The Globe and Mail published an Op-Ed article authored by Rosalie Abella, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who contends that there is no genocide in Gaza. However, the piece lacks substantive content, predominantly relying on the authority of the author’s credentials. The arguments presented lack credibility, devoid of proper sources to substantiate their claims. Instead of building a robust case, the article leans heavily on emotional appeals to the reader, lacking the necessary factual foundation for a convincing argument.
The article begins by leveling an accusation of hypocrisy against South Africa for its failure to act on warrants from the International Criminal Court (ICC). This assertion is absurd, given Israel’s consistent refusal to adhere to judgments from all international courts, with only one exception throughout its history. It is crucial to recognize that South Africa, like any nation, may not be flawless, but imperfections do not diminish its ability to pursue a case against human rights abuses. The article highlights a double standard in holding South Africa accountable while overlooking Israel’s comparable resistance to international legal proceedings.
The article proceeds to argue that because “Hamas wants to kill Jews,” it is deemed impossible for Israel to commit genocide against Palestinians. However, this line of reasoning is flawed, as international law does not permit genocide in response to perceived threats. The Hamas Charter explicitly identifies Zionism as its enemy, not the Jewish people, recognizing them as “people of the book.” Notably, leading genocide scholar Raz Segal, an Israeli historian residing in the United States, asserts that the intent alone is insufficient for an accusation of attempted genocide; the means to commit genocide must also be considered. Hamas lacks the necessary means to carry out genocide while Israel has the means to commit genocide in Gaza. Yet, our objective is not to offer apologies or defend Hamas; rather, our focus is on highlighting the inaccuracies present in Rosalie Abella’s opinion piece.
In the subsequent section of the article, a singular legal argument emerges, asserting that Israel’s Supreme Court proclaims the nation innocent of committing crimes against Palestinians, thereby implying that all is well. However, the legitimacy of this claim raises significant skepticism, as the notion of self-investigation leading to self-exoneration lacks credibility in the eyes of many. The idea that a country can absolve itself of wrongdoing through its judicial system is inherently flawed, lacking the impartiality necessary for a fair assessment. Many argue that such a self-serving approach does not provide a credible reason for immunizing a nation from potential prosecution for crimes, including the severe charge of genocide.
This very predicament underscores the pressing need for international intervention in the matter. Relying on a nation’s internal legal processes alone may not ensure a fair and impartial evaluation, especially when addressing allegations as grave as genocide. The call for an international court to investigate and adjudicate such cases becomes increasingly important, fostering accountability and mitigating concerns of biased self-exoneration.
The principle of an international court scrutinizing allegations of genocide is grounded in the pursuit of justice and the promotion of a fair, unbiased legal process. This approach seeks to transcend national boundaries and ensure that accusations of grave crimes are thoroughly examined by an independent body, free from potential conflicts of interest. As the debate surrounding Israel’s actions unfolds, the international community may find solace and confidence in the establishment of mechanisms that transcend individual nations’ legal systems, fostering a more just and accountable world.
She then proceeds to argue that Israel cannot be held accountable for their actions as the Jewish people suffered through unimaginable horrors in the past. The notion that a nation’s founding, marked by the suffering of one of the most horrific human rights catastrophes in modern history, The Holocaust, doesn’t absolve it of potential future transgressions. While acknowledging historical hardships is important for context, it should not serve as a shield against accountability for any actions or crimes committed in subsequent years. The responsibility to uphold human rights and ethical standards remains a continuous obligation for nations, regardless of their historical origins.
Devoid of substantive legal arguments, the article resembles the opinion piece equivalent of an irate patron vehemently demanding to speak to the manager. Lacking in-depth legal analysis, it relies on assertive statements without presenting a robust foundation for its claims. The comparison highlights the perceived lack of credibility in the article, as it appears to prioritize emotional expression over a reasoned and well-supported legal stance. The article fails to contribute meaningfully to the discussions at hand.
