Schrödinger's Genocide

For much of the Slovenian public, including the President of the Republic, what is unfolding before our eyes in Gaza is a genocide of the Palestinian population. For others, including the former President of the Republic, there is no genocide in Gaza—at least not until one of the two competent international courts determines so through proper legal procedures. One could say that, for the Slovenian public, genocide in Gaza both is and isn't happening. Like Schrödinger's cat. But that's where the comparison ends. Gaza is not a quantum system, much less a thought experiment. It is a site of horrifying suffering, where, according to Palestinian health authorities, more than fifty thousand people have died as a direct or indirect result of Israeli military operations. Among them are undoubtedly many Hamas fighters, but the vast majority are civilians, including many women and children. These are not imaginary cats but real people, living and dying daily in Gaza.

Schrödinger's thought experiment occurs in a black box that prevents us from knowing whether the cat is alive until we open it. In Gaza, people are dying in full view of the international public.

The argument that genocide is not occurring, or that we cannot talk about it until a future court ruling confirms it, is questionable. Genocide does not occur only when (or if) a court determines it has happened. If it is occurring, it is happening now. The time to act to stop the bloodshed—regardless of how it might eventually be characterized by an international court—is not later, in retrospect, but today, and immediately.

While I agree that genocide is not a loose label to be slapped onto any emotionally distressing situation, that doesn't mean we must remain silent until a court verdict. We are allowed to express concern that genocide may already be happening.

The definition of genocide is set by the 1948 United Nations Convention, which defines it as any of five acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such. These acts include killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction, imposing measures to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

In the first days following Israel's response to Hamas’ massacre, I was also cautious about immediately calling it genocide. Initially, Israel’s response to a terrorist attack—which was and remains indisputable—was arguably a legitimate act of self-defence. But since then, due to the nature and scale of Israeli military operations, the excessive and indiscriminate use of force, the blockade of humanitarian aid, attacks on civilian infrastructure like hospitals and schools, and the enormous number of civilian casualties, combined with certain statements by Israeli officials regarding the final goals of the operations, so much has happened that it is entirely appropriate and legitimate for someone like the President of the Republic to state that the situation in Gaza meets the criteria of the 1948 Convention.

This context should also inform how we evaluate criticism of the President’s recent statement in the European Parliament. Critics argue that her "premature" condemnation of genocide in Gaza may harm her international reputation if a court later determines that genocide did not occur. I believe this is a risk the President consciously accepted, hoping to help end the bloodshed as soon as possible—a stance I fully support. Any future court ruling will likely not be a binary decision on whether genocide occurred, or everything was conducted according to international rules. It is already evident that there are serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza. The International Criminal Court has already issued arrest warrants for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including for Israel's Prime Minister and former Defence Minister, as well as the now-deceased leader of the terrorist organization Hamas responsible for the October 7, 2023 massacre of Israeli civilians.

To those critics concerned about the President’s international standing, I suggest they also consider their own reputations. Between waiting passively for a court decision and "thinking with one’s own head"—to borrow a phrase from our newly appointed ambassador of dietary supplements—being overly cautious may not "pay off" morally in the end.

Following the increasingly heated debate in Slovenia over Gaza is painful. At times, it resembles a football fan squabble over whether something was offside. Supporters on both sides are so fervently committed and convinced of their righteousness that they refuse to acknowledge or condemn any wrongdoing by the side they support. On one side are supporters of the Israeli government, rightly appalled by Hamas’ atrocities and supportive of Israel's right to protect its citizens. Yet, they are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that what is happening now has long since ceased to be about legitimate self-defence and is instead a blatant violation of international humanitarian law.

On the other side are people rightly horrified by the suffering and death among Palestinians and the long-standing violation of their rights. But they behave as if condemning Hamas' crimes would somehow taint their legitimate support for the Palestinian cause. I still can’t forget a statement by a prominent member of the ruling coalition, claiming that Hamas attacked "mostly military targets" on October 7.

This is not a case of false equivalence or an attempt to justify one evil with another. Hamas is a terrorist organization; Israel presents itself as a civilized, democratic state and cannot justify its violations of international law by pointing to the horrors committed by terrorists. The discrepancy in civilian casualties is so stark that we cannot talk about any "balancing" of responsibility. Still, we must remain human in our approach to the victims—Palestinian and Israeli alike—and not lose sight of our shared humanity.

In the end, this Slovenian debate over whether or not it is genocide is not particularly productive when it comes to ending the horrors in Gaza. If and when an international court rules, it will likely focus on specific aspects, especially the intent behind the operations, since their nature already appears to match most of the five acts listed in the UN Convention. The consequences for Palestinian civilians, whether later defined as genocide or "merely" crimes against humanity, are equally horrifying in either case. Arguing over legal definitions is a distraction from the core issue: what is happening in Gaza is inhumane and unacceptable bloodshed that must end immediately, regardless of what a court may decide someday.

It is also painful to see how events in Gaza are fuelling antisemitism. On one hand, it is grotesque that many of Netanyahu's ardent supporters in Slovenia have themselves previously flirted with antisemitic rhetoric. We also see how accusations of antisemitism are weaponized to attack and silence any criticism of Israeli actions. It's worth recalling the definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), to which Slovenia is a member. IHRA lists as antisemitism the use of double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. I believe there is no doubt that any other state treating Gaza’s population in the same way would face equally harsh international condemnation, meaning criticism of Israel’s actions cannot automatically be equated with antisemitism.

On the other hand, IHRA also defines as antisemitism the denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination—for example, by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavour. Sometimes, the rhetoric goes even further. Just days ago on social media platform X, I read a statement by a journalist from public radio saying it had become "very clear why nobody in history has ever liked the Israelis/Jews/Yids."

Support for Palestinians and condemnation of the Israeli government's actions is entirely justified. But this—this is something else entirely. Something very dark.