Does it matter if Gaza is a genocide or not ?

As the situation in Gaza becomes more acute calls for declaring Gaza a genocide are getting louder. But does it really matter if it is a genocide or not?

In politics, the language used is always carefully selected, especially when it comes to addressing the actions of other states. It is an important tool that can be used to express disquiet or even anger to another state in a manner that gets the message across ‘diplomatically’. It is rare to see the public humiliation of other world leaders, such as Zelensky of Ukraine and Hussain of Jordan, both at the hands of Donald Trump, but we live in strange political times.

It is common for this language, especially in the Western world, to be tied up in legal jargon as to the exact meaning of a word and when and if it should be used. The legality or not of state actions, in theory, are the foundations of international law.

International law of itself is not a set of pre-written dos and don’ts that all states must adhere to; its make-up is of a complex nature of general principles, agreements based on treaties, and jus cogens (peremptory norms or compelling law).

The peremptory norms are issues of law that cannot be violated by any state (in theory, at least). This means that even if states agree a treaty that violates these norms, then that treaty could be rendered null and void (in theory, at least).

Under Article 53 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, any treaty that conflicts with a peremptory norm is void.

The full text of Article 53 reads:

Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (“jus cogens”) A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.

Interestingly the UK House of Commons briefing paper on international law states the following regarding jus cogens:

A status of rules which means they cannot be derogated from. Any treaty incompatible with a jus cogens rule could be void.

The words ‘is void’ have been replaced by ‘could be void’, thus under UK law (according to the briefing paper) a treaty that violates peremptory norms could still be legal. In typical style the UK always gives itself enough weasel room, just in case.

The prevention of genocide was adopted in 1948 under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, this convention came into force a few years later in 1951 and subsequent global adherence to this meant it become one of the jus cogens or peremptory norms. Genocide is given as an example of a peremptory norm in the UK House of Commons briefing paper mentioned above.

The definition of genocide in Article II of the convention states:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

The full text of the convention can be read here, it goes on to state that any person or state enacting acts of genocide can be punished for these actions, there are rules in place for extradition of said persons and that the full force of the United Nations can be used to enact these rules.

Once both these two issues are understood; namely, the definition of genocide and that there are peremptory norms which a state cannot violate; then both the reluctance and the urgency to label the Zionist barbarism in Gaza as a genocide becomes clear.

A global acceptance of the Zionist actions as a genocide would mean an automatic violation of the norms the world lives by and therefore it would constitute a basis for potential action against the occupying Zionist state and or individuals within that state. Genocide does not obligate global action it simply lays the legal foundation for further steps.

It is for this reason why allies of the Zionists even when publicly rebuking its actions are reluctant to use the word ‘genocide’. This is why Joe Biden was rebranded Genocide Joe due to his refusal to label Israel a genocidal state. In fact Joe Biden went out of way to declare what was happening in Gaza was ‘not a genocide’.

The optics, and indeed the legality, of any state such as the Americans or the British doing ‘business’ and selling arms to a state that is enacting a genocide would not look good.

For all British Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s public dressing down of Zionist actions going as far as to label them monstrous he kept well clear of implicating himself and his government of supporting a genocidal state.

Kier Starmer refused to be drawn on the whether or not a genocide is taking place in Gaza, choosing instead as per the official UK government statement to use meaningless terms such as the situation being ‘intolerable’.

There is method in the madness of avoiding the word genocide.

Attempting to get on the right side of history

Over the last two weeks as the gravity of the situation in Gaza became apparent there has been a mood change as world leaders look to backtrack from their complicit silence and support of the murder of civilians in Gaza.

Spanish prime minister Pedro Sanchez accused Israel of being a “genocidal state” and said his country does not do business with it.

The Irish government led by Taoiseach Simon Harris (the premier) and Tanaiste (deputy premier) Micheal Martin both criticised the Israeli government.

Simon Harris said:

“We are the first government in the European Union to say what Israel is doing is genocide. It is genocide.”

Journalist Medhi Hassan correctly highlighted that as per legal definition genocide experts including Israeli and Jewish ones all agree what is happening in Gaza is a genocide.

Laughably even Piers Morgan the cheerleader of Zionism since October 7th has had to backtrack and attempt to appear to be balanced.

Herein lies the problem, there has to be global recognition that the actions in Gaza reach the legal limit of a genocide before any potential action can be taken. Killing thousands of children may not constitute a genocide or even a crime under international law if it can be legitimised under the vagaries of “collateral damage”.

For context think the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children killed by the ‘allies’ either directly via bombing, through the effects of depleted Uranium or economic sanctions there was never any call for international law to be enacted.

The issue with using purely legal framework for declaring something is a genocide or ethnic cleansing is the unwillingness of diplomats at the highest level to say so.

An example of this is today on the BBC Tom Fletcher a UN diplomat refused to use the words ‘ethnic cleansing’ when describing the situation in Gaza.

He said “Now again the courts will decide what to call that , I need choose my words very carefully, what to call that, I am a humanitarian, I am not a lawyer I am not a politician. “

Video can be seen here, everything he was describing was ethnic cleansing and he said as much save the actual words.

Does it matter if Gaza is a genocide?

Having said all of this (there was a lot to get through) does it really matter if Gaza is declared a genocide or not?

For all those who naively believe that international law actually holds any moral or political weight it does. Even though occupying forces in Palestine and Kashmir have routinely flouted international law for decades. Israel itself only yesterday announced it will be building more settlements in the West Bank a direct contravention of international law.

It does if we accept that international law is the basis and foundation of all that is good or bad in the world of geopolitics.

It also does if we accept International Law as a barometer for when action should be taken against a state carrying out violent acts against others.

As a Muslim the definition of wether Gaza is or isn’t a genocide matters very little, the reluctance of the world to act (this includes the Muslim rulers) and the clear violation of peremptory norms only further highlights that the global order as it exists is not fit for purpose. Even if aid were allowed into Gaza to help the starving masses under the guise of international law carried out and controlled by Muslim countries then it would only be a short term fix. However it would not be a moral victory for the world.

None of this is to belittle the genuine disgust that sincere political activists, journalists and even some politicians are feeling at the actions of the Zionists in Gaza. The world has not lost its collective sense of humanity just yet. The caveat being that most political leaders backtracking and declaring Gaza a genocide now or in the future are doing so to be on the right side of history and protect themselves legally.

Islam has a higher moral standard

So what does matter if it is not International Law?

The Islamic standard for when life is to be protected and what is justified in warfare (Gaza by the way is not a war) is way higher than that of current international law.

The obligations to act are not premised on some legal definition of genocide or global political opinion, but simply on accountability to Allah (swt). That is true of individuals, the leader (Caliph) and the state (Caliphate) as a whole.

An example of this is the hadith of Messenger of Allah (saw) that states:

عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ قَالَ رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَطُوفُ بِالْكَعْبَةِ وَيَقُولُ مَا أَطْيَبَكِ وَأَطْيَبَ رِيحَكِ مَا أَعْظَمَكِ وَأَعْظَمَ حُرْمَتَكِ وَالَّذِي نَفْسُ مُحَمَّدٍ بِيَدِهِ لَحُرْمَةُ الْمُؤْمِنِ أَعْظَمُ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ حُرْمَةً مِنْكِ مَالِهِ وَدَمِهِ وَأَنْ نَظُنَّ بِهِ إِلَّا خَيْرً

Abdullah ibn Umar reported: I saw the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, circling around the Ka’bah and saying, “How pure you are and how pure is your fragrance! How great you are and how great is your sanctity! By the One in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, the sanctity of the believer is greater to Allah than your sanctity, in his wealth, his life, and to assume nothing of him but good.”

Source: Sunan Ibn Mājah 3932

Grade: Sahih li ghayrihi (authentic due to external evidence) according to Al-Albani

Action to protect Muslim lives starts at the violation of a Muslim’s wealth, honour or life. By using the Ka’bah (the holiest place of worship to Muslims) as an example the Prophet of Islam (saw) is highlighting the seriousness by which protecting life should be taken.

A limit which was reached way back in 1948 when the Zionist state was forced upon the land of Palestine and an obligation to act which Muslim rulers have been failing ever since.

Islam does not only sanctify Muslim lives and ignore all others, the Quran clearly states:

“That is why We ordained for the Children of Israel that whoever takes a life—unless as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land—it will be as if they killed all of humanity; and whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity. ˹Although˺ Our messengers already came to them with clear proofs, many of them still transgressed afterwards through the land.”

[Translated Meaning of the Quran: Al-Ma'idah: verse 32]

This oft quoted verse when it comes to Muslims distancing themselves from being labelled terrorists clearly shows the value Islam gives to human life be it Muslim or not. The irony of this verse is that is was revealed addressing the very people the Zionists claim to now represent the Bani Israel (Children of Israel), yet their actions are a world away from what they were ordained to do.

Even when it comes to warfare that is of one state to another state Islam has rules that protect the women and children, the environment and people of other faiths.

Abu Bakr Sadiq (ra), the first Caliph of the Muslims gave the following advice to the army of Usamah before it left for Syria.

“Oh army, stop and I will order you [to do] ten [things]; learn them from me by heart. You shall not engage in treachery; you shall not act unfaithfully; you shall not engage in deception; you shall not indulge in mutilation; you shall kill neither a young child nor an old man nor a woman; you shall not fell palm trees or burn them; you shall not cut down [any] fruit-bearing tree; you shall not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel except for food. You will pass people who occupy themselves in monks’ cells; leave them alone, and leave alone what they busy themselves with……”

The Histroy of Al-Tabari - Volume X - Page 16

This is stark contrast to the behaviour of not only Zionist occupying forces in Gaza but of their mentors the Americans and British in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Caliphate has a moral obligation to the world to protect those who have no protection, not to sit back and watch as women and children are starved and burnt.

The Quran clearly states that

We have sent you ˹O Prophet˺ only as a mercy for the whole world.

[Translated Meaning of the Quran: Al-Anbya: verse 107]

This is a duty the state carries when propagating Islam to the world not as a colonising tool but as a way to remove the oppression that people live under.

The concept of international law has failed the people of Gaza, in fact it has failed the world only being rolled out when is suits the powerbrokers and ignored when it doesn’t.

How can we live in a world where it is clear that children are being starved to death and burnt alive yet for some twisted reason the world awaits a legal definition being reached before it can act?

Gaza has introduced the world to the darkest of secrets of the current global order, that human life is only sacrosanct if there is political capital to be had.

All of this may seem like mute points considering the gravity of the current situation in Gaza.

However Muslims keep ending up in the same place time and again, yearning to be recognised as the victims of grotesque crimes, holding onto the hope that any of the global organisations will stand up for Muslim lives.

Rather than await a change in the narrative Muslims should be accounting their rulers to live up to their Islamic obligations and if they won’t then our hopes and efforts should be to propagate an Islamic solution to the world.

We should not be afraid to tell the world that only Islam will save them from potentially suffering a fate just like the Palestinians in the future.