshen al Attar has recently put it: “Find in favour of South Africa and indicate provisional measures or damn international law into oblivion.”

Whether the ICJ fulfils its duty and rules in favour of the South African request remains to be seen. In any case, Israel’s explicit language of genocide and its unprecedented assault on Gaza should mark the end of its impunity in the international legal system and usher in a new stage in the struggle to stop the violence, save the Palestinians of Gaza, and end Israeli settler colonialism.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.