|
The people vs. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
By Seth Mandel
September 26, 2008
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is guilty of genocide-related charges, and Iranian proxy Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is guilty of committing genocide, according to international law professor Avi Bell.
When Nasrallah said: "If [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide," he was openly indicating intent, Bell said. The numerous murder of Jews by Hezbollah that followed, Bell said, were acts of genocide.
Bell, the director of the International Law Forum, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and professor at the University of Connecticut and Bar-Ilan University, spoke Sept. 16 at a public briefing at the Manhattan offices of the American Jewish Committee. The topic was "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to the Arab-Israeli and Persian-Israeli Conflict, With Special Attention to the Case Against Ahmadinejad".
Bell first provided the background on the Conventions to Prevent Genocide. They were proposed in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), and were put into effect in 1951. Currently, there are 141 parties to the treaty -- including the U.S., Israel, and Iran -- and other nations are obligated under its provisions by "implied consent".
"You shouldn't think of it as law, you should think of it as contract," Bell said.
There are two legal features of the conventions:
In order for someone to be guilty of genocide, Bell said, he must intend to destroy in whole or in part one of the following types of groups:
-
National
-
Ethnic
-
Racial
-
Religious
Bell was asked by The Jewish State if intent to destroy the state of Israel could be considered genocidal intent to destroy a "national" group. He responded that the destruction of the state of Israel would not be genocide, but the destruction of all Israelis in the world would be.
"It has to be instruction to destroy the people of Israel in whole or in part," Bell said.
In addition to intent, to be guilty of genocide someone would have to commit one of the following acts:
-
Killing members of the targeted group
-
Causing serious harm to members of the group
-
Inflicting life conditions on the group meant to bring about the physical destruction of that group
-
Forcible transfer of the group
For the offense to be considered genocide, Bell said, it must have both the intent and the act.
One of the obligations of the Conventions is that nations are obligated to take action if a genocide is determined to have taken place or be taking place at the time. That provision explains, he said, why nations tried to avoid calling the current conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan "genocide."
"Much better to pretend not to notice that a genocide is going on," Bell said, to avoid being compelled to action.
Bell confronted one of the weaknesses of international law, such as the Genocide Conventions, when he was asked how they can be enforced.
"Now you've gotten to the underbelly of international law, which is: there's no mechanism to punish anyone for anything," Bell said. "There are no final judges, no police -- there are no jails."
Bell said there are also genocide-related charges that are included in the Conventions, such as:
-
Conspiracy to commit genocide
-
Direct and public incitement to genocide
-
Attempt to commit genocide
-
Complicity in genocide
Bell made clear that a person who publicly encourages acts of genocide is guilty even if his words do not spur a single person to action.
"It makes no difference that nothing happens as a result," Bell said.
Hassan Nasrallah
In October 2002, Nasrallah, the head of the Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah, which is financed and directed by Iran, said: "If [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." This, Bell argued, was clearly an admission of intent to commit genocide of the Jewish people.
At Nasrallah's command, Hezbollah has killed at least 54 Israelis since making that statement.
When asked by The Jewish State if Ahmadinejad's funding and support for Hezbollah would constitute acts of genocide as well, Bell responded that Ahmadinejad would have to specifically give the order to commit acts of genocide. His support for Hezbollah, however, puts him on the hook for conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide, Bell said.
Bell added that the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which, as The Jewish State has reported, has aided and abetted Hezbollah actions against Israel, may also be guilty of complicity in genocide.
How human rights groups respond
Bell, in the past, has pointed out that Nasrallah's actions up through the Second Lebanon War constitute genocide. In response, Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, a nongovernmental organization, attacked Bell.
"In one of [Bell's] more bizarre arguments, he cites the Hezbollah leader's genocidal wishes to suggest that Hezbollah is in fact committing genocide against the Jews," Roth said. "It should be enough to join Human Rights Watch in calling Hezbollah's attacks war crimes. But to claim that the ultimate crime of genocide is now underway is to cheapen a concept whose continued vitality could be a matter of life and death for those who are really facing it."
But Roth admits Nasrallah's genocidal intent.
"If he concedes intent and if he concedes Hezbollah has killed one Jew… then it is not a bizarre conclusion, it is the only conclusion," Bell said. "[Roth] doesn't want it to apply to Hezbollah; the fact that it does is irrelevant to him."
Bell also brought up Richard Falk, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who was appointed U.N. Special Rapporteur to the Palestinian Territories. Falk has accused Israel of perpetrating a Holocaust on the residents of Arab settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and stood by his statement when offered the chance to tone down his rhetoric.
Bell reminded the audience that "there are always these psychotic individuals" who want to claim that Israel has committed genocide, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What can be done?
In terms of attempting to bring the perpetrators of genocide to justice, Bell said there are two options. The first is trying to convince a court to put the accused on trial. Bell warned that this was unrealistic, because the only courts that would try such cases are generally not the type of courts that would go after someone like Ahmadinejad.
The second possibility, he said, is to convince "someone to petition somebody who is a party state to the ICC (International Criminal Court) to petition the court to bring up Ahmadinejad on genocidal charges." Canada, possibly.
If Ahmadinejad were to be brought up on such charges, it would make it difficult for him to travel abroad. But Bell also noted that Ahmadinejad's absence would likely not solve the Iranian problem.
"He's the president," Bell said. "It means he gets to drive the economy into the ground; it doesn't mean he gets to make foreign policy."
But even if it isn't actionable, public relations victories are significant in today's world, Bell said, and Israel must try to win where it can, even if the fight is rhetorical.
"If it's not legally enforceable is it meaningless? No, it's P.R., and P.R. is important," Bell said. "Is P.R. the ultimate authority on what happens in the world? No, it's not that either. But it's not nothing; it's something."
|