Chapter 7: ISRAEL’S INTENT IN GAZA (pp. 202-282)

This chapter assesses whether Israel committed the prohibited acts detailed in Chapter 6 with the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, as such, in whole or in part – the crucial mental element required for the crime of genocide.

  • Context of Intent (pp. 202-204):
    • Historical Context: Israel’s offensive occurred within the context of a brutal 57-year-old unlawful military occupation, an apartheid system subjecting Palestinians to oppression, and a 17-year-old unlawful blockade of Gaza. These pre-existing conditions demonstrate an animus towards Palestinians (p. 202).
    • Immediate Context: The offensive followed the horrific 7 October 2023 attacks by Hamas, which Israeli officials used to frame the conflict as a fight between “good and evil” and to dehumanize Palestinians (p. 202). The political context in Israel, including Prime Minister Netanyahu’s reliance on ultra-nationalist, anti-Palestinian parties, is also relevant (p. 203).
    • Methodology for Assessing Intent: Amnesty International (AI) considered a range of evidence holistically: the overall pattern of Israel’s conduct, the scale of killings and destruction, dehumanizing rhetoric by Israeli officials, statements calling for destruction, and the destruction of cultural/religious sites. AI examined an alternative hypothesis (that Israel acted unlawfully but without genocidal intent) and rejected it (p. 204). Crucially, military goals can coexist with genocidal intent, or genocide can be the means to achieve military goals (p. 204).

7.1 PATTERN OF CONDUCT (pp. 205-234)

This section argues that the pattern of Israel’s actions points to genocidal intent.

  • 7.1.1 Deadly and Destructive Attacks (pp. 205-212): The sheer scale of unlawful attacks, the number of civilian victims (including entire families), the repetition of such acts, and the systematic nature of destruction (e.g., 10,000 air strikes in under two months, widespread use of 2,000-lb bombs in densely populated areas) indicate an intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza (pp. 205-207). The widespread harm, including extrajudicial executions and the unprecedented death toll among children and humanitarian workers, supports this (pp. 207-209). The massive destruction of infrastructure (63% of total structures by July 2024, average of one damaged/destroyed building every 17 meters) also points to this intent (pp. 210-212).
  • 7.1.2 Inflicting Conditions of Life Calculated to Bring About Destruction of Palestinians (pp. 212-216): Israel deliberately subjected Palestinians in Gaza to conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction. This was the combined result of:
    • Destruction of critical infrastructure (healthcare, food production, water, sanitation).
    • Mass forced displacement into unsafe and unsanitary conditions.
    • Denial and obstruction of essential services and life-saving supplies. Israel knew these actions would lead to hunger, disease, and death, and these consequences were intended. The fact that Israel maintained these policies despite ICJ orders and international warnings underscores this intent (pp. 213-215). Episodic mitigation efforts do not negate this underlying intent as they were insufficient and did not fundamentally alter the dire conditions (p. 216).
  • 7.1.3 Destruction of Cultural and Religious Sites (pp. 216-232): While not a prohibited act itself, destruction of cultural and religious property can be evidence of genocidal intent. There was extensive and unprecedented destruction of such sites in Gaza (mosques, cemeteries, universities, archives) (pp. 216-217). AI investigated four specific cases (Al-Azhar University’s Al-Mughraqa campus, Israa University’s Al-Zahra campus, Al-Dhilal mosque and Bani Suheila cemetery, Al-Istiqlal mosque) where Israeli forces destroyed these sites through controlled demolitions after gaining military control, suggesting no imperative military necessity and that destruction was the purpose (pp. 217, 222-232). Videos showed soldiers celebrating these demolitions (pp. 220, 225-226).
  • 7.1.4 Incommunicado Detention, Torture and Other Ill-Treatment (pp. 233-235): The pattern of incommunicado detention, widespread torture, and other ill-treatment (including sexual violence) of Palestinians from Gaza underscores systematic dehumanization and mental/physical abuse, contributing to an inference of genocidal intent when viewed with other actions (p. 233). Israel used the Unlawful Combatants Law to institutionalize enforced disappearance and deny due process (p. 234).

7.2 DEHUMANIZATION OF PALESTINIANS (pp. 235-241)

Dehumanization often accompanies genocide.

  • 7.2.1 Pre-existing Discourse (pp. 236-238): Deeply rooted dehumanizing, derogatory, and racist language towards Palestinians by Israeli officials and public figures was normalized before 7 October 2023, contributing to an environment of impunity and hatred (p. 236). Examples include statements from 2014 and 2015 by then-Knesset member Ayelet Shaked and Prime Minister Netanyahu, and later statements by ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich (pp. 237-238).
  • 7.2.2 Escalating Use of Dehumanizing Language (pp. 239-241): After 7 October 2023, this rhetoric escalated significantly. Then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant referred to Palestinians as “human animals” (p. 239). Major General Ghassan Alian called Gazans “human beasts” (p. 239). Prime Minister Netanyahu repeatedly framed the conflict as between “children of light” and “children of darkness” or between civilization and barbarism (pp. 239-240). The deputy mayor of Jerusalem called Palestinian detainees “Nazi rapists” and “subhuman” (p. 241).

7.3 STATEMENTS ON DESTRUCTION OF PALESTINIANS (pp. 241-278)

This section analyzes explicit and implicit calls for the destruction of Palestinians by senior Israeli officials, which appear to have influenced soldiers on the ground.

  • 7.3.1 Calls for No Humanitarian Aid Until Hostages Are Released (pp. 244-251): Officials, including Minister Israel Katz and Minister Ben-Gvir, repeatedly stated that no aid (food, water, fuel, electricity) would be allowed into Gaza until hostages were released, explicitly linking the survival of the civilian population to Hamas’s actions and demonstrating an intent to create destructive conditions (pp. 244, 247-248). Prime Minister Netanyahu also initially took this stance (p. 248). Even when minimal aid was allowed under US pressure, the rhetoric often framed it as a reluctant concession that could be reversed (pp. 249-250).
  • 7.3.2 Statements That There Are No ‘Uninvolved Civilians’ (pp. 252-256): Statements by officials like President Isaac Herzog (“It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible”) and Minister Ben-Gvir (equating those who distribute sweets with terrorists to be eliminated) implied all Palestinians in Gaza were legitimate targets (pp. 252-253, 255). These sentiments were echoed by soldiers on the ground (pp. 255-256).
  • 7.3.3 Calls for Annihilation of Gaza (pp. 257-263): Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated references to the biblical story of Amalek (a nation ordered to be totally destroyed) in the context of the Gaza offensive, particularly in speeches to soldiers, are highlighted as significant indicators of intent, especially given the known interpretation of this story as a call for total annihilation (pp. 257-260). Minister Smotrich also used this reference to call for the destruction of cities in Gaza (p. 263).
  • 7.3.4 Echoes of Calls for Total Destruction (pp. 264-267): AI documented numerous videos of Israeli soldiers in Gaza echoing these calls for total destruction, often specifically referencing Amalek, or stating “there are no uninvolved civilians” (pp. 261, 264-265). This shows the rhetoric permeated the ranks of the military.
  • 7.3.5 Celebration of Destruction (pp. 268-272): Dozens of videos show Israeli soldiers celebrating or mocking the destruction of Palestinian property, including homes, mosques, and schools, often through controlled demolitions in areas under Israeli control. This indicates that destruction was often an end in itself, not a byproduct of military necessity (pp. 268-272).
  • 7.3.6 Official Israeli Narrative and Other Explanations About Statements (pp. 273-274): Israel argued before the ICJ that such statements were “random quotes” or “rhetorical anguish.” AI notes that while some statements could be dismissed if isolated, the sheer number and the seniority of the officials involved, coupled with the pattern of conduct, make this defense unconvincing (p. 273).
  • 7.3.7 Impunity for Calls for Destruction (pp. 275-278): For months, Israeli authorities failed to investigate or condemn these statements. Only after the ICJ’s first order did some (limited) action begin, such as a letter from the army’s chief of staff and the MAG, but these were insufficient and did not address the core issue of incitement by senior officials (pp. 277). No Knesset members were disciplined for such calls by the time of reporting (p. 275).

7.4 INTENT TO DESTROY PALESTINIANS (pp. 278-282)

  • Conclusion on Intent: AI concludes that the pattern of conduct (unlawful attacks, infliction of destructive conditions, destruction of cultural sites, torture), combined with dehumanizing rhetoric and explicit/implicit calls for destruction by senior Israeli officials that were echoed by soldiers, and the context of apartheid and occupation, leads to the only reasonable inference that genocidal intent has been part and parcel of Israel’s conduct in Gaza since 7 October 2023 (p. 282).
  • Military Objectives vs. Genocidal Intent: The existence of military objectives (e.g., eradicating Hamas) does not negate genocidal intent. Israel’s actions went far beyond what could be justified by military necessity (p. 280).
  • Recklessness vs. Intent: Many of Israel’s unlawful acts (e.g., aid denial, torture) were, by definition, intentional and deliberate, not reckless (p. 280).
  • Instrumental Intent: Even if the destruction of Palestinians was seen as instrumental to destroying Hamas, this is still genocidal intent (p. 281).
  • Disregard for Palestinian Life: The profound disregard for Palestinian life, rooted in systemic dehumanization, is itself evidence of genocidal intent (p. 281).
  • Multiple Motives: While various officials might have had different motives (security, revenge, political survival), this does not negate the clear genocidal intent that emerges from the evidence (p. 281).

In summary, Chapter 7 argues that a holistic examination of Israel’s actions, the devastating conditions created, the widespread destruction (including cultural sites), the pattern of torture, coupled with dehumanizing rhetoric and direct/indirect calls for destruction from senior officials (echoed by soldiers), and the overall context, lead to the conclusion that Israel acted with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a group.