Those who still deny the Gaza genocide are complicit in Israel's atrocities 

The new United Nations report charging Israel with genocide reinforces an international consensus that has taken almost two years to become overwhelming. 

Although the state’s violence against Gaza was front-loaded - its opening attack was among the most destructive in modern times - many believed at the time that civilian harm resulted from the excesses of war, rather than a deliberate campaign of atrocities. 

When experts, including myself, accused Israel of genocide in late 2023, and even after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognised a plausible risk of genocide in January 2024, many who were alarmed by Israel’s actions remained reluctant to acknowledge it. American Israeli Holocaust historian Omer Bartov said the idea “was a painful conclusion to reach, and one I resisted as long as I could”.

But now that there is very wide agreement about the Gaza genocide, what do we make of those who still “disagree”? 

Clearly, genocide is a legal term, and although it is defined quite simply in the Genocide Convention, ICJ judgements have complicated its interpretation, and some observers still have technical reservations about its legal application. 

Most who disagree, however, are not primarily concerned with technicalities, even if they use technical arguments. Those who used to say: “I’m worried by what Israel’s doing but I’m not sure it’s genocide”, now agree it’s genocide - or at the least, they will “leave it to historians to debate”.

Today, politicians and commentators who actively continue to disagree with the genocide label are mostly those who are not appalled by Israel’s actions. It’s actually quite simple to test whether “genocide disagreement” is really technical - or whether it amounts to denying the atrocities that it describes. 

Crimes against humanity

If an honest observer has really taken the measure of Israel’s actions over the past two years, they should easily agree that it is guilty of massive crimes against humanity and war crimes. 

But scratch the surface of a public genocide denier, and you are unlikely to find burning outrage about the use of starvation as a method of war, intentional attacks on the civilian population, and murder, persecution and other inhumane acts - the charges facing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the International Criminal Court (ICC). 

Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war

Since denial of “genocide” is now denial of the full horrors of Israeli atrocities, there is little point in pulling our punches about the genocide charge. It brings together Israel’s crimes, forcing everyone to look at its overall policy in a holistic way (which is why Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin first argued that we needed a crime of genocide). 

The ICC itself said, when issuing its warrants against Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, that the discrete crimes listed were parts of a single “widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population”. 

Looking at Israel’s actions this way, we can see that - as the new UN report confirms - its many crimes are part of a general, intentional policy to destroy Palestinian society in Gaza.

Disagreement is not an honest choice, but a way to avoid doing anything serious to stop Israel's violence in Gaza

Secondly, recognising Israel’s genocide comes with a universal obligation - on all 153 states that have signed the Genocide Convention - to “prevent and punish” this crime. So far, even states that oppose Israel’s campaign have hardly taken robust action to try to stop it. 

Although South Africa deserves great credit for its pioneering case at the ICJ, neither it, nor any other state, nor the judges - who in 2024 issued three orders to Israel to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza freely - have followed up on its brazen defiance of the court’s orders. 

Most western governments remain determined to disagree with the genocide characterisation, even as they belatedly criticise Israel. Here, disagreement is not an honest choice, but a way to avoid doing anything serious to stop Israel’s violence in Gaza. 

These states remain allied to Israel and give it tacit support - thus opening their leaders up to potential charges of complicity and even conspiracy to commit genocide.

Moral vacuum

The UK demonstrates the moral vacuum of official western “disagreement” in particularly stark form. As the enormity of Israel’s actions has become clearer, the Labour government’s position, restated earlier this month, is that it “has not concluded” that Israel is acting with genocidal intent in Gaza. 

The obfuscation is very revealing. Although interpreted by some as straightforward denial, it actually shows that while the government will not recognise Israel’s genocide, it also cannot bring itself to directly deny it. 

Rather, it wants to permanently avoid reaching a conclusion, even resorting to specious arguments, such as that it is a matter for international courts - which makes a mockery of the imperative for signatory states to actively “prevent” genocide.

Why Gaza genocide is strongest case before ICJ | William Schabas | Expert Witness

Read More »

In reality, ministers understand all too well the legal stakes involved. David Lammy, now justice minister, who signed the recent statement, was embarrassed by ill-thought-out comments in 2024. 

The attorney general, Richard Hermer, who presents himself as an upholder of international law, claims that the government’s policy, for example on supplying weapons to Israel, is determined purely on the law. But not reaching a decision on the duty to prevent genocide, 20 months after the ICJ warned of the risk, is hardly a technical legal choice. 

Above all, Prime Minister Keir Starmer himself, who only 11 years ago prosecuted another genocide case before the ICJ, understands all too well that Gaza is a case of genocide too. That is why, while disagreeing with the genocide charge, he has never provided an explanation.

As Gaza’s cities are completely destroyed, and its surviving people are herded towards concentration camps and face expulsion, the middle ground between supporting and opposing genocide has disappeared. After two years, criticism of Israel that still “disagrees” with the genocide charge represents little more than complicity in Israel’s atrocities.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.