A couple of comments re the above.
Former SCJ Abella's article is an interesting one less for what it says, and more for how it may demonstrate that even someone highly trained in legal analysis whose career basically involved looking at things dispassionately can have their judgment clouded by their apparent emotional/personal connection to this particular issue. Leaving aside her views on the merits of the genocide charge, this is a thin and poorly reasoned analysis. This bit in particular is nonsense: "It is a legal absurdity to suggest that a country that is defending itself from genocide is thereby guilty of genocide." It isn't a legal absurdity nor an absurdity of any other kind: a country can commit a genocide in response to a genocide.
Re the Bertrand tweet above, I think in the fullness of time the facts will come out about the IDF's actions on October 7th and they will likely show a significant proportion (by which I don't mean the majority) of the civilian casualties in Israel died as a result of the IDF's actions. I think this because the situation resolved so quickly - few reports of drawn out hostage situations or negotiations with terrorists occupying buildings, etc. The only way it could have ended so quickly to my mind would have been unfettered military force with reduced regard for civilian casualties. The reference to the Hannibal doctrine may be apt, but even if it wasn't strictly employed I have a hard time seeing how the situation could have ended so soon otherwise.
Hopefully inquiries and investigations eventually give us the full truth about this (and other major events in the conflict).
|