“Genocide” has a specific legal definition and individuals in full agreement that the Israeli government is engaged in wanton disregard for life with needless death and destruction, and even an intent to displace a group of people (ethnic cleansing), can honestly disagree on whether there is a “specific intent to destroy” the group, the definition of the international crime of “genocide.” My own take is that there are elements in power in the current Israeli government that want genocide but the overall intent is wanting to eliminate threat (Hamas and any other) with complete disregard for the innocent lives cost in pursuit of the goal. Bibi’s intent may very well be to have the external threat be the focus so the public is distracted from his crimes and to preserve his hold on power a bit longer.
That is unnecessary death and destruction that I wholeheartedly and absolutely condemn. It is also in my mind unlikely to result in a good result for Israel itself. And hopefully not for Bibi.
I wouldn’t argue with those who use that word in protest though. They do lose me though when try to insist upon the word as a litmus test. And when it is used with complete ignorance that “from the river to the sea” is a call for genocide, and that Hamas and others are for genocide, I do have to swallow hard.
An American politician who uses the word in regard to Israel also loses me.
I think that the goal is eliminating any substantial threat and that if they believe that is what it takes to achieve it then they will do that. In the West Bank OTOH settlers are being enabled to engage in ethnic cleansing not out of a desire for security at any cost, but out of an expansionist mindset.
I swear I’m not trying to be the language police guy, but this is how we ended up with the word “literally” meaning “figuratively”. Among other similar linguistic crimes and misdemeanors.
Of course language evolves. But appeals to 500 million using words incorrectly doesn’t make it right.
“If they believe…” It looks to me like they do believe that. Do you think they believe that?
My understanding is that genocide’s definition is not predicated on whether it’s a means or an end. I want to eliminate an ethnic group from an area because I think it’s the only way for me to be safe, the “because” doesn’t matter. I’m wanting genocide.
They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert.
…I’ve never thrown the term around casually. I’ve never thrown the term around to “get a reaction.”
In multiple threads on these boards I’ve made the case for genocide. I’ve done it in threads you’ve participated in, and you casually dismissed it.
I’m not in the business of policing language. I don’t care if you call it a genocide or not. But almost every humanitarian agency on the ground is calling it a genocide. A broad consensus of genocide scholars agrees. There is a case for genocide currently before the International Court of Justice. The case was strong enough the court ordered a number of provisional orders against Israel to prevent genocide: those orders were ignored.
A reminder of exactly what it was that they ignored:
So the very least I’m asking of you is to treat accusations of Israel committing genocide in Gaza in good faith.
Let me ask you something… in good faith… If the ICC comes back with a ruling that Israel did not commit genocide in Gaza, will you “in good faith” stop making this accusation?
No, you haven’t; you gesticulated in the vague direction of something one international org or another said, casually dismissing all criticism of their methodology with empty appeals to authority.
The court said “if you are doing these things, you shouldn’t; we will look into whether you are or are not at a later time”. Israel didn’t ignore that; they weren’t doing those things, and they still aren’t.
When I judge that those accusations come in good faith, I will treat them as if they do. Until then, I will treat them with the respect and seriousness that they deserve.
The fact that you’re still linking the South African case, where they’re quoting fucking soccer players and musicians to demonstrate intent on the behalf of the government, demonstrates quite clearly to me that you are either continuing not to operate in good faith, or you are just that mentally deficient.
I can 100% guarantee you he won’t; he will find some reason to claim that “Zionists” compromised the ICC. The same way his ilk ignore the recent IAEA report on Syria because it doesn’t fit their anti-“Zionist” narrative.
…the genocide ruling will be made by the ICJ, not the ICC. The ICC may prosecute individuals. They have an arrest warrant out for Netanyahu and
Gallant for the war crimes of starvation as a method of warfare and of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.
But this really isn’t a good-faith response to me at all, is it? Because HRW, Amnesty, etc, aren’t calling this a genocide based ultimately on the ICJ ruling, they are calling it a genocide now because they’ve examined the evidence, they are on the ground, and they are seeing what is happening, and that isn’t going to change in five years’ time when the ICJ finally makes their ruling because by then it will be too late. One of the reasons why it’s important to consider it a genocide now are the reasons I outlined in the other thread: contracting parties are required to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.
What we can’t ignore is that there is a sustained campaign led both by the United States of America and Israel to dismantle international law. They are doing that by sanctioning officials, campaigns to replace officials, and that in five years’ time when the court actually make their ruling there is a good chance they would have been successful.
So I’m not going to say what my reaction will be in five years’ time if what we know now as international humanitarian law has been demolished. All I know now is that the consensus among people that matter is very clear right now.