Professor Schabas: US, Germany, and Others Could Be Held Liable as Accomplices to Genocide in Gaza, interviewed by Selcuk Gultasli, August 30, 2025, European Center for Populism Studies, https://www.populismstudies.org/professor-schabas-us-germany-and-others-could-be-held-liable- August 2025, European Center for Populism Studies, https://www.populismstudies.org/professor-schabas-us-germany-and-others-could-be-held-liable-as-accomplices-to-genocide-in-gaza/.
With regard to Israel’s military actions and settlement violence in the occupied Palestinian territories, the norms of international law and international criminal law speak in clear terms, as hardly ever in law. However, inhumane policies not only in Israel but also in Germany are silencing these norms in a way that makes it increasingly difficult to debate on the basis of better arguments and, let’s be honest, even to name the overwhelming facts.
In an in-depth interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Professor William Schabas—one of the world’s leading experts on international criminal law and genocide studies and a professor at Middlesex University—gives a detailed assessment of the escalating crisis in Gaza from the perspective of international law, populism research, and global governance. As a descendant of a family of Holocaust survivors, Professor Schabas warns that Gaza is a “litmus test” for the credibility of international justice and the authority of global legal institutions.
Interviews in which those who have dedicated their entire lives to interpreting and clarifying the law have their say are more important than ever in times like these. They can make the pertinent norms of international law, their negotiation before various courts, and their relevance to the policies of states comprehensible to untrained readers, without losing much of the complexity. Schabas offers readers solid expertise and presents legally sound chains of argumentation.
With regard to the allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, Schabas makes it clear that court and investigation proceedings such as those currently pending before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) have and must have very concrete implications for the decisions of individual national authorities and politicians. Genocide is not an isolated event; it always consists of a series of actions and decisions by many actors, and preventing it is the responsibility of all states that have committed themselves to “never again” with the 1948 Genocide Convention. At the same time, as Schabas also notes, genocide existed long before this international agreement, particularly as part of colonial expansion and racist logic. These events defy the simplistic historical classification of a before and after of a supposedly peaceful and human rights-based liberal post-war order and continue to shape the current world situation.
The case of South Africa v. Israel before the ICJ is “probably the most serious case of genocide ever brought before the Court.” Schabas argues that the intent to commit genocide can be inferred both from Israel’s military actions and from statements made by high-ranking Israeli officials, such as Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s remarks about cutting off food, water, and electricity supplies to Gaza. “We have more than just a pattern of behavior—we also have statements and clear indications of a policy.” Referring to the ICJ’s established case law, these are all factors that must be taken into account in the final assessment.
According to Schabas, third countries – the US, Germany, Canada, and others – may also be liable under Article III of the Genocide Convention for supporting Israel with military and political aid. He warns: “To the extent that they provide material assistance of significant importance, they may be held accountable as accomplices to genocide.”
Now is a crucial moment for the entire future of international justice, such as the ICJ and the ICC. Failure to apply uniform standards in the case of the destruction of Gaza carries the risk of entrenching a “two-tier system of international law” and undermining human rights worldwide: “These institutions are absolutely vulnerable, and they are aware of this. Gaza is a test of their credibility and authority.”
On all these points, Schabas not only takes the time to explain the legal issues in an understandable way, but also places them in the context of larger global political and legal disputes between individual states and their worldviews and value systems. The ICJ in particular, so Schabas, has recently, after periods of fundamental consensus, increasingly become the scene of such disputes, which increasingly reveal the contradictions and fragility not only of international courts, but of the entire normative and institutional basis of the United Nations—with a Security Council that could not be further removed from the ideal of representation of the entire international community based on equality.
In a broader context of debates on populism, authoritarianism, and international accountability, the interview makes an urgent call for a rethinking of the legal, institutional, and political frameworks for preventing mass atrocities. Double standards, as currently applied more than ever in law and politics, are not just an unfair application of the law and an unequal distribution of legal responsibility and effective prosecution. Double standards promote and create the illegitimate power of the few over the many and are the cornerstone of any authoritarianism that ultimately subjects all people to its dehumanizing logic.
Schabas argues that this must be prevented while it is still possible.