Israel’s genocide in Gaza is fully intentional, and other takeaways from the Amnesty International report

Wednesday, a landmark report was issued by Amnesty International, titled: ‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza.” 

Amnesty is unequivocal – Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. 

Agnés Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General presented the report with uncompromising terms. There are no ifs and buts, Israel has been committing genocide, it still is: 

“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,” Callamard said. 

“These acts include killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm and deliberately inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction. Month after month, Israel has treated Palestinians in Gaza as a subhuman group unworthy of human rights and dignity, demonstrating its intent to physically destroy them.”

Israel’s intent to commit genocide

The crime of Genocide is known as the “crime of crimes”, and it is also considered the crime against humanity which demands the highest level of proof as to intent. It is not enough to refer to acts which in themselves may fall under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (‘Genocide convention’) – genocidal intent must be proven as the only possible conclusion of the analysis. 

This is why the reports conclusive language is so important, it says: 

“There is only one reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence presented: genocidal intent has been part and parcel of Israel’s conduct in Gaza since 7 October 2023, including its military campaign.”

Since the intent aspect is so singularly crucial in this, Amnesty dedicates nearly one-third of the 296-page report to intent (81 pages inside the main section “Israel’s intent in Gaza” p. 202-282, plus other parts on the matter in other sections of the report).  

The genocide definition

The report refers to three of the five items in the UN genocide definition Article II and deems them fulfilled: 

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Any one of these could constitute genocide, as it states that “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such” (my emphasis).

The ‘military necessity’ argument

Amnesty concludes that “genocidal intent has been part and parcel of Israel’s conduct in Gaza since 7 October 2023, including its military campaign” (p. 35). 

The claim of military necessity is a central claim of Israel, unsurprisingly so – under the apparent idea that such goals legitimize the means applied to achieve them. Israel is not an exception in this – the argument is often used in order to rebuff charges of war crimes or crimes against humanity. 

But Amnesty rejects the either-or argument:  

“Amnesty International concedes that identifying genocide in armed conflict is complex and challenging, because of the multiple objectives that may exist simultaneously. Nonetheless, it is critical to recognize genocide when it occurs in the context of armed conflict, and to insist that war can never excuse it.”

Callamard emphasizes: 

“Israel has repeatedly argued that its actions in Gaza are lawful and can be justified by its military goal to eradicate Hamas. But genocidal intent can co-exist alongside military goals and does not need to be Israel’s sole intent.”

So the military intent can exist alongside the genocidal intent – but it does not cancel the genocidal intent. If the genocidal intent is “part and parcel” of Israel’s conduct, “including its military campaign”, then this means Israel’s “war” is indeed a genocidal one. 

Genocidal statements by Israeli officials

In the chapter on Intent, concerning the statements on the destruction of Palestinians (7.3, p. 241), Amnesty limited itself to addressing 102 statements of high Israeli officials: 

“The organization identified 102 statements that dehumanized Palestinians, or called for, or justified, prohibited acts under the Genocide Convention or other crimes under international law against Palestinians in Gaza, such as settlement expansion, forcible transfer or indiscriminate attacks. They were made by members of the war and security cabinets and senior members of the military, as well as Israel’s president, in addition to some Knesset members and cabinet ministers.”

To be sure, statements inciting genocide are almost countless in Israel, and the Law for Palestine project has a database with over 500 of these by leaders down to journalists and influencers. But Amnesty applied the limitation also in order to suffice Israel’s own claim to the International Court of Justice in the Genocide case (South Africa vs Israel). 

Amnesty:  

“Given Israel’s contention before the ICJ that the “policy and intentions” of the Israeli government can only be determined through an examination of decisions by the war and security cabinets, as well as an analysis of “whether particular comments expressed conform, or not, with the policies and decisions made”, Amnesty International limited its analysis to statements made by officials with direct responsibilities over the conduct of the offensive on Gaza. With the exception of Israel’s president, this included members of the war and security cabinets and senior military officials. Amnesty International also limited its analysis to statements that appeared to call for, or justify, the destruction of Palestinians, including: 

• Calls to deny Palestinians in Gaza access to essential services and items critical for the population’s survival until Hamas is destroyed or until hostages are released; 
• Statements deliberately conflating Palestinians in Gaza with Hamas, thereby appearing to justify direct actions against Palestinian civilians;  
• Statements calling for the physical destruction of Gaza, including its entire population and civilian infrastructure, or calling for the destruction of Hamas by physically destroying Palestinians in Gaza.”  

Of the 102 statements it reviewed, Amnesty International identified 22 such statements. The remaining 80 statements either called for other crimes under international law against Palestinians in Gaza, such as settlement expansion, forcible transfer, or indiscriminate attacks or used racist and dehumanizing language against Palestinians. The organization analyzed the 22 statements apparently calling for or justifying the destruction of Palestinians in Gaza by focusing on the identity of the speaker and his/her influence and the content of the speech.”

Such statements informed Israel’s military campaign in a clear way.

Amnesty: 

“The statements of senior Israeli officials were heard and received by soldiers engaged in the military campaign in Gaza, and appear to have communicated, either explicitly or implicitly through known cultural references, a perceived mission of the campaign.”

These statements were then echoed by leading military officers, who were leading the military campaign, and the actions of their soldiers were boasted on social media through countless videos celebrating the genocidal destruction. 

Amnesty rebuffs Israel’s claim before the ICJ that these statements were merely “rhetorical”:

“Amnesty International recognizes that, at the start of the military offensive, Israeli officials defined its objectives as dismantling the military and governing capabilities of Hamas, subsequently adding to them the release of hostages and captives. Following that, Prime Minister Netanyahu, then Minister of Defense Gallant and Israeli army spokespeople publicly clarified on numerous occasions that the offensive was directed at Hamas rather than the Palestinian people. 

However, they appear to have intensified such clarifications only following mounting pressure from Israel’s Western allies over the scale of deaths and destruction resulting from weeks of relentless bombardment. Crucially, as highlighted above, there is a large amount of evidence of soldiers continuing to circulate and make use of these officials’ earlier statements long after they were first uttered. 

Videos point as well to soldiers making these calls while engaged in apparent acts of destruction. This indicates the widespread circulation and impact of officials’ statements. It also shows that Israeli officials largely failed to build alternative narratives. Indeed, the widespread circulation of statements calling for the destruction of Gaza and civilian objects within it appear to have been condoned and not adequately investigated, let alone punished, by the Israeli authorities, which failed to take any action for months. 

Furthermore, throughout the nine-month period under review, Israel continued to carry out unlawful attacks that killed and seriously injured Palestinian civilians, and to deliberately impose conditions of life on the entire population of Gaza, challenging Israel’s defence that the statements made by senior government officials, and which reverberated through the military, were merely the type of inflammatory comments that can be expected at the start of an armed conflict.”

But the intent is not just to be inferred from statements, the acts confirm the intents: 

“In assessing genocidal intent, Amnesty International analysed such violations of international law, including those detailed in Chapter 6 “Israel’s actions in Gaza”, in the context of the entire offensive: it reviewed them together and cumulatively, taking into account their recurrence and their simultaneous occurrence time and time again, compounding each other’s harmful impact. Furthermore, the organization considered the scale and severity of the casualties and destruction repeated over time, in spite of continuous warnings by the UN and Israel’s own allies, as well as the multiple binding orders of the ICJ” (p. 279).

Overall context of Israeli apartheid

Amnesty assesses Israel’s genocide in a historical context, to point out that the “endemic dehumanization of Palestinians” has been a feature that preceded October 7, 2023 – it has a long history, including systemic war crimes and crimes against humanity:

“An assessment of the historical context demonstrates that Israel’s offensive is occurring in the context of its unlawful military occupation and system of apartheid against Palestinians, including Palestinians in Gaza, a context replete with serious violations of international law and predicated on endemic dehumanization of Palestinians” (p. 278).

It is a system of dehumanization of Palestinians in general, where Gaza in particular has been made “uniquely vulnerable”: 

“Indeed, many high-level Israeli officials, as well as other politicians and public figures with significant reach and influence in Israel, have used deeply rooted dehumanizing, derogatory and racist language towards Palestinians for years, without any genuine or effective accountability. 

The dehumanization of Palestinians has been a constant feature of Israel’s apartheid system: they are treated as an inferior racial group undeserving of basic human rights and necessities. To maintain this system of oppression and domination, Israel has long subjected Palestinians, including those in Gaza, to torture, arbitrary detention, forcible transfer and unlawful killings and injuries. As part of this system of apartheid, Israel’s unlawful blockade of Gaza had been slowly inflicting harmful conditions of life on Palestinians there for 16 years prior to 7 October 2023, leaving them in a uniquely vulnerable situation.”

Difference between motive and intent

Similar to the “military necessity” argument, people can claim various motives for their genocidal acts – they may not consider them genocidal intent as such (people rarely admit to that outright), and they may claim “security” or “revenge” – but these motives do not cancel out genocidal intent:

“Finally, Amnesty International recognizes that Israel’s policy towards Gaza may have been driven by different motives held by various officials in the government. Motive does not equal intent, though. 

International jurisprudence is clear that many motives may prompt genocidal acts, including a desire for profit, political advantage and so on. Ultimately, as long as genocidal intent is clear, the underlying motive of individual officials does not matter – whether it be security, revenge, a resolve to remain in power, the desire to show overwhelming strength in the region, or the pursuit of Gaza’s resettlement” (p. 281). 

Hesitancy to point out genocidal intent regarding Israel

One of Israel’s oft claimed points is the “double standards” point, saying that Israel is being unfairly “singled out”. This point has also made it into the notorious IHRA-definition of antisemitism, which conflates critique of Israel with hatred of Jews. 

 The 8th IHRA example says “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

But Amnesty points out the opposite – that there is precisely a double-standard of hesitancy in terms of addressing Israel with genocidal intent – where it would be easier done with other countries. It has proven harder for Amnesty’s separate Israel branch to accept the genocide finding, so they went against the findings of the international report – as was the case in 2022 with Amnesty International’s Israel-Apartheid report. Although Amnesty boasts of being “independent of any government [and] political ideology” (report, p. 2), local political bias does exist. Amnesty calls for a universal standard: 

“Amnesty International recognizes that there is resistance and a hesitancy among many in finding genocidal intent when it comes to Israel’s conduct in Gaza. This resistance has impeded justice and accountability with respect to past conflicts around the world and should be avoided in the future. Amnesty International rejects a hierarchy among crimes under international law.”

Wake-up call

The world has been letting this happen, in a slumber of denial and Israel-bias that has allowed the most televised genocide in history to go on for over a year.

Callamard states: “Our damning findings must serve as a wake-up call to the international community: this is genocide. It must stop now.”

Stopping this includes a range of actions, not least by third states. Amnesty is calling upon the International Criminal Court to upgrade its assessment of the situation of Palestine to include genocide, also in terms of arrest warrants like those issued for Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant: 

“Urgently consider the commission of the crime of genocide by Israeli officials since 7 October 2023 in the ongoing investigation into the situation in the State of Palestine… Consider how the Office of the Prosecutor’s investigations into the situation in the State of Palestine could be further expedited. Where appropriate, apply for arrest warrants against suspected individuals, including for the crime of genocide.”

This must be a great shock for those who believed that “never again” was under Israeli monopoly, to protect the Jews forever. It turns out that the self-proclaimed “Jewish state” is not immune to perpetrating genocide. Israel can now only respond with the knee-jerk of “fake news”, and deny, deny, deny. 

But this report is no quick propaganda item. It is a lengthy and meticulous documentation by one of the leading legal heavyweights, Amnesty International. This will be adding weight to the growing international consensus on the matter. And all of us are responsible, all of us must wake up now, for it is already way too late.