How the term “genocide” is misused in the Israel-Hamas war
How the term “genocide” is misused in the Israel-Hamas war
South Africa accuses Israel of committing the heinous crime
I used to like The Economist, but this is Nazis propaganda right on their page.
Israel, by contrast, does not meet the test of genocide. There is little evidence that Israel, like Hamas, “intends” to destroy an ethnic group—the Palestinians. Israel does want to destroy Hamas, a militant group, and is prepared to kill many civilians in doing so. While some Israeli extremists might want to eradicate the Palestinians, that is not a government policy.
This is not okay. This is Nazi logic. Nazi, fascist logic, from The Economist.
Even Nazi Germany did not make killing the official "intention" or government policy in my understanding. At least not always. It was announced as a safety guarantee, for example.
You're viewing a single thread.
The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.
Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”
--https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Colloquially, it's genocide, but legally it does not appear to be. And that's a problem if you're trying to charge Israel with genocide in a court of law. Inevitably it's going to be found to not be genocide and that's one more thing Israel can point to. Crimes against humanity would probably been a better route.
It's going to be hard, if not impossible to show in court that Israel, as a policy, is deliberately targeting Palestinians. Showing Isael's actions is resulting in shit tons of civilian casualties seems pretty easy. Maybe there's super secret documents that show it's a deliberate act, but I highly doubt they'd be that dumb if genocide is their intention.
I really recommend watching the case presented by South Africa earlier this week establishing that intent. De jure, there is clearly a case to be made.
I mean, deliberately cutting off millions of people from almost all forms of food/water supply could definitely be seen as intent.
Although I can agree with you on the legal challenge, The Economist are journalists. Journalists are supposed to investigate.
Instead, they take Israeli stance at the face value and claim it's not genocide.
South Africa proved intent with a whole bunch of quotes from many government and military figures with Israel and the IDF. Netanyahu himself referred to the biblical story of the Ameleks who were wiped out by the Hebrews.