Signatories to the 1948 Genocide Convention (of which Israel is one) pledge that genocide “is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.” Shany Mor draws the logical conclusion:

Israel’s war in Gaza is not a violation of its commitments as a contracting party to the 1948 Genocide Convention. It is, in fact, a fulfillment of its obligations under the treaty. . . . For Israel to do nothing in the face of Hamas’s actions on October 7, or to cut its actions short and somehow acquiesce to a reality where that orgy of murder, rape, torture, and abduction would recur, would be a violation of the first article of the Convention.

The question of why the Jewish state was on trial two weeks ago at the International Court of Justice cannot be answered by examining Israel’s actions, but the thinking of its accusers. Mor continues:

Hanging over any discussion of Israel and any discussion of Jews and violence is the long, unremitting, and unfading shadow of the Shoah. It is impossible to understand just how much Israel bothers Western intellectuals without understanding how much the Holocaust bothers them. Haunts them. Frightens them. And, occasionally, thrills them.

Hauling the Jews in to plead their case before a special tribunal and face the charge that they are the real Nazis has been the fantasy of every anti-Semite since the first gavel hit a sound block in Nuremberg in 1946. It is the dark fantasy behind the insistence over decades on speaking of controversial Israeli actions always in terms of “war crimes.” This, and not a poor grasp of complex legal arguments, is the reason every Israeli military action in the last half-century has been criticized as “collective punishment” or “disproportionate.”

As long as the Shoah looms large in the civilized conscience, there will be those among us who project our fears and our discomfort in the most transparent way. The damage from this obsession is enormous, both to the cause of human rights and to the people this obsession claims to care about, the still-stateless Palestinians.

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.