Quote (celloboy126 @ Nov 27 2023 02:07pm)
argue with the ICC if you want. I've laid out clearly that genocide as defined by the 2002 rome statute by the ICC is intent combined with demonstrated ability. Both have been established for Israel. Nazi Germany was an especially egregious example, but we can't just wait until things get *that* bad to start calling it a genocide. Forced relocation, collective punishment, systematic bombing of civilians, and constant rhetoric of erasure are all factored in.
Quote
Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction
in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
firstly, i'd say the above definition is so loose it loses its meaning. genocide as a label is supposed to have a very strong meaning, its a dire crime against humanity. calling "killing members of a group" genocide means many thousands of genocides happen every year. water it down that much and it loses effectiveness linguistically.
but really i think the bolded presents my disagreement best. "genocide" isnt a thought criime, or prediction of the future that you drop. its a term that represents present and past. its not that u wait to call out bad deeds, that's a good thing to do early and often. its that genocide either is or isnt, it has or hasnt happened.
by this definition west bank palestinians and gazan palestinians are committing genocide. even with a severe power imbalance. this definition isnt like modern racism definitions which invalidate the label based on power dynamics.