Amnesty International decided on its own definition of "genocide" in its 296-page blood libel report released today.
I touched upon this, but the language is incredible:
The jurisprudence on genocidal intent on the part of a state is more limited. The ICJ has accepted that, in the absence of direct proof, specific intent may be established indirectly by inference for purposes of state responsibility, and has adopted much of the reasoning of the international tribunals. However, its rulings on inferring intent can be read extremely narrowly, in a manner that would potentially preclude a state from having genocidal intent alongside one or more additional motives or goals in relation to the conduct of its military operations. As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict. The organization considers that the Genocide Convention must be interpreted in a manner that ensures that genocide remains prohibited in both peacetime and in war and that ICJ jurisprudence should not be read to effectively preclude a finding of genocide during war.
Later on, it admits that it is not following the ICJ's own standards on determining genocidal intent:
The ICJ has held that “in order to infer the existence of dolus specialis from a pattern of conduct, it is necessary and sufficient that this is the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from the acts in question”, meaning that “intent to destroy the group, in whole or in part, must be the only reasonable inference which can be drawn from the pattern of conduct.”CAUTIONARY COMMENTS ON ICJ’S STANDARD ON INTENT In his dissenting opinion in Croatia v. Serbia, Judge Cançado Trindade argued that the ICJ “seems to have imposed too high a threshold for the determination of mens rea of genocide” and that the standard of proof adopted by the majority is “entirely inadequate for the determination of State responsibility”.
So the ICJ is not international law - but the dissenting opinion is.
The way Amnesty tries to fudge this is the constant use of the word "jurisprudence" instead of "international law." Jurisprudence is anything legal scholars say, and they can and do often contradict each other. Amnesty is pretending that there is a baseline of accepted jurisprudence that supports its unique interpretation of international law, but there isn't. They are deciding what the jurisprudence is and presenting it as accepted legal fact.
According to Amnesty, the determination of genocide must be done "holistically." Which means that every other case where Amnesty twists international law specifically against Israel must be considered as part of the whole:
[T]he jurisprudence and commentary above suggest that the evidence for a state’s intent must be approached and considered holistically; it must be assessed based on direct, contextual and circumstantial evidence, alongside the existence of a pattern of conduct. Second, the context in which Israel’s military campaign took place must be part of this holistic examination. This includes its unlawful military occupation of the OPT, including Gaza, and the system of apartheid it imposes on Palestinians
Except that Amnesty made up a new definition of "apartheid" to apply only to Israel.
It also made up its own definition of occupation that contradicts its own previous definition to apply only to Israel.
This is damning. It is a clear pattern of literally making up legal definitions that apply to Israel and Israel only.
The "holistic" view that Amnesty pretends proves "genocide" is a house of cards built on Amnesty's own earlier lies.
(h/t Mark Goldfeder)
|
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. Read all about it here! |
|
