A Fantasy Amicus for October 7th

Generated by Google Image AI

In the Court of Conscience:

A Fantasy Amicus on Holding Hamas Collectively Responsible for Kinocide and the Weaponization of Sexual Violence

By Dr. Nancy Hartevelt Kobrin, Psychoanalyst and Counterterrorism Expert

I. Introduction

To the Court of Conscience, now and in the future:

On October 7, 2023, Hamas perpetrated acts of violence that went far beyond conventional warfare or terrorism. These were systematic attacks on families—the foundational social units that sustain identity and generational continuity. Women, men, and minors were subjected to sexual violence, abduction, and murder. Homes were transformed into scenes of unspeakable brutality.

In recent months, two major Israeli reports have emerged that address these atrocities. One frames the violence as kinocide—the targeted destruction of family and generational bonds, herein referred to as the Kinocide Project by Cochav Elkayam-Levy, The Civil Commission on Oct. 7th Crimes Against Women and Children. The other, the Dinah Project by Prof. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari at Bar Ilan University, who was "instrumental in bringing to Israel a team of UN experts led by Pramila Patten, Under Secretary General, Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict (SRSG-SVC)," documents the organized use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. While these reports are complementary, they risk confusing the public by appearing to diverge. This brief seeks to clarify the shared terrain they expose: Hamas’s deliberate, ideologically driven campaign to dismantle families through the mutilation of the body and the weaponization of intimacy.

This amicus brief builds on both reports and offers a psychoanalytic lens to understand the full scope of the crime. It calls for the recognition of Hamas’s collective responsibility, the naming of kinocide, and acknowledgment of sexual violence as a central weapon of ideological warfare—not merely an unfortunate byproduct.

II. Statement of Interest

I submit this brief as a psychoanalyst specializing in trauma, terrorism, and the unconscious dimensions of violence. For decades, I have studied the psychological mechanisms underlying terrorism and their devastating effects on survivors—particularly within the intimate realm of the family.

Sexual violence in these contexts is often mischaracterized as opportunistic or merely about power. My research and clinical experience reveal something deeper: a symbolic, often unconscious desire to erase the Other’s capacity for attachment, reproduction, memory, and love.

I term this kinocide: the targeted destruction of the family unit and its capacity to generate future life.

The atrocities of October 7 were not random. They were driven by deep-rooted ideological and psychotic fantasies aimed at obliterating the family as a symbolic structure. These unconscious fantasies animate the Hamas worldview. If we are to eradicate this ideology, we must understand  and confront the unconscious engine that powers it—a regressive fantasy born of unfulfilled psychological needs in early development.

III. The Argument: Kinocide and the Attack on Generativity through Collective Immorality

Hamas’s assault was an ideological and psychological war on the family itself—on mothers, fathers, children, and the very concept of future generations. Sexual violence was not incidental. It was central: a strategic weapon meant to destroy identity and generational continuity.

Kinocide captures this dimension of systematic destruction. It goes beyond homicide or even genocide by targeting the relational and symbolic heart of human society—the family hearth, the maternal bond, and the intergenerational thread that sustains culture and memory.

This form of violence transforms reproduction and familial attachment into sites of horror. The goal is not only to destroy individual bodies but to rupture the very psychic and social conditions necessary for life to continue.

A key psychoanalytic clue to this pathology lies in the mutilation of bodies, reminiscent of serial killing. Such mutilation, I argue, reflects a profound disruption of the maternal bond. See: Kobrin, The Violent Brutality of Growing Up in a Shame-Honor Culture.

To prosecute only individual perpetrators misses the structural nature of this crime. Unless Hamas is held collectively responsible—and unless kinocide is recognized as a distinct legal concept—we cannot fully reckon with the magnitude of the violence.

IV. The Unconscious as Battlefield

From a psychoanalytic perspective, the targeting of women, men, and children in hyper-brutal and public ways is an attack on the maternal object and on the symbolic order of kinship itself. The womb, the father’s protective role, the innocence of the child—these are all potent symbols of continuity and life.

The sexual violence of October 7 was the acting-out of unconscious fantasies:

• The wish to sever the child’s link to origin and safety by destroying the maternal bond;

• The projection of Hamas’s rage and shame onto family members as symbolic carriers of forbidden attachment;

• The targeting of minors and men to complete the symbolic annihilation of the family unit.

The recording and dissemination of these acts elevated them into collective rituals of psychic obliteration. This was not spontaneous savagery—it was the enactment of psychotic fantasies aimed at the annihilation of identity, love, and connection.

Understanding this unconscious terrain is essential. The harm done is not merely physical. It is symbolic, intergenerational, and civilizational.

V. The Law’s Limitations

Existing legal categories—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity—fail to capture the unique and targeted destruction of kinship structures.

Genocide addresses the mass killing of a people. War crimes prosecute individual unlawful acts. But neither accounts for the deliberate, systematic assault on familial bonds and generational continuity as such.

Sexual violence is often treated as incidental. Yet in Hamas’s case, it was not peripheral—it was instrumental. It functioned as a deliberate tool to dismantle the symbolic architecture of family and culture.

Without a legal framework that recognizes kinocide and the weaponization of sexual violence, we risk misrepresenting the nature and scope of these crimes.

The field of psychoanalysis offers tools to decode the unconscious motives and ideological fantasies that underpin these coordinated attacks on the family. Law must evolve to integrate these insights.

VI. Recommendations to the Court of Conscience

This brief respectfully urges the Court to consider:

1. Recognizing the collective responsibility of Hamas and naming kinocide as a distinct mass atrocity crime targeting generational bonds.

2. Acknowledging the weaponization of sexual violence as a central and intentional tactic in ideological warfare.

3. Expanding the legal definition of intent to include unconscious and symbolic motivations behind family-targeted violence.

4. Admitting evidence of symbolic, psychic, and intergenerational harm alongside conventional forensic evidence.

5. Developing reparations frameworks that address communal and familial damage—not just individual injuries.

6. Creating interdisciplinary panels involving psychoanalysts, trauma specialists, jurists, and human rights experts to develop new jurisprudence.

   
   

VII. Conclusion

The atrocities of October 7 were more than acts of terror or murder. They were a ritualized annihilation of kinship, carried out by Hamas as a collective perpetrator. The familial bonds that give life meaning and continuity were deliberately and symbolically targeted.

If existing legal frameworks do not yet recognize this crime, then they must be expanded. To achieve true accountability and healing, we must name what happened: collective responsibility, kinocide, and the weaponization of sexual violence.

This brief calls for that essential evolution—because without new language, there can be no new justice.

#BringThemHomeNOW