journalists can be and may be charged with genocide for work they’ve published since October 7, and as a news industry in a country directly aiding and enabling Israel’s genocide, this should be on the mind of journalists in Canada as well. For example, consistent pro-Israel messaging in Canadian media could play a role in building support for, and minimizing opposition to, Canada’s sale of weapons to Israel or cutting of funds to organizations meant to help its victims. The coverage could also have played a role in convincing Canadians to go overseas to join the Israeli army in its slaughter, which at least some have done — an action that has won them several puff pieces in media outlets.
But what exactly might make a journalist guilty of genocide? According to the Genocide Convention, the following acts are punishable: genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide; attempt to commit genocide; complicity in genocide. Hickman writes that the most relevant one of these acts for journalists is incitement.
So, what counts as incitement? There is direct incitement, which comprises the sort of statements in Israeli media quoted by South Africa in its application. However, direct incitement is not the only form of incitement, with nine others being commonly listed. In the 2017 book Atrocity Speech Law: Foundation, Fragmentation, Fruition, Gregory S. Gordon writes that these other forms are: “2) predictions of destruction; 3) verminization, pathologization, demonization, and other forms of dehumanization; 4) accusation in a mirror; 5) euphemisms and metaphors; 6) justification during contemporaneous violence; 7) condoning and congratulating past violence; 8) asking questions about violence; 9) conditional calls for incitement; and 10) victim-sympathizer conflation.” For the purpose of this article, I will focus on two of them: accusation in a mirror and justification.
Accusation in a mirror (AiM), Gordon writes, “is a genocidal speech technique that entails accusing the victim of a plan to commit the identical offenses that the actual perpetrator seeks to commit or has already committed.” The term AiM was coined by the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide in what was effectively a manual on how to incite genocide that was discovered. The propagandist behind the note wrote that genocidaires should “impute to enemies exactly what they and their own party are planning to do.” They added that this method will “persuade listeners and ‘honest people’ that they are being attacked and are justified in taking whatever measures are necessary ‘for legitimate [self-]defense.’”
In a 2008 paper on incitement to genocide, Susan Benesch wrote, “The propagandist understood that accusation in a mirror achieves an important psychological prerequisite for genocide: it provides a collective justification for mass atrocities, just as self-defense provides an ironclad excuse for the crime of homicide.” Benesch added, “Dehumanization [...] makes genocide seem acceptable. ‘Accusation in a mirror’ goes further by making it seem necessary. The fact that this succeeded—that populations came to believe that unarmed or grossly outnumbered Jews, Muslims, or Tutsi might actually annihilate the Germans, the Serbs, or the Hutu—demonstrates the power of incitement.”
Justification, Benesch writes, means “to refer to atrocities that are already underway, correctly identifying the victims but describing the atrocities in ways that make them sound morally justified.” Benesch adds, “‘In many of the most hideous international crimes, many of the individuals who are directly responsible operate within a cultural universe that inverts our morality and elevates their actions to the highest form of group, tribe, or national defense,’ as [Yale Law professor emeritus] W. Michael Reisman has observed. Nazi leaders, for example, continually emphasized the ‘humaneness’ of the massacres, torture, death marches, slavery, and other atrocities they ordered.”
🔍🔍🔍
I have not found the sort of direct incitement rampant in Israeli media in Canadian publications at this point. However, there are articles that sound to me, based on the descriptions I’ve read from scholars, to be examples of AiM and justification. These go beyond just supporting Israel’s actions. First, here are a few that sound like AiM to me.
On January 9, The Globe and Mail published an article by Rosalie Abella titled, “The genocide case against Israel is an abuse of the postwar legal order.” In it, Abella writes, “It is a legal absurdity to suggest that a country that is defending itself from genocide is thereby guilty of genocide.” Abella clearly states that the Palestinians are guilty of genocide, not the Israelis.
On January 29, the National Post published an article by Vivian Bercovici titled, “Israel is the true victim of genocidal intent.” Bercovici writes, “Hamas leaders and supporters worldwide have stated their unequivocal aspiration to repeat the genocide of Oct. 7, repeatedly.” She says that “Israeli politicians have made imprudent comments” but that they “pale in comparison to the blood-curdling sadism of Oct. 7, which has been celebrated by Hamas and so many of its supporters in the four months since and call for it to continue until Israel and its Jewish population are destroyed. Completely. Totally. Utterly. That is genocidal intent.” Again, Hamas is charged of genocide here, while Israel is not.
On February 18, the National Post published an article by Stephen Harper titled, “Israel’s war is just, Hamas must surrender or be eliminated.” Harper writes that Hamas’ actions on October 7 represented “the urge to commit genocide at its most evil,” and added that the operation “may not have been a Holocaust in scale, but it was in kind.” Israel’s actions, meanwhile, are not only defended, but described as “essential.”
These articles stuck out to me not just because they seem to be examples of AiM, but also because of who wrote them. Abella was a Supreme Court justice in Canada from 2004 to 2021. Bercovici is one of Canada’s former ambassadors to Israel. Harper was Canada’s prime minister for nearly a decade. These are not fringe people.
Next, here are a few examples that sound like justification to me.
On Nov. 10, 2023, the National Post published an article by Avi Benlolo titled, “The International Criminal Court must prosecute Hamas’s war crimes.” Benlolo writes, “Hamas shows little care or concern for the lives of civilians on either side, which constitutes war crimes. In stark contrast, Israel diligently strives to protect civilian lives. Since Oct. 7, the Israel Defence Forces has made over 20,000 phone calls, dropped 1.5-million leaflets and sent over four-million SMS messages warning civilians about upcoming military actions and urging them to temporarily move to safety zones.” An Israeli campaign the ICJ has determined may plausibly amount to genocide is described as humane, and of being an example of the state’s higher moral status.
On Dec. 8, 2023, the National Post published an editorial titled, “No truth behind claim that Israel is committing genocide.” The editorial board writes, “There’s no question that the Hamas fighters who streamed into Israel on Oct. 7 intended to kill or capture as many Israeli civilians as they could. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF), in contrast, have taken active steps to minimize civilian casualties. At the start of the war, Israel warned civilians to evacuate northern Gaza. It dropped leaflets, placed phone calls and sent text messages ahead of air strikes and ground offensives. It opened humanitarian corridors so Gazans could move south in safety, and initiated daily four-hour humanitarian pauses so people could gather supplies or travel to safer areas.” This is a nearly identical example of the rhetoric used by Benlolo.
On Dec. 10, 2023, the National Post reprinted an article from the Jerusalem Post by Jenny Hazan titled, “Are Canadians going to stand up to Jew hate?” Hazan writes, “We will fight it with the utmost humanity possible, as we have fought all the wars we have had to fight. That’s why Israel sprinkled warning flyers begging civilians to evacuate two weeks before retaliating. And why Israeli hospitals will treat a bomber at the same ER as his victims. [...] The list of kindnesses goes on.” Again, Israel’s conduct is portrayed as not only humane, but the most humane in the world.