I have a lot of thoughts about this topic, and how it’s flared up in the US around the Ed Sheeran tour. But to get them all down in one post would take more time than I have right now, so I’m going to break down aspects of my thinking into shorter pieces. So, to be clear, 👇🏼 is not the whole story…
I’ve seen some commentary that Macklemore shouldn’t have used the word “Genocide” in his remarks.
There was one particularly striking example, on Jon Stewart’s show, where someone tried to argue that it wasn’t genocide, as only 1/3rd of the population has been killed, so far.
At it’s core, the claim is it doesn’t meet the legal definition. This is not a claim that is isolated to this interview/person—I’ve seen this mentioned in commentary across the interwebz a few times not.
May I humbly suggest, before you argue “this doesn’t count as genocide,” I’d encourage you to go read the actual definition.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
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.
In direct consideration of this definition, Amnesty International has found:
“Genocidal intent is clear, through Israel’s pattern of conduct in Gaza. We assessed 102 dehumanising and genocidal statements made by Israeli leaders and military officials echoed by soldiers in social media videos and the system of apartheid, illegal 17-year siege on Gaza and the unlawful occupation of the Palestinian Territory (including Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem).”
And that key word, “intent,” seems to be the thing that apologists are hanging their hat on.
So, for completeness—in relation to intent, Amnesty goes on to say:
To establish Israel’s specific intent to physically destroy Palestinians in Gaza, as such, Amnesty International analysed the overall pattern of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, reviewed dehumanizing and genocidal statements by Israeli government and military officials, particularly those at the highest levels, and considered the context of Israel’s system of apartheid, its inhumane blockade of Gaza and the unlawful 57-year-old military occupation of the Palestinian territory.
Before reaching its conclusion, Amnesty International examined Israel’s claims that its military lawfully targeted Hamas and other armed groups throughout Gaza, and that the resulting unprecedented destruction and denial of aid were the outcome of unlawful conduct by Hamas and other armed groups, such as locating fighters among the civilian population or the diversion of aid. The organization concluded these claims are not credible.
And further:
Many of the unlawful acts documented by Amnesty International were preceded by officials urging their implementation. The organization reviewed 102 statements that were issued by Israeli government and military officials and others between 7 October 2023 and 30 June 2024 and dehumanized Palestinians, called for or justified genocidal acts or other crimes against them.
But, for the most thorough counterpoint I’ve seen, I’m just going to point to Dan McClellan, who does the most eloquent job of outlining why it’s “reasonable” to come to the conclusion it is, in fact, a genocide, according to the definition, and the international bodies that govern such things:
There is no doubt in my mind that the Israeli Government and the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) have intent to, and are, carrying out genocide. It is perfectly rational, and appropriate, for opponents to these attrocities to use the term.
It is not antisemitic to criticise a government and its defence forces for inciting and carrying out such acts.
To compare and contrast: to criticise the Myanmar government surrounding the Rohingya genocide was never considered to be about “hating Theravada Buddhists.” We get that nuance in other contexts, so why is it seemingly so hard for us to make the distinction here?
I don’t believe the actions that are leading to these claims of genocide are not represent the will of Jewish people. The official position of the Jewish Council of Australia is just one indication of the Jewish people’s opposition to what’s going on.
Thus, putting it plainly—my criticism here is not of Jewish people. In fact, trying to conflate the two, as many apologists do, potentially puts the Jwqish people in harm’s way—if the devastation and anger that emerges around the genocide is misplaced. So let’s keep the criticism firmly focused where it should be—on the Israeli Government and the IDF.
—
So please, let’s stop with the hand-wringing around whether we can call it ‘genocide’ or not. The use of this term to describe what’s happening should not be controversial, given the mountain of evidence in support of it.
Arguing about this is simply a distracting tactic—to take our gaze away from actually addressing the horrific events that are unfolding.
But let’s step back from this argument for a moment.
How many thousands, or millions, of deaths have to occur before you concede this is genocide?
I posit that a “number of people” or “percentage of the population” is not part of the definition for a reason.
I find this whole avenue of argument abhorent.
Ed Sheeran’s statement is that this was “complex.” The historical context is somewhat complex. The current situation, and the use of this term, is not.
And not to mention the war crimes
Not to mention—there are repeated, multiple, in-depth, corroberated and widely reported and known instances of war crimes being committed by IDF personnel.
And it’s for these that the Prime Minister and former Defence Minister of Israel have active International Criminal Court warrants out for their arrest. These are not “reprimands”—these are warrants for arrest.
Both Amnesty International and the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry have flagged that statements by, Isaac Herzog, Israel’s President, amount to direct and public incitement to genocide
These same two individuals are given protection and “red carpet” treatment in western nations. And dissent against this “open arms” policy is being quashed—even here in Australia.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like this—a person wanted on an international warrant just ok to fly around the world, speak to international delegations, mingle with dignatories in the political world. As if they’ve done nothing wrong.
It’s flabbergasting…