4 ms·
The guy who coined the term, drafted the UN convention on Genocide. It includes the Definition of genocide: Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as:
by peterashford 1y ago
The guy who coined the term, drafted the UN convention on Genocide. It includes the Definition of genocide:
Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as:
... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2
Israel is doing (a), (b), (c), (e) and arguably (d).
It is genocide. By definition. A definition written by a Jew and a Zionist, too, if that matters.
- incrudible 1y agoThen why is this selectively applied to Israel? Turkey is doing (a), (b), (c) to Kurds right now, where are the scholars? It is such an open ended definition that it could be applied to almost any conflict.
- disgruntledphd2 1y agoI don't think it's just Israel, this gets called out pretty regularly if you pay attention. Like, a whole new term "ethnic cleansing" was invented in the 1990s to justify inaction during the collapse of Yugoslavia. I care more about what's happening in Israel/Palestine (the West Bank is basically another war zone) because I'm irish and what's happening in Israel/Palestine is incredibly reminiscent of what happened to irish catholics from about 1600-1900, and also because I know a _lot_ of Israeli citizens (and many of them hang out here) so I'm hopeful that speaking out will make a difference. But honestly, this has been getting worse since the 90s and at this point, I can't see any peace process ever happening. Like, either all the Israelis kill the Palestinians or vice versa (or climate change makes the region uninhabitable). It's profoundly depressing, particularly given that the reason there are laws against genocide is because of what happened to Jewish people (and slavs and gay people etc) during WW2.
- cmurf 1y ago“acts committed with intent” Both need to be proven. The relevant case law is Prosecutor v. Bagilishema (2001). Genocide therefore invites analysis under two headings: the prohibited underlying acts and the specific genocidal intent or dolus specialis. Meanwhile there’s an undenied genocide happening in Ukraine that Russia boasts about committing. And on-going in Darfur 15 years after the international community declared one there.
- belZaah 1y agoHm, by that definition Hamas has been trying to commit genocide on the Jews since day one?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 1y agoYes, but the aim of Israel does not seem to eradicate Hamas but eradicate the entire population around it.
- peterashford 1y agoAnd if Israel were only starving Hamas, and sniping Hamas kids, I'd have a lot more sympathy for it.
- egisspegis 1y agoSo is Ukraine committing genocide on russians? The intent needs to be there too. Otherwise it's just a war.
- bjoli 1y agoGenocidal intent is not hard to find. Neither among Israeli politicians, military personnel, or on social media. Even before the whole GHF setup, which is just organized cruelty to starve a population.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- spwa4 1y ago> Genocidal intent is not hard to find Especially easy to find among Hamas, or PA, or a whole bunch of other Palestinian organisations even when it comes to their own people. Palestinian organizations have committed genocide, no need to change definitions or laws, in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Israel and maybe Saudi Arabia too. In most of those places they have a reputation for disgusting cruelty (e.g. using snipers against school children in Lebanon) In other words: they are not the good guys.
- vFunct 1y agoSo you're saying Israel is committing genocide because they are a foreign invasion force of European Jews that have the stated intent of eliminating Palestinians people from the land they're trying to take through a war they started in 1948? And that Hamas are the good guys because they have a right to kill the foreign invaders trying to steal their land? Is that the correct summary of Israel's genocidal intent?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bjoli 1y ago
- daft_pink 1y agoIf you apply the definition of genocide this way then many wars are a genocide and you are changing the definition to render it almost meaningless. The point of this resolution WAS NOT to declare every war a genocide and therefore there must be intent to destroy a people BECAUSE of their identity. The wording "in part" was intended to capture situations where the group is attacked within the area where the perpetrator exercises power or control. For example, the Nazis couldn't exterminate Jews everywhere, but they targeted those within occupied Europe, where they exercised control. Israel is specifically targeting Gaza in response to acts of war perpetrated by the Gazan government, Hamas. Hamas has refused to surrender, continued to fight, and the war continues. Palestinians who are citizens of Israel or part of the West Bank are not being targeted thus the war is clearly not targeting Palestinians because of their identity. You can't start a war and then hide behind your identity and claim it's a genocide.
- daft_pink 1y agoI just want to say that death and war are horrible things and there is nothing wrong with wanting them to end or trying to end them. War is totally horrific. At the same time, I just think we have this habit as a society of creating a charged label, and then using these charged labels to argue against our political opponents as a way to brand them as illegitimate, dangerous or beyond the bounds of acceptable debate. Some examples of this is how the terrorism label became a charged label after 9/11 and was used to delegimatize all kinds or protest or political organizing, or how we have expanded the definition of racism beyond overt racism to systemic racism, which many democrats used to label every major republican a racist and casts arguments about policy as a form of personally being a bigot. By recognizing that people we disagree with are not the second coming of hitler or bin Laden, we make space for constructive debate and real solutions instead of shutting down debate, viewing people we disagree with as pure evil and not addressing the root causes.
- peterashford 1y agoI agree with your sentiment. However I also believe that this is a Genocide. I'm not just using the word as a rhetorical cudgel.