Kenneth Roth (Elmhurst, USA, 68 years old) is an American lawyer and human rights defender who led the prestigious organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) for almost three decades. Nicknamed the godfather of human rightsUnder his command, HRW played a major role in the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and helped secure convictions for genocide, war crimes and rights abuses of figures such as Bosnian Serb Ratko Mladic, Liberian Charles Taylor and Peruvian Alberto Fujimori. In 2022, Roth announced that he was leaving HRW to write a book and today is a professor at Princeton University. Four days after the start of Israel’s military offensive in Gaza, Roth warned that if the Israeli Government responded to the Hamas attacks in a similar way as George Bush did to the 9/11 attacks, it would, like him, from having global sympathy to being the focus of indignation.
Ask. How did you receive the conclusions of UN rapporteur Francesca Albanese on prima facie evidence of genocide in Gaza?
Answer. The International Court of Justice has already ruled that a possible genocide is taking place in Gaza. It has also issued a new ruling this week because, contrary to its previous resolution, in which it urged that Israel open the borders to allow humanitarian aid, it has determined that it continues to obstruct it. I think there is no doubt that a possible genocide is taking place.
P. You maintain that Israel only understands genocide through the prism of the Holocaust.
R. The definition of genocide consists of two parts. One is the commission of certain acts, which may include killing and creating life-threatening conditions. And that part is clearly fulfilled. The magnitude of the massacre in Gaza is comparable to other situations in which genocide has been confirmed, such as Srebrenica in Bosnia, or the massacre of the Rohingya in Myanmar. What the (decision) is going to boil down to is the intention. Do Israeli leaders intend to destroy, in whole or in part, a racial, religious, national or ethnic group? There are statements (saying) that there are no uninvolved civilians, and statements by the Ministry of Defense (claiming) that the people subjected to the siege in Gaza, not only Hamas, but also the civilians, are human animals. On the other hand, other officials say the opposite, that they abide by international humanitarian law. When deciding which intention is dominant, we tend to think of genocide in terms of the final solution, of the Holocaust, where the Nazis killed all the Jews they could. But that’s just one type. Genocide can also be the intention to destroy a group in part. And the other way to understand it would be as a means to another end. I think it is also important to keep in mind that although there is a lot of emphasis on genocide, partly because it is the supreme crime and partly because it was the route to reach the International Court of Justice, it is not the only crime that matters. . Israel is committing massive war crimes; is committing crimes against humanity. They are horrible and we should not believe that they do not matter just because they may not constitute genocide.
P. Despite the high number of civilian victims, Israel uses the excuse that it asks to evacuate the places it attacks and that Hamas uses civilians as human shields.
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without limits.
Subscribe
R. None of those defenses justify what Israel is doing. The fact that she is issuing warnings ignores that she is doing so inhumanely. It tells entire regions to evacuate and has, at times, continued to bomb evacuation routes while sending people into areas of Gaza where there is little or no humanitarian aid, so they face starvation. Israel sees the warning as justification to bomb anyone left, but failure to follow a warning does not make you a military target. Regarding human shields, Israel consistently says that Hamas is using civilians as shields, which it sometimes does, and that it is a war crime. But that does not exempt it from its obligation not to attack a military objective if the damage to civilians is disproportionate. We have seen Israel attack military targets with means that are almost designed to cause massive harm to civilians, such as the use of huge bombs.
P. Do you find Washington’s insistence that the Security Council ceasefire resolution is non-binding a double-edged sword?
R. The Biden Administration is incredibly cynical. First of all, (the resolution) is binding. Biden says he does not cite Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, but it is not a prerequisite. It’s also cynical because Biden allowed the resolution to pass to try to show Democrats that he is doing something about Gaza, but then undermined its importance by announcing that it is non-binding. If it doesn’t matter for Israel, it doesn’t matter for Hamas, which doesn’t have to comply by releasing the hostages either.
P. What measures would lead Israel to comply with the resolution?
R. There are two ways to pressure Israel, but both go through Biden. First, the Security Council could impose sanctions for refusing to stop the killing and famine, but this would require overcoming the US veto. The second way would be through the enormous influence that Washington has, because it continues to provide 3.5 billion euros annually in military aid. Biden refuses to condition this military aid. Until he changes his mind, Netanyahu will not feel pressure to change.
P. Egypt finds itself in an increasingly uncomfortable position because it does not want to be complicit in a mass expulsion of Gazans to its territory, but the situation near its border is increasingly unsustainable. How should I manage it?
R. Egypt has been collaborating with Israel for decades to impose the blockade and create this situation of absolute dependence in Gaza. And today, Egypt continues to collaborate. Egypt is not the main problem, the main problem is that Israel very slowly and rigorously inspects humanitarian aid before letting it in, and allows very little. And Egypt is a partner in this because it has the ability to open the Rafah border crossing and let aid in without impediment. So while everyone is focused on Israel, we have to recognize that Egypt is a partner in implementing the current siege. Then the Egyptian government has said, rightly, that it does not want a forced deportation to the Sinai. That would be another Nakba, a war crime. Egypt knows that if the people left, Israel would not let them return. So she doesn’t want to be part of that, nor does she want the disruption that would come with reigniting the insurgency in North Sinai.