War Crimes, Genocide, and Crimes Against Humanity, Explained 

What certain fighting words mean and why they matter.

By
15
Friends and family pay their respects at the joint funerals of Dana and Carmel Becher, a mother and son who were killed during the Hamas attack of October 7 on Kibbutz Be'eri. (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)

Almost immediately after Hamas’ October 7 incursion into Israel, in which its terrorists killed more than 1,400 people and took more than 200 hostages—including children and elderly—it faces accusations of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. 

U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, for example, said in an October 19 letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken that Hamas’ actions went beyond terrorism, but included “the full range of atrocity crimes under international law.”

Accusations of any of these crimes carry hefty legal and moral implications—beyond geopolitical polemics—and unfounded accusations damage the causes of real victims of atrocity. 

How are war crimes defined?

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
15
By
Comments (15)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Scarlette Tarte

    "...inhumane acts … committed in the contexts of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the INTENTION OF MAINTAINING THAT REGIME."

    So the people who accuse Israel of Apartheid are right? Because Israel does refuse right of return, the do dominate and they do systematically suppress another racial group, with the intention of maintaining a Jewish majority Israel.

    Pretty cut and dried here. People will argue, "well, yeah, but if they let all the Palestinians in or let the citizens of Israel marry and give citizenship to those Palestinians, they will lose the Jewish state".

    Yeah, I get that. But that's also a pretty clear definition of Apartheid.

    Why not just say ok, no Apartheid except for Israel? Because that is essentially what we are saying.

    Then explain why one racial group is better than another, in this particular instance.

    Or change the definition of Apartheid.

    As far as genocide, yeah, that's exactly what Hamas wants to do.

    So maybe we could say "no Apartheid unless other racial groups want to end your racial group".

    This is why making legalities around war is sick. War is sick...a breakdown of order, a tipping over of humanity into abysses of hatred. Trying to impose laws and order on war is like screwing for virginity.

    War is an absence of order, especially legal order. Hence the expression, "all's fair in love and war".

    Collapse
    1. Kusk90

      1. The distinction between Israelis and Palestinians is not racial, which is an explicit part of the definition of apartheid. A large amount of Israeli citizens are from the same racial group and national origin as the Palestinians.
      2. Palestinians are ruled by their own government and and not citizens of Israel. Whatever rights they have in area A of the west Bank and Gaza is determined by their own leaders.
      3. What "inhumane acts … committed in the contexts of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression" is Israel doing? Israel stays out of Palestinian areas except for security and counter terrorism (such as responding to a barbaric massacre). Refusing the right of return if hardly systematic oppression (also, I think you confused oppress and suppress)
      4. I don't understand the emphasis on "intention of maintaining that regime". Israel has offered multiple peace deals, how does that fit in with those alleged intentions?

      Collapse
  2. Samuel Mpona

    Terms that would have been very useful to explain here:Ethnic Cleaning, Apartheid, Occupation, Colonization, Right to Self Determination

    Collapse
    1. Uriah

      I presume you apply these keywords to the guilty party: the Palestinians and the Iranians. Many Western individuals and groups share same intent and welcome the practice.

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Aylene Wright

    Very interesting, but reading this kind of legal analysis, actually makes me agree with Jonah regarding the limits of the strictly legal approach to judgement and punishment of immoral acts. Arguing over the exact legal definition of war crimes, genocides, and crimes against humanity, seems quite theoretical and not really relevant to the actual victims.

    Also, I think that these definitions overlook one crucial aspect of the attempts by Hamas apologists to establish moral equivalence between the sides. Many (even in TD comments) have responded to reports of Hamas terrorists murdering babies with "whatabout all the Palestinian babies that the Zionists killed"?

    The obvious rebuttal to this whataboutism, is to say, there's a big difference between deliberate, premeditated murder of a baby, and the death of a baby as a regrettable collateral damage from an airstrike.

    But it occurs to me that per the doctrines of critical theory and systemic racism, there actually is no moral difference between the two deaths, because in this way of thinking, intent doesn't actually matter.

    Indeed, they actually see Israel as more culpable for unintended but foreseeable civilian deaths, than Hamas is for intended civilian deaths, merely because they are the oppressor and Hamas as representative of oppressed Palestinians. Per this way of thinking, even a "peaceful" death of a baby in Gaza from malnutrition, is a worse "crime against humanity" by Israel, than a very violent death of a baby in Israel at the hands of a Hamas terrorist, is by Hamas.

    Now, I don't actually agree with this way of interpreting atrocities at all. But when I think about it, it actually makes sense. As I have said before, many pro-Palestinian people, see Israel as Russia, and Palestine as Ukraine. Mehdi Hasan recently made the same point.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      BrandonAlleman

      It's gross to talk about but I do have a hard time seeing the difference intent (or maybe more specifically malice (edit)) makes when comparing dead babies. Rationally I can see the argument for the difference but the end result is still the same and equally devastating. On the flipside to your complaints about TD commentators, I feel TD is not reporting the Palestinian deaths and commentators are blowing off mentions of them as all Hamas's fault as if that makes them not worth noting and then implying that to talk about them is to do the work of terrorist public relations or anti-semitism. There seems to be a knee jerk reaction not to talk about it at all in response to the feeling that MSM is talking about it too much. I was hoping for TD to model the correct reporting techniques as the war progresses but thus far I feel they have rightly pointed out other's errors but have some blind spots in their own coverage which seems to me, thus far, to be talking around the fact of these deaths.

      Collapse
      1. Uriah

        You must be fair and admit you also do not report Palestinian and Israeli deaths especially the beak-down into Hamas/Jihad deliberate and collateral deaths and the Israel-caused ones. The available picture supports the conclusion that it is Hamas/Jihad/Iran responsibility for all the suffering on both sides and globally.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          BrandonAlleman

          I am not sure if you are talking to me specifically. I'm not a news organization. I would like to see as much reporting, detail, and nuance as possible on the day to day events and casualties since October 7 in both Gaza and Israel.

          Collapse
    2. Drew Lindsay

      This is a really weird invocation of critical theory and systemic racism.

      You can do a much better “what about” without that strange summoning. You can simply say that your “regrettable” framing is way too generous, and that the Israeli government has been perfectly willing to kill and starve tens of thousands for a relatively unclear
      Benefit…which some might say disproves “regrettably.”

      I’m not even advocating that position o just think can do a much better
      Job describing the argument

      Collapse
    3. Brandon Hartley

      I agree with you in large part, Aylene. There isn't a moral equivalency here and it seems foolish to even pretend otherwise. I think Sam Harris has a great take on all of this by looking at the after-effects of civilian deaths. There are horrors in any war, but how those horrors are treated is noteworthy. Are civilian deaths celebrated or condemned? That is an essential difference.

      The problem I see with the whole "civilian deaths are a regrettable consequence of defending ourselves" is that there is no expression of a limiting principle. The logic of that statement could, taken to its extreme, justify killing the entire population. If the goal is to completely destroy Hamas and Hamas will always hide within the population, what is the limit to what is justifiable? There needs to be one that is reasonable. I struggle to justify the hundreds of thousands of deaths that we caused directly and indirectly after 9/11. It doesn't seem anti-Semitic or pro-Hamas to note that there is a point at which civilian casualties become unjust. To be clear, I don't think Israel has gotten anywhere near that point yet, but I can see a future in which it could.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Scarlette Tarte

        The whole 'framing' of any war into "good guys and bad guys" is wrong.

        War is politics made hot...can't get something you want politically, go to war. And in war, there are no good guys, just the side whose political aims you support.

        Trying to have a 'just war' theory is obscene. All wars are unjust. Even if they have to happen, even if it's Hitler, it's humanity losing. We are not smart enough to figure out a way around it.

        We are not honest enough to admit it's really about interests, and not some all good white knights standing against some all bad black nights.

        "War is hell". William Tecumseh Sherman first wrote this idea in a letter to city leaders of Atlanta, as they asked him to spare the town. He wrote "War is cruelty and you cannot refine it". He later shortened that to the pithy "War is Hell", when speaking to a group of cadets at Michigan Military Academy.

        Some of you may even think Sherman was horrible for his idea of making war against the southern plantation owners, whose dollars and livestock supported the confederate war effort.

        I happen to agree with him. Its almost more merciful, paradoxically, to just go ahead and make war against a people in total...at least it can make the whole bloody business over more quickly.

        There is no "just or unjust' in war. It's all horrible and all sides do horrible things to try to break their enemies, so to "win".

        Some side will win, eventually, in this case, most likely Israel. But please stop with trying to make Israel "the good guys" - they are going to probably do some god awful stuff that will make thousands of young men and women have regretful nightmares for the rest of their lives, and so will Hamas and the civilians, on both sides, will suffer unimaginable trauma.

        That's the reality of war.

        I hate war, but recognize that sometimes, all else fails. It has to be done. But the rah rahing and cheering of one side or the other does not. It's grim business. Best thing to do is get it over with quickly.

        One more thing. We need to stop denigrating both the Jews and the Arabs that are protesting this war. And any other antiwar people. They are actually right. We really should be past making war on each other by now. That we are not is a human failure, and it's a damn good thing to have people around that are reminding us of our failures.

        Collapse
    4. Danny Cash

      If Ukraine wins what happens to the Russian people...nothing. A liberated Ukraine will not seek vengeance on the civilian population of Russia. If Hamas wins what happens to Israeli people, they will finish what Hitler started, we know this because of Oct 7.

      Collapse
      1. Deleted Comment

        This comment has been deleted

      2. Avatar photo
        Aylene Wright

        Yeah, I don't agree with this Israel = Russia framing at all, but that concept really helped me to understand the anti-Israel side a bit more.

        PS: Also, even if Israel = Russia was accurate, that doesn't automatically mean that Hamas = Ukraine.

        Collapse
        1. Deleted Comment

          This comment has been deleted