12
votes
From a scholar of genocide: Both Israel and Palestinian supporters accuse the other side of genocide – here’s what the term actually means
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Alexander Hinton
- Published
- Nov 7 2023
- Word count
- 1185 words
That didn't really end up saying much, for all that there were a lot of words involved.
Everything else is waffling about who said what and how awful the whole situation is.
The mental image of Neutral President popped into my head.
"All I can say is, my gut says maybe."
It's just there was not tangible substance beyond those three bulletpoints.
I mean, I get it. No one wants death threats, and those get sent to anyone who has an identifiable public stance on this topic and can be identified by name or address. But when it comes to public knowledge or discourse this article that looks like it's saying something but doesn't really have substance isn't actually better than the author having not written it at all.
Couldn't agree more, this article was just a waste of my time. The author provided no real insight into the topic and made no clear statement of opinion.
I am not really sure how Israeli settlements in the West Bank could be construed as anything other than ethnic cleansing and it has been going on far longer than this war.
Only one of these groups is actually in a position to commit genocide...
And one of these groups runs for election by saying that they promise to kill every last member of the other.
Neither is acceptable, and I think arguing pointless definitions in these cases is missing the entire point. You have a government that is more than willing to lock up a group of people and that people's government claims proudly they want to kill everyone in the other group.
The only definition that matters for this is "Fucked up" and I don't think "able to commit genocide and maybe doing it vs absolutely wants to commit genocide but can't" has any meaningful difference.
The last election for president or legislature in Palestine was before most Palestinians were born, let alone able to vote. It's disingenuous to claim that their government represents them.
And its disingenuous to claim that the jewish people fully support the actions of their government. Especially given recent investigations, elections, and approval ratings.
That also doesn't mater because it is missing the point and delving into semantics I wasn't intending to be perfect because I don't have time to write the treaty required to catch all the nuance in this. There's a whole bunch of issues with hamas and how they try to indoctrinate their population since it benefits them (textbooks come to mind). Israel is doing much the same, if in more modern/less overt ways.
Trying to make this a good vs bad based on borders is frankly the same mistake that started all this.
Who brought up "the jewish people"? Do they all live in Israel? "Palestinian" does not carry some implicit dichotomy against "Hebrew", it is the label for citizens of a region, arguably encompassing Israeli citizens. How can you seriously call it pedantic, when it directly contradicts the first sentence of your comment?
I didn't say that about "the jewish people." (if you're referring to Israeli civilians I wouldn't call them that anyway.)
It's not "delving into semantics", most of your previous comment was about the Palestinian government and their goals, as it applies to "one of these groups" (I recognize that was not your original phrasing but you did choose to continue using it). You don't need to "write a treaty" to avoid misrepresenting the wishes of the populace.
You were also the one to bring up "good versus bad", which is a misrepresentation of the comment you replied to. They were referring to ability versus inability, which you handwaved away, but it absolutely is relevant. It's not self-defense to slaughter people who cannot do you harm, even if they want to. Hamas can do Israel harm, but they cannot do the same level of harm that Israel can. That ability that Israel has carries the responsibility to direct that force at Hamas, rather than innocent Palestinians, which they are absolutely not doing.
I cannot more strongly disagree with the idea that "maybe currently committing genocide" vs. "utterly unable to even try" is not a meaningful distinction.
I think this is a very important historical fact to note. we have a legal definition of genocide, and it's tempting to view that definition as being objective and fair.
but of course it's not objective. it was influenced by powerful nations at the time, the US and the USSR, who wanted to ensure that their ongoing oppression of their own citizens would not fall under the "genocide" label.
if that US push to have intent and physical killing included in the definition hadn't been successful, it seems like Israel blockading Gaza for the past 18 years might be considered genocide (rather than merely being described as a crime against humanity by multiple United Nations officials).
this seems to me to be the part most relevant to the current situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
as the article says, there are various legal definitions for what specifically qualifies something as a "genocide".
but I think the actual meaningful real-world definition is that genocide is the thing that everyone agrees should never be done.
when the US government is a staunch ally of the Israeli government, and there's allegations that genocide is taking place at the hands of the Israeli military, the answer from US officials is always going to be "no it's not". because the exact legal definition doesn't matter, the actual question at play is "are we going to condemn the actions of our ally as unacceptable".
The preventing births issue is important. The US among other countries has history of sterilizing members of less valued groups without disclosure or consent. That is genocide.