…how much research did you do into the New Zealaind Israeli Institute before you decided to post this? Or the author or the article, Greg Bouwer? Because I’m familiar with both.
If you want to join the institute you can, here. You don’t even need to donate.
And Bouwer is the type of person who mistakes editorial photos for headlines, from this media council complaint:
One of the directors of the Institute openly posts in support of transphobes, as do other signifcant contributors, notably Juliet Moses. They aren’t an organisation that stands firm for human rights.
And something that Bouwer omitted from his article was this:
“Adolf Hitler” wasn’t a member before the scholars backed the resolution. It was a deliberate stunt designed to bring into question the legitimacy of the organisation and they joined AFTER the scholars backed the resolution. Bouwer chose to not include this information in the article you cited.
But since we are talking about the G word, lets talk about who has argued that yes, by the legal definition of the word, what is happening in Gaza is g…
Lets start with the definiton.
G… is defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of G… , ratified in 1948 and came into force in 1951.
Things to note about the convention: it doesn’t require a set body count. It doesn’t require “killing everyone.” The Srebrenica massacre was upheld by the International Court of Justice as g… , even though the number of people who were killed totaled an estimated 8000 men and boys.
From Amnesty International.
The report:
Human Rights Watch focuses on one aspect of this: water.
From historian Amos Goldberg, the Jonah M. Machover Chair in Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The most comprehensive case for g… comes from the South African submission to the International Court of Justice that addresses each element of the Convention and makes legal arguments that support the contention that Israel is indeed, committing g… in Gaza.
The hardest part normally is proving intent. But in this particular case: this isn’t proving difficult at all. In the South African submission expressions of g…l intent is covered from pages 59. This submission was made in January 2024. Since then: there have been multiple additional statements.
The ICJ ordered provisional measures that Israel had to take: from Ammnesty:
Israel ignored the court.
In February this year, the South African delegation submitted a “public dossier of openly available evidence on the State of Israel’s acts of g… against the Palestinians in Gaza, as of 4 February 2025" to the ICJ.
A few months ago: Israel broke the ceasefire and launched another massive wave of bombings and attacks.
From Ammnesty:
And thats where we are now. Israel are now attacking and flattening Gaza City. It isn’t going to stop there. You can ignore those particular scholars if you want. There are plenty of other scholars and humanitarian agencies and experts who will argue the very same thing. There is a very clear consensus.
The reason why one side has to resort to “cheap stunts” is because thats all they have.