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.

As third-party states like the US and Germany risk complicity through aid, Schabas highlights Netanyahu’s populist rhetoric fueling atrocities, urging accountability to prevent a “two-tier” system of law.

Why it matters: Gaza challenges the integrity of global institutions like the ICJ and ICC—if powerful states evade accountability, it undermines human rights worldwide, reinforcing double standards where “our enemies commit genocide, not our friends.”

This hypocrisy, Schabas argues, erodes Europe’s moral authority on human rights, exposing a system that lectures the Global South while ignoring allies’ violations, potentially weakening international law’s universality and enforcement.

Driving the news: Schabas assesses Gaza through international law in the ECPS interview, arguing Israel’s conduct meets genocide thresholds under the Convention, with intent inferred from patterns and leaders’ statements like Yoav Gallant’s 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, from a Holocaust survivor family and a top genocide scholar, sees South Africa’s ICJ case as exceptionally strong, with evidence beyond circumstantial—including explicit policies.

The interview situates Gaza in debates on populism and accountability, calling for rethinking frameworks to prevent atrocities amid authoritarian resurgence. This leads into intriguing historical comparisons.

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.