Amnesty International acknowledges that proving specific genocidal intent is challenging, especially for a state, as direct evidence like an official plan is rarely available (p. 99). Therefore, the report relies on inferring intent from a combination of factors, viewed holistically (pp. 31, 100, 104).

Here’s a breakdown of their reasoning:

1. Inferring Intent from a Pattern of Conduct and Context:

  • The “Only Reasonable Inference”: Amnesty argues that when Israel’s actions are viewed cumulatively and contextually, the only reasonable inference is the presence of genocidal intent (pp. 35, 205, 281-282). This is based on the ICJ’s standard for inferring intent from a pattern of conduct (p. 102).
  • Overwhelming Pattern: The report details a pattern encompassing:
    • Repeated unlawful killings and infliction of serious harm on a massive scale (pp. 31, 206).
    • Systematic destruction of homes and essential civilian infrastructure (pp. 31, 205-206).
    • Repeated mass forced displacement into unlivable conditions (pp. 31, 213-214).
    • The deliberate creation of conditions of life (through siege, aid obstruction, destruction of essentials) calculated to bring about physical destruction (hunger, disease, death) (pp. 31, 213).
    • Destruction of cultural and religious sites, indicating an attack on the group’s identity (pp. 32-33, 216).
    • Widespread torture and ill-treatment, signifying dehumanization (pp. 31, 233).
  • Context is Crucial: This pattern occurred within the context of a 57-year occupation, an apartheid system, a 17-year blockade that created extreme vulnerability, and with full awareness (based on past offensives and constant warnings) of the devastating consequences (pp. 32, 35, 202, 213).
  • Persistence Despite Warnings: Israel maintained these policies and actions despite repeated warnings from the UN, humanitarian agencies, its own allies, and multiple legally binding orders from the ICJ (pp. 15, 31, 32, 213). This persistence, Amnesty argues, points towards intent rather than error or recklessness.

2. Direct Evidence: Dehumanizing Rhetoric and Calls for Destruction:

  • Official Statements: The report analyzes 102 statements by Israeli officials, military leaders, and Knesset members, identifying 22 that appeared to call for or justify genocidal acts (pp. 33-34, 203, 241-263).
  • Dehumanization: Statements referring to Palestinians as “human animals” (p. 239), “children of darkness” (p. 240), or denying the existence of “uninvolved civilians” (pp. 15, 252) were seen as creating a context where violence against the group is permissible and stripping them of human status deserving protection (pp. 33, 235-236).
  • Calls for Annihilation/Destruction: Explicit calls to “erase Gaza” (p. 263), references to the biblical story of Amalek (implying total destruction) (pp. 15, 257-261), and statements conditioning essential aid on Hamas’s destruction or hostage release (implying collective punishment aimed at destruction) (pp. 26, 244-251) are presented as direct indicators of intent.
  • Echoes by Soldiers: The report documents numerous instances where soldiers on the ground repeated this rhetoric or acted in ways consistent with it (e.g., celebrating destruction, calling for annihilation, denying aid) (pp. 34, 203, 264-272), suggesting the statements from leadership permeated the ranks and influenced actions.

3. Rejecting Alternative Explanations:

  • Recklessness/Negligence: Amnesty rejects this explanation, arguing that many actions, particularly the systematic obstruction of aid, the precise nature of the siege, the calculated mass displacement orders, and the targeted destruction (sometimes via controlled demolitions after securing an area), were too deliberate and systematic to be merely reckless (pp. 34-35, 122, 280). The sheer scale and repetition of attacks also make “mistakes” an insufficient explanation (p. 122). Israel’s awareness of the likely consequences was deemed too high for its actions to be unintentional (pp. 32, 213).
  • Solely Military Objectives (Targeting Hamas):
    • While acknowledging Israel’s stated military aims against Hamas, Amnesty argues the scale, nature, and pattern of its actions went far beyond targeting Hamas fighters or military infrastructure (pp. 20, 34, 206, 280). The widespread destruction of civilian areas and the enormous civilian death toll were disproportionate to any claimed military advantage (p. 206).
    • Crucially, Amnesty argues that genocidal intent can coexist with military objectives (dual intent) or be instrumental to achieving them (destroying the Palestinian population as a means to defeat Hamas) (pp. 18, 31, 35, 105, 281). To rule out genocide simply because military aims exist would make the prohibition meaningless in armed conflict (pp. 18, 105).
    • The report suggests that the extreme disregard for Palestinian life required to pursue military objectives with such devastating consequences is itself evidence of the dehumanization that underpins genocidal intent (p. 35).
  • Motive vs. Intent: The report distinguishes between motive (e.g., security, revenge, political gain) and the specific legal requirement of intent (the will to destroy the group as such). While various motives might drive different officials, Amnesty argues these do not negate the simultaneous existence of the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, inferred from the overall evidence (pp. 35, 101, 281).

Amnesty concludes that the combination of the devastating pattern of conduct, the context of long-standing oppression and dehumanization, the explicit statements by officials calling for destruction and denying civilian status, and the rejection of less harmful alternatives, makes genocidal intent the “only reasonable inference” (pp. 35, 205, 281-282). The actions were too widespread, systematic, deliberate, and persistent despite clear warnings, to be explained away solely by military necessity against Hamas or by recklessness.