“If what is happening is truly a genocide, why is Israel evacuating people?”

That is a very important and logical question to undeestand the genocide. The act of issuing evacuation orders might seem contradictory to an intent to commit genocide, however, Amnesty International’s report addresses this by focusing on the nature, implementation, and consequences of these evacuation orders, rather than taking them at face value as purely protective measures.

Here’s how the report explains this apparent contradiction and argues that the evacuation orders, in the way they were carried out, actually contributed to the alleged genocidal act of “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”:

  1. Nature of the Evacuation Orders and “Safe Zones”:
    • Unsafe and Unlivable Destinations: The report details that Palestinians were ordered to evacuate to areas that were themselves unsafe, often subsequently bombed, and lacked the most basic infrastructure to support life for the hundreds of thousands (eventually millions) displaced (pp. 24, 132, 137-138, 141-142). These “humanitarian zones” or “safe zones” were often overcrowded, unsanitary, and without adequate food, water, shelter, or medical facilities (pp. 24, 132-133, 137-138).
    • Confusing and Inadequate Warnings: Orders were often sweeping, incomprehensible to the local population, misleading, arbitrary, and given with little notice, creating panic and chaos and forcing people to flee in precarious conditions (pp. 24, 132, 136-138, 140-141). The system of dividing Gaza into blocks for evacuation was often incomprehensible to residents (p. 141).
    • Repeated Displacement: Civilians were forced to move multiple times, often into ever-shrinking pockets of land, as areas previously designated for evacuation were later targeted or became subject to new evacuation orders (pp. 12, 24, 132, 143).
  2. Evacuations as Contributing to Deadly Conditions:
    • Creating Catastrophic Conditions: By forcing a massive population into small, ill-equipped areas, the report argues that Israel created the conditions for a humanitarian catastrophe. The extreme overcrowding, lack of sanitation, and insufficient clean water led to the rapid spread of diseases (pp. 22, 132, 190, 193-194). The inability to access food in these areas, or for aid to reach them, led to severe hunger and malnutrition (pp. 21, 132, 187-189).
    • “Slow Death”: The report suggests these conditions were calculated to lead to a “slow death” for the Palestinian population in Gaza (pp. 22, 30, 200). The evacuations, in this context, are not seen as a protective measure but as a mechanism that concentrated the population in areas where their survival was made impossible.
    • Foreseeable Consequences: Amnesty International argues that the devastating humanitarian impact of these mass displacements into areas unprepared to receive such numbers was foreseeable and known to the Israeli authorities (pp. 32, 213). The report states, “Israel implemented these orders in the full knowledge that people could not seek safety by leaving the territory” (p. 134).
  3. Intent to Destroy:
    • Not Genuine Protection: The report concludes that “rather than protecting the civilian population, as claimed by the Israeli authorities, these repeated orders contributed to the infliction of conditions of life calculated to destroy Palestinians in Gaza” (p. 24).
    • Confining Palestinians: The report suggests the evacuation orders “were clearly designed to confine Palestinians to an ever smaller and more inhospitable area of Gaza, with insufficient humanitarian aid and other essentials, and thus to intentionally cause mass displacement under inhuman and unliveable conditions” (p. 35).
    • Part of a Broader Pattern: The evacuation orders are not viewed in isolation but as part of a broader pattern of conduct that includes the destruction of essential infrastructure and the severe restriction of humanitarian aid, all of which collectively point to an intent to destroy the group (pp. 31, 213-214).
    • Questionable Right to Return: There
  4. Legal Interpretation of Genocide:
    • The crime of genocide includes “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” (Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention) (p. 88). This act does not necessarily require immediate mass killing but can involve creating circumstances that lead to the group’s demise over time.
    • Amnesty International argues that the way the evacuations were conducted – forcing people into unlivable conditions where they faced hunger, disease, and further attacks – fits this definition of a genocidal act.

5. Evacuations Without a Right or Feasible Means of Return:

  • Permanent Displacement as a Condition of Life: The report highlights that Palestinians displaced by evacuation orders, particularly from northern Gaza to the south, were often not allowed to return to their homes, even after active hostilities in those areas supposedly ceased or diminished (pp. 25, 140). As of 30 September 2024, those displaced from north of Wadi Gaza had not been allowed to go home (p. 25, 140).
  • Creating Unlivable “Empty” Zones: The denial of return, coupled with the massive destruction of homes and infrastructure in evacuated areas (pp. 23, 128), effectively rendered these areas unlivable. This contributes to the argument that Israel was inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group, not just temporarily moving them for safety, but potentially aiming for a more permanent demographic change or making large swathes of Gaza uninhabitable for Palestinians.
  • Confining the Population: The report states that Israel’s repeated mass “evacuation” orders, coupled with its failure to allow temporary relocation to other parts of the OPT or to enter Israel, “were clearly designed to confine Palestinians to an ever smaller and more inhospitable area of Gaza” (p. 35). The inability to return to their original areas of residence is a key part of this confinement.
  • Intent to Destroy the Group in a Specific Area: If a significant portion of a protected group is forcibly and permanently displaced from their homes and lands, and prevented from returning, especially when those areas are then made unlivable, it can be argued that this is part of an intent to destroy the group as such in that specific geographical part of their territory. The destruction of their homes, communities, and way of life in those areas contributes to the destruction of the group itself in that locale.
  • Recommendations for Return: Amnesty International explicitly calls on Israel to “allow all Palestinians forcibly displaced since 7 October 2023 to return to their areas of residence or any other areas of their choosing in Gaza, including to the area north of Wadi Gaza” (pp. 36, 285). This recommendation underscores that the denial of return is a significant issue of concern.
  • “Netzarim Corridor”: The establishment of the “Netzarim Corridor” which physically cut off northern Gaza from the south (pp. 59, 140) and through which return was blocked or extremely perilous, is presented as a concrete measure preventing return and perpetuating displacement (pp. 59, 140).

Essentially, Amnesty International’s argument is that the evacuation orders were not a genuine attempt to protect civilians that unfortunately failed, but rather a deliberate policy that, in its execution and consequences, was a key component in creating unlivable conditions for Palestinians in Gaza, consistent with an intent to destroy the group in whole or in part. The appearance of providing a way out was overshadowed by the reality of where people were forced to go and the conditions they faced there.