Back In mid-January, Mara Kronenfeld was googling the name of the nonprofit she runs, which raises money in the US on behalf of the leading humanitarian aid provider in Gaza. Atop the search results for her organization—UNRWA USA, partner to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)—she saw a surprising ad. It read like a promo from the UN agency, but the link directed to an Israeli government website. Kronenfeld says she had found the beginnings of a months-long online advertising campaign by Israel to discredit and defund UNRWA.
After seeing the ads—paid for by the Israeli Government Advertising Agency, according to details shown when clicking on the menu button beside them—Kronenfeld and her staff of seven quickly appealed to Google for help fighting what they viewed as a misinformation campaign. What has happened since shows the delicate relationship Google has kept with its advertising client, Israel, and the limits of the company’s policing of alleged misinformation in ads.
Several current and former Google employees tell WIRED the anti-UNRWA campaign is just one volley of ads that Israel has orchestrated in recent months that have drawn complaints both inside and outside of the company. The ads about UNRWA and another campaign targeting the Middle East have not been previously reported.
Google is taking money to defend genocide.
It’s arguable whether there’s a genocide taking place. If Israel really wanted to eliminate everyone—civilians and Hamas alike—they’d have already done so, and from an operational point of view, it would be much easier and take less effort than targeted attacks. Using the word ‘genocide’ so easily really takes away the weight of the term unnecessarily. When a real genocide does occur somewhere in the world, everyone will be less attentive to it.
It’s arguable whether there’s a genocide taking place
I love it when I know from the first sentence that there’s some awful apologia coming up… 🤦
If Israel really wanted to eliminate everyone
That’s a CHILD’S definition of genocide.
The ACTUAL definition from the convention itself is thus, first paragraph bolding mine:
any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
- (a) Killing members of the group;
- (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- © 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.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[\[8\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#cite_note-Convention-text-8)UsingRedefining the word ‘genocide’ soeasilydisingenuously and/or out of ignorance really takes away from theweightscope of thetermatrocities, unnecessarily defending the indefensibleFixed It for you.
Your own link states that “in part” definitions may lead to highly subjective conclusions.
By this measure, the death penalty in the US would be considered genocide “in part” (especially if the judge, jurors, or clerks are mostly white and the executed person is of color, so as to establish that a “group” is targeting another group). A person acting in self-defense with a resulting death to the aggressor may also fall into the genocide criteria.
If Israel is only intent on destroying the Hamas terrorist organization (it is technically a political party, but they broadened their horizons on October 7th, I guess…), and not the whole Gazan/Palestinian population, could it really still be labeled as genocide? As I said, some people will even say a single death may be genocide “in part,” so this widening of the definition just weakens the term, unfortunately.
Yes, if you redefine the death penalty into being genocide, it is genocide, and if you shift the narrative onto a fictional, you can make it not be about genocide.
Brilliant points …
Your own link states that “in part” definitions may lead to highly subjective conclusions.
Yeah, that part means that you don’t have to kill every single Palestinian in order for your deliberate eradicative campaign to be a genocide. It doesn’t mean “killing any part of a people is genocide” 🤦
By this measure, the death penalty in the US would be considered genocide “in part” (especially if the judge, jurors, or clerks are mostly white and the executed person is of color, so as to establish that a “group” is targeting another group). A person acting in self-defense with a resulting death to the aggressor may also fall into the genocide criteria
Nope. Of COURSE not. I’m almost completely convinced that you’re arguing in bad faith. That or you’re extremely literal-minded AND not too smart… These are not difficult concepts for most people to understand and differentiate once it’s pointed out to them.
If Israel is only intent on destroying the Hamas terrorist organization
Yeah, that’s a negative. They’re trying to kill or displace away from the area every single Gazan and they’re already at over 90% displacement.
it is technically a political party, but they broadened their horizons on October 7th, I guess…
No, it’s a terrorist organization masquerading as a government. Critical infrastructure such as schools and hospitals are de facto run by UNRWA, not Hamas.
and not the whole Gazan/Palestinian population
That IS their actual target. Your Hasbara hypothetical isn’t helpful.
could it really still be labeled as genocide?
In that purely hypothetical scenario, whether it’s still a genocide would depend on a number of factors, including whether or not they take great care to avoid civilian casualties and only target known Hamas targets. They don’t, never have, and never will.
As I said, some people will even say a single death may be genocide “in part,”
Nobody not arguing in bad faith, profoundly confused/ignorant, or colossally dense. Since I gave you the definition, it’s either bad faith or stupidity in your case.
so this widening of the definition just weakens the term, unfortunately.
No, it’s not a widening. It’s a specifying that you don’t have to successfully eliminate everyone for it to be a genocide. A distinction that most adults not arguing in bad faith have no trouble comprehending.
It’s only arguable if you’re arguing for genocide.
I thought our society had moved beyond viewing the world in such a dogmatic way. It’s like you’re saying, “Agree with me, or you’re a heathen!”
