In an exclusive ECPS interview, genocide expert Professor William Schabas warns Gaza is a “litmus test” for international justice, with South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel the “strongest ever,” citing military actions and official statements as evidence of genocidal intent.

Third-party nations such as the US and Germany face the risk of being complicit through their aid, as Schabas points out how Netanyahu’s populist rhetoric exacerbates atrocities, thereby urging that accountability measures are essential to prevent a “two-tier” judicial system.

Why it matters: The situation in Gaza puts the credibility of global institutions like the ICJ and ICC under scrutiny—if influential countries sidestep accountability, it compromises human rights globally, cementing double standards where “our adversaries commit genocide, not our allies.”

Schabas contends that this double standard undermines Europe’s moral standing on human rights issues, revealing a system that preaches to the Global South yet turns a blind eye to allies’ breaches, potentially diminishing the universality and enforcement power of international law.

Driving the news: In his evaluation during an ECPS interview, Schabas examines Gaza through the lens of international law, asserting that Israel’s actions fit the genocide criteria set by the Convention, with intent deduced from behavioral patterns and statements by leaders like Yoav Gallant regarding supply cutoffs.

• He draws parallels to Rwanda and Namibia, noting populist incitement mobilizes atrocities.
• Third states providing aid face liability as accomplices under Article III.
• Western reluctance to label Gaza a genocide exposes hypocrisy, damaging their human rights moral authority.

These revelations transition into the background of Schabas’ expertise and the case’s origins.

Catch up quick: Schabas, stemming from a Holocaust survivor lineage and a leading authority on genocide, views South Africa’s ICJ case as particularly compelling, offering evidence beyond circumstantial, including explicit policy measures.

The interview places Gaza within broader discussions on populism and accountability, advocating for a reassessment of frameworks to avert atrocities amid the rise of authoritarianism, which opens up intriguing historical parallels.

The intrigue: Schabas compares Gaza to Germany’s 1904 Namibia genocide—a colonial response to rebellion—warning against simplistic analogies but noting recurring populist narratives in mass violence, including Netanyahu’s framing of Palestinians as existential threats that mobilize support for atrocities. This segues into deeper legal subtext.

Between the lines: Israel’s self-defense claim fails as Gaza’s occupation is unlawful, per ICJ—states can’t invoke defense while acting illegally, like a robber shooting police.

“You cannot claim self-defense while engaging in unlawful actions. It’s like a bank robber who fires on the police because they’re firing on him—he can’t go to court and invoke self-defense, because he is, by definition, acting unlawfully,” Schabas explained.

Western inconsistencies, pushing liberal genocide interpretations in cases like Myanmar but stricter ones for Israel allies, risk embarrassing them in court and exposing a rigged system.

“This inconsistency will likely embarrass Germany and others before the ICJ when lawyers point out that they argue one thing in one case and the opposite in another.” This flows into reactions from key voices.

What they’re saying:

• “WOW! Prof. W. Schabas… believes the case against Israel is ‘arguably the strongest case of genocide ever brought before the Court’ and that the US & Germany risk legal liability as ‘accomplices to genocide,’” Trita Parsi tweeted, amplifying Schabas’ warnings.

These statements capture the discourse, leading to the conclusive implications.

The bottom line: Gaza demands consistent standards from ICJ and ICC to restore trust—failure risks entrenching two-tier justice, but enforcing prevention duties on enablers like the US could redefine accountability for powerful states in future conflicts, potentially reshaping global governance and urging states to prioritize law over alliances.