Seth Eisenberg
Practical Skills for Emotional Release, Healing, and ConnectionFOLLOW
THE BLOGS
My Blog
About Me
Contact MeAPPLY FOR A BLOG
Respectfully, Professor Bartov: This Is Not Genocide
JUL 15, 2025, 5:45 PM
SHARE
17
Please note that the posts on The Blogs are contributed by third parties. The opinions, facts and any media content in them are presented solely by the authors, and neither The Times of Israel nor its partners assume any responsibility for them. Please contact us in case of abuse. In case of abuse,
Report this post.
Created by the author.
In his New York Times opinion piece, “I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It,” Dr. Omer Bartov of Brown University expresses his anguished belief that Israel’s war in Gaza now constitutes genocide. While his emotional and moral struggle is evident, and his credentials respected, his argument fails under scrutiny — both legally and factually.
Let’s examine his core assertions one by one.
1. “The scale and nature of destruction can no longer be seen as mere collateral damage.”
Dr. Bartov argues that the devastation in Gaza points to genocidal intent. The human suffering is indeed immense and deeply tragic — but intent matters.
Collateral damage, no matter how extensive, does not equal genocide without clear intent to destroy a people. Israel has been explicit: its aim is to eliminate Hamas, not the Palestinian population. That distinction is not rhetorical — it is legal. Under international law, intent is what distinguishes war crimes (which should be investigated) from genocide. Civilians tragically caught in war do not make that war genocidal.
2. “Statements by Israeli officials show genocidal intent.”
Bartov cites inflammatory rhetoric from a handful of Israeli politicians. It’s true — some of these statements are appalling and deserve unequivocal condemnation. But selective quotes, often taken out of context, do not constitute state policy.
If genocidal intent were official, we would not see:
- Evacuation warnings sent to civilians.
- Phone calls and leaflets urging movement to safer areas.
- Humanitarian corridors — even when Hamas has blocked them.
- Ongoing efforts to deliver aid.
These actions, while not flawless, show that the IDF’s goals remain focused on Hamas — not on eradicating Palestinians.
3. “Israel’s campaign is genocidal because it targets civilians’ ability to survive.”
Bartov points to the destruction of infrastructure — water, hospitals, food systems — as evidence of genocidal design. But again, this ignores the military realities of urban warfare against an enemy that embeds itself in exactly those locations.
Hospitals and schools in Gaza have long been used by Hamas to store weapons, shield commanders, and launch attacks. This is a tragedy and a war crime — but committed by Hamas. While the destruction is heartbreaking, its existence in a war zone does not itself prove genocidal intent. It reflects the deeply immoral and asymmetric tactics of Hamas, which has turned Gaza’s civilians into human shields.
4. “Public calls for annihilation echo biblical language of total destruction.”
Bartov invokes biblical references and fringe public figures calling for wiping out Gaza. But citing fringe voices or ancient texts doesn’t prove genocide. Israel is a democracy. Policy is not dictated by religious extremists or TikTok commentators — it’s shaped by the elected government, military officials, and judicial system.
The IDF is still governed by rules of engagement, subject to international oversight, and (as Israel has shown repeatedly) is willing to investigate itself — something almost no other military in the region does.
5. “The outcome alone proves genocide — even if the original intent didn’t.”
Bartov suggests that consequences now constitute genocide, regardless of original intentions. But this claim dangerously rewrites international law. If genocide were defined by death tolls or destruction alone, any modern war — including US campaigns in Iraq or Russia’s in Chechnya — could be labeled genocide. This not only weakens the definition but insults victims of actual genocides that were rooted in racial, ethnic, or religious hatred — with clear, documented goals of extermination.
Israel is not targeting Palestinians because they are Palestinians. It is fighting Hamas, a terrorist organization that has murdered, tortured, raped, and kidnapped its citizens. That war is ugly, heartbreaking, and costly — but not genocidal.
Moral Clarity Requires Legal Precision
None of this is to excuse unnecessary suffering or shield Israel from accountability. Israeli leaders and military actions must be scrutinized. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza demands urgent attention, and policies must prioritize civilian protection wherever possible.
But to label this genocide — in the legal, moral, and historical sense — is to distort both the term and the truth. It is to undermine justice, not serve it. And it is to risk weaponizing one of humanity’s most solemn words in the service of politics and despair.
We must grieve every innocent life lost. We must advocate for peace, dignity, and safety — for Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druse and other groups alike. But we must also protect the integrity of international law by using its language responsibly.
Professor Bartov’s heartbreak is real. But his conclusion is wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment