On January 26, the International Court of Justice in the Hague ruled that Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Gaza and blocking of humanitarian aid to the enclave could “plausibly” amount to genocide. South Africa, which brought the case, did not get the court-ordered ceasefire it was aiming for, but the judges warned Israel that it must ensure that it does not violate the U.N. Genocide Convention. They also ordered Israel to prevent and punish domestic incitement to genocide, as well as allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. 

Historical debates are unusually important in this case, especially between Europe and its former colonies. South Africa’s ruling African National Congress party has long identified itself with the Palestinian cause, due in large part to South Africa’s history of apartheid. Germany said its role in the Holocaust obliged it to intervene on Israel’s behalf, describing the South African case as the “political instrumentalization” of the Genocide Convention. That move elicited a swift rebuke from South Africa’s neighbor Namibia, whose Herero and Nama communities were victims of the genocide perpetrated by Germany between 1904 and 1908, three decades before the Nazi Party grabbed power. 

To understand what’s happening at the ICJ, I spoke with A. Dirk Moses, professor of international relations at the City College of New York and senior editor of the Journal of Genocide Studies. His book, “The Problems of Genocide,” explores the history of the concept and its shortcomings in preventing states from harming civilians. 

Israeli officials have said that Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is morally equivalent to the Allied bombing of Dresden in 1945, which killed about 25,000 people. The confirmed death toll in Gaza is now roughly the same. What do you make of Israel’s justification?