WASHINGTON – The years-long conflict between Israel and Hamas that exploded into a war Oct. 7, 2023 escalated this week as an Israeli airstrike killed dozens of women and children in a designated safe zone. While advocacy organizations like Amnesty International have raised the possibility that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide, the precise meaning of that term is up for debate internationally.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister May 20 for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, though it did not accuse Netanyahu of genocide.
The ICC definition of genocide delineates the crime as requiring specific intent to destroy an ethnic, racial or religious group. War crimes are defined more broadly including rape and execution without trial.
“War crimes include torture, mutilation, corporal punishment, hostage taking and acts of terrorism,” the ICC definition states.
American and Israeli leader’s broadly condemned the ICC’s decision. President Joe Biden slammed the arrest warrants the day they were announced.
“Whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security,” Biden said.
Even if Biden agreed with the ICC’s ruling, it would be unlikely to have a significant legal effect. The US doesn’t recognize the authority of the ICC as a legal institution, and neither does Israel, China or Russia.
While the ICC accused Israel of war crimes but stopped short of alleging genocide, the United Nations Human Rights Council did just that in late March.
“There are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the crime of genocide…has been met,” Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese said.
Albanese went on to day that Israel had deliberately sought the deliberate destruction of the Palestinian people.
“[Israel is] deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group,” Albanese said.
The Human Rights Council went on to call for all nations to stop sending weapons to Israel in early April, and a UN court ordered Israel to halt its offensive in the Gazan city of Rafah in late May. According to the Associated Press, the nation’s war cabinet is uninterested in complying with those largely unenforceable rulings.
Netanyahu has avidly defended his nation’s actions in Gaza, including military actions which have made operations delivering food and supplies to Palestinians untenable.
The conflict has split global leaders, with Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz largely backing Netanyahu while French President Emmanuel Macron and Irish Prime Minister Simon Harris strike a more critical stance on the conflict.
In response to Ireland and Spain formally recognizing Palestinian statehood, Netanyahu made his position clear–despite Israel’s war technically being with the terrorist organization Hamas, he doesn’t consider Palestine a legitimate actor either.
“The intention of several European countries to recognize a Palestinian state is a reward for terrorism,” Netanyahu said via social media.
Netanyahu’s governing coalition, which has taken home several political victories in the past year including increasing his influence over the nation’s judiciary, has advanced the conflict deep into Gaza, one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
While Israelis are broadly supportive of the war, Netanyahu himself has come under fire by opponents for alleged fraud and bribery. Polling suggests that his support as a wartime leader has remained relatively consistent, but could falter if the conflict comes to an end quickly.
The conflict in Gaza and the label ‘genocide’ as a transgression of international law has polarized policymakers. It seems that in the current global political climate, the question of whether the death toll in Gaza is a violation of human rights is largely dependent upon the perspective of the institution making that determination.
