It's worth adding that the genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda met the definition of genocide as well as any event since the Holocaust. It was a clear attempt to completely exterminate a group of people. However, the UN and the "international community" (along with the Clinton admin) took great pains to avoid using the term "genocide" so that they would not have to take action under the convention. So they sat on their thumbs while nearly a million Tutsis were murdered. Kofi Annan (head of Peacekeeping at the time) was particularly responsible, hamstringing Romeo Dallaire's UNAMIR force, which could have limited the killing.
Yet the same "international community" that denied the Rwanda genocide is now rushing to accuse Israel of genocide. What a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites. The "Gaza Genocide" is a pretty weird genocide, where the alleged perpetrators are risking their own lives to diminish casualties and are delivering food and supplies to the alleged victims.
The Genocide Convention, like most of the UN, is a sham, dominated by the corrupt elites of failed countries--elites that happily overlook Myanmar killing Rohingya, Turkey killing Kurds, the CCP killing Uighurs, etc., but scream genocide when Israel defends itself.
You are absolutely right, and hypocrisy knows no bounds. Think about this. Just last week Putin hosted a summit in Russia attended by numerous heads of state, including from South Africa which has led the international legal charge against Israel. Suddenly the invasion of Ukraine isn’t a problem and the ICC arrest warrant against Putin doesn’t matter. And at the end of their summit the main point they all agreed upon was to condemn Israel over the war in Gaza.
Very lucid and well articulated explication of the legal situation today. Too bad it is delivered in a silo.
The world at large needs to hear it.
That said, given the state of things, one doubts that even then it would find any purchase among the woke-ist, the virtue signalers, the moral flaggers, the intersectionalists, the red green alliance, the world media at large.
Thanks, Daniel. I’m hoping to write this up in a bit more of an academic style and submit it to sites focused specifically in international law, but I’m not sure any of them will print it. Unfortunately, it seems like bashing Israel is the only type of thing that gets accepted these days.
Why haven’t any countries opened a case against a genocidal death cult Hamas? Sorry if I’m stating the obvious but there intention is to continually carry out murderous extremists terror attacks.
The International Court of Justice can only hear charges against states. Since Hamas is a non-state armed group, it cannot be part of any proceedings at the ICJ. So the ICJ is not able to hear genocide allegations against Hamas. Also, the ICJ can order Israel to do things like allow more humanitarian aid or open border crossings, but it does not have jurisdiction over Hamas to order it to stop stealing aid or allow aid to be distributed. That's a main reason why the proceedings have seemed so unfair.
Because Hamas are a militia who operate under different laws to those in a. Democracy, can one take them to court for war crimes, given the evidence they provided for the world?
Individual members of Hamas can be charged with war crimes at the International Criminal Court. In fact, back in May when the ICC Prosecutor charged Netanyahu and Gallant with war crimes he also included charges against three Hamas leaders. Those three are all dead now, though, so those charges have become moot.
The international criminal court are virtue signaling hypocrites as are the others. They view themselves as great, compassionate humanitarians. What I would like to know is, besides Israel, what other countries are, or have been,on the list that have actually, and are still committing genocide? What has been the outcome/resolution for those countries? Thank you for explaining so concisely the differences between the courts. The information was invaluable for me.
While I don't question that the establishment of the international court was well intentioned, I agree that it is not working at all. A main topic I write about frequently on my own substack is how while human rights values are critical, human rights courts, law, and activists are failing and often make things worse instead of better. That's particularly so with regard to Israel.
I do agree with you on that, but I wanted to know if other countries were named now or in the past for their actual genocide, and if so, what was the outcome? Thank you.
There have been a few genocide arrest warrants at the ICC, I believe all related to cases in Africa and mostly not coming to trial since the ICC doesn't have the power to carry out arrests. At the ICJ there have also been a few. The most prominent ones that come to my mind are Serbia, where the ICJ found they were complicit in genocide by not taking action to stop it. Also of course is the Ukraine case, but it's important to realize that is very different than what's going on with Israel. There Russia said that it's invasion of Ukraine was okay even though Ukraine had not attacked it because Russia's motive in invading was to stop what it claims was genocide being perpetrated against Russian speakers in Ukrainian territory. The ICJ gave a firm no, saying that no matter what countries cannot invade one another even if they say it's to stop genocide. Israel of course says that the legal basis for the Gaza war is self-defense against Hamas which attacked.
This all begs the point. There should be NO international courts or any such thing which give tyrannical ans monstrosities the ability to level accusations and take action against liberal Democracies. This includes the United Nations organization itself which should be abolished.
I understand how you feel. But remember, Israel actually went ahead and ratified the genocide convention. That includes the clause about disputes being resolved by the ICJ, which Israel could potentially have even made a reservation against but didn't. This may explain why Israel decided to participate fully in the genocide case against it at the ICJ, as since it had agreed to the convention it may have felt it had no choice. On the other hand, the ICJ advisory opinion about the occupied territories, which Israel voted against at the UN and did not agree to it, it also sat out.
Excellent piece Shlomo!
It's worth adding that the genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda met the definition of genocide as well as any event since the Holocaust. It was a clear attempt to completely exterminate a group of people. However, the UN and the "international community" (along with the Clinton admin) took great pains to avoid using the term "genocide" so that they would not have to take action under the convention. So they sat on their thumbs while nearly a million Tutsis were murdered. Kofi Annan (head of Peacekeeping at the time) was particularly responsible, hamstringing Romeo Dallaire's UNAMIR force, which could have limited the killing.
Yet the same "international community" that denied the Rwanda genocide is now rushing to accuse Israel of genocide. What a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites. The "Gaza Genocide" is a pretty weird genocide, where the alleged perpetrators are risking their own lives to diminish casualties and are delivering food and supplies to the alleged victims.
The Genocide Convention, like most of the UN, is a sham, dominated by the corrupt elites of failed countries--elites that happily overlook Myanmar killing Rohingya, Turkey killing Kurds, the CCP killing Uighurs, etc., but scream genocide when Israel defends itself.
You are absolutely right, and hypocrisy knows no bounds. Think about this. Just last week Putin hosted a summit in Russia attended by numerous heads of state, including from South Africa which has led the international legal charge against Israel. Suddenly the invasion of Ukraine isn’t a problem and the ICC arrest warrant against Putin doesn’t matter. And at the end of their summit the main point they all agreed upon was to condemn Israel over the war in Gaza.
Very lucid and well articulated explication of the legal situation today. Too bad it is delivered in a silo.
The world at large needs to hear it.
That said, given the state of things, one doubts that even then it would find any purchase among the woke-ist, the virtue signalers, the moral flaggers, the intersectionalists, the red green alliance, the world media at large.
Outstanding. Your best article.
Thanks, Daniel. I’m hoping to write this up in a bit more of an academic style and submit it to sites focused specifically in international law, but I’m not sure any of them will print it. Unfortunately, it seems like bashing Israel is the only type of thing that gets accepted these days.
Thank you for explaining the fine details. Hope you get it published everywhere. The lie is the tragedy.
South Africa is evil. South African Marxists have themselves called for genocide against white people.
Why haven’t any countries opened a case against a genocidal death cult Hamas? Sorry if I’m stating the obvious but there intention is to continually carry out murderous extremists terror attacks.
The International Court of Justice can only hear charges against states. Since Hamas is a non-state armed group, it cannot be part of any proceedings at the ICJ. So the ICJ is not able to hear genocide allegations against Hamas. Also, the ICJ can order Israel to do things like allow more humanitarian aid or open border crossings, but it does not have jurisdiction over Hamas to order it to stop stealing aid or allow aid to be distributed. That's a main reason why the proceedings have seemed so unfair.
Because Hamas are a militia who operate under different laws to those in a. Democracy, can one take them to court for war crimes, given the evidence they provided for the world?
Individual members of Hamas can be charged with war crimes at the International Criminal Court. In fact, back in May when the ICC Prosecutor charged Netanyahu and Gallant with war crimes he also included charges against three Hamas leaders. Those three are all dead now, though, so those charges have become moot.
The international criminal court are virtue signaling hypocrites as are the others. They view themselves as great, compassionate humanitarians. What I would like to know is, besides Israel, what other countries are, or have been,on the list that have actually, and are still committing genocide? What has been the outcome/resolution for those countries? Thank you for explaining so concisely the differences between the courts. The information was invaluable for me.
While I don't question that the establishment of the international court was well intentioned, I agree that it is not working at all. A main topic I write about frequently on my own substack is how while human rights values are critical, human rights courts, law, and activists are failing and often make things worse instead of better. That's particularly so with regard to Israel.
I do agree with you on that, but I wanted to know if other countries were named now or in the past for their actual genocide, and if so, what was the outcome? Thank you.
There have been a few genocide arrest warrants at the ICC, I believe all related to cases in Africa and mostly not coming to trial since the ICC doesn't have the power to carry out arrests. At the ICJ there have also been a few. The most prominent ones that come to my mind are Serbia, where the ICJ found they were complicit in genocide by not taking action to stop it. Also of course is the Ukraine case, but it's important to realize that is very different than what's going on with Israel. There Russia said that it's invasion of Ukraine was okay even though Ukraine had not attacked it because Russia's motive in invading was to stop what it claims was genocide being perpetrated against Russian speakers in Ukrainian territory. The ICJ gave a firm no, saying that no matter what countries cannot invade one another even if they say it's to stop genocide. Israel of course says that the legal basis for the Gaza war is self-defense against Hamas which attacked.
Thank you so much for the explanation. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question.
Of course there was genocide in Ukraine. Seems like this is now just another way to wage war. Of which Hamas is the prime example.
“ . . . World media in tow . . . “ there we have it.
This all begs the point. There should be NO international courts or any such thing which give tyrannical ans monstrosities the ability to level accusations and take action against liberal Democracies. This includes the United Nations organization itself which should be abolished.
I understand how you feel. But remember, Israel actually went ahead and ratified the genocide convention. That includes the clause about disputes being resolved by the ICJ, which Israel could potentially have even made a reservation against but didn't. This may explain why Israel decided to participate fully in the genocide case against it at the ICJ, as since it had agreed to the convention it may have felt it had no choice. On the other hand, the ICJ advisory opinion about the occupied territories, which Israel voted against at the UN and did not agree to it, it also sat out.