Definition of Genocide

The term "genocide" was coined by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin after World War Two. The text of the Genocide Convention adopted by the U.N. defines it as "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such" through five acts, all of which must be present.

1. Killing members of the group
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

At the insistence of the USSR, political and class groups were excluded, as the Soviets didn't want the perpetrators of the Great Terror or the Holodomor to be accused of genocide. This also prevented the "killing fields" of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia from being included.

It's important to use the term as defined, and not apply it as a pejorative to wars that people may personally disapprove of.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SW-User

At the insistence of the USSR, political and class groups were excluded, as the Soviets didn't want the perpetrators of the Great Terror or the Holodomor to be accused of genocide. This also prevented the "killing fields" of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia from being included.

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

It's important to use the term as defined, and not apply it as a pejorative to wars that people may personally disapprove of.

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.

trollslayer · 46-50, M

@SW-User

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

I agree but would phrase differently - that nearly all government/countries/religions at one time have committed acts that can arguably be described as genocide. The problem seems to be who gets to write the definition.

LeopoldBloom · M

@SW-User The people accusing Israel of genocide right now are not qualifying it with "but of course, every other government is doing it." It's a unique accusation intended to negate any claims of self-defense by calling it a "genocide," implying that Israel is a particularly evil country that has no right to exist.

SW-User

@LeopoldBloom It is troubling to the extent they ignore many other instances of mass death, or mass killing. Martyrdom is pursued and celebrated in Gaza, but no one seems to think about that.

Mass atrocities exist across the world, and they also do not seem to think about that. The left, which you are a part of in other regards, panders to Muslims. There was an exception to this when Qatar held the World Cup last year, but people have short memories. Jews are considered rich, and they think all the Jews living in Israel are privileged and White. It is acceptable to kill people belonging to the same group as you, or a group no one cares about (example: Christians), but not one that is considered less privileged, and is certainly more vocal.

Despite Christians being killed in other parts of the world, the only ones recently mentioned are those who were shot by the IDF, the Jews, in Gaza. There would be many more Christian churches with Christian family members attending them, had they not been cleansed from this region.