The accusation that Israel is committing genocide has become a prevailing belief. But it’s so wrong. Ireland knows it too and applied for the ICJ to change the definition of Genocide.

The idea that Israel is committing genocide has been given credibility by South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has been supported by at least 14 other countries.

Yet, one of those supporting countries, Ireland, realising that the case against Israel is weak, applied for the definition of Genocide under the Convention, to be changed.

Ireland argues that the original definition is too narrow.  

The current definition of genocide comes from the 1948 Genocide Convention, which defines it as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Changing this definition would require amending a foundational treaty, which is extremely difficult and politically sensitive.

The ICJ has consistently held that genocidal intent must be the only reasonable inference from the acts in question. This makes proving genocide very difficult, especially in armed conflict situations where multiple motives may exist.

Redefining genocide to fit a specific case risks politicizing international law and diminishing the gravity of the term. It could set a precedent where states push for legal reinterpretations to suit political goals.

Countries like Ireland, which joined South Africa’s case, have called for a broader interpretation of genocide. However, this move has been criticized as potentially undermining the ICJ’s legitimacy and the integrity of the Genocide Convention.

Expanding the definition could dilute the term’s association with atrocities like the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide, or Bosnia, potentially offending survivors and communities affected by those events.  

In interviews with Medialine, experts, such as Dr Tammy Caner, director of the Law and National Security Program at the Institute for National Security Studies, and Dr Eliav Lieblich, a scholar in public international law at Tel Aviv University,  warn that broadening the definition could backfire. It might open the door to more frequent and politically motivated genocide claims, weakening the ICJ’s ability to adjudicate serious cases impartially.

The text of the letter is a double-edged sword for the case since Ireland seems to concede that the accepted interpretation of the crime would not apply in this case and argues that it should be changed. — Dr Eliav Lieblich, Tel Aviv University.

Requesting the ICJ to broaden its interpretation [of the definition of Genocide] explicitly indicates that Israel is not committing genocide. — Dr. Tammy Caner, director of the Law and National Security Program at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS).

Genocide is an emotionally charged word. Perhaps it was originally used against Israel as hyperbole, an exaggeration to get cut-through in the information overloaded world in which we live.

But now it has morphed from an exaggeration, to a belief.  A false belief.  Sadly, even international jurists in the most esteemed court of the world, are not immune to the influence of the madding crowd.

Judge Julia Sebutinde, a Ugandan member of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), dissented from the court’s provisional measures order in the case of South Africa v. Israel concerning the situation in Gaza. She disagreed with the majority decision, arguing that the dispute was primarily political rather than a legal matter suitable for judicial settlement. She also found that South Africa had not provided sufficient evidence of genocidal intent by Israel. 

There is a reason why the symbol of justice is blindfolded and carries scales.  Justice requires impartiality and evidence that must be weighed.

The ICJ was first established with the moral hope, to create a peaceful and lawful mechanism for resolving disputes between nations.  A true and noble goal.  But if the court allows itself to become politicized and its credibility is sufficiently damaged, then countries will withdraw from it, as they have done from the International Criminal Court (the ICC), and the original hope will be lost.  We need the ICJ to step up.

US President Donald Trump’s two-month ultimatum to reach a nuclear deal with Iran is being watched closely across the Middle East and beyond. Rather than triggering serious negotiations, this deadline exposed the enduring flaw in the West’s approach to the Islamic Republic – the persistent fantasy that Iran can be a genuine negotiating partner. Trump reinforced this stance in a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader, warning that time is running out and signalling that the US will not tolerate further stalling.

Read more