Seth Eisenberg
Times of Israel, July 15, 2025
“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.”
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. ….SOURCE