There seems to be this unspoken assumption in some circles that “don’t commit genocide” = “smile and twiddle your thumbs while Hamas bombs the crap out of you.”
Is the argument really “genocidal tactics are necessary for Israel’s survival”?
Do you think that’s possible through military means?
I don’t see any other way.
I haven’t seen any of the “genocide” claimants suggest anything other than “CEASEFIRE NOW”, followed by “Step 3: Profit!”
As far as I can tell, the definition of ‘genocide’ being used includes killing members of a group with intent to destroy — in whole or in part — that group. It strikes me as a downright odd definition, but one that’s fulfilled as soon as the armed forces employ tactics that kill, oh, say, even two guys in hopes of destroying — not in whole, but only in part — such a group.
That isn’t really an answer. Because I don’t see any other way, either- but I don’t think the military can do it either. I know that’s acknowledging it might be impossible, but well, that is what it is.
Because unless they’re willing to kill every man, woman, and child, Hamas (or an equivalent successor) can just grow back.
The solution, whatever it is, isn’t military. There will be an endless supply of angry young men.
…we are talking about the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
And as you well know because you’ve read the entire submission, this isn’t fulfilled “as soon as the armed forces employ tactics that kill, oh, say, even two guys in hopes of destroying — not in whole, but only in part — such a group.” That’s obviously disingenuous framing.
What the convention seeks to prevent is the elimination of an entire group of people. Which explains the “in part” language. If the convention is only ever invoked only after that entire group has been eliminated, then it’s been invoked far too late.
So no, there is nothing odd about the definition at all. The bar here is actually set extremely high. It will take years before the International Court of Justice rule on this. But the case presented by South Africa was convincing, Israel’s defence at the court bordered on ridiculous, and the judges overwhelmingly supported interim measures calling on Israel to “take all measures to prevent genocidal acts.”
Which is not occuring.
The IDF and Israeli government are botching this war, making mistakes that are resulting in thousands of entirely unnecessary civilian deaths:
Bad strategy, bad leadership, and bad execution of war are not the fault of Gazans, and yet Gazans are suffering for it. Your analysis of this war is infantile at best. It shouldn’t be surprising that malevolent, incompetent leaders like Netanyahu and his right-wing allies are botching this so badly. Hamas’s terrible attack does not justify bad strategy, bad leadership, and bad execution of war – nothing justifies this. Israeli leadership deserves criticism and condemnation for their many, many mistakes, and you’re too smart to just excuse them for every blunder that’s cost civilian lives just because Hamas started this latest cycle of violence. If Israel continues on this course, not only will they fail to destroy Hamas, they will have created thousands and possibly tens of thousands of new extremists willing to die trying to kill more Israelis.
I said, when you first brought it to my attention in this thread:
I’m not being disingenuous; I’m reading it now as I read it then: that the bit about ‘killing members of the group’ is one of ‘the following acts’ performed ‘with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.’
As far as I can tell, it simply is written that way. To the best of my knowledge, it’d be disingenuous of me to say it says the opposite, because I can plainly see what it says right there.
…your argument is indistinguishable from those made by sovereign citizens. The relevant part here is “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Intent is important. Fighting a conventional war with both parties following the Geneva Conventions and International Humanitarian Law wouldn’t be subjected to the convention.
The convention comes into play if the goal of one party is to destroy in whole, or in part, that group. Killing all Jewish people for example, would be included. As would killing all Americans, or attempting to kill or drive out every Palestinian in Gaza.
The difficulty with genocide cases is often proving intent. But that isn’t a problem here. Because Israel basically “tweeted it out.” There are multiple statements from all levels of leadership that clearly spell out Israel’s intentions here.
“Hamas became ISIS and the citizens of Gaza are celebrating instead of being horrified. Human animals are dealt with accordingly. Israel has imposed a total blockade on Gaza, no electricity, no water, just damage. You wanted hell, you will get hell”
“[n]ow we all have one common goal — erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth. Those who are unable will be replaced.”
“All the civilian population in Gaza is ordered to leave immediately. We will win. They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world.”
The intention of the convention is clear, the courts are not easily fooled, and “killing two guys” would not fit the definition.
But I agree that intent is important. I agree that it’s relevant. That definition mentions the intent to destroy such a group in whole or in part — and so, if someone who kills members of that group tells me they have the intent of destroying such a group “in whole,” then I’d figure it qualifies. And if someone else tells me they have no intent to destroy such a group “in whole,” but do “in part,” then I’d figure, well, if that’s your intent, it qualifies likewise. And if a third person explains that they have no such intent, neither in whole nor in part, then I’d reply that, because Intent Is Important And Relevant, that’d be an interesting claim with crucial ramifications under the given definition.
…and you would be wrong.
You won’t find a single reputable international legal expert that would agree with you. And they would patiently explain it you much better than I ever could.
Again: your arguments are indistinguishable from those arguments made by sovereign citizens. There is no merit to your position here. This isn’t a legal argument. It has no basis in reality.
Just to be clear: upthread, I quoted the bit that someone helpfully linked about how “While the ICJ’s decisions are final and without appeal, the court has no way to enforce them.”
I’m looking at the words in the definition as written, and you’re looking at the words — as, uh, not written, I guess? — with regard to a decision that doesn’t actually have the force of law behind it, right? If there’s something of the sovereign citizen to all of this, it’s presumably the part where someone claims X or Y or Z about legal consequences or ramifications or whatever, only to find out that nothing of the sort actually happens: because it has, as it were, ‘no basis in reality.’
…I’m reading the exact same words as written as well. The thing about legal documents though is that the “plain text reading” and how those words are read and understood along with layers of precedent means that laymen have to be careful before making pronouncements that “killing two soldiers would count.”
Because killing two soldiers wouldn’t count under the convention. Because that literally isn’t how any of this works. You can’t just hyper-focus on the word “part” and ignore everything else the convention says.
It has every basis in reality. The conventions were drafted and ratified. A legal process was set up to resolve legal arguments and disputes. All parties agreed to those processes.
What happened here is that Israel and the United States have decided to ignore those processes. Which is a thing that rogue states and corrupt institutions will do.
And by going rogue, both Israel and the US are abdicating their role as “leaders of the free world.” This is the start of the decline of both countries. They have no moral authority any more. All they will have to influence foreign policy will be threats and bombs and if you get on their wrong side, they will bomb you to oblivion whilst telling you “we are doing this for your own good.”
The importance of this court case are more relevant in other areas. With countries that still respect the rule of law. Where the courts have ruled that exports of arms to Israel are no longer allowed because of the genocide case at the ICJ. Where governments around the world have started to distance themselves from Israel lest they, too, become indicted.
But I don’t see how you can ignore the word “part”. If it weren’t there, I’d be writing something very different; but it is there, and I can’t in good faith ignore it. I’ve been fielding hypotheticals as best I can, here, and I’d sure like your best answer on this one: say a guy slowly and patiently explains to you that he killed two people, and that he committed those acts because those two people were members of a group that he had the intent of destroying in part — and you gasp “in whole?” — and he repeats “in part.”
But, he goes on to add, he’s not aware of any definition of the word in question where the acts he’s committed, with that intent, qualify: he then confidently offers to give you rather a lot of money, if you can show him otherwise. How would you respond?
…I’m not ignoring it.
You don’t need to ignore it.
You just have to understand the intent of the use of the word, how it relates to the entire context of the convention, and how the courts will interpret it.
It doesn’t exist in isolation.
“fielding hypotheticals” is the problem.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide isn’t a hypothetical document and this thread isn’t discussing a hypothetical issue. Perhaps starting another thread to discuss hypothetical issues relating to Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide might be a better place to discuss random hypotheticals that have no basis in fact. But here? It seems kinda off topic.
Like so many of your recent replies to me, I have absolutely no idea what it is you are asking of me.
But this doesn’t seem to have anything to do with Hamas attacking Israel, or the Genocide convention, so I’m not even going to ask you to explain this to me further. I’ll just stand by what I’ve said. You do not understand the convention you are reading. Hyper-focusing on a single word in the convention is cherry-picking, which is a fallacy. And these hypothetical you’ve raised have nothing to do with this thread, so I’ll decline to participate in it.
No, it’s not. Heck, it’d be equally absurd to accuse someone of hyper-focusing on a single word if reading “Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder” and really, really, zeroing in on the “Not”. You pretty much admit as much, when describing — albeit glossing over — the “plain text reading” of it: you can of course see what the Convention plainly says, and you can see that the bit about “in part” is right there, and you know exactly how it’d be read as plain text; and then you change the subject.
…yeah it is.
Find a single reputable legal expert that agrees with your interpretation of the convention, and I’d be happy to resume the conversation. But these hypotheticals don’t have anything to do with this war.
This entire side conversation started when you for some reason asked me: “Do you think genocide is an appropriate response to a terrorist attack?” And I of course replied: “I believe that what Israel is currently doing is an appropriate response to the 10/7 terrorist attack; give me a definition of ‘genocide’ and I’ll tell you whether I believe it fits that definition.”
You then referenced “The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”; upon reading the definition there, I (a) copy-and-pasted it, to make sure we were on the same page, and (b) noted that ‘it seems to me that Israel of course has the intent to destroy, in whole or in part — namely, in part — such a group, by killing members of that group. If that’s the definition, then, sure, I’m okay with saying it applies here; it seems pretty obvious that they’re killing members of that group, with the intent to destroy “in part” that group, and I approve.’
I’m not sure why you didn’t take yes for an answer then. I’m not even sure why you asked in the first place; surely the fact that I’m okay with what Israel is doing is more important than whether I think it clearly meets the plain-text wording of the definition you directed me to — but I’ve answered what I’ve been asked on that subject, even while it’s all struck me throughout as being almost as trivial as, say, a decision a court has no way to enforce.
Here is what you seem to be missing. The quoted bit is not saying “if you intend to kill 5 people because they are terrorists and all 5 are members of the group then that is genocide”. It is saying “if your intention is, let’s kill X people of group Y to make their numbers more manageable, then this is genocide, even if X is smaller than Z, the total population of that group”.
What you (hopefully unintentionally) appear to be saying is that you’d be OK with the second scenario.