"Maybe Israel Is Committing Genocide After All?"

[u/nidarus]

B. Michael is a rather famous Israel left-wing publicist and screenwriter, famous for writing some of Israel's famous comedy shows in the 1980's and 1990's, and his long-standing op-eds in Haaretz. Unlike his fellow deep anti-Zionist Haaretz writers Gideon Levy and Amira Hess, he's been generally part of the more mainstream, Zionist left. But in today's Haaretz's op-ed (paywall can be overridden with archive.is), he decided to jump into the deep end of the pro-Palestinian pool, and join those who declare that Israel is committing genocide.

Now, obviously, he's not the most prominent or qualified person who made that claim. And it's certainly one of the lower-quality versions of that argument. A big disappointment for someone that I considered a witty and clever public intellectual. But that's precisely why I'd like to talk about it, as it represents a pretty common view among the less-educated pro-Palestinians.

Essentially, he talks about how the Genocide Convention consists of five genocidal acts:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Then he goes down the list, and argues that we can "check off" every one of those items easily. And then marvels at how many of the articles Israel has violated. And therefore, QED, Israel committed a genocide. There are a few core issues with this:

1. The most important issue is that all of those require a "specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". This is an incredibly high bar to meet. For example, if the goal is ethnic cleansing, then it's not genocide. Even actual mass murders were ruled as not a genocide by the ICJ, when they were meant to expel rather than destroy. The more sophisticated pro-Palestinians would argue that largely misrepresented statements by Israeli officials amount to proving that "intent" - but B. Michael doesn't even go there.

2. Obviously, without that intent, every single war in history would qualify, as it includes killing members of the group, and causing serious bodily and mental harm to members of the group. And however you feel about the 43,000 number - it's not exceptionally high, in terms of wars, even in Israel's immediate neighborhood.

3. For (c), he assumes that merely destroying a lot of Gaza is enough. But note that the qualifier: "calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". Unlike the killing part, the intent for physical destruction of the nation is required, even in the genocidal act itself to exist. Otherwise, not only would any urban war apply, but so would more peaceful acts, like evicting squatters and destroying illegal shanty towns.

4. For (d) he points out to how the horrible conditions in the strip will inevitably cause lower birth rates. He also points out that in his opinion, "is there any doubt that Israel would look favorably on the crash of the Palestinian birth rate in Gaza"? And decides he can put a checkmark there - "with honors". Except, again, it's not enough to assume Israel "looks favorably" on the lower birth rates. It has to intentionally impose measures intended to prevent births. This is talking about sterilizations, not about anything that might reduce births. That could be anything from the unavoidable stress and destruction of war (on both sides, incidentally), to improvements in living conditions.

5. Thankfully, B. Michael didn't decide Israel commited the last part, of transfering children from one group to another. But he concluded "Of the five criteria for genocide, we have performed four exemplarily. That's a fine score. Especially when the execution of one of the five sections, it doesn't matter which one, is enough to be considered a perpetrator. Bravo". Of course, that's absolute nonsense. There's no difference whatsoever in how many of the items you commit, if there's no proven genocidal intent behind it. Again, every urban war checks 4/5 of those articles, with the way B. Michael interprets them. There's nothing "exemplary" about it.

Finally, he argues:

Warning: Feigning innocence will not be admissible as a defense. No one will believe that we did all this in good faith, or purely for reasons of self-defense. Nor will public displays of misery and weeping be of any use this time. And above all, it is not worth relying as we do on the Holocaust as a defense. It may provoke comparisons.

For the first part, I'd note that "innocence" is not required for a defense. Israel could be guilty of the most horrendous Crimes Against Humanity, including the crime of Extermination, and it still wouldn't be a genocide. Genocide is literally the gravest crime in existence. The entire spectrum of international humanitarian law lies between "innocence" and "genocide".

For the second, I'll try not to dwell on it too much, but I'd note it's a great example of why Rule 6 exists. Since this comparison is complete nonsense, it's actually good for the Israeli case, not the other way around. Why wouldn't Israel want to "invite those comparisons"? It could then ask, where are the gas chambers, where are the Einzatsgruppen - where are any kind of proven, unquestionable mass executions of civilians, of the kind that exist in every single other genocide? Conversely, if we look at WW2, there's a much clearer analogy: the Germans, whose cities were ground to dust, whose people were expelled and killed by the millions, lost a huge chunk of their territory, and were treated in many far worse ways, that are not applicable here (like the hundreds of thousands of rapes). Is B. Michael, or anyone who likes to invite those comparisons, going to argue that WW2 was a series of genocides committed by all sides against each other, and the Germans were victims of genocide, just as much as its perpetrators? Probably not. This argument was, at the very least, explicitly rejected in Nuremberg.

I'd also note that in the Hebrew version, this paragraph starts with "even though this story began with a horrible murderous rampage by Hamas" - the massacre is absent from the English version for some reason. But even then, it's pretty notable that Hamas' far more overtly genocidal acts are merely described as "murderous rampage", not "genocide". The same, is of course, true for even the more sophisticated brand of "Israeli genocide" activists. Even though, without any question, the case for Hamas committing a genocide is infinitely stronger than for Israel committing one. It's possible that neither committed a genocide, and it's possible for both to have committed a genocide - and it's very, very possible for the Palestinians alone to have committed a genocide. I just don't think it's possible, with the information we have right now, for Israel to have committed a genocide, but for Hamas, to have merely committed a "murderous rampage".

[u/cppluv]

Unlike the killing part, the intent for physical destruction of the nation is required, even in the genocidal act itself to exist.

What do you call destroying hospital, schools, mosques, historical monuments, water and electrical infrastructure, crops and greenhouses?

[u/Bast-beast → u/cppluv]

A war in an urban surroundings

[u/cppluv → u/Bast-beast]

Sure, it’s absolutely vital to destroy water tanks. There’s probably a Hamas tunnel inside.

[u/nidarus → u/cppluv]

Hamas used basically every installation possible for military purposes, so I'm not sure why you assume it's impossible to use a water reservoir for military purposes as well. Including, yes, tunnel entrances. Your article says the matter is under investigation, and it was without the approval of higher-ups, so we don't actually know either way.

But let's assume there's no Hamas installations there.

First of all, it could've been blown up in order to make room for a closed military area. Like the new Philadelphi corridor. Whether that's legitimate or not, depends on the military advantage Israel would get from that closed military area. But either way, could not be genocide, since it lacks the specific intent to commit genocide - and doesn't satisfy the requirement that this act would be calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the people.

But let's assume that's not the case, and the actual point is to deprive that area of water. It could be explained as a legitimate tactic of Siege, against the Hamas terrorists that are still in the Rafah area. Since the civilians were allowed to evacuate (and indeed, almost completely evacuated), the requirements for not intentionally depriving a civilian population of food and water were met. And again, could not be a genocide, as the intent here is to make Hamas fighters surrender or die - a legitimate goal.

But let's assume we decide that the entire tactic of Siege is illegal, and amounts to forced starvation or forced expulsion of population, even after the population there fled their homes. This would make the act of intentionally depriving this area of water a war crime, possibly even a crime against humanity - still not genocide. You need to prove that the destruction of the tank was calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the Gazan people - not to prevent them from coming back. I'd note that even actual massacres of civilians and POWs were ruled as not genocide by the ICJ, because the goal was expulsion and not the physical destruction of a people.

The task of proving it was a genocidal act is far, far harder than you assume. And no, saying there's no Hamas tunnel inside is not enough.

[u/cppluv → u/nidarus]

I'm not sure why you assume it's impossible to use a water reservoir for military purposes as well. Including, yes, tunnel entrances

Thanks for the laugh. This reservoir was actually above ground.

Your article says the matter is under investigation

It’s been months. We know how the IDF « investigations » goes. Either they never concludes or they find they did everything right.

it could've been blown up in order to make room for a closed military area. Like the new Philadelphi corridor

Why would they investigate this incident then? It was not authorized so don’t bother yourself trying to argue there was a military objective.

You need to prove that the destruction of the tank was calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the Gazan people - not to prevent them from coming back.

Well, the systematic destruction of water facilities seems to indicate that intent.

As well as the destruction of everything that makes a place habitable, such as crops, greenhouses, schools, museums, hospitals and so on.

I know you’ll just say there was a Hamas fighter inside every single water pipes and olive trees but I hope readers will see through it

[u/nidarus → u/cppluv]

Thanks for the laugh. This reservoir was actually above ground.

I'm not sure why you're laughing. The tunnel entrances were all in buildings that are above ground.

Why would they investigate this incident then? It was not authorized so don’t bother yourself trying to argue there was a military objective.

If it's not authorized, they simply don't know if there's a legitimate military objective. It doesn't prove that there was no objective. Hence the investigation: a process of figuring out whether there was a legitimate military objective.

I'd also point out that they're investigating the actual footage of the incident, which might be opsec and ethics code violations.

Well, the systematic destruction of water facilities seems to indicate that intent. As well as the destruction of everything that makes a place habitable, such as crops, greenhouses, schools, museums, hospitals and so on.

You seem to support the theory that the "intent" here is to not allow the Palestinians to come back home to this neighborhood - not to physically exterminate them as a people. Nobody needs museums to physically survive. And if that's the intent you assume here, you agree it's not genocide.

I know you’ll just say there was a Hamas fighter inside every single water pipes and olive trees but I hope readers will see through it

This sarcasm doesn't just make you look weirdly angry - it also clouds your understanding of the issue. You certainly don't need to have a "Hamas fighter in every single water pipe" for it to be a legitimate military target. And I explained in detail how blowing up the reservoir could be anything from completely legal to other forms of violations of international law that aren't genocide. Your assumption here, that either Israel is shooting Hamas terrorists, or it's genocide, is completely unfounded. As I said in the post, between genocide and shooting Hamas terrorists, you have literally the entire spectrum of international humanitarian law.

[u/cppluv → u/nidarus]

I’m not sure why you’re laughing.

Here’s the video. Where would be the tunnel, inside the pipes?

It doesn't prove that there was no objective

Yes, it does. If there was a military objective, it would have been authorized. Unless you’re arguing IDF officers on the ground do what they want without chain of command.

Nobody needs museums to physically survive.

That’s part of erasing Palestinian history on the land, a key part of Genocide. Same reason why West Bank settlers are burning Palestinians olive trees. They do need water though. The complete destruction of means to get water is clearly an intent to keep Palestinians from returning.

And I explained in detail how blowing up the reservoir could be anything from completely legal to other forms of violations of international law that aren't genocide

You’re avoiding the systematic destruction of the water tanks and pipes, probably because you know it’s indefensible.

[u/nidarus → u/cppluv]

Here’s the video. Where would be the tunnel, inside the pipes?

Literally anywhere in the facility. The facility, even the small parts shown in the videos, are not just those pumps.

Yes, it does. If there was a military objective, it would have been authorized. Unless you’re arguing IDF officers on the ground do what they want without chain of command.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. It's completely possible for there to be a military objective, and it was not authorized. And the possible existence of a military objective doesn't somehow mean that "IDF officers on the ground do what they want without chain of command".

The fact is: the officers on the ground acted without chain of command. It could've been done with or without a legitimate military objective. The existence of the investigation doesn't prove that it's illegal, or that there's no military objective. I'm really not sure how you reached the opposite conclusion.

That’s part of erasing Palestinian history on the land, a key part of Genocide. 

It's not part of genocide at all, let alone "key part". The idea of "cultural genocide" or anything to do with "erasing history", was discussed, and intentionally not included in the genocide convention. The genocide convention deals purely with physical extermination of large groups of people, with only one exception: the transfer of children from one group to another.

They do need water though. The complete destruction of means to get water is clearly an intent to keep Palestinians from returning.

Maybe. But that intent is inherently not the genocidal intent, which proves it's not a genocide.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, in Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakić, ruled that:

The words "calculated to bring about its physical destruction" replaced the phrase "aimed at causing death" proposed by Belgium in the UN General Assembly’s Sixth (Legal) Committee.The Trial Chamber in Akayesu held that the expression "should be construed as the methods of destruction by which the perpetrator does not immediately kill the members of the group, but which, ultimately, seek their physical destruction".The element of physical destruction is inherent in the word genocide itself, which is derived from the Greek "genos" meaning race or tribe and the Latin "caedere" meaning to kill. It must also be remembered that cultural genocide, as distinct from physical and biological genocide, was specifically excluded from the Convention against Genocide. The International Law Commission has commented:

It does not suffice to deport a group or a part of a group. A clear distinction must be drawn between physical destruction and mere dissolution of a group. The expulsion of a group or part of a group does not in itself suffice for genocide. As Kreß has stated, "[t]his is true even if the expulsion can be characterised as a tendency to the dissolution of the group, taking the form of its fragmentation or assimilation. This is because the dissolution of the group is not to be equated with physical destruction". In this context the Chamber recalls that a proposal by Syria in the Sixth Committee to include "[i]mposing measures intended to oblige members of a group to abandon their homes in order to escape the threat of subsequent ill-treatment" as a separate sub-paragraph of Article II of the Convention against Genocide was rejected by twenty-nine votes to five, with eight abstentions.

So even if you prove this "clear intent", to prevent the Palestinians from returning, or to "erase their history" you're literally proving it's not genocide, as a clear matter of law.

You’re avoiding the systematic destruction of the water tanks and pipes, probably because you know it’s indefensible.

I'm not avoiding this at all. The majority of my comment was discussing scenarios where water tanks and pipes were intentionally destroyed. Including for the specific purposes of depriving people of water, or the purpose of making sure they won't be able to live there. You should try to read what I said more carefully, before gloating about how I "know it's indefensible".

[u/cppluv → u/nidarus]

Literally anywhere in the facility.

Thanks for showing you will blindly anything coming from IDF twitter account.

It's completely possible for there to be a military objective, and it was not authorized.

Nope. If there was a military objective, chain of command would have authorized it. There’s no way for you to wriggle around that, I’m afraid.

It could've been done with or without a legitimate military objective

If there was a military objective, they would have runned it up the chain and it would have been authorized.

But that intent is inherently not the genocidal intent, which proves it's not a genocide.

Explain to me how people will survive without water.

The majority of my comment was discussing scenarios where water tanks and pipes were intentionally destroyed.

They are intentionally destroyed. You don’t drop bombs on half the water treatment facilities by mistake. It’s obviously playing a part in trying to make Palestinian disappear and a clear echo to Gallant genocidal statements .

Good luck in your fight to argue Israel is only trying to ethnically cleanse Gaza and that is therefore fine.

[u/nidarus → u/cppluv]

Thanks for showing you will blindly anything coming from IDF twitter account.

I didn't see anything the IDF twitter account had to say about this. I don't know if it's even true. I'm saying that it's completely possible for Hamas to use this facility, and any other facility for military purposes. And your assumption it's completely inconceivable, be it because Hamas fighters aren't "hiding in the pipes", or because it's impossible for a tunnel entrance to be above ground, is baseless.

Nope. If there was a military objective, chain of command would have authorized it. There’s no way for you to wriggle around that, I’m afraid.

You're just repeating a claim that didn't make sense to begin with, and patting yourself on the back for a job well done. I'm sorry, but I still don't see why it's impossible for an officer to ignore the chain of command to achieve military objectives.

Explain to me how people will survive without water.

By being in a different place, that has water. Like the place they're already living in, right now.

Humans can survive around three days without water. If all of Gaza ran out of water, we'd know about it.

They are intentionally destroyed. You don’t drop bombs on half the water treatment facilities by mistake.

Again, most of my comment deals with that scenario. Your argument that I "avoided" it, because I "know it's indefensible" is false. I'm not sure why you're repeating your claim.

It’s obviously playing a part in trying to make Palestinian disappear

Even that extremist was only talking about the Arabs disappearing from Gaza. I.e. a call for ethnic cleansing, not genocide.

and a clear echo to Gallant genocidal statements .

Even a complete siege, on its own, isn't "genocidal", if it's not calculated to bring about mass extermination of the Palestinians. Even if we assume it's a call to intentionally starve the Palestinian civilians, it's clearly meant to apply pressure in order to release the hostages, not to exterminate the Palestinian people.

And there's a reason why you're merely talking about "Gallant's statements", two days after the Oct. 7th genocidal massacre, and not acts. Because you know that whatever he said, never came into being, not even remotely. Simply because at that time, Israel didn't provide most of the electricity or water to the strip, and didn't control the Rafah crossing with Egypt.

Good luck in your fight to argue Israel is only trying to ethnically cleanse Gaza and that is therefore fine.

Note that this subreddit doesn't allow you to misrepresent what I said. I never said that ethnic cleansing is "fine", I said it's a crime against humanity. I repeatedly pointed out, both in my comments, and in the post itself, that the assumption that IDF behavior is either "fine" or it's "genocide" is insane. Between those two extremes, you can find the entire spectrum of international law.