NEW YORK Menachem Rosensaft offers some observations as Israel gets ready to defend itself against South Africa’s accusations of genocide on Thursday at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
People all across the globe use the word “genocide” carelessly, although the idea of genocide is legal in nature, having changed since the UN General Assembly originally ratified the genocide treaty in 1948. A legal authority on genocide, Rosensaft said, “And whatever else Israel is doing, and has done, it is not intending to destroy the Palestinian people; either on the West Bank or in Gaza.”
Rosensaft stated in a Zoom interview conducted from his Manhattan residence that the accusation is baseless. Additionally, it’s a great illustration of the kind of legal case Rosensaft will be presenting in his brand-new “Antisemitism in the Courts and in Jurisprudence” course at Cornell University this term.
He was most recently the general attorney for the World Jewish Congress, after holding a number of positions at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. In December of 1988, Rosensaft, one of five American Jews who met with Yasser Arafat and other top officials of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, co-founded the International Network of Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors.
This summer, Rosensaft came up with the concept for the course. Prior to the October 7 massacre, when hundreds of terrorists headed by Hamas ruthlessly killed 1,200 people in southern Israel, the majority of whom were civilians, and abducted about 240 more into the Gaza Strip, he had intended to launch it in 2025.
Unimaginable brutality defined the attack: the attackers mercilessly mutilated, maimed, and dismembered their victims. Many families were burnt alive in their houses, and whole families were slaughtered simultaneously.
Protests against Israel and Jews broke out in cities and on college campuses throughout the world a few days after the assault. Cornell University was also a typical example.
An undergrad allegedly threatened to harm Jewish classmates in late October. The university asked Rosensaft whether he could teach an antisemitism course immediately instead of waiting until the spring of 2025, after the student was imprisoned.
Rosensaft acted without delay. He claims that without people comprehend what antisemitism is, they will not be adequately prepared to combat its rising tide.
The interview that follows has been condensed and made clearer.
The Times of Israel: Israel was accused of genocide in Gaza by South Africa. Explain the meaning of the term, which is commonly used by pro-Palestinian protestors.
Menachem Rosensaft: There are no plans to drive out the Palestinians from Gaza, not even by [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, with whom I completely disagree on most matters. Thus, the phrase “genocide” is ineffective. Some demonstrators claim that this is a form of resistance. First, it’s not. Two, October 7 served as the igniter for this conflict.
A genocidal group deliberately attacked Israeli, or Jewish, residents on October 7, including men, women, children, and the elderly. It exposed them to rape and other premeditated crimes and miseries. It cannot be disregarded, as many pro-Palestinian protestors are doing. They behave as though October 7th never occurred. Furthermore, it is inadmissible to have the Hamas leadership openly declare on Lebanese television and in other places that they will keep doing it. I find it disheartening that people are so blind to October 7’s significance.
What do you think of certain Israeli politicians who are pushing for Gazans to “voluntarily emigrate” from the Strip to other nations like the Congo?
The idea of a demographic shift is terrifying. By their actions, [Finance Minister Bezalel] Smotrich and [National Security Minister Itamar] Ben Gvir are opening the door for Israel to be accused of a crime against humanity rather than genocide. It is incompatible with all that the Jewish people and Israel stand for. Though I’m happy that some pastors are speaking out against them, we really need to hear from the top down. That philosophy is not welcome within the tent. It must be vehemently rejected as it is a surefire path to both legal and spiritual ruin.
Could you comment on the current state of free speech and antisemitism on American college campuses?
The issue with First Amendment free speech is that far too many presidents of universities and administrators only see it as the protestors’ First Amendment right. They fail to realise that it is their responsibility to use their First Amendment rights to oppose hate speech.
I’ll give two examples from my teaching experience at universities. It took a long time for Columbia’s antisemitic remarks to be denounced, and even then, the president made repeated remarks mentioning a terrorist act without mentioning Hamas. Pro forma denunciation of antisemitism was issued.
On the other hand, the president of Cornell specifically and strongly denounced Hamas. At a rally, a professor expressed that October 7 had excited him. The president responded, “Not only do I condemn this rhetoric,” right away. It goes against everything Cornell is about.
That communicates with both parties. It sends a strong message to the pro-Palestinian protestors that there are boundaries to their actions and reassures the Jewish children that the institution stands with them.
Universities have waited much too long to declare that they reject Hamas, that what transpired was an atrocity, and that they will not tolerate the group being glorified in any manner.
To call for the delegitimization of Israel in any way—violent or otherwise—is to advocate for Israel’s annihilation. That is not the same as criticising the government.
This isn’t an argument against Netanyahu. It is only expressing the opinion that this state, home to millions of Jews, should no longer serve as the homeland for Jews. The problem, in my opinion, and the one I have been making with delegitimization advocates, is that they do not apply these defences to any other nation.
Nobody is stating, “I want Hungary to disappear because I disagree with the government of Hungary.” Alternatively, the reason Australia exists now is due to colonisers stealing native people’s land. You might argue that we should figure out how to help the Aboriginal people, but nobody is calling for the cancellation of Australia.
What motivated you to instruct this course?
Different from other types of racism is antisemitism. Almost all other manifestations of racism and intolerance are binary. It is an issue of colour if African Americans are involved. It is a religious issue if it concerns Muslims. When it comes to immigration, the issue is one of illegal immigration or old-fashioned white supremacist sentiment that says, “We want our country back.”
Antisemitism encompasses all of the aforementioned. It is about the other, it is racial, and it is religious. If you don’t comprehend antisemitism, you can’t diagnose it.
