In a shocking development last week, Amnesty International effectively cleared Israel of genocide.
This was easy to miss, and not just because of the recent flood of news. Amnesty reportWith the title “'You feel like a subhuman': Israel's genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza,” the lede was buried, as journalists say. And most of the media coverage reflected this.
The New York TimesThe headline read: “Amnesty International accuses Israel of genocide in Gaza.” The Los Angeles Times' was similar: “Amnesty International says Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.”
Before I move on to Amnesty's overlooked acquittal of Israel, I would like to note that to describe the report as unfair would be a complete understatement. Here's the first sentence: “On October 7, 2023, Israel launched a military offensive in the occupied Gaza Strip…of unprecedented scale, scope and duration.”
In other words, for the famous human rights group, the story of the Israel-Hamas war begins not with Hamas's unprecedented terrorist attack on civilians that day, which included killings, but RapesKidnappings and other forms of shocking, deliberate barbarism. Rather, it begins with the Israeli response to the aggression of Hamas, an organization that was in the truest sense of the word is based on the principle of the genocidal extermination of Israel.
That's a bit like beginning a report on America's “genocide” in Japan with the statement: “On April 18, 1942, the United States launched a military offensive against the Japanese nation of unprecedented proportions…” – up to about 50 pages later the whole Pearl Harbor thing.
None of this means that the war between Israel and Hamas wasn't terrible. This also doesn't mean that Israel doesn't deserve criticism for its conduct of the war – although I think most criticisms are exaggerated, often for ideological reasons.
But that Genocide Convention of 1948 is very clear about what constitutes actual or attempted genocide: “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”
The idea that Israel is committed to genocide against the Palestinians has been routinely promoted for decades at the United Nations and by anti-Israel governments and organizations. But the Palestinian population has more than grown eightfold According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Gaza's population has increased since Israel's founding 600% since 1960.
One of the most important words in the UN definition of genocide is “intent.” And if Israel, which even its enemies describe as extremely competent and deadly, intends genocide, it is really, really bad at it. Indeed, if genocide were the goal, one would assume that Israel would stop warning civilians, evacuating areas it plans to attack, and sending aid caravans to the Palestinians.
That brings us back to the exoneration of Amnesty International. On page 101 of their 296-page report, the authors admit that the question of intent is a major problem for those who accuse Israel of genocide. However, they continue to reject “an overly narrow interpretation of international jurisprudence… that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.”
If Israel were actually trying to destroy the Palestinians as a people, I think it would be obvious and easy for Amnesty and others to prove. The point, however, is that the report essentially admits that Israel is not committing genocide under the prevailing interpretation of international law.
Imagine if a prosecutor determined during a murder trial that the defendant was not guilty under current law and case law. This could be seen as an important concession.
As Seth Mandel from Commentary writes“So Amnesty International is contradicting international law. That's okay. “Just be honest: Amnesty is not accusing Israel of “genocide,” but of another crime that Amnesty has called “genocide” just to be able to use that word.”
It would be one thing if Amnesty issued a report calling for a broader definition of genocide in international law. I would be open to such a recommendation. The existing definition still bears the taint of the Soviet Union's interference to ensure that it did not cover up its crimes in Ukraine. A better, fairer definition of genocide would not be bad news for Israel, but it would be bad news for Russia and China.
However, Amnesty did not want a discussion about the correct definition of genocide. She wanted headlines claiming Israel committed the crime – and she got them.