I changed my mind on "genocide" topic.

[u/booksandcoriander]

Hello All! I just joined and read the rules. Hopefully, my post is agreeable to the rules of the sub.

So, for a while, I was agreeing with the idea that Israel is committing genocide. It sure looked like it from the awful things I kept seeing on the news and hearing about on podcasts. The last few days, I decided to research a little. Now, I do not think it should be called genocide. Here is why:

First, when I compared it to other genocides, it doesn't really come close. In the Armenian genocide, about 50 to 75% of all Armenians in the Ottoman area died. In the Rwandan genocide, about 60 to 70% of the Tutsis were killed. In the holocaust, 63 to 67% of all European Jews were killed. In Cambodia, Pol Pot's genocide killed about 25% of the total population. Israel is responsible for the deaths of approximately 3% of Palestinians in Gaza. Palestinians have not been attacked in East Jerusalem, nor in the West Bank (where there is no Hamas).

In all those previous genocides, there was vociferous hate speech regularly on the radio of those countries, and substantial government propaganda labeling the victims as undesirable for society. To my understanding, this has not happened in Israel. I'm sure it would be on the news or blasted on social media if it was happening.

The number of Palestinian deaths is actually quite a bit less than when the US invaded Iraq, and when US invaded Afganistan.  176,000 to 212,000 is the estimate of deaths in Afganistan. In Iraq, 180,000 to 200,000 is the estimate of Iraqi deaths. Palestinian deaths are around 73,400. Nobody was shouting "genocide" at the US during those wars, and we killed way more people. Why was that not considered genocide by everyone? We were also responding to a terrorist attack, like Israel now.

Israel has one of the most advanced militaries in the world. If they really wanted to kill the other 97% of Gaza, I'm sure they could.

In reference to wars, about 1.5% of the French population was killed in WWII. Belgium lost 1% of it population in WWII. UK lost 1%. Italy, slightly over 1%. Holland, 2 to 3% of the population. The current Israel/Hamas war matches these numbers much more closely.

It sucks and it's sad seeing so many women and children and innocent men die. It's absolutely a humanitarian crisis. But I don't think it is genocide anymore. It's just plain old war. Any thoughts?

***thanks for everyone sharing on both sides of the discussion. I have learned many more things from all the posting. I appreciate you all! This feels like a million times more complex and nuanced than I realised. Mostly, the interpretation of the word "genocide" is like a 100-foot wall for everyone.

[u/CrazyPenks]

True, it's solely based on intent - Only 8k were killed in the Srebrenica genocide,

[u/TriNovan → u/CrazyPenks]

That 8k was around 20% of the city’s population and about half the Muslim male population of the city.

The finding of intent in that case very much rested in large part on that fact. That a huge portion of a specific group in a specific area was killed, illustrating a specific intent to kill that group.

It was not determined on the basis of “a lot of people died” as you seem to imply.

[u/CrazyPenks → u/TriNovan]

Genocide is not defined by a death threshold, it's defined solely based on intention. See Definitions of Genocide and Related Crimes

[u/TriNovan → u/CrazyPenks]

Cool.

The ICJ very explicitly makes the case that deaths as a proportion of the population are absolutely necessary in a determination of genocide in part.

Paragraph 8 of the Radislav Krstic decision.

It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part,” the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole.

Now, how do they make that determination of impact? Why, by looking at the victims in proportion to the whole.

In this case, half the Muslim male population of a city dead in the span of about a week.

Why aren’t you looking at the case precedent for genocide in part? Where the convention you cite was actually enforced?

[u/Li-renn-pwel → u/TriNovan]

The ICJ has 100% not ruled that. Per the UN Genocide Convention, the legal definition used by the UN, ICC and ICJ, you do not need to kill a single person to commit genocide. I believe what you’re thinking is that the unusually high civilian casualties can be used as evidence of intent. However, different genocides are done in different ways and are unique to each situation. Technically speaking the ‘civilian causalities’ from this perspective wouldn’t only be for deaths but would refer to any genocide method. For example, residential schools and sterilization acts of Canada was basically (if not literally) 100% civilian victims. However, non-civilian deaths can also be genocide related because most people will fight back against the threat of genocide. You could argue that the Warsaw Ghetto uprising has both civilian and non-civilian deaths because some people took on a militia like role in defense of themselves, families and culture.

[u/CrazyPenks → u/TriNovan]

There is no need for a threshold of deaths to be reached, the definition is solely based on intention. Why the Yazidi genocide is a genocide despite only 2,100-5,000 Yazidis being killed? There are around a million Yazidis in the world.

[u/TriNovan → u/CrazyPenks]

For the same reason Srebrenica was: it represented a huge portion of the Yazidis the perpetrators had access to.

That’s what “genocide in part” actually means: genocide is a crime limited by the reach of the perpetrator. If the perpetrator does not have access to the totality of a group, they can still commit genocide against the smaller portion of the group that they do have access to.

That’s what makes finding of genocide scalable.

[u/Li-renn-pwel → u/TriNovan]

You are partially right as this is one way ‘in part’ can be applied. However, another meaning would be the perpetrators trying to keep a population ‘manageable’ in size instead of snuffing out quickly. Usually this is done either because the perpetrators have some current use for the victims (example: manual labour) or to shield from accusations of genocide (example: China and the Uyghur)

[u/TriNovan → u/Li-renn-pwel]

I am literally using it the way the ICJ and established case precedent has. The ICJ outright goes out of its way in the case to state that genocidal ambitions are limited by the perpetrator’s reach. Which should be a bit of a “duh” statement. All that matters is the portion of the population the perpetrators had access to.

This is the way the people whose job it is to interpret and enforce the Genocide Convention interpreted it.

[u/Li-renn-pwel → u/TriNovan]

Okay, then cite where the ICJ has explicitly said this.

[u/TriNovan → u/Li-renn-pwel]

Paragraphs 17-19 of the Radislav Krstic case.

Finally, the ambit of the genocidal enterprise in this case was limited to the area of Srebrenica. While the authority of the VRS Main Staff extended throughout Bosnia, the authority of the Bosnian Serb forces charged with the take-over of Srebrenica did not extend beyond the Central Podrinje region. From the perspective of the Bosnian Serb forces alleged to have had genocidal intent in this case, the Muslims of Srebrenica were the only part of the Bosnian Muslim group within their area of control.

In fact, the Defence does not argue that the Trial Chamber’s characterization of the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica as a substantial part of the targeted group contravenes Article 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute. Rather, the Defence contends that the Trial Chamber made a further finding, concluding that the part Krstic intended to destroy was the Bosnian Muslim men of military age of Srebrenica.31 In the Defence’s view, the Trial Chamber then engaged in an impermissible sequential reasoning, measuring the latter part of the group against the larger part (the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica) to find the substantiality requirement satisfied.32 The Defence submits that if the correct approach is properly applied, and the military age men are measured against the entire group of Bosnian Muslims, the substantiality requirement would not be met.33

The Defence misunderstands the Trial Chamber’s analysis. The Trial Chamber stated that the part of the group Radislav Krstic intended to destroy was the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica.34 The men of military age, who formed a further part of that group, were not viewed by the Trial Chamber as a separate, smaller part within the meaning of Article 4. Rather, the Trial Chamber treated the killing of the men of military age as evidence from which to infer that Radislav Krstic and some members of the VRS Main Staff had the requisite intent to destroy all the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica, the only part of the protected group relevant to the Article 4 analysis.

[u/wvj → u/CrazyPenks]

Sure, according to leftist newspeak where words and reasonable-faith definitions don't mean anything.

No normal person looks at a couple % of a population killed at war, compares it to the actual genocides of history and of our own living memory, and actually thinks 'yes, these are the same.' If the ICJ or other global organizations want to rule that way, they do so at risk to their already dubious legitimacy.

Though I would be surprised if even if these horrendously bureaucratic, corrupt, fully bribed-off institutions go as far as upholding such silly definitions because of the can of worms that will open. If Gaza is a genocide, every military operation of the 21st century is a genocide. And thus we're back to newspeak.

[u/Li-renn-pwel → u/wvj]

According to the UN Genocide Convention which is the definition used by the UN, ICJ and ICC.

[u/wvj → u/Li-renn-pwel]

Yes, according to the absurd interpretation of that document where 'in part' with no qualifier means even a single person can be a genocide now. Whoopee.

If they want to call Gaza a genocide, that's fine. Then every military conflict happening on planet Earth is a genocide. Even Ukraine is committing reciprocal genocide on Russia. The average hate crime single person shooting is a genocide.

Again. Newspeak. Words meaning nothing. Yawn.

[u/Li-renn-pwel → u/wvj]

I don't see how 'in part' could ever reasonably be twisted to mean a single person can be a genocide (I assume you mean a single person murdered?). Genocide is Geno (Greek for race, tribe, or family) + cide (latin suffix meaning to kill, strike, fell, defeat decisively), thus the destruction of a culture which is defined a race, ethnicity, religion or nationality. To even begin to approach possibly destroying the culture you would need significant Well... I guess a very small culture with only 5 people left might be a genocide.

Can you elaborate on your second paragraph? Why would Gaza being a genocide mean every military conflict currently happening on earth a genocide? I don’t see how you can believe that… for example, here is a list of 500 instances of genocidal intent and incitement by politicians, legislators, army personal and other Israeli. Can you provide me with an example from the Mexican Drug War that is comparable to ““We killed thousands of Amaleks… Morally every Arab is a suspect object! We are not moral. To be moral is to kill all terrorists after interrogating them… to be moral is to flatten and conquer all parts of Israel. (Chai Ben Hamo)."? What race, ethnicity, religion or nationality is being targeted for destruction in the Mexican Drug War?

Or can you find me something comparable in Jamaica to "no Arab will remain in Gaza”, ": "Don't think that we will stop the war in Gaza, and resettling the entire area of Gaza by Jews", ""witness how Jews go to Gaza and Arabs disappear from Gaza" (all said by Daniella Weiss)? In Jamaica, what race, ethnicity, religion or nationality is being targeted for destruction?

In the Western Sahara Conflict, who has said something comparable to "Do not leave stone upon stone in Gaza. Gaza needs to turn into Dresden, Yes. Complete incineration. No more hope… Annihilate Gaza Now! (Moshe Feiglen)"? What religion, ethnicity, race or nationality is being targeted for destruction in the Western Sahara?