There is a profound historical irony in the fact that the 1948 international Genocide Convention, which was set up in response to the Nazis’ murder of six million European Jews, has been invoked against Israel, which describes itself as a ‘Jewish’ state. This week, the South African government has presented a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, charging that Israeli policies in Gaza amount to genocide. (The submission of the South African government to the ICJ can be downloaded here).
It is a potentially explosive case, not from the point of view of legal formalities, but in so far as it will impact on public opinion. Socialists are right to be sceptical of legalistic and moral appeals to end the murderous campaign of the Israeli government in Gaza. Taking account of the those who are yet unaccounted for, perhaps buried under rubble, nearly 30,000 have been killed by Israeli high explosives in Gaza, overwhelmingly non-combatants, and including around 10,000 children. Leaving aside the deployment of nuclear weapons against Japan, the intensity of Israel’s bombing campaign surpasses anything conducted against a civilian population in modern times.
It is not surprising, therefore, that there is global moral outrage at the carnage. But ‘international law’ is meaningless when it comes to the realities of politics. Over many decades, the United Nations General Assembly has passed many resolutions that call on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories captured in 1967, yet Israel has studiously ignored them all. The real power of the United Nations lies in the committee of big powers gathered around its Security Council, and even then it only applies where there is a consensus, without which it is impotent.
Discussions in the media about ‘war crimes’ are just as ineffective, and many of them, in any case, are shot through with hypocrisy. Western politicians were quick off the mark to describe certain Russian actions in Ukraine as war crimes, but exactly the same conduct in Gaza – like withholding of food, water and electricity from a besieged population – was met with stony silence, at least for the first two months. Appearing before a parliamentary committee, it took David Cameron, the UK Foreign Secretary, all manner of verbal somersaults, before he finally had to admit that, yes, Israel was indeed the occupying power in Gaza and, yes, perhaps, it should restore access for its population to the basic necessities of life.
The labour movement has its own morality
The moral standards upon which the labour movement rests are not those of hypocritical Western politicians. Workers must assert their own standards: only that which is in the best interests of the majority of the population, the working class, and other oppressed sections of society, is ‘moral’. Workers are right to be opposed to those things that are in the exclusive interests of a tiny handful of people, whatever the ‘legal’ position might be.
But having said that, the case being brought by the South African government against Israel has huge significance internationally. In proportion to the size of its population, Israel has a more extensive and effective political lobbying network than any other state. It includes the likes of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) in the USA, and CFI (the Conservative Friends of Israel) and LFI (the Labour equivalent) in the UK.
Israel’s international political lobbying machine is no doubt expensive, but it is extremely effective. It is also very necessary, because more than any other state, Israel relies upon the financial, political and ‘moral’ support of governments abroad, as well as the wider international community, especially those of Jewish faith.
The case going forward to the ICJ poses a danger to Israel because it will add even more impetus to the collapse of international support that we are already seeing over Gaza. The South African government has argued at the ICJ what organised workers across the world can already see with their own eyes, that “by killing Palestinians in Gaza, causing them serious bodily and mental harm, and inflicting on them ‘conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction’, Israel was responsible for a genocide”. (Financial Times report, January 11)
In arguing its case, South Africa referred to Israel’s “failure to provide or ensure essential food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter and other humanitarian assistance for the besieged and blockaded Palestinian people”. It described a “sustained bombardment over more than eleven weeks of one of the most densely populated places in the world”, and it has cited the high numbers of children killed.
The bombing of Gaza has created, the South Africans say, “conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction as a group”. In a nutshell, “Israel has a genocidal intent against the Palestinians in Gaza. That is evident from the way in which Israel’s military attack is being conducted.”
“As we stand today, ” a member of South Africa’s legal team told the court, “One per cent of the Palestinian population in Gaza has been systematically decimated. And one in four Gazans have been injured since October 7”.
Israeli politicians and officials make genocidal statements
It is notable that the South African case also includes statements and speeches by Israeli politicians – including government ministers and officials – showing that there is genocidal intent on the part of the Israel. Included in the case there was a quote from Netanyahu himself, when he referred in a speech to the biblical story of the total destruction of Amalek by the Israelites. Then there was the suggestion by another far right minister that a nuclear strike on Gaza was “an option”. Several senior Israeli politicians have made comments and speeches that clearly suggest there is no distinction held between Hamas militants and the population as a whole.
All these political comments, sometimes by government officials, the South African lawyers argued, “when combined with the level of killing, maiming, displacement and destruction on the ground, together with the siege — evidence an unfolding and continuing genocide”. Even some Israeli commentators, like Amichai Cohen, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, have acknowledged that in the ICJ, these statements of politicians and officials are a “weak point” for Israel.
Not surprisingly, Israel has furiously denied the allegation of genocide. Israeli politicians are taking the ICJ charge seriously, claiming that they have tried to minimise civilian casualties. “If you want to kill people” an Israeli lawyer argued, “you don’t warn them in advance”. But with around 30,000 dead, overwhelming non-combatants, there is simply no credibility to the idea that civilian casualties have been ‘minimised’.
As we well know, the Gaza population have frequently been moved at Israel’s prompting, only for areas designated as ‘safe’ to then be bombed. Why have journalists and their families, been disproportionately targeted? Why have schools been bombed? Why were people sheltering in a Church killed with sniper fire?
How many states deploy snipers against civilians?
Moreover, Israel has ‘form’ in regard to killing unarmed civilians. In 2018, to mention only one instance, a report commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Council found that by using snipers to shoot at unarmed civilian demonstrators, Israel killed as many as 35 Palestinian children under 18 and wounded over 900. How many states, anywhere in the world, deploy snipers to shoot at unarmed civilians?
A final ruling by the International Court of Justice will take years, but if there is a consensus among its dozen and a half judges, it may produce an interim report within weeks, as well as a ‘request’ for emergency measures. Even if it does, Israel will ignore any ruling, just as Russia has ignored a ruling against it over the invasion of Ukraine.
But an unfavourable ruling would still come as a blow to Israeli international prestige. “The court of public opinion has much more currency, I think, than people realise,” argued an expert on international law and human rights, in an interview with the Financial Times. “I don’t know how Israel would reputationally be able to handle a loss of that nature, given the gravitas of the convention under which it comes.”
There is a tide of public opinion swinging against Israel as a result of its twelve week bombing campaign in Gaza and that is particularly true within the labour movement. That tide is evidenced by the continued and massive demonstrations in support of Palestine that are taking place in towns and cities across Europe and the world.
It is inevitable that the war will have profound and lasting effects on the Middle East as a whole, including within Israel. The loss of international support for Israel, its surrender of the ‘high moral ground’, is an important element in that huge shift, and for that reason alone the case being fought out in the ICJ is important.
