Hi @DovWaxman, I'm extremely thankful that you took the time to respond to this because when you first made the accusation I tried to engage in a good faith conversation with you and even privately messaged you. Let's discuss this, shall we? A blood libel is something that is libelous because it is objectively false and meant to cause harm to the Jews, often physical harm. The genocide accusation is objectively false if you understand what the requirements for genocide actually are (we will get to those and why they are inapplicable here and why the circular reasoning of "academics" is harmful), and it has caused actual harm to Jews. In fact, I can think of at least two people murdered because of the accusation in Washington, D.C., another in Boulder, a synagogue attack in Michigan, another on Yom Kippur in the UK, for example. Because this is libelous because it is objectively false, and is being done to spin up violence and physical harm against Jews, it is a blood libel. And serious interlocutor on this would be willing to admit that. Now you said: "Calling the accusation that Israel committed the crime of genocide in Gaza a "blood libel" implies that there is no basis whatsoever for this accusation, no evidence at all to support it, and no reason for anyone to make it besides animus against Jews." This is factually true. There is no basis whatsoever supported by the evidence to support it. You then said: "In reality, numerous human rights groups, including a leading Israeli human rights group, have compiled detailed reports substantiating this accusation, and numerous highly respected experts on genocide have also made this accusation." So, here's one of the numerous human rights groups (Amnesty International's) own words (page 101 of their report) on the accusation and the legal conclusion: "However, its [the ICJ] rulings on inferring intent can be read extremely narrowly, in a manner that would potentially preclude a state from having genocidal intent alongside one or more additional motives or goals in relation to the conduct of its military operations." Now, here's the Israeli NGO you cite (B'tselem) on page 13 of their report titled "Our Genocide": This report relies on the legal definition of genocide as outlined in the UN Convention, but adopts a broader analytical framework, drawing on Raphael Lemkin's original conception as well as historical and sociological research, when examining the process that led to the genocide in Gaza and Israel's genocidal acts in the Strip." In the UN Commission of Inquiry report that made the initial accusation of genocide they brought up Hamas' tunnel infrastructure one time, and it happened to neglect to mention that the tunnel that they specifically discuss was the tunnel that Mohammed Sinwar was killed in. This fails the legal test (we're about to get to those tests, hang with me here), and causes doubt was to the intent being genocide (again legal test coming). So, what does the law say is required to determine genocide? It says that the accused must commit one of the five acts of genocide with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such. "Act with the intent to destroy" denotes the intent requirement we are looking for, known as dolus specialis (specific intent). It requires that the accused act with the specific intent to destroy a protected group because of their membership in the group, in whole or in part. To make the determination of inferring intent requires that it be the only reasonable inference available on the totality of the evidence (here's why Amnesty's report fails and why they say it would PRECLUDE a finding of genocide). See: Bosnia v. Serbia (2007) para. 373: “The dolus specialis, the specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part, has to be convincingly shown by reference to particular circumstances, unless a general plan to that end can be convincingly demonstrated to exist; and for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of its existence, it would have to be that it could only point (emphasis added) to the existence of such intent.” This is known as the ONLY reasonable inference test and requires that there be no other reasonable explanation for the harm or conduct, such as the existence of tunnel infrastructure, human shielding, diversion of aid, all things that we know Hamas has done. Now, let's look at the ICTY's test from the Tolimir decision (2012) para. 745: "Indications of such intent are rarely overt, however, and thus it is permissible to infer the existence of genocidal intent based on “all of the evidence, taken together”, as long as this inference is “the only reasonable [one] available on the evidence”. Factors relevant to this analysis may include the general context, the perpetration of other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group, the scale of atrocities, the systematic targeting of victims on account of their membership in a particular group, or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts. The existence of a plan or policy, a perpetrator’s display of his intent through public speeches or meetings with others may also support an inference that the perpetrator had formed the requisite specific intent." Same test as above. Meaning, to establish intent requires that there be no other plausible explanation for the harm. Not a single one of those human rights groups, or claimed experts has actually applied this test. One must ask why that is if they are "experts" on the law of genocide? This is besides the fact that many are not actually experts on it and are instead historians, not legal scholars. The reason they don't apply it, Prof. Waxman, is because they know it would defeat the analysis that they are pushing and they know to be not founded in objectivity. This is strike one for it being a blood libel. Now, let's do the rest of this analysis and demonstrate this even further with the language from the text of "in whole or in part." In part destruction requires a substantial portion of the population be destroyed, relative to the whole, within the area of control, to threaten the very existence of the group. To understand this requires us to look again at the ICTY chambers but this time in the Krstic decision, which will be quite a few paragraphs below: Para. 8: "It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part,” the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." Para. 9: "In Kayishema, the Trial Chamber concluded, after having canvassed the authorities interpreting the Genocide Convention, that the term “‘in part’ requires the intention to destroy a considerable number of individuals who are part of the group.” This definition was accepted and refined by the Trial Chambers in Bagilishema and Semanza, which stated that the intent to destroy must be, at least, an intent to destroy a substantial part of the group." Para. 10: "This interpretation is supported by scholarly opinion. The early commentators on the Genocide Convention emphasized that the term “in part” contains a substantiality requirement. Raphael Lemkin, a prominent international criminal lawyer who coined the term “genocide” and was instrumental in the drafting of the Genocide Convention, addressed the issue during the 1950 debate in the United States Senate on the ratification of the Convention. Lemkin explained that “the destruction in part must be of a substantial nature so as to affect the entirety.” He further suggested that the Senate clarify, in a statement of understanding to accompany the ratification, that “the Convention applies only to actions undertaken on a mass scale.” Another noted early commentator, Nehemiah Robinson, echoed this view, explaining that a perpetrator of genocide must possess the intent to destroy a substantial number of individuals constituting the targeted group. In discussing this requirement, Robinson stressed, as did Lemkin, that “the act must be directed toward the destruction of a group,” this formulation being the aim of the Convention. Para. 11: "The International Law Commission, charged by the UN General Assembly with the drafting of a comprehensive code of crimes prohibited by international law, stated that “the crime of genocide by its very nature requires the intention to destroy at least a substantial part of a particular group.” Para. 12: "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4." Relevant is the Sikirica Trial Chamber (2001) decision para. 72: "For the purpose of determining the number of victims within the terms of Article 4(2)(a), (b) and (c), one is, therefore, left with a number of approximately 1000-1400 Muslims out of a total of 49,351 in the Prijedor municipality. This would represent between 2% and 2.8% of the Muslims in the Prijedor municipality and would hardly qualify as a “reasonably substantial” part of the Bosnian Muslim group in Prijedor. It also needs to be borne in mind that not all the detainees at Keraterm were Muslims. (This demonstrates that about 3% is not considered substantial enough to constitute "in part" destruction). So, we can discuss this now. When Amnesty made their accusation about 43,000 people (still a lot) had reportedly been killed. At the time it was estimated that number included about 20,000 combatants. In Gaza that would have constituted about 1.9% of the pre-war population; and under the totality of control: 0.78% of the Palestinian population. Amnesty's argument included both Gaza and the West Bank but hinged on Israel trying to destroy the Palestinians in whole in Gaza and thus in part of all of what would be considered Palestine. This argument falls apart on its face. B'tselem's report never addresses this issue, nor does the UN COI or any other accuser, why would that be? Today the destruction of the Palestinian population in Gaza is about 73,000 out of the 2,230,000 pre-war population. That's about 3.28% of the pre-war population (and this does not account for live births which we also know have outpaced deaths per the Palestinian MoH). So, we can look towards the decision in Sikirica and see a similar death rate in which the ICTY chamber determined that it was not substantial enough to constitute genocide. This is important because we are now almost three years into this war and we can make a further comparative analysis on the inference of intent. In Srebrenica it was about 20-30% of the population destroyed in about 3 days (all males, which was determined to make it substantial because of the patrilineal society and difficulty in procreation). In Rwanda it was 80% (800,000+) in 100 days. Today is day 1,036 of the war in Gaza and the population has seen 3.28% destruction not accounting for live births. If Israel was intending the in part destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza, it has not gotten to the point where it would be substantial enough to demonstrate the intent to do so, or the act to do so (more on this in a second). This informs us that the substantiality requirement for genocide is also missing and any objective analysis would find that there is no genocidal actus reus or mens rea. So we now have two parts of the analysis demonstrating that it is unlikely that the tests can be sustained to make a finding of genocide. This gives us strike two on it being a blood libel because a serious accusation would know this requirement and work to sustain it. They didn't and the only reason they didn't is because they know it would defeat their predetermined conclusion. Finally, to commit genocide you must do all of the above and then act with the knowledge and predetermination to further that intent. This brings us the dolus generalis requirement. This requires, as in the preceding sentence, that the accused act with the intent to destroy the group, and you do so with the knowledge of committing the act for that purpose. What's fascinating is that not a single accuser has done this. They make assumptions but don't test the other plausible explanations for that harm. For example, the existence of Hamas weaponizing healthcare infrastructure causes such facilities to lose their protections under the law (GC IV 19), the diversion of aid in a manner that materially benefits a belligerent and is harmful to the other belligerent permits the ending of aid (GC IV 23), the use of human shielding does not immunize those locations from being attacked (GC IV 28 & API 51(7)), the existence of hostages in certain areas permits expressly the ability to conduct war in that area (GC IV 34). If these things are true, and we know that they are true, then the harm cannot be done with the furtherance of genocidal intent. And thus, it cannot be genocide as there are other reasonable explanations for the harm. Again, not a single accuser assesses this. Why? The only reasonable inference for this would be that they know that the determination would fail and that their predetermined conclusion would likewise fail. This is strike three on it being a blood libel because they know that they are misrepresenting the law and jurisprudence, Amnesty and B'tselem expressly tell us this. Yet, they do it anyways. Why? And with three strikes, they're out, they know what they are doing is libelous and false. And we know that it has caused serious and irreparable harm to people (because it has killed them). Thus, this is a blood libel. Another substantive issue here is that when we do this, and we permit these groups and people to get away with what they are doing to degrade the Genocide Convention just so they can accuse Israel of genocide, it causes more harm to the Palestinians in Gaza. Ultimately, the goal should be to stop the harm that's happening to innocent people, all innocent people. Hamas is culpable for that harm and by perpetuating the blood libel of genocide you negate the agency that they must have for their actions. We know that Hamas is using human shielding, we know that Hamas has used children in combat (I just watched a child testify to this yesterday), we know that they have diverted aid, we know that they have tortured Palestinians, we know that they have committed numerous atrocities against them and if we conclude that genocide has happened in Gaza, it means that there is no other reasonable explanation for that harm, which allows Hamas to continue to get away with harming innocent Palestinians. That's morally abhorrent, and legally unconscionable. So, back to this in where you said: "Calling the accusation that Israel committed the crime of genocide in Gaza a "blood libel" implies that there is no basis whatsoever for this accusation, no evidence at all to support it, and no reason for anyone to make it besides animus against Jews." Yes, this is absolutely true, as demonstrated here on every element of the crime of genocide. It is being done to perpetuate an animus against the sole Jewish state because it is the Jewish state. There is absolutely NO evidence to support the claim. We should not let people change the jurisprudence to find Israel committed genocide as a means to perpetuate harm against Jews. And that's what you have done by allowing them to use an appeal to authority for something that they are not actually authorities on. As a side note, you should ask Omer Bartov about his talk at Brown University in which he admitted that it's not genocide and didn't care.