Dr Paul Behrens addresses Russell Tribunal on Palestine
Tue 7 October 2014
The Russell Tribunal was first established in the 1960s by the British philosopher Bertrand Russell to investigate allegations of American war crimes in Vietnam. In its current emanation, the tribunal examined international crimes which were reportedly committed during Israel's latest offensive in Gaza ('Operation Protective Edge'). It is not a judicial institution, but its jury includes prominent legal scholars and practitioners (including Prof Richard Falk, Prof John Dugard and Michael Mansfield QC) as well as persons who have made their mark in other walks of life (including the filmmaker Ken Loach, the writer Paul Laverty and the activist and author Christiane Hessel).
Dr Behrens' presentation took place in the Albert Hall in Brussels. Before the tribunal and about 200 members of the audience, he outlined the characteristics of the crime and highlighted the particular difficulties that arise from the need to prove genocidal intent – i.e. the intent to destroy a national, racial, ethnic or religious group as such. While the Palestinians certainly qualified as a protected group, the perpetrator must have had the intent to destroy the group at least in 'substantive part', and the intended destruction must have been physical or biological in nature. Dr Behrens also discussed exculpatory evidence: evidence which may serve to negate the existence of genocidal intent. He drew attention in particular to Israeli warnings given before attacks were carried out and the fact that some Israeli extremists who were accused of crimes against Palestinians had to face trial in Israel.
The tribunal considered a number of charges, including crimes against humanity and war crimes (a summary of its findings is available here). It did, however, dismiss the charge of genocide, finding that Israel's policies did not appear to be aimed at the 'physical destruction as such' of the Palestinian people.
"It was the right decision,"said Dr Behrens. "International criminal tribunals have struggled with the element of genocidal intent even in situations of armed conflict which resulted in large victim numbers. That does not mean that the perpetrators go scot free – crimes against humanity and war crimes are often applicable as well, and the sentences for these can be quite as tough as for genocide. But a conclusion that genocide had taken place, means that the finding of genocidal intent must have been the 'only reasonable explanation'. That is a point, which, in the case of Operation Protective Edge, is difficult to make."
The full version of Dr Behrens' presentation is available on You Tube.