I share Jonathan Freedland’s contempt for Benjamin Netanyahu (South Africa brought the case, but one man dragged Israel into the dock at The Hague – Benjamin Netanyahu, 12 January). I think, though, that he allows Netanyahu too much wriggle room in relation to the charge of genocide. Freedland tells us that Netanyahu has been “engaging in, and indulging others’ use of, vile rhetoric”.
It is not, though, just rhetoric. Disproportion was built into Israeli defence policy post-2006 as part of its Dahiya doctrine: “We will apply disproportionate force … and cause great damage and destruction” in response to any military challenge. Netanyahu and his far-right coalition are simply putting this into action. If Russia is guilty of genocide, having killed 10,000 civilians in Ukraine since February 2022, does the 23,000 killed by Israel in four months not also evidence genocidal intent?
You can try to argue away the rhetoric, but the death toll speaks for itself. Michael Walzer, quoted by Freedland, appears to argue that the death toll is on Hamas for “embedding itself” in Gaza. Article 51(8) of the 1977 additional protocol I to the Geneva conventions clarifies that any violation of the rules on the protection of civilians by a party to a conflict does “not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to … civilians”. Thus, if the enemy uses human shields, the other party continues to be bound by the rules on distinction, proportionality and precaution.
Nick Moss
London
