To the editor: Jonah Goldberg bases his argument that Israel is not guilty of genocide on the dubious claim that, no matter the extent of the destruction of the Gaza Strip’s social, educational and healthcare infrastructure and the mass slaughter of innocent Palestinians, unless the conveniently elusive concept of “intent” is demonstrated, then the Israeli campaign falls short of genocide.
What Goldberg misses is that actions often reflect intent.
Given the total devastation of Gaza and the statements of the Israeli leadership advocating for the elimination of a Palestinian presence in the disputed territories, it can be argued that genocidal intent has been established. How else to account for the unyielding bombardment?
It is unreasonable to discount a genocidal scheme on the basis of a manufactured claim that there is no proof of intent, when the intent has been fully revealed in the devastation of Gaza. What additional evidence is required to identify a genocidal siege?
To any reasonable observer, we are far beyond the flawed rationalization of this extended military campaign as an act of self-defense.
In an absurd attempt to refute the charge of genocide, Goldberg cites the “explosive” growth of the population. Meanwhile, the Israeli military does its best to contain that growth and reduce the civilian population.
Andrew Spathis, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Goldberg rightfully condemns Amnesty International for cynically inciting inflammatory headlines accusing Israel of genocide, even as its report actually concedes Israel is innocent of the crime as defined in international law. However, Goldberg fails to hold equally accountable the journalists who misreported this story.
As Goldberg notes, Amnesty International’s report begins with a shockingly biased framing of the war: “On 7 October 2023, Israel embarked on a military offensive on the occupied Gaza Strip.” Its shameless erasing of Hamas’ rapes, kidnappings and massacres of Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023 — to which Israel responded in self-defense — should be the real focus of any news article about the report.
But the Associated Press story published by The Times on Dec. 5 ignored it.
The AP reporter also failed to note that Hamas’ actions do fit the international definition of genocide. Hamas’ avowed goals, enshrined in its charter, are to “obliterate” Israel and kill Jews. Hamas’ Oct. 7 atrocities included the deliberate, indiscriminate slaughter of Jewish communities overrun by Hamas terrorists.
Stephen A. Silver, San Francisco
..
To the editor: Amnesty International’s report outlining the case against Israel for its genocide in Gaza is an exhaustive, detailed, fact-based analysis that lays out their conclusions quite logically.
Goldberg manages to misinterpret this report by lifting one sentence (out of 296 pages) completely out of context, alleging the report “exonerates” Israel on the question of intent. Reading just the sentence before it reveals a more nuanced interpretation.
Citing the International Court of Justice, the report says, “However, its ruling 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.”
This shows the absurdity of that line of reasoning and points not to “prevailing interpretations of international law,” but an extreme viewpoint promulgated by the perpetrator of said genocide, Israel, and its chief backer, our current administration.
To most of the world, the “prevailing interpretation” of the crisis in Gaza is that Israel is indeed committing genocide, as shown by numerous United Nations votes.
Michael Rotcher, Mission Viejo
