Article II

In the present Convention, 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:

  • Killing members of the group;
  • 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;
  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Clear enough, right?

Under this definition Israel’s occupation and war of extermination is absolutely genocide, unquestionably. The goal is to kill, mutilate, and displace the Palestinian people. The goal is the total ethnic cleansing of Gaza, by any means necessary. Israel’s war on Gaza is genocide.

However, under this definition are the completely justified goals of Hamas also genocide? They intend to destroy the settler-colonial monstrosity that is Zionism and eradicate the nation state of Israel; Palestine from the river to the sea. That, technically, means they are committed with intent to destroy the national group of Israelis by displacement, death, or simply making them into Palestinians after destroying Israel’s government.

That doesn’t seem right to me. I am absolutely in solidarity with Hamas and Palestine in their struggle against the Zionist entity. An occupied people destroying their occupier’s government and settler identity can’t be considered genocide, because it creates this legal and ethical equivalency with the settlers.

And yet, technically, that seems to be the case. Am I wrong?

And, by pointing out this technicality, am I just a dog for Zionism?

  • Spzi@lemm.ee
    12·
    1 year ago

    You mean “We are fighting human animals, and we act accordingly”? That’s genocidal language, yes. But it remains up to interpretation (which is my main point) wether this in itself is their intent, or wether it’s a defensive reaction after being raided.

    It also remains up to interpretation if their wrath is meant against a peoples, or combatants hiding among civilians.

    The interesting question is not “Is it clear to me?”, but “Can I imagine someone else interpreting it differently?”. If alternative interpretations of intent are possible (which is usually the case), then the whole definition which hinges on intent is ambiguous.

    • queermunist she/herOP
      1·
      1 year ago

      If that is up to interpretation, then how isn’t Hamas also up to interpretation? Read their political document of you haven’t - they want to destroy the Zionist entity and create a free Palestine from the river to the sea. That isn’t inherently genocidal either.

      • Spzi@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        If that is up to interpretation, then how isn’t Hamas also up to interpretation?

        Yeah, I guess they are. I mean, obviously, people disagree over that. So yes, you’re right. It’s apparently all up for interpretation which confirms your title question.

        Read their political document of you haven’t - they want to destroy the Zionist entity and create a free Palestine from the river to the sea. That isn’t inherently genocidal either.

        I guess each side focuses on what fits to their narrative. If you’re up for an excercise, would you be willing to look into articles 7 and 13, and imagine what others see as clear evidence of genocidal intentions in there?

        • queermunist she/herOP
          1·
          1 year ago

          Anyone can imagine anything, but as you said, if things are up to interpretation then it’s not certain. Either there are concrete definitions for things or we’re all just floating in a obfuscated sea of nuance.

          … for the record, 7 and 13 of… what? One of the different Geneva Conventions? There’s different ones yknow, the one I linked doesn’t go that high. Or the Hamas Political Document? Wish you’d just have linked to it lol