Heimish Defense

The burden of proof is on the accuser, actually. Never on the accused. And the burden of proof here is fully conclusive. So, those accusing Israel of genocide must prove their claim to the highest standard possible in the law. But sure, happy to oblige. Every single accusation has failed to establish intent as required by law. That intent threshold is known as “dolus specialis” and is an extremely high bar to meet. It requires that you prove that the conduct you accuse them of is the conduct the accused intended to commit. (Side note: those experts you cited argue to shift from dolus specialis, which is the codified law, to dolus eventualis, which is not the codified law). Every accusation cites to Netanyahu’s reference to “remember what Amalek did to you” from Deuteronomy. That reference is found in The Hague on the Holocaust memorial and is a culturally important reference after a massacre of Jews. Under the Tolomir case from ICTY it would fail to establish intent because you’re required to place that into context. Every accusation cites to Gallant’s “we are fighting human animals” statement but each has ignored that it was a direct reference to Hamas, which is not protected in the Genocide Convention. Again, failing the ICTY test. Every accusation cites to Herzog’s “no innocents” statement but neglects, again, his saying in the same speech that civilians must be protected. Again, failing the ICTY test. Next, we should assess the harm. In Gaza it’s about 3% of the population having been killed (including combatants). In every genocide that’s been adjudicated it’s a range of 20-80% of the population decimated in about a month to years. This is true for the Holocaust, Srebrenica, and Rwanda. This fails the second prong of the test. Next, we should assess if a protected group has been systematically targeted for destruction. Here, again, we have 3% of the population having reportedly been killed (so far), of that at least 1/3 are combatants. This was done in a complex urban environment where a combatant party (Hamas) systematically embedded and fought from civilian and humanitarian infrastructure. This causes us to expect higher civilian casualties because provisions of law such as GCIV 19 & 28, and API 51(7) then apply expressly not immunizing the combatant party operating the way Hamas does from harm. Essentially, saying places where civilians are become targetable. Thus, this defeats the third prong of the analysis. Finally, we need to have demonstrated the conscious planning of the alleged genocidal actus reus. An example of this is the Nazi’s Wannsee Conference. Here, we have the opposite. When a plan of action threatened the safety of Palestinians and was called into question on legality, the plan was scrapped. Demonstrating that there was no conscious planning of a genocidal actus reus and legal mechanisms operated to ensure compliance with the. This defeats the fourth prong of the ICTY’s Tolomir analysis. Since the ICTY Tolomir analysis cannot be sustained to infer intent, you cannot establish that genocide has occurred. As a lawyer who actually practices this area of law, and not a keyboard warrior or historian who has mangled the law for ideological bias, I find it prudent to actually apply it objectively and honestly. Hope this helps, Johnny.