Useless Accountable
I freely admit that my faith in/respect for the role of law in ending or mitigating genocide has been badly eroded. From Palestinian point of view, recognize Palestine [by multiple countries in last 2 weeks] is useless, it’s beyond late for the symbolic and toothless gesture of recognising a disappearing Palestine, being eaten away and extinguished within the purview of international law. From Palestinian point of view, [afraid the recognition is] a dangerous scam, statehood recognitions are empty land acknowledgments at best, but really worse, because the genocide is ongoing and most people are only talking about it while denouncing those taking real action.
This is how power works. It defangs, then incorporates, the least radical demands of the most conservative elements in a movement as a rear-guard action of empty symbolism designed to embargo real change.
There has been nothing in my lifetime that has made me feel more impotent than the last 22.5 months. Witnessing the mother of all crimes be livestreamed while its happening to the people of Gaza, and despite protests, direct action, vote leveraging, despite massive disapproval of the population, despite it all, being utterly powerless to effect any change whatsoever to the situation on the ground, has been nothing short of blackpilling.
I don’t think world leaders fully understand the long-term implications what they’re allowing Israel to do to Gaza and the Palestinians. Or maybe they do and just don’t care. I don’t know which is worse. Palestinian rights are not a gift to be granted by western states. They are not dependent on negotiation with, or the behaviour or approval of their colonial oppressors. Palestinian have an inalienable right to self-determination - Palestinian aren't waiting for permission.
ICJ has never said that the definition of genocide [relate Israel, must] requires a "single intent." Nor does the ICJ's standard of proof preclude a finding of genocide in cases of plural intent. The definition of genocide is obviously consistent with plural intentions. If a State got up in from of the ICJ and said "well, yes, we intended to destroy a substantial part of the group, but we also intended [fill in the blank]" that is an admission, not a defense.
In December 2024, Amnesty International published a report which concluded that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the context of its military offensive on Gaza, which started on 7 October 2023 and continues at the time of writing. The report offers an analysis and interpretation of the ICJ jurisprudence, making two specific legal points: 1) genocidal intent may coexist with military goals in armed conflict situations; and 2) the “only reasonable inference” standard does not require genocidal intent to be the exclusive intent to be inferred from a pattern of conduct.
In other hand, The ICJ's standard of proof allows for a finding that the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from a pattern of conduct is that it was intended to destroy a substantial part of a group and also intended to achieve other goals. Typically, this will involve showing that some aspects of the pattern of conduct can only be fully explained by genocidal intent.
There might be a legitimate military campaign but the law doesn't allow for genocide to be done as a sidequest or any method of defense. That would leave such an enormous loophole as to render the law meaningless, or even a legalization of genocide.
The existing structures is delusion. The hope of even a modest social democracy (which is, to be clear, not remotely sufficient) has been erased entirely. To really drive the point home, the last 22 months have made it clear that you cannot protest, petition, vote, even individually assassinate your way out of this. You can’t affect change. You can’t stop the bombs. You can’t do much of anything. You can only watch. As many trolley problems as the libs cook up to try to pretend voting for the lesser genocidaire is a valid choice, the fact remains that we have an existing government who does not care one bit for what we want, does not reflect the will of the people, and does not work for us.
When polled, people in western aligned countries report being “dissatisfied with democracy” according to a poll from Pew research, however what these polls truly reflect, if one looks a bit deeper, is not so much that people do not believe in democracy, it is that what is being sold to them as democracy is not democracy at all, and they know it.
The undeniable fact that material conditions have continued to erode, that despite what you want there is no one you can elect that will provide it, that public opinion has virtually no impact on policy, is deeply felt by people even if they don’t have the exact words to express it.
It isn’t a mystery why more people sit out presidential elections in the U.S. than vote for either party. It’s even less of a surprise that people chose the “burn it all down” guy over the “keep the unacceptable status quo in place” party this time around. Global population, no longer only so called Global South, but already North that is] desperate to be heard, desperate to be reflected in governance, and is shut out of the process entirely. There is only so much bullshit you can feed a population that is incongruent with the realities of their daily lives before people start to tune you out, and live stream massacre keep going on even with protest by ‘North’ people [not only Global South].
The fact that the ICJ did not elaborate any further on the meaning and application of the “only reasonable inference” standard has led to some misinterpretations of it. In particular, some scholars construe this standard as requiring proof that genocidal intent be the only intent a perpetrator harbours (Talmon). It follows that the existence of additional goals, such as military ones in armed conflict contexts, would automatically exclude genocidal intent as the “only reasonable inference” which can be drawn from a pattern of conduct.
In its report, Amnesty International refuted this interpretation as both incompatible with the Genocide Convention and a misreading of the “only reasonable inference” standard itself (pp. 101-105). First, scholars have pointed out that the above interpretation conflates a matter of substance with an evidentiary standard (Dill; Vasiliev). Indeed, the coexistence of genocidal intent and additional motives, or goals when referring to state intent, has to do with the definition of genocide, which is a substantive matter. The “only reasonable inference” standard, instead, constitutes a method of evaluation of indirect evidence.
With regard to the definition of genocide, the above interpretation even fails to recall that international jurisprudence has consistently acknowledged that genocidal intent can coexist with additional motives (Tams, Berster and Schiffbauer, p. 162). The ICTY has explained that “[t]he personal motive of the perpetrator of the crime of genocide may be, for example, to obtain personal economic benefits, or political advantage or some form of power. The existence of a personal motive does not preclude the perpetrator from also having the specific intent to commit genocide” (Jelisić, para. 49; see also ICTR Niyitegeka, paras. 51-53). With respect to state intent, the ICJ reaffirmed that “[t]he specific intent is also to be distinguished from other reasons or motives the perpetrator may have” (Bosnia v. Serbia, para. 189). And in his separate opinion in the ICJ Croatia v. Serbia case, Judge Bhandari also stated that “genocidal intent may exist simultaneously with other, ulterior motives” (para. 50, emphasis in the original).
The latter point is particularly relevant to situations of armed conflict, where a state will invariably pursue specific military goals. If the existence of such goals automatically precluded an assessment of genocidal intent, then the prohibition on genocide in armed conflict would be meaningless – countering the very letter of Article I of the Genocide Convention, which expressly prohibits genocide “in time of war”. Instead, the correct – and logical – reading is that a state’s conduct may serve both the goal of achieving certain military results and the specific intent to destroy a protected group as such (Akayesu, para. 127); genocide may even be the means for achieving such military results (Judge Cançado Trindade, para. 144; Daniele, Perugini and Albanese, p. 33). As noted by Adil Haque, this clearly emerges from the ICTY and ICJ jurisprudence concerning the genocide committed in Srebrenica, where it was shown that “[g]enocidal intent coexisted with […] other intentions, and genocide was committed in parallel with and as a means of pursuing other aims”.
Moreover, the interpretation of the “only reasonable inference” standard as requiring genocidal intent to be the sole or exclusive intent basically misunderstands what this standard requires. In fact, a textual analysis of the quoted passages from the ICJ’s jurisprudence shows that the object of the inference is the “existence” of genocidal intent (Bosnia v. Serbia, para. 373; Croatia v. Serbia, para. 148; see also Tolimir, para. 745). In other words, the available evidence must convincingly demonstrate that the “only inference” which can “reasonably” be drawn from a pattern of conduct is that genocidal intent exists as part of the intent underlying the conduct of a state. The ICJ – or the international criminal tribunals, for that matter (e.g. Karera, para. 534) – never stated that such an inferential operation should prove genocidal intent to be exclusive, meaning that additional goals must not be present for the “only reasonable inference” standard to be met.
Instead, applying this standard means “filter[ing] out inferences that are not reasonable” and considering only “alternative explanations that have been found to be reasonably supported by the evidence” (Six States intervention, para. 52; Spain intervention, para. 25). Thus, “[a] balanced consideration of the interplay between motives and intent should determine whether motives ‘preclude such a specific intent’ to destroy a people, or whether they are consistent with, or even confirm, genocidal intent as the only reasonable inference” (UN Special Rapporteur OPT, para. 53(a)). It follows that “if the pattern of conduct can be fully explained by a non-genocidal intent, then the standard of proof is not satisfied. But if the pattern of conduct can be fully explained only by a combination of genocidal intent and non-genocidal intent, then the standard of proof is satisfied” (Haque).
Amnesty International’s reading of the “only reasonable inference” standard is not only widely held among scholars (e.g. Gurmendi; Vasiliev; Shaw; Lieblich; Anderson; Dill and Dannenbaum, p. 673) but also, as discussed below, increasingly being expressed by states.
Should the ICJ’s “only reasonable inference” standard be interpreted as precluding the co-existence of genocidal intent with military goals, it will effectively be doing just that – foreclosing possibilities for justice and accountability when states pursue the destruction of a protected group alongside or as a means to fulfil their military goals. As Amnesty International’s report concludes, “it is critical to recognize genocide when it occurs in the context of armed conflict, and to insist that war can never excuse it”
======
==========================
If you feel powerless to help Gaza, you still has a choice: donate. When so much of what exists is false, authenticity is a powerful weapon we can wield that the state never could. So if you feel lost, hopeless, depressed, angry and afraid, I implore you to return - again and again - to the feeling of love that exists within you that brought you here in the first place. It is only through this that we can remake the world.
Please keep donate Gaza especially if you, as reader, has [background] International Relation [whatever universities]. IR Graduate means [you must, at least] get some semester [about] studying Middle East [in macro, not specifically Gaza].
We need more people to share fundraisers instead of only talking about Gaza. Some people think that those in Gaza don't need money but that's wrong. Almost everyone lost their source of income while essentials, food & medicine get sold for astronomical prices. So I put my attempt in all social media as I can, in twitter / X, in substack [since October 2023 I put link donation], in bluesky or bsky, in threads, in instagram.
Link to donate World Food Programme - Palestine appeal: click here
[Daniel Brühl]
Most campaign shared or circulated in social media are for REAL people in Gaza. They're legit. There are a lot of small campaigns for struggling families. This is their only lifeline. By donating & sharing, you are literally making history and alleviating part of their pain
Please do not rely on me alone for sharing your campaign. I'm only 1 person and sometimes I'm not online which is unreliable. I never ignore anybody on purpose but I have a very limited capacity & very little energy and time.
[Refaat Alareer IF I MUST DIE] Refaat Alareer was extremely hungry, November 2023, days before killed by Israel airstrike. If November 2023 already [one-by-one Gazan] extremely hungry, imagine August 2025.
Thanks for reading Prada’s Newsletter!