‘Genocide’ claim turns humanitarian law on its head

Henry Ergas turns a typical laser-like focus on South Africa’s International Court of Justice genocide claim against Israel (“No justice in ‘genocide’ case against Israel”, 19/1). As he writes, genocide, previously a “crime without a name”, as Winston Churchill described Nazi Germany’s atrocities, is defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention as international law’s most heinous crime. Whether committed in time of war or otherwise, its essence lies in intent to exterminate members of a national, racial, ethnicity or religion.

For South Africa, apparently silent in the face of terrible events on its own continent, to make such a grave allegation against Israel makes a mockery of that convention’s clear intent. Indeed, it turns international law on its head. Any intent to destroy a nation was surely that of Hamas against Israel, a nation now lawfully defending itself against the horrors of October 7 and to rescue those held hostage. It is Hamas and its promoters with their stated intent to repeat those horrors who should be standing in the international dock, not Israel.

John Kidd, Surfers Paradise, Qld

In his commentary piece on Friday Henry Ergas describes how the International Court of Justice’s definition of the law in relation to genocide has been interpreted too widely to protect justifiable self-defence actions.

Also in The Australian on Friday Alexi Demetriadi reports on the decision of NSW Premier Minns to authorise a formal review of NSW hate speech laws (“Clerics trigger hate speech probe”, 19/1). This review will help to clarify if the laws are being interpreted widely enough for the protection of individuals and to promote social cohesion within our multicultural way of life.

These two journalists, when read together, highlight the pivotal role of the personal commitment of politicians, the media and our many committed community organisations. None of our formal institutions, such as the parliament, the courts, not even the executive, operates in a value-free void. Our final protection for individual and group democracy is the will of the people who are the real Australia. The problems described by Ergas and Demetriadi are not the problems of others. If Australia Day is to mean anything, it must mean that every one of us must be interested enough to access our politicians and media to inform a participative, free, inclusive nation.

Vincent Hodge, Paddington, Qld

With respect to South Africa bringing Israel before the International Court of Justice on the charge of genocide, Henry Ergas eminently argues that under the Genocide Convention “the term’s legal, intensely political, meaning has lost all moorings in history and common sense”.

Unlike Hamas, which openly declares its intent through its own charter to destroy the Jewish state and its people, Israel obviously has no such intent to destroy the Palestinians, in whole or in part.

But under international humanitarian law, this focus on the term genocide sidesteps the fact there are many other terms that exist to mitigate against the slaughter of innocent civilians, without limiting the ability of nations to defend themselves. Terms such as war crimes, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and collective punishment also codify prohibitions against the mistreatment of civilians.

Ultimately, however, not one of these agreements, legally forged among the civilised nations of the world, can fully alleviate the toll of human suffering of noncombatants that inevitably comes with the horrors of war.

Vincent Zankin, Rivett, ACT

Henry Ergas has successfully tackled the meaning of the now hackneyed word genocide. He argues that the term is weaponised to be fit for purpose, when authoritarian regimes sense they are losing any conflict against the US or its allies. Therefore it is a competent, useful propaganda tool when situations become dire.

The immediate example is the increasingly complex contemporary theatre of war, which began with the mass slaughter of innocents in Israel, on October 7 last year. Israel’s correct retaliation is now disputed by its enemies and cited as “genocidal”. Henry’s explanation gives transparency and understanding to an overused and misused word.

Aviva Rothschild, Caulfield North, Vic