OPINION:
In “1984,” George Orwell describes the existence of a diabolical autocrat who propounds outrageous statements that, despite their outlandishness, are passively accepted. “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength,” declares Big Brother to his captive subjects.
When I read “1984” as a high school student, it seemed implausible that educated people would ever accept the nonsensical statements that Orwell ascribed to the all-controlling autocratic government of his novel. But today, it seems much easier to believe that Orwell may have understood the ability to manipulate language and sway susceptible populations.
A few weeks ago, a purportedly reputable international organization, seeming to follow in the footsteps of many apologists for terrorism, issued a statement that echoes the outrageous statements posited by Orwell in “1984.” Amnesty International asserted that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip.
Even a cursory review of the situation in Gaza makes Amnesty International’s pronouncement preposterous. A summary of Amnesty International’s position is this statement: “Amnesty International’s report demonstrates that Israel has carried out acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention, with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza.”
The statement is particularly deceitful because it distorts both the purpose of the Genocide Convention and Israel’s comportment in the Gaza war.
The relevant language of the convention is found in its Article 2, which provides a definition of genocide. That provision states: “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” A list of bad actions follows. But the words in this introductory provision are critical and determinative.
First, the controlling word in the definition is the noun “intent.” By using that word, the authors of the convention recognized that genocide is not merely a bad act but must be motivated by a specific and destructive intent.
Accompanying the intent is the infinitive “to destroy.” This tells us that the essential component of the crime of genocide is an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a specified group.
The group that is the object of the intended destruction cannot be just any group but must be one of the four categories of groups specifically identified: a national group, an ethnic group, a racial group or a religious group.
Armed with those definitional components, it becomes evident that Israel’s actions in Gaza do not in any manner come under the ambit of the Genocide Convention and that Amnesty International has twisted the language of the convention to defame Israel.
Israel’s action in Gaza is a retaliatory military action openly intended to disarm and destroy Hamas, a terrorist organization recognized as such by a multitude of nations. It is a group that does not fit within the “group” definition of the convention. In the context of the Genocide Convention, it is Hamas that has genocidal intent.
The Hamas Charter makes no secret that it is the intent of the organization to destroy Israel, including all of its Jewish citizens. Article 34 of the charter leaves little to the imagination: “Say unto those who believe not [i.e., the Jews], Ye shall be overcome, and thrown together into hell; an unhappy couch it shall be. This is the only way to liberate Palestine.”
In other words, Hamas, the group that attacked Israel and killed, tortured, raped and kidnapped hundreds of Israelis, is unabashedly committed to seizing control of Israel by killing its citizens. This is clearly an intent to destroy a national and religious group — an intent to commit genocide.
Yet Amnesty International has inverted the equation. Instead of accusing Hamas of genocide, of which Hamas is guilty, it has launched its accusation against Israel as Israel seeks to defend itself against genocidal behavior.
There is a more tangible way to denote who is actually guilty of genocide. When Hamas broke through the Gaza security fence and charged into Israel, the terrorists shamelessly and proudly sought to kill everyone in sight, thereby demonstrating their genocidal intent.
In contrast, the Israelis, in their efforts to stop Hamas from its genocidal rampage, have been precise in their pursuit of terrorist fighters. They have even issued warnings before carrying out their military actions in order to give Palestinian civilians an opportunity to avoid harm. This is hardly a demonstration of genocidal intent.
That civilians have been killed or injured in the course of military operations does not in any manner constitute genocide. If that were the case, then even those who seek to defend themselves could be deemed war criminals. This would leave peaceful nations at the mercy of aggression.
If Israel is truly seeking to engage in genocide, then the facts strongly indicate that it is failing miserably. Gaza has over 2 million inhabitants. Even accepting Hamas’ inflated claim of 40,000 civilian deaths suggests that fewer than 2% of the residents of Gaza have been killed. If the Israelis were intent on committing a genocide of civilians, assuredly, with their vast superiority in resources, they could have caused a far greater destruction of Gaza residents.
The accusation against Israel is not only unfounded, it is morally repugnant, seeking to bring ignominy to Israel, but also demeaning the importance of preventing true acts of genocide. Shame on Amnesty International and all those who, like Amnesty International, would engage in such distortion and defamation.
• Gerard Leval is a partner in the Washington office of a national law firm. He is the author of “Lobbying for Equality: Jacques Godard and the Struggle for Jewish Civil Rights During the French Revolution,” published by HUC Press.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.