In the end, it doesn’t matter how he defines it. We are signatories to the UN and the UN definition in Article II of the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” is:
"In the present Convention, genocide means 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."
Note the language: “ANY of the following acts”.
Israel is now 5/5 with the relocation of children from Gaza to the West Bank.
I’ve heard the argument that it isn’t genocide because Isreal doesn’t intend to destroy Palestinians. I guess their defense is that Isreal is just incredibly inept at fighting a war? I don’t buy it. How anyone can deny the genocide after the World Central Kitchen incident is beyond me.
Meaning a) would indicate any nation at war with a nation with a defined identity (most ).
Is technically guilty.
I am not questioning if Israel is. There actions are over the top whatever.
But that definition is extreamly broard in a world that dosenot ban defensive wars. Few would argue a single response on a nation that attacked yours is invalid.
Yet by that definition. Hamas committed genocide on Oct 7 and Israel repeated it with their first response.
Absolutely no violent attack on one nation from another. Dose not involve killing members of a nation ethnic or religious group. As that describes every one.
So seems like a law very open to being considered wrong and reinterpretation as the nation considers it.
The convention says that these acts must be committed with the intent of destroying an identity, and not simply committing them against a group with an idenity
But that then make it impossible to proove in any case where the commiter is not vocal…
IE if Israel says its self defence. Absolutly no one can proove their motive.
Allowing crap like the claims all folks objecting are just antisemitic. Cos lets face it. There history was one of the few cases where the nazis were open about plans.
That part is true. It is usually extremely difficult to prove. It’s why the case on whether it’s genocide can take years. And why people saying the ICC hasn’t said its 100% genocide yet aren’t arguing in good faith. They said it’s plausible, which is already huge. Anything more wasn’t realistic, as it will take them most likely literal years to finish the case out, but we can call it as we see it before then.
In this case, it’s still okay for everyone else to say it because we don’t have to prove it legally, and it’s pretty obvious to the eye and ear with the mountain of evidence given by South Africa. Luckily, Israeli government officials and soldiers have said openly many statements basically proving that they want to do a genocide. They’ve called Palestinians animals, compared Gaza to Amalek, said they need to erase the Gaza strip from the earth, said there are no involved civilians, been encouraging another ethnic cleansing through emigration as well (“If there are 100,000 or 200,000 Arabs in Gaza and not 2 million Arabs, the entire discussion on the day after will be totally different.”), etc. Those quotes and statements have always helped me feel more comfortable calling it what it is.
In the end, it doesn’t matter how he defines it. We are signatories to the UN and the UN definition in Article II of the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” is:
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
"In the present Convention, genocide means 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."
Note the language: “ANY of the following acts”.
Israel is now 5/5 with the relocation of children from Gaza to the West Bank.
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/13/1238227682/orphans-gaza-rafah-israel-west-bank-sos-childrens-village-international
I’ve heard the argument that it isn’t genocide because Isreal doesn’t intend to destroy Palestinians. I guess their defense is that Isreal is just incredibly inept at fighting a war? I don’t buy it. How anyone can deny the genocide after the World Central Kitchen incident is beyond me.
Meaning a) would indicate any nation at war with a nation with a defined identity (most ).
Is technically guilty.
I am not questioning if Israel is. There actions are over the top whatever.
But that definition is extreamly broard in a world that dosenot ban defensive wars. Few would argue a single response on a nation that attacked yours is invalid.
Yet by that definition. Hamas committed genocide on Oct 7 and Israel repeated it with their first response.
Absolutely no violent attack on one nation from another. Dose not involve killing members of a nation ethnic or religious group. As that describes every one.
So seems like a law very open to being considered wrong and reinterpretation as the nation considers it.
The reading comprehension devil strikes again.
The convention says that these acts must be committed with the intent of destroying an identity, and not simply committing them against a group with an idenity
Giving it the opposite issue,
Thanks for updating me BTW.
But that then make it impossible to proove in any case where the commiter is not vocal…
IE if Israel says its self defence. Absolutly no one can proove their motive.
Allowing crap like the claims all folks objecting are just antisemitic. Cos lets face it. There history was one of the few cases where the nazis were open about plans.
That part is true. It is usually extremely difficult to prove. It’s why the case on whether it’s genocide can take years. And why people saying the ICC hasn’t said its 100% genocide yet aren’t arguing in good faith. They said it’s plausible, which is already huge. Anything more wasn’t realistic, as it will take them most likely literal years to finish the case out, but we can call it as we see it before then.
In this case, it’s still okay for everyone else to say it because we don’t have to prove it legally, and it’s pretty obvious to the eye and ear with the mountain of evidence given by South Africa. Luckily, Israeli government officials and soldiers have said openly many statements basically proving that they want to do a genocide. They’ve called Palestinians animals, compared Gaza to Amalek, said they need to erase the Gaza strip from the earth, said there are no involved civilians, been encouraging another ethnic cleansing through emigration as well (“If there are 100,000 or 200,000 Arabs in Gaza and not 2 million Arabs, the entire discussion on the day after will be totally different.”), etc. Those quotes and statements have always helped me feel more comfortable calling it what it is.
Fair points.