Genocide Misunderstood

Genocide Misunderstood

Introductory remarks

In school, I learned that words have meaning, and it's important to use words according to their intended meaning.

So I'm amazed that when it comes to describing the current conflict between Hamas and Israel, many people I went to college, and even law school, with seem to suddenly have trouble using words correctly. Many of these "friends" now appear to simply throw out words that they see used on social media, causing others who may not have the same level of education to misuse the terms.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas, the governing party in the Gaza Strip and an internationally recognized terrorist group, invaded Israel. The attack resulted in the deaths of hundreds, and over two-hundred kidnapped.

Israel responded immediately. It started with air strikes, followed by a ground incursion.

Israel's response brought devastation to the narrow Gaza Strip. The Gaza Health Ministry, which is Hamas (so its numbers should be taken with a large pile of salt), places the number of dead at 15,000. U.S. officials say the number may be even higher.

In response to these numbers--which, again, are probably highly exaggerated, liberal activists across America have come out in protest. They have called for a ceasefire. They have also called what Israel is doing in the Gaza Strip a "genocide," an "apartheid," and an "ethnic cleaning." And many people I have been involved in social justice activism with have resorted to using these terms.

They are, however, inappropriate terms to describe what is happening--despite how atrocious Israel's actions may appear. All three terms--genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleaning--carry specific meaning. And as it relates to Israel, none are even remotely close, meaning those words are not being used for their intended purpose.

Please note: my intent here is not to stifle criticism of Israel. Criticism, and openness to it, are the signs of a thriving democracy, which Israel is--despite its problems. Rather, my intent is to educate on proper word use.

I want to educate on proper word use because I want to be able to have conversations with people about what's happening in Israel. But we can't do that if one side is going to use words that have no place in the dialogue.

What is genocide? Does it apply here?

Let's start with some basics: words should be used to convey the meaning the word was meant to convey. To do otherwise goes against the very purpose of language.

Word meanings can often be found in a word's component parts. Taking "genocide" as an example, we can see two words. First, "cide," meaning to kill. Second, "genos," meaning race. Putting these two together, we get "race killing."

This falls in line with the dictionary definition of "genocide": "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

Notice the importance of intent. The United Nstions' convention on genocide also refers to intent in its definition:

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: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) 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.

I'm willing to criticize the government of Israel for specific policy decisions or laws passed by the Knesset (the Israeli parliament). But I'm unwilling to entertain the use of terms reserved for horrific crimes.

To do so not only lessens the word's true meaning and demeans those who have actually been victims of genocide--it also shows a gross misunderstanding of what is happening in Israel and omits necessary context.

It is true that Israel's strikes in Gaza have resulted in large civilian deaths. But we must ask why? Israel targets Hamas bases. And since Hamas hides their operatives and weapons in civilian areas, Israel has warned people in Gaza they should evacuate because areas near or in their homes are military targets. The Israeli military had even provided tank escorts for Gazans fleeing to the south.

Unfortunately, Hamas has no interest in keeping its own people (the people they were entrusted to govern) alive. Hamas has only one goal: to kill Jews. Part of Hamas's plan to achieve that goal is to make Israel look bad. Hamas forces its own people to stay and be killed by Israeli air strikes meant to take out Hamas weapon's stores or operatives.

None of this shows genocide by Israel. If anything, it shows Hamas is the party committing genocide, by intentionally having their own people killed. But I don't see anyone calling Hamas a genocidal regime.

Furthermore, many Palestinians are full citizens of Israel, they hold positions of power in politics, sit as judges, are leading academics in Israeli universities, and are doctors. On the other hand, Jews have no power in Gaza, mostly because they are persona non grata. In fact, Jews are not welcome in any other Arab country. Again, this proves any genocide is being committed by the Arab nations; not Israel. But I don't hear the outcry.

Omer Bartov, in a November 10, 2023, opinion piece for the New York Times, has posited that while Israel is not committing genocide right now, its right-wing government policies, combined with the statements of a few government ministers, put Israel on a trajectory to genocide, and at the least, ethnic cleansing. But even this position is untenable.

Because ethnic cleansing itself is not a crime, there is no acceptable definition, even from the United Nations. However, relying on prior examples of the practice, the United Nations has stated the following: "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area."

Mr. Bartov points to statements from Israeli ministers about their desire to drive Palestinians out of their land. This piece, however, does not take into account the fragile nature of any Israeli government coalition. While Netanyahu was forced to form a coalition with extreme right-wing parties, his government has always maintained a policy that the West Bank and Gaza are Palestinian lands. I'll agree, though, that the settlements are legally questionable, and probably a violation of international law. The statements of deranged government ministers, however, do not equal ethnic cleansing, because the Israeli government's policy has never been to remove the Palestinians. These government ministers, and the settlers who often violently attack innocent Palestinians in the West Bank, are radicals, and they do not represent the policy of the State of Israel.

Further, it is important to remember the current Israeli prime minister, Netanyahu, has to hold together a fragile government coalition. He had to allow the more radical elements to speak freely--if not, they would have left the coalition and forced an election.

Conclusion

The words we use have meanings, and misusing those words can have dire consequences. So, before using a word, make sure you know what it means. If not, you risk looking naive--or worse, inconsiderate.