Philippe Sands speaking to Ezra Klein in the NYT on the growing likelihood that the International Court of Justice will conclude that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza:
I’ve already said... that if Lemkin were to view what has happened, he would have characterized what happened on Oct. 7 as meeting his definition of genocide, and he would certainly characterize what is happening now in Gaza as genocidal...
The challenge... is not to determine whether crimes are being committed. There’s no question that what you are describing is a war crime. There’s no question... that it is so systematic that it’s likely also to be a crime against humanity in the conception of international law.
It’s plain, if you read the provisional measures of the orders of the International Court of Justice, that in particular the judges who have already addressed what has been of the case so far are deeply concerned about famine…
1.5 percent of arable agricultural land remains in the whole of Gaza. It is not possible for a population of that size to sustain itself with that amount of arable land.
So all of that absolutely points to that kind of genocidal intent… [These] are exactly the kind of factors that you will find in Lemkin’s book from 1944 as indicating his conception of what constitutes a genocidal attack.
These are exactly the kinds of factors that are taken into account by judges when assessing how to characterize certain crimes.
To be frank, I find it incomprehensible. I have trouble understanding how it is possible to treat human beings in this way, to treat children in this way, to treat elderly people in this way. It is literally beyond my comprehension —
save that, as with so much of the work that I do in cases about mass atrocity, it’s always about dehumanization: They’re not like us. They’re different. And therefore, we are free to treat them in this way.
It is utterly appalling and unjustifiable, and it should not be happening. And these debates… are not helpful because they distract us from the horror that is happening and that is unfolding before our own eyes.
I wrote... with other British Jewish lawyers…: 1. the attack of Oct. 7 is a crime under international law. 2. Israel is entitled to use force in self-defense... But 3. the right to use force is not unlimited, and it is constrained by the requirements of international law.
But everyone knew what was coming, and we wanted to put a marker down that as and when lines are crossed, we would be on the front line of saying: This is not acceptable behavior… And that is what has happened. This is not self-defense. These acts are not preventing attacks…
The longer this goes on, the more difficult it is going to be for Israel to resist the argument that this meets the definition of genocide under international law… that ultimately one or other international court is going to conclude... that these facts constitute a genocide.
What is the military advantage that they seek to gain?... The more difficult it becomes to answer that question, the more likely it is that a group of judges at the ICJ will conclude... [that] the only intention is to destroy large parts of this group.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
