Dominique de Villepin: 'We have an absolute moral duty to oppose this murderous madness in Gaza'
As the world commemorates the Srebrenica genocide of July 1995, which led to the disappearance of 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys and the forced displacement of 30,000 people, I now understand how what once seemed impossible to me yesterday is possible today. I realize that silence, willful blindness and moral paralysis are not merely human weaknesses: They are the very conditions that make genocide possible.
How can we accept to see international organizations sidelined and international law trampled, not to mention the extraordinary pressure brought to bear on international justice? The purpose of all these attacks is to maintain a shroud of silence, because these organizations are specifically mandated to define and name the unnamable.
A clear intention
To remain silent is to be complicit. To name is already to act. Yes, today, we must call things by their name. In Gaza, before our very eyes, a genocide is indeed unfolding. Every form of death is accumulating there: death by the crushing weight of relentless bombings, death by organized starvation, death by gunfire for having tried to seize a few grams of flour from the back of a truck, death by total abandonment of a population deprived of water, electricity and medicine. There is also death by daily humiliation inflicted on survivors, who are deprived not only of dignity but also of all hope. All these forms of death converge in one place, driven by a clear intention.
This intention is not abstract: It is announced, proclaimed and claimed by the government of Benjamin Netanyahu and many Israeli political leaders who, with the complicity of the American administration and the passivity of European states, now openly embrace the project of erasing an entire people.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
37 minutes ago
- Euronews
'Liberation Day' 2.0: What's coming and who will feel it the most
After a series of pauses and extensions, the 'Liberation Day' country-specific tariffs unveiled in April are set to snap back into force on 1 August. Aside from a few countries who negotiated deals before the deadline, many nations will see US levies revert to their original rates. The Liberation Day tariffs were announced on 2 April, after President Trump branded the US trade deficit a national emergency. Far more goods were flowing into the country than American products were being sold abroad. By invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Trump proceeded to sign executive orders that imposed what the government branded as "reciprocal tariffs". Namely, they were meant to counteract or reciprocate damaging trade practices and trade barriers. This is despite the fact that many analysts have attributed the US trade deficit to the strength of the dollar and consumer demand for foreign products. Countries like Myanmar and Lesotho had some of the highest tariff rates threatened on 2 April, at 44% and 50% respectively. In terms of trade volume affected and product reliance, countries like China at 34% or the EU bloc at 20% were — however — the biggest shocks to global markets and trade flows. For countries that weren't given a specific rate, a blanket tariff of 10% came into force on 5 April. On 9 April, the reciprocal tariffs were supposed to go into effect. First suspension After the initial announcement sent markets tumbling, Trump signed a 90-day suspension of the higher, country-specific reciprocal tariffs, which was set to expire on 9 July. The 10% baseline tariff based on IEEPA powers stayed in force. China, which had introduced a matching retaliatory tariff of 34% on the US, then got slapped with an additional 50% US tariff on April 9 — one they also then imposed back on the US. At this point, the US rate on Chinese goods came to 84%, not including an extra 20% fentanyl levy. In a tit-for-tat between the two biggest economies in the world, the US then raised the Chinese tariff rate to 145% (including the fentanyl levy). China responded with a total tariff rate of 125%, but said they would ignore future tariff increases. 'Even if the US continues to impose higher tariffs, it will no longer make economic sense and will become a joke in the history of world economy,' the Chinese Foreign Ministry said at the time. On 12 May, an agreement was reached to reduce the tariff rates, bring the US levy on Chinese goods to 30% and the Chinese levy on American goods to 10%. Both sides said they would re-assess the situation after 90 days. Negotiations for a comprehensive agreement are currently underway. Peter Navarro, Trump's counsellor on trade issues, told Time magazine that the US was open to negotiating individual deals with countries and that '90 deals in 90 days' — referring to the 90-day delay windows everyone received — was possible. The country has fallen far short of that, although a number of deals were sealed last-minute. Deals struck so far The UK was the first to secure a trade framework with the US on 16 June that kept the 10% baseline in place, with exceptions for some industries. Vietnam reached a deal on 2 July after facing a rate of 46% in the original "Liberation Day" package. It now faces a 20% tariff, excluding goods that travel through Vietnam from third countries and are destined for the US. Thailand and Cambodia, who struck deals shortly before the deadline, both received a 19% duty, from 36% and 49% respectively. Second suspension A second tariff delay was announced on 9 July, postponing the return of the Liberation Day tariffs until 1 August. Deals were subsequently struck with Indonesia, lowering the tariff rate to 19% from the original 32% rate, and the Philippines struck a preliminary agreement that would lower its rate to 19% as well. Japan and South Korea both announced that trade deals had been reached toward the end of July, both securing rates of 15%. That's a reduction from 24% for Japan and 25% for South Korea. An agreement was reached with Pakistan that would see the US develop its oil reserves in return for lowering the tariff rates to 19%. Previously, Pakistan was subject to a 29% rate. The EU reached an agreement with Trump on 27 July, lowering the rate to 15%. What about pre-Trump trade agreements? The United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) was signed by Trump in his first mandate to replace NAFTA, the previous trade agreement between the three countries. On the 1 August, Canada is set to see tariffs on its US exports rise to 35%, although White House officials have suggested the new rate will only apply to goods not covered under the USMCA. Nearly 90% of Canadian goods imported into the US are exempted under the free trade deal. Mexico, meanwhile, was expecting to face a 30% tariff until Trump proposed a 90-day negotiating period on Thursday. Trump, posting on his Truth Social platform, said a phone conversation he had with Mexican leader Claudia Sheinbaum was 'very successful in that, more and more, we are getting to know and understand each other". The Republican president said that goods from Mexico imported into the US would continue to face a 25% tariff that he has ostensibly linked to fentanyl trafficking. He said that autos would face a 25% tariff, while copper, aluminium and steel would be taxed at 50%. He said that Mexico would end its 'Non Tariff Trade Barriers', but he didn't provide specifics. Some goods will continue to be protected from the tariffs by the USMCA. Steel, aluminium, copper, Brazil and India Meanwhile, a 50% universal tariff was imposed on steel and aluminium products on 4 June. The UK faces only a 25% steel and aluminium tariff, and negotiations are underway for that to be possibly lowered further. On 30 July, Trump announced semi-finished copper products such as rods and sheets and copper-intensive products such as cables and electrical components will face a 50% tariff starting on Friday. Ahead of Friday's tariff package, Trump announced that a 25% tariff would be imposed on India along with another unspecified penalty for importing Russian oil and weapons despite US sanctions. President Donald Trump also signed an executive order on Wednesday to place a 50% tariff on Brazil, setting a legal rationale that Brazil's policies and criminal prosecution of former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro constitute an economic emergency under a 1977 law. Trump had threatened the tariffs on 9 July in a letter to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. But the legal basis of that threat was an earlier executive order premised on trade imbalances being a threat to the US economy. The US nonetheless ran a $6.8 billion (€5.8bn) trade surplus last year with Brazil, according to the US Census Bureau, undermining the original basis for the Liberation Day tariffs. Russia, anyone? Russia was not part of the initial Liberation Day tariffs, a move some saw as an indicator of Trump's alleged soft spot for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Yet due to sanctions that carried over from the administration of President Joe Biden, the trade volume with Russia had dropped significantly following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. On 14 July, Trump gave Putin a 50-day deadline to broker a ceasefire with Ukraine or else it would face a 100% tariff targeting nations that purchase oil and gas from Russia. During his recent trip to Scotland, he said he was "probably" shortening the deadline to 10-12 days, stating: "Because I think I already know the answer what's going to happen." Republican Senator Lindsey Graham introduced a bill in Congress that, if passed, would see countries that import Russian gas, such as India, face a whopping 500% tariff. So what happens on 1 August? Legally, because the previous tariff suspensions were temporary, all countries that have not negotiated a separate trade deal will see their Liberation Day rates re-imposed. For nations not given a country-specific rate, the minimum tariff for imports has been set at 10%, a relief for those who feared that the baseline may double. Trump has also included a 40% penalty for transshipped goods intended to avoid duties.
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
Israel's actions in Gaza amount to genocide, Israeli scholar says
Voices describing Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide are rising: an increasing number of politicians, rights-defenders, historians and legal experts say there is a clear will on the part of the Jewish state to destroy the Palestinians as a group and render life in Gaza impossible. The accusations have been growing since South Africa launched a case at the UN's top court of justice in December 2023 alleging Israel is committing genocide, an accusation Israel rejected as "baseless". Euronews spoke to Omer Bartov, Dean's Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Brown University, an Ivy League US institution, who argues that what is unfolding in Gaza amounts to genocide. Separately, we sought the expert legal opinion of Stefan Talmon, an international law professor at the University of Bonn and currently a visiting research fellow at Oxford University, who contends there is no genocide. You can read Talmon's interview here. Proving genocidal intent Bartov, a genocide and Holocaust scholar, first described Israel's response to the 7 October terrorist attacks by Hamas as 'disproportionate' and even constituting 'war crimes and crimes against humanity'. However, by May 2024 he changed his evaluation of Israel's military campaign, labelling it genocide, as he believes there is mounting evidence showing intent behind Israel's actions. Back then, the Israeli army had ordered Palestinians out of Rafah, in the southern tip of the Gaza Strip, and moved them to Mawasi – a coastal area with almost no shelter. The army proceeded to flatten Rafah. 'Statements by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and members of his government constitute proof of their intent to destroy the Palestinians and to make Gaza uninhabitable,' Bartov told Euronews. Israeli officials have, for example, referred to Palestinians as 'human animals,' also saying they would reduce Gaza to 'rubble'. As per the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide can be established when there is an 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.' Prosecuting those responsible for genocide remains a complicated and complex matter, with cases in front of international courts taking as long as 14 years, as was the case in verdicts on the Bosnian genocide in Srebrenica. While some experts see genocide as "crime of all crimes", others argue that genocide is a legal category that should not be observed as more important than war crimes or crimes against humanity, cautioning against prolonged court cases in pursuit of justice. To prove a genocide, you also have to show that the intent is being implemented and that there are no other motives than wanting to destroy the group, Bartov explained. He further pointed to systematic Israeli military operations aimed at demolishing 'hospitals, mosques, museums and the goal is then to force the population to leave,' despite the fact that 'people won't and can't leave and have no place to go to.' Israel has repeatedly rejected accusations of conducting a genocidal campaign, stating its operation is solely geared towards disempowering and eradicating Hamas. Also, Israel has stated it never intentionally targeted civilians, in turn accusing Hamas of using them as human shields. What distinguishes Israel's operation in Gaza from ethnic cleansing and confirms the will to destroy Palestinians, according to Bartov, is that 'you make it impossible for that group to reconstitute itself and it is section D of the Genocide Convention, it's about imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.' He points to a recent 65-page report by Israeli NGO Physicians for Human Rights that says Israel's actions in Gaza amount to genocide. The report documents the staggering number of miscarriages among Gazan women, the number of children who are born underweight or premature and maternal mortality amid famine due to lack of healthcare. Bartov believes Israel's operation in Gaza is set to go on, not to finish Hamas, which it is still fighting almost two years into the war, but to empty Gaza of Palestinians, as Israel no longer accepts the idea of a Palestinian state. Section A of the same convention says killing members of the group with the overall intent to destroy it also constitutes genocide. Section B mentions causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. Bartov says both apply in the case of Israel's operation in Gaza. 'That is clear, we are talking about between 60,000 and 100,000 dead,' said Bartov, also mentioning 140,000 wounded, the chronically ill who died because hospitals no longer function, and Palestinians debilitated by hunger. Bartov rejects the argument that the number of casualties released by the Hamas-controlled health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants, may be inaccurate or, as Israel claims, grossly exaggerated. He, like the Israeli NGO B'Tselem, which also labels Israel's actions in Gaza genocide, believes the Hamas figures are 'reliable', 'well documented' and even 'conservative', as thousands of bodies are still trapped under the rubble. 'Let the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) provide its own figures, they should allow the foreign press in, the burden of proof is on the IDF,' Bartov insisted, adding that the number of victims actually does not matter to prove genocide. 'The convention is about killing people and members of the group, it is not about killing all members of the group," he emphasised. Easing humanitarian crisis 'irrelevant' to genocide accusation Past ceasefires agreed to by Israel and the recent easing of the food blockade amid reports of starvation in Gaza do not change Bartov's genocide accusation. The ceasefires were imposed on Israel, he argues instead. 'The last ceasefire was imposed by President Trump as he came in, and in March, Israel unilaterally broke the ceasefire, within a few minutes it killed a few hundred," he explained. 'This is has nothing to do with the main intent (of genocide) ... it is not at all something that is done willingly." Bartov claims that the Israeli government and Netanyahu openly tell the Israeli public that they are agreeing to 'the so-called humanitarian pause', notably under pressure from Trump, because 'these are measures that will make it possible for Israel to continue its operations.' In Gaza, Palestinians continue to be killed in the meantime, he says. Most Israelis 'in denial' of what is happening in Gaza When they released their reports on Monday, Israeli NGOs B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights also issued a common appeal, calling on 'Israelis and the international community to take immediate action to stop the genocide, using all legal tools available under international law.' We put the question of Israel's public opinion to Bartov, himself an Israeli citizen who served in the army. "Of course they are aware, you cannot not be aware, but most Israelis don't want to know," he said. 'Yesterday, there was an extraordinary report on Kan 11, the public TV, which also showed for the first time some images of starving children in Gaza but then said all this is fake news and showed footage of people selling fruits and vegetables at a market in Gaza.' Euronews verified the Kan 11 footage but also found that Israeli media claim that some of the photos depicting starving Palestinian children were reportedly manipulated. US and Europe 'duty-bound' to stop war in Gaza To Bartov, it is important to recognise what Israel is doing in Gaza as genocide 'because all signatory states of the Genocide Convention include all the European countries and the United States (which) are duty bound to do something' -- to prevent, stop and punish those responsible. Instead, according to him, the US and Europe remain 'complicit' in what is happening in Gaza. 'In the case of Germany it's especially appalling not only because it is the major European power, the major supplier (of weapons) to Israel, but also because it does it in the name of the Holocaust (...) the Staatraison.' Germany, he says, in feeling responsible for the Holocaust, should prevent crimes against humanity and genocide but not protect a country 'that is the successor state of the Holocaust while it is itself carrying out a genocide." "That is a complete distortion of the lessons of World War II, Nazism and the Holocaust," Bartov argued. Fear of mounting antisemitism While Bartov says urgent action is needed to stop the violence in Gaza, one of the long-term repercussions, he fears, is that 'Israel will become a pariah state (...) if it is allowed to get away with it." "If one has an interest in protecting Israel, helping it become a decent place, it has to impose measures on it now that would stop not only the killing of Palestinians but also the rapid erosion of democracy,' he implored. Bartov also expressed further concerns about the effect of Israel being a pariah state on Jewish communities around the world, which he says would be 'severe,' pointing to the rise of antisemitism. Bartov, who focused a great deal of his research on Nazi crimes, also deplores that institutions set up to commemorate the Holocaust, be they memorial centres or museums, have been silent on Gaza. Their mandate is not only to remind the public of the horrors of the Holocaust but also to prevent future atrocities by promoting education and remembrance. Their failure to speak up, he says, will dent their credibility. 'They will no longer be able to present themselves as anything but institutions that are only concerned with what could be done to the Jews by the Nazis. Anything else is not their business.' Could Hamas' 7 October attacks be labelled genocide? Asked whether the terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October 2023, that left close to 1,200 Israelis dead, could also be qualified as genocide, Bartov says: 'obviously, it was a war crime. Obviously, it was a crime against humanity because of the large numbers of civilians killed." "One would need to adjudicate that but it could be, if it is connected to the Hamas charter of the late 1980s which is an antisemitic, genocidal document, it could be seen as genocidal act.' 'I'm a little sceptical about that, but certainly I think one could make that argument. I'm sceptical because Hamas actually issued different documents later," Bartov concluded.
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
There is no clear intent to commit genocide in Gaza, law expert says
A growing number of top government officials, NGOs and academics in the West are ready to claim that Israel's ongoing military operation in Gaza amounts to genocide. But some law experts have raised alarms about the risks of using the term, which is perceived as "the crime of crimes", without a proper definition or legal proof. They say there is so far no concrete evidence of Israel committing genocide as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, of which Israel is a signatory. 'Israel is committing the war crime of using hunger as a weapon of war, which is prohibited under international law,' said Stefan Talmon, a prominent international law professor at the University of Bonn. 'But there is a difference between war crime and the crime of genocide.' No clear genocide intent so far First coined by the Jewish-Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944, the word 'genocide' is defined under the 1948 Convention as a set of five crimes 'committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.' Those crimes include 'Killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.' The Israel-Hamas war in Gaza started after Hamas-led militants launched a surprise attack on 7 October 2023 in southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking hundreds hostage. Fifty hostages are still being held, although fewer than half of them are believed to be alive. Since then, UN agencies have warned that Israel's airstrikes on Gaza, along with a siege of the territory, have resulted in the deaths of more than 60,000 people, the forced displacement of tens of thousands and growing evidence of man-caused mass starvation. In December 2023, South Africa started proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Israel for alleged violations of the 1948 Convention, arguing that 'acts and omissions by Israel ... are genocidal in character, as they are committed with the requisite specific intent ... to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a part of the broader Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group.' A year later, Amnesty International became one of the first international NGOs to conclude in a report that 'there is sufficient evidence to believe that Israel's conduct in Gaza following 7 October 2023 amounts to genocide.' More recently, B'Tselem, a prominent Israeli NGO also stated that Israel's policy in the Gaza Strip 'together with statements by senior Israeli politicians and military commanders about the goals of the attack,' led to the conclusion that 'Israel is taking coordinated, deliberate action to destroy Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip.' In a separate interview, genocide and Holocaust scholar Omer Bartov told Euronews that he had labelled Israel's military campaign a genocide in May 2024, when the Israeli army decided to flatten Rafah after ordering its residents to evacuate the city in the southern tip of the Gaza Strip, and moving them to Mawasi – a coastal area with almost no shelter. But for an international law expert and barrister like Talmon, there is no sufficient proof of a clear intent to commit genocide in Israel so far, and it will be 'very difficult' for South Africa or any other country to prove that Israel is committing genocide. 'It's not just that you are killing people as such and you deliberately kill someone,' Talmon said. 'You have to kill the person because you want to destroy the group he is a part of, in whole or in part.' 'That does not necessarily mean that you would have to kill the group in whole, or in part,' Talmon continued. 'We have seen convictions of individuals for genocide where just one person has been killed … You don't need 6 million people dead like the Holocaust to have genocide.' The proof is either 'direct evidence,' he said, like a decision of the Israeli security cabinet which would 'spell out that the cabinet wants to basically exterminate the Palestinian people.' But the ICJ can also require indirect evidence by which 'you may basically infer the intention to destroy in whole or in part from a certain pattern of action.' In addition, he said, there must be 'no other inference than can be drawn from the fact than the intention to destroy.' The example of Srebrenica Talmon pointed to the genocide in the eastern Bosnian town of Srebrenica in July 1995, which resulted in the systematic execution of more than 8,000 Bosniaks, mostly men and boys. Despite a number of cases of genocide brought against Bosnian Serb military and political leadership for crimes in different parts of the country, the ICJ ruled that it was committed only in Srebrenica. 'The (Bosnian) Serbs separated women and children from men and started, within a short period of time, to kill (thousands of) men of all ages, from 16 to basically 65 or 75, irrespective of whether these were soldiers or whether these were civilians,' he said. 'Now in that situation, the International Court of Justice said: what other explanation can you give for that mass killing within these kind of two days other than to destroy in whole or in part, the Bosnian Muslims in that area and exterminate them?' 'We haven't had any such situation in the Gaza Strip,' Talmon added. Crime against humanity versus genocide Without indisputable, direct or indirect evidence of the intention to destroy, Israel could be prosecuted on charges of war crimes or crimes against humanity, Talmon said. Under UN rules, the term 'war crimes' refers to violations of international humanitarian law 'committed against civilians or enemy combatants during an international or domestic armed conflict." A crime against humanity refers to a series of crimes 'committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack." 'The Israeli action, of course, could also be explained in many other ways,' Talmon said. 'Beginning from the fight against Hamas to rescuing the hostages, it could be by mere brutality, retaliation, vengeance, ethnic cleansing,' he explained. There is a multitude of other explanations for Israeli actions, so it will be very difficult to say because the Israelis are using excessive force, they are driving Palestinians to the south of the Gaza Strip, they are confining them to very specific areas, they are basically reducing the available food and water and medical supplies to them," Talmon continued. "That may all be explained by other motives.' Despite the absence of clear evidence or compliance with the high standards of genocide, Talmon concluded that such a verdict would carry devastating effects for the Israelis, many of whom are survivors or children of survivors of the Holocaust. 'If you find that Israel is committing genocide or that Germany committed genocide, It's not just the present government that will be seen as a génocidaire,' Talmon said, using the French word for perpetrator of genocide. 'It is the whole people," he stated. "The Israelis become perpetrators … The Germans have become perpetrators.' Founded in 1945, the ICJ has issued genocide verdicts in a handful of cases against individuals, and is yet to rule against any country for genocide. Genocide cases in front of international courts are an arduous endeavour, often taking over a decade to see through until a verdict is reached. Israel has vehemently rejected all allegations of a genocidal campaign in Gaza, in turn stating that its actions are meant to disempower and destroy Hamas. It has also repeatedly accused the militant group of intentionally endangering the lives of Palestinians by using them as human shields, while saying that it has done all in its power to prevent civilian losses.
