[wat0n]

So you think the director is not relevant?

How about what the Chief Historian of Yad Vashem, Dina Porat, believes about the accusation?

Opinion | Charging Israel With Genocide in Gaza Is Inflammatory and Dangerous

Historians must be guided by the facts, not political agendas. But when Omer Bartov in The New York Times charged Israel with ‘verging’ into genocide and ethnic cleansing, he grounded his argument in assertions, not evidence

Tuvia Friling, Laura Jockusch, Liat Steir-Livny, Avinoam Patt and Dina Porat
Nov 28, 2023 2:05 pm IST

We are writing as historians in response to the opinion piece by Professor Omer Bartov published in the November 10, 2023, issue of The New York Times, "What I Believe as a Historian of Genocide" Historians must be guided by the evidence they know, not the ideas they choose to believe, but Bartov begins with an assertion and a question: “Israeli military operations have created an untenable humanitarian crisis, which will only worsen over time.

But are Israel’s actions — as the nation’s opponents argue — verging on ethnic cleansing or, most explosively, genocide?” Bartov believes that in "justifying the assault [on Gaza], Israelis leaders and generals have made terrifying pronouncements that indicate a genocidal intent."

He alleges that under the right circumstances, a situation of ethnic cleansing “may escalate into genocide, as happened in the Holocaust” and that his greatest concern “watching the Israel-Gaza war unfold is that there is genocidal intent, which can easily tip into genocidal action.”

The piece immediately paints the Israeli army as the malevolent oppressor assaulting the inhabitants of Gaza, with little contextualization of the reasons behind the war. Bartov mentions in passing the October 7 attack, the event that triggered the war. Regrettably, Bartov marginalizes the heinous massacre, in which at least 3,000 Hamas terrorists invaded Israel, murdering 1,200 victims (among them peace activists), injuring thousands, and perpetrating horrific acts of torture and sexual violence while kidnapping about 240 civilians.

Bartov assigns no agency to Hamas; he defines October 7 as a “war crime” and a “crime against humanity” but, by the same metric, does not note the “genocidal intent” embedded in the Hamas charter, its actions, or its most recent pronouncements.

Bartov cites statements made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and other military and political leaders to allege that genocidal intent exists, which might “easily tip into genocidal action.” The statements he cites include responses to the October 7 massacre such as Prime Minister Netanyahu’s prediction that Gazans would pay a “huge price” for the actions of Hamas (which sadly they have), along with Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant’s statement describing the October 7 perpetrators who carried out unspeakable crimes as “human animals.”

Bartov, an expert on the conduct of German soldiers in World War II, is correct to suggest that dehumanization of the enemy is common when entering battle. Many observers who have seen the evidence of the crimes perpetrated by Hamas terrorists on October 7 struggle with describing these actions as human – a frenzy of extreme violence, which was filmed and live-streamed by the terrorists, who celebrated their actions and were cheered on by sympathizers across the world.
We acknowledge that what some Israeli leaders have said are truly despicable statements that cannot be ignored. Dehumanizing terrorists who raped women, decapitated babies, tortured their victims, shot and burnt them alive, however, is not evidence of genocidal intent but a reflection of the limits of language to describe behavior that truly seems inhuman.

As Bartov knows, the United Nations Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of Genocide of 1948 requires that a perpetrator intend to “destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such” in at least one of five prescribed ways. The words “as such” impose a stringent intent requirement: an act counts as genocide only if individuals are targeted solely by virtue of their group membership and not for strategic reasons like a military response to a brutal terrorist attack.

Bartov contends that the “untenable humanitarian crisis” caused by the Israeli army “will only worsen over time.” Some 13,300 Palestinians have been killed, roughly two-thirds of them women and minors, according to the Hamas controlled health ministry (which makes it problematic to ensure the accuracy of these numbers). The suffering in Gaza is indeed a horrible catastrophe and it is hard to imagine the situation improving in the immediate future, but we do have to acknowledge that Hamas has to be blamed in manufacturing what has become an untenable humanitarian crisis.

Contrary to Bartov’s narrative, evidence and testimonies from Gaza reveal Hamas not only as a terrorist organization seeking Israel’s destruction, but one willing to sacrifice its own people for the cause of radical Islam and global Jihad. In the decade and half that it governed Gaza, Hamas might have chosen to spend many millions in aid money on providing better lives for Gazans, rather than investing in a terrorist infrastructure, rockets, tunnels, and the spreading of hate.

He writes that the situation in the West Bank “now appears to also be sliding towards ethnic cleansing under cover of war in Gaza,” citing, for example, rising violence against Palestinians by Israeli settlers and soldiers. But appalling as that is, it does not constitute evidence of his claim.

Bartov does not mention the creation of humanitarian corridors established by the Israeli army, intended to allow civilians to safely escape the war zone, even as Hamas snipers target them.

He also omits crucial details: The hundreds of trucks with oil, food and equipment, entering the Gaza strip daily as part of the temporary truce are not mentioned either. Not once does he note that Hamas kidnapped as many as 240 hostages of multiple nationalities, threatening to use them as human shields. Some of the hostages were taken captive after having endured severe physical injury, and among the women attacked some were sexually assaulted as eyewitnesses have testified. Gender-based violence is a known tactic of warfare and genocide and it was a weapon intentionally used by Hamas terrorists on October 7. Where does a country’s obligation to protect its citizens end when waging war against a terrorist organization that uses both its own civilians and hostages as human shields?

We caution against leveraging one’s expertise as a historian of genocide to assert that “it is very likely that war crimes, even crimes against humanity, are happening" without providing specific evidence, Within the first week of the Hamas assault, another widely circulated petition had already lobbed the charge of “genocide” against Israel, just as the Israeli army began to attack the first Hamas targets in Gaza.

If every act of military aggression is described as “verging on” genocide as Bartov writes, or genocide as others have claimed, without meeting the established criteria to merit such a charge, the legal and historical term quickly loses its meaning.

One of the first rules we are taught as historians is to construct arguments based on the facts we know, not the ideas we choose to believe. We must assemble all the evidence available to us in order to construct our argument, not only those which support our beliefs.

There is no evidence that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing, war crimes, crimes against humanity or has genocidal intentions. Such charges that they might be sliding towards such acts do nothing to move us towards a resolution of the current conflict. These charges are inflammatory and dangerous.

Tuvia Friling is a professor emeritus at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and a former state archivist of Israel

Laura Jockusch is the Albert Abramson Associate Professor of Holocaust Studies in the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University

Liat Steir-Livny is a associate professor of Holocaust Studies, and Film and Cultural Studies at Sapir Academic College and an associate professor at the The Open University

Avinoam Patt, is the Doris and Simon Konover Chair of Judaic Studies and the director of the Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Connecticut

Dina Porat is a professor emerita from the department of Jewish History in Tel Aviv University and former chief historian of Yad Vashem

Note: Yad Vashem's website lists Porat as its Chief Historian,

This does not look like a consensus to me.

[QatzelOk]

...So you think the director is not relevant?...

This does not look like a consensus to me...

When the 150 First Nations of North America were being genocided, there must have been thousands of wat0ns defending this atrocity.

I always wondered what their arguments would have been.

Thanks for filling in the historical blanks for me.

[Pants-of-dog]

Is there something in that long piece of quoted text that supports the claim, or that refutes the claim of a consensus? It seems to provide assertions as facts. Like the way it claims that the IDF and Israeli government have created safe corridors m while the facts is that the IDF and Israeli government have asserted that these places are safe and then attacked civilians in said places.

Note that having one or a few historians arguing otherwise does not mean there is no consensus.

[wat0n]

When the 150 First Nations of North America were being genocided, there must have been thousands of wat0ns defending this atrocity.

I always wondered what their arguments would have been.

Thanks for filling in the historical blanks for me.

Funny coming from someone who supports scalping children. This sounds like projection.

Is there something in that long piece of quoted text that supports the claim, or that refutes the claim of a consensus? It seems to provide assertions as facts. Like the way it claims that the IDF and Israeli government have created safe corridors m while the facts is that the IDF and Israeli government have asserted that these places are safe and then attacked civilians in said places.

Note that having one or a few historians arguing otherwise does not mean there is no consensus.

It actually does mean there's no consensus since those historians are reputed experts in their field.

Their arguments are also correct, and have not been refuted to this day.

I will also note that those safe areas are still safe, until Hamas starts launching rockets from them - as it has, in fact, done. Responding to rocket launches is not genocidal.

[Deutschmania]

It seems to me that both @Pants-of-dog and @wat0n alike have been going back and forth making authority fallacies . What such institutions as Yad Vashem think about the matter of alleged genocide in Gaza shouldn't have any relevance upon whether or not by law Israel has been carrying out acts of genocide .

[wat0n]

@Deutschmania indeed, facts are what actually matters here.

But I am pushing against his claim that there's an expert consensus supporting the allegations too. That's clearly not true.

[Pants-of-dog]

We have already discussed examples of the IDF attacking supposed safe zones. The killings of civilians by the IDF is safe zones has already been a subject of justifications and excuses, To now claim that these attacks never happened is to not only ignore the facts, but also this exact conversation. Even now, there is the attempted justification of claiming rockets were fired from safe zones.

If the IDF is attacking safe zones because Hamas is there, then the IDF is sending people into zones where Hamas is and then attacking those zones.

While this may explain why these attacks are taking place, it refutes the assertion that the IDF is protecting people through the use of safe zones, since it shows that being in a safe zone does not protect civilians from attacks by the IDF.

This is how these historians are arguing that assertions are facts: they are mistakenly assuming that the assertion of safety by the IDF and Israeli government translates into a fact that civilians are safe, when the facts show the exact opposite.

[MadMonk]

If the IDF is attacking safe zones because Hamas is there, then the IDF is sending people into zones where Hamas is and then attacking those zones.

That logic does not follow. As bad as the IDF are, and they're really up there on the villain chart, the consequence of attempting to create safe zones for civilians will naturally attract militants as well. Sending civilians into already fortified enemy strongholds is not to the IDF's advantage in combat.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog seems to be unable to understand genocide requires a special intent to destroy the enemy population. Being willing to kill civilians while attacking combatants doesn't really scream or prove that intent, in the same way it did not prove such intent when the US showed the same willingness to defeat ISIS in Mosul.

[Pants-of-dog]

That logic does not follow. As bad as the IDF are, and they're really up there on the villain chart, the consequence of attempting to create safe zones for civilians will naturally attract militants as well. Sending civilians into already fortified enemy strongholds is not to the IDF's advantage in combat.

Why would it be disadvantageous?

There is no drawback from bombing civilians, and it does not make the attacks against militants any more difficult.

Moreover, it also forces the civilians that live in that area to move away or be killed, which is a distinct advantage for the Israeli government since the land is now empty of any community that lived there.

It should be noted that I dis not argue that these attacks prove intent, I claimed instead that these attacks disprove the assertion of safe zones and provide facts that contradict the assertions of IDF officials, Israeli government officials, and genocide scholars apologizing for the actions of the previous two.

[wat0n]

I will note @Pants-of-dog claimed these attacks are evidence of genocide.

The presence of civilians is undoubtedly disadvantageous to Israel, which is why Hamas uses them as shields. It seems @Pants-of-dog is now walking back on his claim that Hamas was aware that shielding would erode international support for Israel.

If he disagrees he could then explain why Hamas doesn't just fight in open fields or why it didn't build fortifications outside urban areas.

[Pants-of-dog]

The criticisms to my claims are unclear and seem to be based on misunderstandings of my claims.

The IDF attacks on civilians are eroding international support among civilians. This is probably what Hamas predicted. But Netanyahu (not entirely incorrectly) thinks Israel’s government allies will still support them.

And since no one contradicts the claim that these attacks contradict the assertions of the IDF and Israeli government, and if we are going to make a judgment about genocide based on facts and not assertions, the claims of safe zones need to be seen in light of the fact that IDF attacks are ongoing in said safe zones.

[wat0n]

So @Pants-of-dog does in fact accept Hamas uses shielding as part of its strategy. Then why is he surprised civilians get killed?

I will also note that since genocide requires intent, attacking legitimate military targets cannot be used as evidence of it even if civilians are killed and even more so if their presence is part of the defender's strategy.

[Pants-of-dog]

If someone incorrectly believes that I accept Hamas that uses shielding as part of its strategy, then they have misunderstood.

And it seems that the current argument has also been misunderstood.

Attacking legitimate military targets cannot be used as evidence of intent, that is true. But we were not discussing intent. We were discussing the assertion by the IDF and Israeli government that safe corridors and safe zones had been established, and that this “fact” refutes the “assertions” used to support the claim of genocide.

So I pointed out the fact that safe corridors and safe zones are not actually safe.

And now it seems that safe corridors and safe zones are not actually safe zones since they were described as “legitimate military targets” in the preceding post.

If they are “legitimate military targets” they can not be “safe zones and corridors”.

[wat0n]

I will note your assertion @Pants-of-dog is only an element of a more important accusation that Israel is committing genocide.

Why doesn't Hamas fortify its positions and fight in open areas instead of doing so inside Gaza's cities or within designated safe zones? Certainly, once they decide to launch rockets from tents, they are deliberately risking civilians. Why?

[Pants-of-dog]

Another odd assertion made by the Yad Vashem historians is the implied claim that this can not be genocide because it is “a military response to a brutal terrorist attack”.

The argument seems to be that since the intent is “a military response to a brutal terrorist attack”, it cannot possibly be also intent to genocide.

Yet these two goals are not mutually exclusive. In fact, many genocides have been justified as military responses to existential threats.

[wat0n]

No.

The historians are saying that Israel's attempts to limit civilian casualties are evidence of a lack of intent, if anything.

Now it's your turn to answer my question: Why doesn't Hamas fortify its positions and fight in open areas instead of doing so inside Gaza's cities or within designated safe zones?

[Pants-of-dog]

The claim that the IDF and Israeli government have made attempts to limit civilian casualties is contradicted by the fact that we have regularly observed attacks on civilians in these safe zones and safe corridors.

Thus, the assertion of limiting civilian casualties is an assertion by the IDF and Israeli government and not a fact.

Since, as the historians note, we should make judgements based on facts rather than assertions, it is difficult to determine that there has been an attempt to minimize civilian casualties.

I believe that @SpecialOlympian has already answered the question as to why Hamas does not fortify its positions and fight in open areas. I will not spam this thread by repeating his explanation unnecessarily.

[wat0n]

I want you own explanation @Pants-of-dog.

I will note that it is impossible for civilians to be unaffected if Hamas is using cities as its fortresses and decides to operate within safe zones and corridors. Yet their very existence is, in fact, evidence of intent to limit civilian casualties, Israel does have the material means to attack without providing any prior warnings, corridors or safe zones at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

Assertions that the IDF and Israeli government are trying to limit casualties is not a strong argument.

The fact that the IDF routinely attacks civilians in so called safe zones is stronger than the contradictory assertion.

If we were only looking at these daily attacks, it might be arguable that it is not genocide, but when it is combined with attacks on water, food production, hospitals, schools, sewage systems, homes, families, journalists. aid workers, and negotiators, the context makes it almost impossible to see it as anything but genocide.