Exclusive: 'Every Day Is a Fight for Survival in Gaza" says Genocide Scholar Dr. Melanie O'Brien
The legal definition of genocide centers on specific intent, which Dr. O'Brien notes creates significant challenges in prosecution. "Genocide is defined as the destruction in whole or in part of a group... carried out through one of five different crimes including killing and causing serious bodily or mental harm," she states. "The intent to destroy a particular group is what makes genocide different and also quite difficult to prove in a court of law because you have to be able to prove that the perpetrators intended to destroy that people."Regarding the current situation in Gaza, Dr. O'Brien points to several concerning patterns. "We are seeing indiscriminate bombing, long-term indiscriminate bombing that is killing people, that is destroying livelihoods, that is destroying infrastructure, that is destroying healthcare facilities and healthcare workers," she observes. She particularly highlights the strategic use of humanitarian aid as a weapon: "Denial of humanitarian aid, including food, healthcare, and medicine, is leading to a high likelihood of death. Therefore, you have to say their intent must be to kill, to destroy, at least in part, the Palestinian people of Gaza."advertisementDr. O'Brien also discusses the psychological warfare tactics employed, noting that "Israeli military open firing on people queuing for food, resulting in deaths, is designed to create fear so that people don't even want to try and get food, because that is just another situation where they risk death."The scholar acknowledges the historical context whilst maintaining legal clarity: "The genocide convention came about in part as a result of the Holocaust... The Jewish people have an existential fear that someone will destroy their people because it happened to them." However, she firmly states that "even if Israel had a right to self-defense against an armed attack from Hamas, there is certainly no justification for the commission of genocide."Dr. O'Brien criticises the international community's response, particularly highlighting how "the Security Council system, with the veto power of the permanent five members including the United States, essentially prevents any action from being taken regarding this situation." She notes that while "there are arrest warrants that the International Criminal Court has issued against Benjamin Netanyahu and the former defense minister of Israel Yav Galant, waiting for implementation," meaningful enforcement remains elusive.The human cost remains paramount in Dr. O'Brien's analysis: "On the ground in Gaza, every individual is hoping they survive each day, not knowing where their food will come from or whether they will be bombed or shot at."Must Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Columbia's $200M deal with Trump administration sets a precedent for other universities to bend to the government's will
How does this deal address antisemitism? The Trump administration has cited antisemitism against students and faculty on campuses to justify its broad incursion into the business of universities around the country. Antisemitism is a real and legitimate concern in US society and higher education, including at Columbia. But the federal complaint the administration made against Columbia was not actually about antisemitism. The administration made a formal accusation of antisemitism at Columbia in May of this year but suspended grants to the university in March. The federal government had initially acknowledged that cutting federal research grants did nothing to address the climate for Jewish students on campus, for example. When the federal government investigates civil rights violations, it usually conducts site visits and does very thorough investigations. We never saw such a government report about antisemitism at Columbia or other universities. The settlement that Columbia has entered into with the administration also doesn't do much about antisemitism. The agreement includes Columbia redefining antisemitism with a broader definition that is also used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The definition now includes 'a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews' – a description that is also used by the US State Department and several European governments but some critics say conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism. Instead, the agreement primarily has to do with faculty hiring and admissions decisions. The federal government alleges that Columbia is discriminating against white and Asian applicants, and that this will allow the government to ensure that everybody who is admitted is considered only on the basis of merit. The administration could argue that changing hiring practices to get faculty who are less hostile to Jewish students could change the campus climate, but the agreement doesn't really identify ways in which the university contributed to or ignored antisemitic conduct. Is this a new issue? There has been a long-running issue that conservatives and members of the Trump administration – dating back to his first term – have with higher education. The Trump administration and other conservatives have said for years that higher education is too liberal. The protests were the flash point that put Columbia in the administration's crosshairs, as well as claims that Columbia was creating a hostile environment for Jewish students. The administration's complaints aren't limited to Columbia. Harvard is in a protracted conflict with the administration, and the administration has launched investigations into dozens of other schools around the country. These universities are butting heads with the administration over the same grievance that higher education is too liberal. There are also specific claims about antisemitism on university campuses and the privileges given to nonwhite students in admissions or campus life. While the administration has a common set of complaints about a range of universities, there is a mix of schools that the administration is taking issue with. Some of them, such as Harvard, are very high profile. The Department of Justice forced out the president at the University of Virginia in January 2025 on the grounds that he had not done enough to root out diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the public university. The University of Virginia may have been a target for the administration because a Republican governor appointed most members of its governance board and agreed with Trump's complaints.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Emiratis Fume As Israel Envoy ‘Creates A Scene' At UAE Bar
'Selfish Hamas': US, Israel Spring A 'Surprise' By Cutting Short Gaza Truce-Hostage Release Talks Efforts to secure a long-awaited ceasefire and hostage release in Gaza have hit a fresh roadblock, as both Israel and the United States recalled their negotiators from Doha. The talks, underway since July 6, aimed to facilitate a 60-day ceasefire in exchange for the release of 10 living Israeli hostages and the bodies of 18 others, alongside a reciprocal release of Palestinian prisoners. U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff called Hamas' latest response 'selfish', stating the group was not acting in good faith. His remarks were echoed in Washington and Jerusalem, though both nations clarified that negotiations had not collapsed. Israeli officials insisted that this was not a crisis, but rather a moment of 'evidence of Hamas' rejectionist approach.' In response, Hamas condemned Witkoff's comments, calling them 'negative' and 'untrue.' In an official statement, the group claimed its proposal was made in consultation with Palestinian factions and had been welcomed by other mediators, reaffirming its commitment to ending hostilities. Amid these diplomatic tensions, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Hamas that any misinterpretation of Israel's openness as weakness would be a grave mistake. 'We are determined to bring everyone back,' he declared. Watch. 979 views | 3 hours ago
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Macron's adviser says Oct 7 'would not have happened' if there was a Palestinian state
Macron on Thursday has announced that the country will officially recognise a Palestinian state in September, angering many Israeli leaders read more French President Emmanuel Macron's advisor and envoy for Israeli-Palestinian affairs, Ofer Bronchtein, has said that the Hamas onslaught of October could have been avoided if a Palestinian state had existed. 'Everyone for 40 years has been talking about the two-state solution. It angers me that people say we encourage terror. Perhaps because there was no Palestinian state, October 7 happened," Bronchtein said. Macron on Thursday has announced that the country will officially recognise a Palestinian state in September, angering many Israeli leaders. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The president said that a formal announcement on the same would be made at a United Nations General Assembly session. 'The urgent need today is for the war in Gaza to end and for the civilian population to be rescued. Peace is possible. We need an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and massive humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza,' Macron wrote. While Palestinian leaders and Hamas welcomed the move, it drew strong condemnation from Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called it a 'reward for terror'. US reacts US State Secretary Marco Rubio criticised France's move by saying, 'The United States strongly rejects Emmanuel Macron's plan to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly. This reckless decision only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace. It is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th." Israel condemns Macron's announcement Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the decision 'rewards terror' and posed an existential threat, providing a 'launch pad to annihilate' Israel. 'Let's be clear: the Palestinians do not seek a state alongside Israel; they seek a state instead of Israel,' he added. Foreign Minister Gideon Saar was equally scathing, claiming that 'a Palestinian state will be a Hamas state', referring to the Palestinian militants who attacked Israel in 2023, triggering the war in Gaza. With inputs from agencies
