To the Editor:
Jonah Goldberg argues that Israel isn’t committing genocide, hinging his stance on a questionable assertion. Despite the immense destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure and the tragic killing of countless Palestinians, he maintains that unless there’s clear evidence of “intent,” Israel’s actions can’t be labeled genocide.
What Goldberg overlooks is that actions often speak louder than words and can reveal intent. With Gaza’s total devastation and remarks from Israeli leaders suggesting the eradication of a Palestinian presence, one could argue that genocidal intent is apparent. How else do we make sense of the relentless bombardment?
It seems irrational to dismiss the notion of genocide by claiming there’s a lack of intent when the actions scream otherwise. What more evidence is needed to recognize a genocidal siege? To any reasonable observer, we’ve long passed the point where this prolonged military action can be justified as self-defense.
In a misguided attempt to counter claims of genocide, Goldberg points to the “explosive” population growth. Yet, it seems clear that the Israeli military is actively trying to curb that growth and decrease the civilian population.
Andrew Spathis, Los Angeles
..
To the Editor:
Goldberg is right to criticize Amnesty International for supposedly stirring up inflammatory headlines accusing Israel of genocide, even as its report suggests that Israel is innocent of such crimes under international law. Yet, Goldberg falls short of holding journalists accountable for their misrepresentation of the story.
As Goldberg points out, Amnesty International starts its report with a shockingly slanted view of the war: “On 7 October 2023, Israel launched a military campaign on the occupied Gaza Strip.” This statement conveniently omits the horrific acts by Hamas on that day—rapes, kidnappings, and massacres of Israelis, which prompted Israel’s response in self-defense. This should be the focal point of any news article discussing the report.
However, the Associated Press article published by The Times on Dec. 5 didn’t address this important context. Moreover, the AP reporter failed to highlight that Hamas’ actions align with the international definition of genocide. The group’s charter articulates goals to “obliterate” Israel and kill Jews. Their actions on Oct. 7 reflected these objectives through their heinous acts against Jewish communities.
Stephen A. Silver, San Francisco
..
To the Editor:
Amnesty International’s report against Israel alleging genocide in Gaza is a thorough, detailed, and fact-based examination that logically presents its conclusions. Goldberg distorts this report by pulling a single sentence from its 296 pages, suggesting it “exonerates” Israel regarding intent. However, reading just the preceding sentence offers a more nuanced understanding.
Referencing the International Court of Justice, the report notes, “However, its ruling on inferring intent can be read extremely narrowly, potentially preventing a state from having genocidal intent alongside other motives or goals in military operations.”
This underscores the fallacy of that reasoning, pointing not to “ultimate interpretations of international law,” but to an extreme view promoted by the alleged perpetrator, Israel, and its main supporter, our current administration.
To much of the world, the dominant view of the Gaza crisis is that Israel is committing genocide, as reflected in numerous United Nations votes.
Michael Rotcher, Mission Viejo
