Yesterday Amnesty International released a report accusing Israel of genocide. It begins with the Genocide Convention, then uses evidence from hundreds of eye witnesses, satellite images, and statements of Israeli leaders in an attempt to prove that what Israel is doing meets the definition of genocide the convention spells out.
Lots of people are criticising the content of the report and Amnesty’s dismissal of Hamas’s responsibility for any of the tragedy that has unfolded. But here’s a question I don’t see anyone asking. Isn’t this a duplication of the exact work the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is supposed to be doing in the case brought against Israel by South Africa? All the rulings last winter and spring were preliminary, for the sole purpose of imposing temporary measures aimed at stabilizing the situation. In October South Africa submitted its evidence of genocide, and now Israel has until next July 28th to reply. After that the court will deliberate and eventually decide whether Israel is violating the Genocide Convention or not.
So why did Amnesty release now what is essentially its own opinion on how the ICJ should rule? One possibility is that they are so anxious to ratchet up political pressure on Israel they can’t wait for the ICJ to decide the case. Or maybe they are afraid the ICJ will find Israel not guilty, and want to get their two cents in first. Or is their report an attempt to influence the final decision of the ICJ, laying out a roadmap for the ICJ to come to a guilty verdict?
However you cut it, it’s not good. Due process of law is a basic human right. This means that criminal guilt can only be decided by a fair and impartial court, not citizens, no matter how knowledgeable or fair they claim to be. So if an individual is accused of a crime, for some non- government organization to leap up and tell the world, ‘No need to wait for a judge- we’re experts and so we went and collected evidence on our own and now declare with complete certainty that this defendant is guilty!’ is wrong and a violation of the defendant’s rights. What’s true for an individual should also be true for a country.
There’s an important reason. A court is obligated to hear evidence from both sides. Israel has cooperated fully with the genocide case at the ICJ, and is now compiling its rebuttal of South Africa’s proof. Israel is entitled to present its evidence and have it considered by the judges. Amnesty is accountable to no one. It can seek evidence from only whatever sources it chooses and disregard anything it dislikes.
If some individual was accused of a heinous crime, then arrested and brought to court, Amnesty would (I hope) tell whatever mob of angry, bloodthirsty citizen that might surround the courthouse that they cannot take justice into their own hands. Rather, they must understand that the defendant has a presumption of innocence and wait patiently for the legal process to play out. By jumping in here and announcing their own conclusion that Israel is guilty, Amnesty is in effect joining and fueling the mob.
If Amnesty released this now because they are afraid the ICJ may eventually decide in Israel’s favor, it’s even worse. Amnesty and other human rights organizations have been trumpeting the ICJ advisory opinion on the occupation and the interim measures it imposed in the genocide case as legitimizing their stance against Israel, saying the impartial and wonderful ICJ has endorsed their view. It’s sheer hypocrisy to turn to the ICJ for validation but then attempt to usurp its role and delegitimize it as soon as there is any fear its rulings may not be in line with what they want.
If this report is an attempt to lay out a roadmap for the ICJ to reach a guilty verdict and pressure it in that direction, that’s obviously wrong. Any judicial process is predicated on judges being able to reach an independent decision based on the evidence they are presented without influence or intimidation from outside sources. I’d go so far as to say that even if the ICJ does eventually find Israel guilty, that verdict can now be seen as tainted by this pejorative Amnesty release.
Amnesty is entitled to point out what it sees as humanitarian violations by Israel and to express its views on the conflict. But this report is yet another example of unaccountable, unelected human rights NGOs trampling on rights in their zest to fight for a popular cause, giving human rights a bad name in the process. What a shame.