Keith Ng: The conviction is not the crime? The genocide happened when the genocide happened, not when it was determined to be genocide afterwards. And accusations aren't determinations either? Saying you should wait for determinations before making accusations is just... backwards?

As with words like "terrorism" and "fascism," I suggest you all hold the word "genocide" in reserve for the day you might want to use it and have it stick. The fact that there is virtually no traction for the term outside of social media and campuses should be a caution.

That's an interesting take. Maybe there's a reason why it isn't "sticking" to some in the media and higher ups with regard to Israel's actions. Had everyone agreed there was genocide in Rwanda right from the start? How about in Bosnia? (continued)...

The genocide in Rwanda was from early April to mid-July 1994. Accusations came afterwards, not contemporaneously; the UN only established its ICTR in November; the first conviction was in 1998. Accusations of genocide are not about the feels, they follow a legal procedure with statutory foundations.

The finding of genocide in Srebrenica took 12 years; it did not find that Serbia 'committed' genocide, but that it failed to prevent it and frustrated efforts to bring perpetrators to justice. Those perpetrators were not found guilty of genocide but of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Making charges of genocide stick so that perpetrators are brought to justice is hard, forensic work. Wild claims in the quadrangle or the media will not advance the process, however warm they make accusers feel.

The conviction is not the crime? The genocide happened when the genocide happened, not when it was determined to be genocide afterwards. And accusations aren't determinations either? Saying you should wait for determinations before making accusations is just... backwards?

And also "don't accuse people of genocide because they might just turn out to be simple crimes against humanity and gosh wouldn't you look silly then" is... not great. To quote MLK: "if I have overstated my case, I beg you to forgive me, if I have understated my case, I beg God to forgive me"

Claims should go just as far as evidence supports them - no further. When people go beyond, they expose themselves to legitimate criticism which can become a distraction to the bad thing that happened.

The problem here is that genocide is defined by acts + intent. I don't think many people are disputing the acts (killing of civilians, destruction of everything) here, just the intent (is it to force Palestinians out of Gaza forever). Intent is hard! We get evidence of intent by putting people..

.. with knowledge of intent (ie Senior leaders) on the stand. Short of that, we can only infer intent from patterns of behaviour. Which is what is happening - that is the basis of genocide claims. Claims lead to factfinding lead to charges lead to trials lead to convictions. Claims come first.

And to be clear, we are past claims, and well into factfinding. That's what this is:

news.un.org/en/story/202...

Rights expert finds ‘reasonable grounds’ genocide is being committed in Gazanews.un.org There are "reasonable grounds" to believe that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territ...

It's fine to leave decisions on terms like this for later and focus on the idea that the consequences of the invasion are terrible and the goal of wiping out Hamas is impossible through this means.

It has very immediate consequences, and is far more than a moral judgement! Other countries (specifically the US) have obligations under the international law to not assist in genocide (eg. Military aid etc). This is a Big Deal.

The case has already been filed with the ICJ by SA It will be heard and a ruling made Meanwhile folks are trying really hard to stop the harm being done

If I accuse someone of being a bank robber and haven't presented any evidence in a court of law to support my accusation, then there is no "crime" in the legal sense. Words have meaning, or they don't. Genocide is a loaded word with a specific meaning. The experience of those who've been victims

lessens their experience if genocide becomes a word used for all military actions against an enemy. Hamas has stated it would return time and again to finish what they started: the destruction of Israel as a nation and the killing of Jews "anywhere." That is the definition of (declared) genocide.

Whether Hamas is attempting genocide, or would attempt genocide if they had the power, doesn't have any bearing on whether Israel is committing genocide. Words do have meaning, and what genocide means here is not "is Israel right", it is very specifically:

I think maybe the misunderstanding comes from the belief that "genocide" means gas oven, means an attempt to exterminate every last Palestinian. That's not what genocide means, and that's not the accusation. The accusation is that the violence that is being committed is done with the intent...

...to wipe out the Palestinian population in Gaza, whether it's by driving them out, making it impossible for them to stay, or straight up killing them. That is what is being discussed here.

It's still not genocide. Hamas is hiding among civilians. If Hamas didn't hide there, Israel wouldn't need to attack them in a civilian population. If Hamas were to climb out of their tunnels and fight Israel as an army, civilian casualties would be avoided. War is war, not genocide.

Hamas has declared their intention to commit genocide against Israelis and Jews anywhere. Why has no energy been devoted to condemning Hamas by those people claiming that Israel is committing genocide?

I get where you're coming from with "is it fair". But neither of those questions matter for "is it genocide". Genocide in self defence is not a thing. Whether Hamas *wants* to commit genocide does not justify Israel committing genocide against Palestinian - who are distinct from Hamas.

Because Israel is committing genocide and ethnic cleansing RIGHT NOW.

To help you with your lack of understanding of the definition of genocide, I point you to the UN definition here: www.un.org/en/genocidep... Only a couple of weeks ago, the IDF bombed Gazas only IVF clinic. This is act four in the definition. I guess Embryos are Hamas now?

Oh no! Not the stating! That's far more deadly than 2,000lb guided munitions!

If I am responsible for the death of someone, have I committed murder, or manslaughter, or negligible homicide, or a hate crime, or merely accidental death? I imagine that question is settled juridically, in the interests of victims and society, rather than by public screams of "murder!"

Post