Genocide is again at the forefront of international news. South Africa has brought the charge of genocide against Israel before the International Court of Justice. Is the charge valid? Some basics.
"Needless to say, for the child crushed to death under his bombed apartment building that has been turned into rubble, this debate makes absolutely no difference. It is an obscene abstraction." And this is how I think about whether Israeli action in Gaza meets the definition of genocide. I also find South Africa bringing the genocide charge against Israel beause it views Israel as a colonial aggressor vis a vis the Palestinian people suspect because it feeds into the general bias of South Africans against Israel. Better for South Africa to end its own corruption and internal criminality than to police the world.
I have long felt that the Convention's definition is badly flawed because so broad. Granted that a precise wording is difficult to arrive at, I think the definition of "genocide" should seek to correspond to people's everyday understanding of the term, which would encompass only a very few events in history--the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and perhaps a few others. Another argument against applying genocide to the Gaza horrors, also based on intent, is offered in my blog today (tonygreco.substack) by my guest contributor, Jerome Slater.
Excellent coverage of the problems. What is missing is how Hamas has been able to take control of Gaza for decades. It would not have happened without the blockade of Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank where numerous Israeli settlements have been created for over 400,000 settlers are living under the Israeli Army's protection. These settlers routinely attack surrounding villages killing Palestinians. We need to have a 2-state solution - Israel for Jews and Palestine for the Palestinians.
"Needless to say, for the child crushed to death under his bombed apartment building that has been turned into rubble, this debate makes absolutely no difference. It is an obscene abstraction." And this is how I think about whether Israeli action in Gaza meets the definition of genocide. I also find South Africa bringing the genocide charge against Israel beause it views Israel as a colonial aggressor vis a vis the Palestinian people suspect because it feeds into the general bias of South Africans against Israel. Better for South Africa to end its own corruption and internal criminality than to police the world.
I have long felt that the Convention's definition is badly flawed because so broad. Granted that a precise wording is difficult to arrive at, I think the definition of "genocide" should seek to correspond to people's everyday understanding of the term, which would encompass only a very few events in history--the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and perhaps a few others. Another argument against applying genocide to the Gaza horrors, also based on intent, is offered in my blog today (tonygreco.substack) by my guest contributor, Jerome Slater.
Excellent coverage of the problems. What is missing is how Hamas has been able to take control of Gaza for decades. It would not have happened without the blockade of Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank where numerous Israeli settlements have been created for over 400,000 settlers are living under the Israeli Army's protection. These settlers routinely attack surrounding villages killing Palestinians. We need to have a 2-state solution - Israel for Jews and Palestine for the Palestinians.
Very thoughtfully, and sensitively discussed. Thanks.
I found the essay extremely informative andI I basically agree what is occurring in Gaza war crimes and not genocide