Definition of Genocide

See what I like about this definition is that it in no way says that you need to say, systematically attempt to exterminate everyone of a people group, like in some of the most horrific genocides. Because although it's a very dumb idea to compare atrocities, some atrocities go farther than others.

Everyone thinks genocides have to look like the Holocaust, but most don't and the definition makes it clear. Although I hate argument-by-dictionary since words are defined by use, this helps illustrate genocide is a far broader term than people often think it is.

Apply that to Gaza, and the shoe fits. It is an ethnically homogenous area which is being completely destroyed. The people in this area cannot leave. The civilian death count is massive and is at least 18,000, 40% of which are children.

With the infrastructure gone, the real killers come next. The slow death of starvation, and then the disease which will invariably crop up without functioning water and sewage.

The end result will be mass deaths of an identifiable people group because they are members of that people group. Palestinians are being killed because they are Palestinian. That is genocide. The justification does not matter, the deaths matter.

From the comments I’ve received, people are now using the term genocide as any human casualties in war even if it doesn’t match up to being a genocide. But because people believe that there is a genocide happening with Palestinians, I do find it weird that countries that border Gaza aren’t helping anyone who wants to leave seek refuge. The two answers I get often is “why should it be other countries responsibility to take Palestinians in” and “that would be ethnic cleansing”. To me it sends mixed messages.

Besides that Only a handful, have been able to leave however: International visitors, preemies and families who have a child with cancer needing treatment. A stark contrast to how other countries were willing to help a majority of Ukrainians seek refuge after Russia invaded their country at the time folks were calling Russia’s actions genocidal.

By this definition the usa committed genocide towards native americans.

In other words, the term was, and is, void.



Void.

We can, and do, use this word how we see fit.

Raphael Lemkin said genocide needs to be understood so you can prevent future genocides, but how does one preempt a genocide?

People never apply an equal standard. They are biased and have agendas. Most of us are cowards, and would not be prepared to use this word and demand the implementation of laws around it in a way that is brave and fair.

Lemkin thought the Armenians were subject to a genocide in World War I, but has anything changed for them? They are still being cleansed by Muslims. It does not matter, though. This word means nothing, and the individuals using it are ignorant and mad.

All, or most, governments commit genocide. If they do not, they are likely to.

This definition, which as you point out was fiddled with for political reasons from the start, is so broad as to be useless. Just about any army in a war is aiming to destroy "part" of a national group. Also I think you are misrepresenting it with "all of which must be present"; I don't see that in the text of the resolution.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf

Israel seems really bad at committing genocide.

Wouldn't the Holodomor still count because it was done to Ukrainians?

The palestinians are being genocided right now