1y ago

How the term “genocide” is misused in the Israel-Hamas war

www.economist.com 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.

41 comments

"It's not genocide because they're not trying to murder everyone. Yes, they are killing everyone but it's not intentional."
What a stupid fucking piece of shit excuse.
- I think classifying "hurt children, family dead" as a military metric should be the canary in the coalmine.
  But again, we don't establish intent by catching Netenyahu saying "We're literally going to genocide the Palestinian people".
  You'll have to establish intent, or motive, by collecting the many, many hundreds of statements, quotes and accounts regarding the Israeli state, Israeli organisations, Zionist organisation ACROSS THE DECADES, to the Zionist vacation plans, the gathering of settlers and international fund raising, the paper trail of property seized by the Israeli state in one form or another, the messaging, the subtext, and oh my god I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.
  
  What do you call it when a government accidentally wipes an ethnicity from a place through war and displacement over the course of several years? A genslaughter? An oopsie-daisy?
  
  Just a quick correction, the ICJ (where this is taking place) is the UN Judicial body. The ICC, established by the Rome Statute, is a different thing. If you’re a UN member, the ICJ has jurisdiction.
  https://www.icj-cij.org/court
  The ICC is also launching a war crimes probe, but as you noted, Israel and the US aren’t signatories so that might not amount to much.
  
  Although I understand your point, it's a stupid fucking piece of shit excuse.
- When you can apply that same anger and outrage to the other side, then you might have some credibility.
  
  How so? Is it a requirement that someone state at every turn that Hamas is genocidal as well? Who is dying right now?

We even used to be subscribers of the Economist for a long time, but they have made a complete u-turn over the years. In the meantime they appear to just echo mostly pro-establishment opinions with weak research and an often weird approach of interpreting data and issues. So this does not come as a surprise unfortunately.
South Africa levels accusations of ‘genocidal conduct’ against Israel at world court are different as we know.
- By the UN definition, Hamas is a genocidal organisation. Its founding charter, published in 1988, explicitly commits it to obliterating Israel. Article 7 states that “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them”. Article 13 rejects any compromise, or peace, until Israel is destroyed. Hamas fighters who burst into Israel on October 7th and killed almost 1,200 Israelis (and other nationalities) were carrying out the letter of their genocidal law.
  This doesn't seem like it would take a lot of research but it might be the first time I've heard about this charter.
  
  By the UN definition, Hamas is a genocidal organisation
  The UN does not define "genocidal organisation", but instead defines genocide. Does an organization who intends to commit genocide meet the definition of a genocidal organization, or would it be an organization who has both the will and the means to, or would it be an organization who is committing genocide? That's not defined by the UN and the nuance of that is very important to the claim.
  Its founding charter, published in 1988, explicitly commits it to obliterating Israel. Article 7 states that “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them”. Article 13 rejects any compromise, or peace, until Israel is destroyed.
  Here's the charter. In the preamble it states "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it". The particular translation I'm using of this document has it written as "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees." I don't speak arabic and as such cannot comment if perhaps it's simply that the term they use for "fight" is also one that explicitly means to kill as well, or what, but the second part does make clear that the intent is to eventually oppress the Jewish people and send them into hiding.
  I'd recommend reading through the entire document if you have time.
  
  @kick_out_the_jams
  [...] Hamas is a genocidal organisation [...]
  Who disputed the claim of Hamas being a genocidal organisation? They are. But this has nothing to do with the linked article and the fact that Israel is committing genocide on the Palestinian people as well.
  Is this the international law in the 21st century? An eye for eye? (The answer is: no, it isn't, because an eye for an eye makes the world go blind.)
  I'm wondering whether you and others here will be tired of this whataboutism.
- The Economist was founded as a bag carrier for neoliberalism (back then it was just called liberalism). They've become more shrill and less confident as their views have been shown to be utter bullshit.

There is little evidence that Israel, like Hamas, “intends” to destroy an ethnic group—the Palestinians
This particular line I keep seeing parroted. Yes, Hamas has said they wish to eradicate an ethnic group. Yes, that is egregious. No, that does not mean their rebellion against the occupying, more powerful force, is a genocide.
Beyond that, Israel has said "we are fighting against animals", painting Palestinians as inhuman to legitimize their warcrimes. While one may argue that they were just talking about Hamas, it's obvious that Hamas is composed of Palestinians, and while not elected by the Palestinians of today, represent them.
But to my initial point, the occupying force, physically erasing a people and systemically erasing their culture and ability to congregate and form community is genocide. Regardless of Hamas. They have the means, and they are enacting that means.
- Does this invalidate the subject upon which they're reporting, i.e. does this invalidate Neve Gordon's opinion that Israel's painting Palestinians as animals to justify their warcrimes?

"It's not official government policy to kill Palestinians. It's official government policy that they all have to 'leave voluntarily', it's official government policy to be looking for places for them to go, and it's official government policy not to ask what happens if Palestinians fail to 'leave voluntarily', but it's not a genocide because during the killing no one said 'I'm doing this very genocidally'."
- Also there's a subtext I haven't seen news outlet calling out. Every time they put out one of those announcements for them to leave voluntarily (not that they actually have anywhere to go or any means to get there) somehow cell communications and internet went down simultaneously just prior. Almost as if, I don't know, somebody disabled communications and then put out a communication so that no one would find out and they would have an excuse. "They never left!"
  
  I deffo noticed that the IDF tried to deliver a message to an arabic speaking population in an area where they had destroyed the internet, but that they did it in english on twitter. feels rather performative, no?

"um, akshully, it's not genocide, but it might still be bad or whatever." Ridiculous
Setting aside whether Israel's attacks, killings, civilian casualties and mass displacement meet a particular definition of genocide, what possible reason does the author have to quibble on this?
Either they're merely being pedantic (which I find hard to believe) or they're trying to blunt outrage over what I think any reasonable person would call a genocide. They're reaching for any means possible to make these crimes seem less heinous. Seems like a move of desperation to me.
- genocide and ethnic cleansing were inevitable from the moment Israel was formed. ethnic cleansing is the inevitable result of an ethnostate, and Israel was formed to be a Jewish ethnostate. an ethnostate is an ethnostate, regardless of which ethnicity it's for

There are considered to be 10 stages of genocide as described by Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenstagesofgenocide
The stages ramp up in severity until we're at full gas chamber Nazi status by stage 9 and stage 10 is denying any crime occurred.
I'd say Israel and Palestine were already at like stage 6 before this, now it's at like stage 8. It's not clear if Israel actually plans on exterminating all Palestinians, but it sure seems like that's where they're leading things.
- It’s not clear if Israel actually plans on exterminating all Palestinians, but it sure seems like that’s where they’re leading things.
  Well, obviously not ALL of Israel. The prime minister doesn't have 100% popular support, but the fascist ghouls he hangs out with have gone mask-off many times saying they want to kill as many Palestinians as they can.

In Israeli army camps, Gazan detainees subjected to torture and degrading treatment
New testimonies concerning the systematic torture and inhumane treatment meted out to Palestinian detainees in Israeli army camps—some of whom have been forcibly disappeared from the Gaza Strip—have been received by Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor.
The Israeli army and Shin Bet investigators have treated the Palestinian detainees like “non-human animals”, according to testimonies received by Euro-Med Monitor from newly-released people who spent several days in Israeli custody.
The majority of the horrific torture operations, according to the testimonies, start as soon as people are taken from their homes or asylum centres, where many Gazans are sheltering from the ongoing Israeli attacks. Soldiers then beat the detained people and strip them naked, except for their undergarments, forcing them to sit on their knees in the street for hours while being harassed and treated with contempt.
It's should be unnecessary to say, but as here are some 'whataboutists' around: yes, Hamas is terrorist organisation. And so is the Israeli right-wing, racist government of Benjamin Netanyahu. There is no difference between the two.
- The stripping of clothes is done to determine whether they have a bomb vest on, which is a 100% legitimate concern with Hamas who has used adults and children for suicide bombers. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp.
  
  @astral_avocado, you appear to have (intentionally?) missed some details.
  strip them naked [...] forcing them to sit on their knees in the street for hours while being harassed and treated with contempt.
  How many hours does it take to "determine whether they have a bomb vest on," especially when they are naked?
  Why exactly do they do that while people sit on their knees in the streets and treated with contempt?
  This is really hard to grasp, maybe you can enlighten me.

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.

Even Nazi Germany did not make killing the official "intention" or government policy
Nazi Germany started with different policies depending on the target group:
Jews, Blacks, other "non Aryans": deport to Africa.
Gay and "deviant sexuality": jail, ostracism, castration, labor camps, or death penalty.
Wrong nationality or religion: labor camps.
Genetically defective (excluding gay), Gypsies: kill on sight.
Then, when the conquest of North Africa got thwarted, and the costs of war started piling up more and more, Mr. Reinhard (aka "The butcher of Prague", among other similar nicknames) came up with the definitive alternative: "kill them all".
There were always "some Nazi extremists" who wanted to "kill them all" from the beginning... just like now we have "some Russian extremists" who wanted to "nuke Paris and London" from the beginning... or "some Israeli extremists" who wanted to "push all Palestinians to concentration camps in Egypt" from the beginning, or "tear down all non-Jewish homes" (that includes both Muslim and Christian).
There is little evidence that Israel, like Hamas, “intends” to destroy an ethnic group—the Palestinians
...and of course that is total BS. The foundation of Israel is the UN resolution, which has two parts:
Creating two states: Israel, and Palestine
Merging the two states into one
AKA: there can only be one state left... so someone has to get stomped out.
That's what the UN and Israel's Declaration of Independence have been saying all the time.
- Now, there doesn't have to be one ethnicity in one state, but that is the practical outcome in this case, pretty much from the beginning.
  
  Theoretically true. There are many countries with multiple ethnicities after all... yet in how many of them the different ethnicities actually live in peace with each other? It would seem like there are ethnic clashes everywhere, and the farther that WW2 fades out in collective memory, the more of them.

The Economist is inherently fascist because it exists both as a product of and to foment capitalism.

Ghost archive link

- The Apartheid government of South Africa this quote is in reference to no longer exists. It was abolished in the 90s.
- That was in the 1980s.

misused
There have been a slew of these articles from The Economist that blatantly side with Israel or distort facts. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't multiple members of Israel's far-right government openly calling for the destruction of as many Palestinians as possible?

41 comments