In January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an interim ruling requiring Israel to take urgent measures to prevent statements that incite genocide. This ruling was part of a case brought by South Africa against Israel, accusing it of violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The accusations are based on statements made by certain Israeli officials, as well as the massacres and serious violations committed by the Israeli military in the Gaza Strip during the ongoing war that began on October 7, 2023.
In its ruling, the court adopted what are known as "provisional measures," which are binding orders aimed at protecting the rights of all parties until a final verdict is issued. These measures included preventing inciteful statements, with the court mandating that Israel prevent any statements by its officials, or any entity under its control, that could incite genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
The court also stressed the importance of punishing anyone involved in incitement to genocide or participation in such acts. Additionally, it stressed the necessity of ensuring that Palestinians in Gaza have access to essential services, including food, water, and other humanitarian aid. The court demanded that Israel guarantee no restrictions are imposed that would hinder the delivery of this aid and prevent actions that endanger the lives of Palestinians.
The interim decision was widely praised by human rights organizations and international bodies, which called on Israel to promptly comply with the court's orders. Conversely, Israel rejected the accusations as "baseless," despite numerous indications that the Israeli occupation has committed massacres in the Gaza Strip.
As part of the ruling, the court required Israel to submit regular reports on the measures it is taking to comply with these orders. The court emphasized that these measures are provisional and that the case will continue in court until a final judgment is issued.
EU Weighs Sanctions Against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich
On Thursday, August 29, media reports revealed that European Union foreign ministers are deliberating sanctions against Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. The potential sanctions are in response to accusations that the ministers have incited war crimes against Palestinians. The discussions follow controversial statements from Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, including calls to cut off fuel and aid to Gaza and to starve civilians, which have sparked widespread international concern.
Josep Borrell, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, announced that he is consulting with EU member states about potentially adding certain Israeli ministers to the sanctions list. Borrell underscored the necessity of holding accountable those who propagate hate speech and endorse policies that violate international law.
BBC Publishes Report on Israel’s Measures To Prevent Incitement in Gaza
On August 26, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) released a report examining whether Israel has taken adequate measures to prevent incitement to genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
The report examines statements made by some Israeli officials, including Nissim Vaturi and Itamar Ben-Gvir, which have sparked widespread concern internationally and led South Africa to file a lawsuit against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
The BBC explained that it reviewed Israeli statements made since the ICJ's ruling to assess their compliance with the court's orders. The report also mentioned that it consulted legal experts for their professional evaluation.
Although the ruling was primarily directed at Israel, the report also examined the language used by some Hamas officials in their speeches.
The report concluded by referencing statements from the Israeli Ministry of Justice, which highlighted the challenges Israel faces in balancing “the constitutional right to freedom of speech… while safeguarding against harmful incitement,” affirming that "law enforcement authorities constantly act to curtail incitement crimes."
Misbar Identifies Pro-Israel Bias in BBC Report
Misbar has identified a bias in favor of Israel in a BBC report concerning incitement to genocide amid the ongoing war. The report emphasizes the difficulties in proving incitement, which could be perceived as an effort to downplay the gravity of the accusations against Israel. By framing Israeli incitement as a matter of interpretation and debate, the report might unintentionally mitigate the impact of the allegations.
Misbar noted that the report underscores the challenges of proving incitement to genocide while also defining genocide as acts intended to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. This approach reflects a tendency to present the legal context in a way that complicates and obscures the issue of incitement. It is interpreted as an attempt to downplay and legally justify controversial Israeli statements by focusing on the legal complexities that make incitement subject to interpretation and debate.
Furthermore, the report points out the challenges in distinguishing between incitement to genocide, incitement to violence or racism, and what might fall under the scope of freedom of expression. This perspective adds complexity to the issue for the public, aiming to portray Israeli incitement as a matter of debate rather than a straightforward violation of international law.
In its report, the BBC referred to Israeli incitement to genocide in Gaza as "alleged," reflecting skepticism or a lack of definitive confirmation. This term is used in journalistic contexts to indicate that the claims require further verification or have not yet been definitively proven. This usage may lead the audience to view it as diminishing the seriousness of the accusations or questioning their credibility.
Discrepancies in BBC Coverage: Arabic vs. English Versions
Misbar reviewed the BBC report published in both Arabic and English on its websites and noted significant differences in style and content between the two versions.
In the English version, the term "alleged" was used to describe Israeli statements, both in the headline and the body of the text, which suggests skepticism about their validity. In contrast, this term was not used in the Arabic version, where the information was presented without such a qualifier, neither in the headline nor in the content.
Misbar also observed differences in how the complexity of proving incitement to genocide is addressed in the two versions. The English version links the difficulty of proving incitement to the concept of freedom of expression, implying that the statements might be considered non-inciteful. This approach could be seen as an attempt to justify or downplay the seriousness of the accusations. In contrast, the Arabic version acknowledges the difficulty of proving incitement but does not directly tie it to freedom of expression, resulting in a less pointed presentation of the issue to the Arab audience.
These differences between the two versions indicate a variation in the treatment of the topic based on the target audience, reflecting distinct editorial strategies.
Can Israeli Statements Be Classified as Freedom of Expression?
In examining the concept of freedom of expression under international laws, particularly as outlined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) website, it is affirmed that every individual has the right to hold and express opinions without interference.
In contrast, Article 20 of the ICCPR explicitly prohibits any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that incites discrimination, hostility, or violence. It also bans propaganda or incitement to war, which contradicts the report’s suggestion that Israeli incitement could be considered within the bounds of freedom of expression.
It is crucial to note that international conventions and human rights laws clarify that freedom of expression is not an absolute right; it is subject to limitations that safeguard the rights of others and the public interest. Thus, incitement to violence or hatred is not covered under the protection of freedom of expression.
Dr. Mutaz Qafisheh, an expert in international law, explained to Misbar that "legally, freedom of expression cannot be equated with incitement under any circumstances, as no form of incitement is protected by freedom of expression." He further stated, "We are discussing incitement to genocide here. If this were not substantiated, the International Court of Justice would not have ordered Israel to stop incitement to genocide. The situation on the ground demonstrates clear and direct incitement by Israel to genocide, along with the implementation of these incitements in the Gaza Strip."
The Genocide Convention, an international treaty aimed at the prevention and punishment of genocide, defines genocide as an act committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. The convention requires state parties to take all necessary measures to prevent and punish this crime. Additionally, Article 3 of the convention stipulates penalties for direct and public incitement to commit genocide, as well as for conspiracy to commit and attempts to execute such acts.
Selection of Sources and Perspectives in the Report
Misbar also noted that the report heavily relies on quotes from Israeli officials, prominently featuring their inciteful statements while simultaneously seeking to provide justifications or explanations for these remarks.
For instance, the report notes that some opinions argue these statements do not meet the threshold of incitement to genocide, which seems to be an attempt to downplay the severity of the criticisms directed at Israel. Additionally, much of the commentary is sourced from Israeli lawyers and institutions, raising concerns about the diversity of sources and the report's overall impartiality.
In this context, the report includes a statement from Anne Herzberg, identified as a legal advisor at "NGO Monitor," an organization known for reporting on the activities of international NGOs from a pro-Israel perspective, as mentioned in the description, and which is originally an Israeli organization.
In her statement to the BBC, Herzberg explained that, while she does not defend the Israeli statements, she does not believe they rise to the level of incitement to genocide. The report emphasizes this viewpoint, suggesting that the statements do not represent a clear call for genocide, which appears to be an effort to justify the inciteful remarks and downplay their seriousness.
The report also includes another statement from Herzberg, who claims that Hamas is the group intending to commit genocide but is not being investigated. This claim seems to be an attempt to shift the focus away from the accusations against Israel, redirecting the blame toward Hamas to absolve Israel of responsibility for incitement to genocide.
Conversely, the report presents the statements of Hamas leaders in a way that makes them seem more threatening. For example, it highlights their repeated declarations of intent to destroy Israel without providing the same depth of analysis or interpretation given to the Israeli statements.
The report also features a statement from Ihsan Adel, founder of Law for Palestine, who asserts that calls to displace the Gaza population are part of ongoing ethnic cleansing in Gaza. The report notes that Israel denies these allegations.
Subsequently, the report further explains that Ihsan Adel's assessment of genocide is not universally accepted, referencing Anne Herzberg’s viewpoint that "Israeli statements do not rise to the level of genocide." While the text presents these two opposing viewpoints, the framing of Herzberg’s opinion appears to counter the accusations of genocide against Israel. However, it lacks additional details on the legal analysis or context that might make Ihsan Adel’s statements debatable.
Furthermore, the report places greater emphasis on Israeli statements regarding accountability for soldiers or officials, offering detailed information on the legal justifications for these positions.
In this context, Dr. Hassan Basri, an expert in international law, told Misbar that the report’s emphasis on Anne Herzberg, a prominent human rights lawyer with clear Zionist affiliations, complicates the discussion surrounding Israeli statements. In contrast, Francesca Albanese is mentioned only in relation to her comments about Hamas, without recognizing her extensive efforts to raise awareness about the genocide being perpetrated against Palestinians. Albanese is described as a controversial figure, while Anne Herzberg is presented as a representative of NGO Monitor without any acknowledgment of her contentious status. Despite Albanese's publication of a report clearly indicating that the situation in Gaza constitutes genocide, the report only refers to her in the context of her criticisms of Hamas.
Historical and Religious Context
The report extensively examines statements by Israeli religious leaders, with a particular focus on Rabbi Eliyahu Mali. His controversial remarks gained widespread attention after a video surfaced. In the video, Rabbi Mali cites a 12th-century Jewish scholar on holy wars, explaining that sacred texts endorse leaving no survivors in religious wars.
The report also covered a lecture by Rabbi Eliyahu Mali given in March at a conference for Zionist yeshivas in Israel. During this lecture, Mali discussed strategies for handling civilians in Gaza during the war. His comments on the Torah and warfare sparked considerable controversy, especially his remarks about killing children under the assumption they might become fighters in the future.
In response to the criticism, Rabbi Mali told the BBC that his remarks had been "taken out of context." He emphasized that national law prohibits harming civilians, whether they are children or the elderly. Mali clarified that he expects soldiers to adhere to state laws rather than religious texts when there is a conflict between the two.
The report used the religious context to justify some of the Israeli statements, including references to "mitzvah wars" in Judaism, which might suggest that these statements are neither novel nor unusual within their historical and religious framework. The report also attempts to justify or reinterpret the Rabbi's remarks to lessen their impact. For instance, it suggests that the rabbi’s comments were "significantly distorted after being taken out of context," which can be seen as defending the rabbi and downplaying the significance of his inflammatory statements.
The report prominently highlights the rabbi’s emphasis on adhering to national law, which prohibits harming civilians, as an effort to portray Israel as a lawful institution striving to avoid harming civilians. The rabbi stresses that soldiers should follow "military orders" rather than religious texts, a point he reiterates in his lecture. This emphasis could be used to present Israeli soldiers as bound by military law, which is depicted as "legal," rather than by controversial religious texts.
Israeli Statements Supporting Genocide in Gaza
In addition to the previous analysis, it is important to highlight several Israeli statements made during the ongoing war on Gaza that were particularly severe and inciting of genocide.
For example, Israeli Minister of Heritage Amichai Eliyahu threatened to drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza, expressing his support for such an action and suggesting that the killing of Israeli hostages held by Hamas is part of the price of war.
Additionally, inflammatory statements were also made by other prominent figures, including Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Israeli Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, and other ministers, Knesset members, and politicians. These statements went beyond mere incitement to violence, calling for the displacement of entire areas and their original inhabitants, which constitutes clear incitement to genocide.
Israel Continues To Promote Controversial Claims Without Holding Inciters of Genocide Accountable
It is worth noting that while Israel continues to promote investigations into violations and incitement, it has not held any individuals accountable for incitement, contrary to its claims.
A report by the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor highlighted that the Israeli occupation has not taken any serious steps regarding the accusations against it before the International Court of Justice concerning the ongoing genocide in Gaza, as evidenced by six key indicators.
Regarding incitement to genocide, the monitor confirmed in its report that statements indicating Israel's intent to persist in committing genocide remain consistent, with no change in its military approach to ensure the protection of Palestinian civilians.
Human Rights Watch also reported that Israel has failed to comply with any of the legally binding measures issued by the International Court of Justice in the genocide case. This includes addressing war crimes committed in Gaza, using starvation as a weapon of war, and preventing incitement to genocide.
In a separate report, Human Rights Watch highlighted that Israel is violating the International Court of Justice's orders regarding the genocide in Gaza and the associated violations.
Amnesty International underscored the importance of the Court's decisions, which include preventing Israel from committing acts that fall under the Genocide Convention and halting direct and public incitement to genocide.
Read More
The Intercept Exposes the New York Times’ Bias in Favor of the Israeli Narrative
