Brilliant essay, Donal. A pleasure to read. With the genocide claim, I'm always reminded of 'Brandolini's Law': the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is by orders of magnitude greater than that to produce it. It is one of the most nefarious examples of manufacturered concensus I can think of.
Tellingly, none of the lay articles or NGO reports ever deal with the ‘dolus specialis’, or special intent, in any legally or intellectually serious way. In the relevant caselaw (the Bosnia case you refer to, and also the Croatia v. Serbia case), the court has interpreted the mens rea of intent very narrowly.
In the Bosnia case, there is an insightful quote about the type or pattern of conduct that could infer genocidal intent from the judgment: "for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of its existence, it would have to be such that it could only point to the existence of such intent." That is to say, genocide must be the ONLY intent that can be inferred from the conduct of a belligerent.
As the IDF's "pattern of conduct" in the Gaza War can clearly be inferred as the pursuit of legitimate war aims—destruction of Hamas' infrastructure, degrading Hamas' military capabilities, and return of the hostages—then de facto it is not possible to only infer genocide from their conduct. In the Bosnia case, genocidal intent was the only inference possible because at Srebenica, there was no longer any military aim—the town had been taken.
In Gaza, conversely, the civilian deaths, while tragic, occurred in the context of a "pattern of conduct" that related to the legitimate prosecution of a war, which a party to a conflict is entitled to pursue.
That's an excellent point, Alan. I briefly referred to abductive reasoning in the essay, or inference to the best explanation. Dolus specialis actually requires the more rigorous form of abductive reasoning known as inference to the only explanation.
This makes a mockery of the feeble arguments of 'genocide scholars' like Raz Segal. But I presume the point, in any case, is not to convince but merely to besmirch.
Indeed, it is hard to see the assertion as anything beyond a libel. Your point about the preparatory nature of the libel makes this clear; 'genocide' vis-à-vis Israel is considered to be a fact of its existence in the pseudo-academic fields in which most of these 'scholars' tend to operate. It is a rhetorical weapon, not a question of fact or law.
You make the point really well and all your arguments accumulate convincingly. Genocide requires intent to destroy a protected group as such. As your article says, Gaza looks like devastating urban warfare against a terrorist organisation that embedded itself inside civilian infrastructure with tunnel networks that civilians had no access to. That alone is convincing. A news report today said that the Gaza tunnels where less like a metro system and more like an underground city which makes the point even sharper. Why did civilians not have access to this extensive underground system.
Warnings, evacuations, aid entry, vaccination campaigns, and combatant targeting also sit uneasily with a genocide claim. Those percentages you gave also stood out, they showed that the scale of death is not remotely comparable to recognised campaigns of extermination.
So the question should be analytical: does the pattern look more like a war fought in brutal urban conditions against a terrorist group embedded in civilian structures or more like an attempt to eliminate a people?
Thank you very much, Zain. Taking up your point about the pattern, this is where the influence of the media is so pernicious. When headlines say "IDF strike kills 14" and omits or buries the information that 12 were identified terrorists who were actively shooting at IDF soldiers at the time, with the other 2 as yet unidentified, they strip away the reason for the action. It just seems as if the IDF is committing random atrocities. Cumulatively, this creates the impression of genocide in the minds of gullible readers through sheer dishonesty.
"Meanwhile, the mass slaughter of Iranian citizens by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has failed to excite Irish politicians to passionate denunciations, special sittings of the Dáil, the excitable embrace of ridiculous lies, or grand flights of invective. Nor has it inspired humanitarian flotillas to the Persian Gulf."
And also just to add: South Africa, who Ireland cozied up to over the genocide claim as you said above, has now sided with the Iranian Regime. So, ya. Ireland's in big trouble.
"Again, we see the unlikeness of the war in Gaza to widely recognised genocides. The Bosnian case provides an instructive point of comparison. During the Bosnian War, it is estimated that around 65,000 Bosniaks were killed. This is similar to the death toll in Gaza (around 69,000 deaths according to latest casualty data[iv]) and accounts for some 3-4 percent of the Bosniak population. However, the determination of genocide in Bosnia does not apply to the war in general. Rather, it refers only to Srebrenica. And as we have already noted, Srebrenica-style massacres are signally absent in Gaza. (If anything resembles Srebrenica, it is the slaughter of Israelis on October 7.)"
That's a solid point, I'll use it going forward. Cheers man
Brilliant essay, Donal. A pleasure to read. With the genocide claim, I'm always reminded of 'Brandolini's Law': the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is by orders of magnitude greater than that to produce it. It is one of the most nefarious examples of manufacturered concensus I can think of.
Tellingly, none of the lay articles or NGO reports ever deal with the ‘dolus specialis’, or special intent, in any legally or intellectually serious way. In the relevant caselaw (the Bosnia case you refer to, and also the Croatia v. Serbia case), the court has interpreted the mens rea of intent very narrowly.
In the Bosnia case, there is an insightful quote about the type or pattern of conduct that could infer genocidal intent from the judgment: "for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of its existence, it would have to be such that it could only point to the existence of such intent." That is to say, genocide must be the ONLY intent that can be inferred from the conduct of a belligerent.
As the IDF's "pattern of conduct" in the Gaza War can clearly be inferred as the pursuit of legitimate war aims—destruction of Hamas' infrastructure, degrading Hamas' military capabilities, and return of the hostages—then de facto it is not possible to only infer genocide from their conduct. In the Bosnia case, genocidal intent was the only inference possible because at Srebenica, there was no longer any military aim—the town had been taken.
In Gaza, conversely, the civilian deaths, while tragic, occurred in the context of a "pattern of conduct" that related to the legitimate prosecution of a war, which a party to a conflict is entitled to pursue.
That's an excellent point, Alan. I briefly referred to abductive reasoning in the essay, or inference to the best explanation. Dolus specialis actually requires the more rigorous form of abductive reasoning known as inference to the only explanation.
This makes a mockery of the feeble arguments of 'genocide scholars' like Raz Segal. But I presume the point, in any case, is not to convince but merely to besmirch.
Indeed, it is hard to see the assertion as anything beyond a libel. Your point about the preparatory nature of the libel makes this clear; 'genocide' vis-à-vis Israel is considered to be a fact of its existence in the pseudo-academic fields in which most of these 'scholars' tend to operate. It is a rhetorical weapon, not a question of fact or law.
You make the point really well and all your arguments accumulate convincingly. Genocide requires intent to destroy a protected group as such. As your article says, Gaza looks like devastating urban warfare against a terrorist organisation that embedded itself inside civilian infrastructure with tunnel networks that civilians had no access to. That alone is convincing. A news report today said that the Gaza tunnels where less like a metro system and more like an underground city which makes the point even sharper. Why did civilians not have access to this extensive underground system.
Warnings, evacuations, aid entry, vaccination campaigns, and combatant targeting also sit uneasily with a genocide claim. Those percentages you gave also stood out, they showed that the scale of death is not remotely comparable to recognised campaigns of extermination.
So the question should be analytical: does the pattern look more like a war fought in brutal urban conditions against a terrorist group embedded in civilian structures or more like an attempt to eliminate a people?
Your article convincingly supports the former.
Thank you very much, Zain. Taking up your point about the pattern, this is where the influence of the media is so pernicious. When headlines say "IDF strike kills 14" and omits or buries the information that 12 were identified terrorists who were actively shooting at IDF soldiers at the time, with the other 2 as yet unidentified, they strip away the reason for the action. It just seems as if the IDF is committing random atrocities. Cumulatively, this creates the impression of genocide in the minds of gullible readers through sheer dishonesty.
"Meanwhile, the mass slaughter of Iranian citizens by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has failed to excite Irish politicians to passionate denunciations, special sittings of the Dáil, the excitable embrace of ridiculous lies, or grand flights of invective. Nor has it inspired humanitarian flotillas to the Persian Gulf."
And also just to add: South Africa, who Ireland cozied up to over the genocide claim as you said above, has now sided with the Iranian Regime. So, ya. Ireland's in big trouble.
Excellent point, Valentine.
Excellent article on the Gaza genocide myth. Very well researched and documented. Thank you for sharing
Thanks Colin, delighted you liked it.
"Again, we see the unlikeness of the war in Gaza to widely recognised genocides. The Bosnian case provides an instructive point of comparison. During the Bosnian War, it is estimated that around 65,000 Bosniaks were killed. This is similar to the death toll in Gaza (around 69,000 deaths according to latest casualty data[iv]) and accounts for some 3-4 percent of the Bosniak population. However, the determination of genocide in Bosnia does not apply to the war in general. Rather, it refers only to Srebrenica. And as we have already noted, Srebrenica-style massacres are signally absent in Gaza. (If anything resembles Srebrenica, it is the slaughter of Israelis on October 7.)"
That's a solid point, I'll use it going forward. Cheers man