As a first stab at defining genocide, it amounts to eliminating, killing, or murdering an entire group of people, based upon their genetic makeup. But this can only be an approximation, a rough account of the concept. For, suppose one eradicates not 100% of people in this category, but only 99% of them. Would this count as genocide? Certainly, it would, at least as the word is commonly used. How about significantly less than 99%? Yes, that too would suffice. For example, according to official statistics, Hitler killed six million Jews at a time when there were 16.7 million of them alive in the entire world. Thus, he murdered about 36% of the entire population. Yet, this is the paradigm case of genocide, proving that this despicable practice can indeed take place at far less than the 100% level.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Suppose a murderer does away with one person or even a dozen from a given genetic category. Would this count as genocide? Certainly not, if we are to be reportorial about how this concept functions in our language. So it is not a matter of all or one. However, at some point, as the percentage rises, genocide gets closer and closer to occurring, and at some point, far less than the total, it occurs.
Can there be any such thing as a justified genocide? Is this very concept a contradiction in terms such as legitimate murder, a square circle, or a gigantic small person? No. There can indeed be such a concept, just as there is justified killing.
Consider the following. Every member of genetic group A has developed an inveterate hatred for every member of genetic group B. The former think of the latter as vermin. There are no exceptions here. Nor is there any free will in this scenario. All As are in effect programmed by biology to have this characteristic. The As wish to entirely abolish the Bs from the face of the earth, root, and branch, all of them, also without exception. They are aiming for a 100% success rate. The Bs have no such animosity toward As. However, all throughout history As have been murdering Bs.
Finally, the Bs have had enough. B, thereupon, engages in genocide against A. This occurs, however, only as a matter of self-defense as we have seen. Is B justified in so doing? One would indeed think so. However, we cannot draw this conclusion quite yet. For there are amongst the As innocent children. One response is that we shall just have to assume them away, arguendo. A better one would be to directly confront this possible objection to the concept of justified genocide. How would this work?
Yes, these children are entirely innocent. Now, that is. However, in this scenario we are exploring, these A youngsters are genetically programmed, destined (we are now assuming away all vestiges of free will) to begin their murders of Bs when they turn, say, eighteen. We posit that even then, given that we know for sure about their later murderous proclivities, it still would have been improper to kill a child of the A group. Would it have been licit to murder a six-month-old Hitler, Stalin, or Mao when these folk were still in their cribs? No. Thus, if the victimized Bs did away with all the As, children included, they would become genocidal, e.g., unjust murderers. However, if the Bs put to death only all (or a sufficient percentage of them) the already guilty adult As, all of whom have previously murdered Bs (the As are not that finicky, they make no distinction between adult and child Bs; their motto is "kill them all!") the Bs would be guilty of genocide, but would have been acting justly! (We are here defining genocide as killing a sufficiently high percentage of a genetic group only because of that membership.) But would not the A children perish without their parents around to care for them? Presumably, yes. But the Bs, a decent people, bring up the A children through adoption. When they mature, and start on their inevitable path of murdering Bs, including their adoptive parents, they are then put to death.
South Africa has just brought suit against Israel for engaging in genocide before the International Court of Justice. If we are to accurately assess this charge, it behooves us to be crystal clear concerning precisely what genocide actually involves in all of its dimensions and ramifications.
So, is Israel guilty of (non-defensive) genocide against Palestinian Arabs?Of course not. The charge is laughable, were it not so serious.
One bit of evidence is the fact that 20% of Israeli citizens are of the same genetic background as are the Gazans. These folk join the IDF, become judges in Israel, have their own political parties, are welcome in all political parties, and their representatives are even members of the Knesset. If the military of this nation were genocidal, all of these people would be put to death, instead of being welcomed into that society.
A second bit of evidence is that the IDF is not now attacking any of the countries with which it had signed peace treaties under the Abraham Accord and other such agreements. And yet the people in Egypt, UAE Jordan, UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan share similar genetic material with those of the Gazans. If Israel were really engaged in this despicable practice, these countries too, would now all be experiencing the wrath of the IDF.
This goes as well for all other Arab countries, those which have not yet signed peace treaties with Israel. Were the IDF intent upon genocide, these peoples too would be under ferocious attack.
What then accounts for present military operations of the only fully civilized country in the Middle East, in Gaza, if not genocide? In a word, response to October 7, 2003. Israel was subjected to a brutal, unconscionable, unimaginable, vicious incursion on this date which will forever live in infamy, by Hamas. Even at the present date, weeks later, this terrorist organization still holds roughly 100 Israeli kidnap victims, including women and children, their favorite targets. It is difficult to say how many hostages are still being held, since more than just a few have already been murdered.
Is Hamas itself guilty of genocide? No. Of course not. They have not murdered a sufficient percentage of Jews. How about, then, attempted genocide? It is difficult to see why this is not the case. Yes, on October 7, this organization only murdered Jews located in Israel. But their principles include the murder of all people with such genetic endowments.
According to the principles upon which Hamas operates: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
Thus, South Africa was indeed entirely justified in bringing such charges to the ICJ; that country only erred in confusing the victim and the perpetrator.
It cannot be denied that many innocent Gazans have been killed by the IDF. But this is collateral damage. The Israeli military did not purposefully aim for this result. Rather it is due to the fact that Hamas must be completely eradicated as a matter of self-defense for Israel and that Hamas uses the Gazans as shields.
If Hamas were to surrender today and release all Israeli kidnap victims, the supposedly genocidal IDF would continue piling up its murderous body count? But we all know this is an abject falsity. They did no such thing after they won numerous wars in the past. If this occurred, instead, wounded Gazans would immediately be taken to some of the best hospitals in the world, and starving members of this community would be fed forthwith. That is genocide?
What would happen the other way around, if Hamas, God forbid, conquered the IDF? One look at the Hamas founding documents can very quickly settle this issue, once and for all. Ditto for their actual practices. They send rockets to Israel, but one strongly suspects that they regret when these impact non-Jewish Israelis. Nor is their ire limited to Jews living in Israel. If they had the power, their targets would be Jews wherever located. So, yes, the ICJ is entirely entitled to hold hearings on (attempted) genocide in the Middle East. But Hamas should be in the dock, not Israel. And the verdict should be guilty.
Were the US and its Allies guilty of genocide for their fire-bombing of Tokyo and Dresden, for their A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No. One difference is that when the war stops, the army guilty of genocide keeps murdering its enemies, while the military innocent of this charge stops. This is not to say these massive killings of civilians was justified, only that it was not genocide. Another difference is based on how the Americans treated their own Japanese citizens. If they were genocidal, they would have put all these people to death, not merely placed them in internment camps.
What about the Israelis? After Hamas surrenders, and releases its kidnap victims, will the IDF continue to bomb Gaza? To ask this is to answer it: of course not. Has the Israeli military tried to execute all of its Arab citizens? Don't be silly. Thus, the Israelis are no more guilty of genocide than were the victors in World War II.
Let us return to the As and the Bs. To reiterate, A started in with the genocide, B was the victim. Then B took the upper hand and annihilated A. A was guilty of offensive genocide and therefore acted unjustly. B merely engaged in defensive genocide and was thus innocent of any crime. Now, consider the situation after one army conquered the other but there were still civilians alive on the other side. Would the killing then stop on the part of A? No. They are guilty of (offensive) genocide and would continue the murder (unjustified killing) until all the Bs were six feet under.
Would the killing then stop on the part of B? No, again. They also engage in genocide, albeit of the defensive variety, and thus would continue the justified killing until none of the As were still alive. All of this is so far removed from the actions of both the Israelis and the Allies as to render the charge of genocide ludicrous.
However, had Hamas subdued the IDF, and the Israelis surrendered to them, would the (unjust) killing of Jews have stopped? Certainly not, if we can extrapolate from what occurred on October 7. It would have continued until the last Jew was dead. Thus, Hamas would be guilty of genocide, and not of the defensive variety either.
Hamas is not guilty of genocide, only because they have not succeeded in implementing any such policy. But they are certainly guilty of attempted genocide. Just as attempted murder, not only murder, is a crime, so is it the case that not only actual (non-defensive) genocide, but also that type of attempted genocide, should be so considered criminal.
Congratulations to South Africa for bringing the issue of genocide to the ICJ. Now, all they need to do is reverse the charges.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
