Stop Using the G-Word for Gaza
“Genocide” should not be used lightly
PROGRAMMING NOTE: this essay was first published on my Medium page. I don’t publish all of the same articles on both Medium and this Newsletter, but I generally cite to them all through the Newsletter, so this is the best place to follow so you don’t miss my work. Think critically!
I ran into someone yesterday who defended the gay community supporting Hamas. When I highlighted the fact this was the weirdest thing about this war, he responded with the G-word: Genocide.
Let’s not even address the fact he was making excuses for a terrorist group. That’s a subject for different essays: The Left Failed the Hamas Test and The Progressive Anti-Semitic Moment.
Now, before you think I’m bashing liberals or gays, I’m not. Most of my writing since 2016 has been supportive of center left initiatives, protective of gay rights, and anti all things Trump and MAGA. Check my Medium page or website for yourself.
My goal is to think critically. Take the issues as they come, without subscription to any partisan orthodoxy or propaganda.
Look at substantiated facts and assess counter arguments. Use logical reasoning, where premises must logically connect to conclusions. Ultimately, try to get the right answer.
I’m not always right. But I try to make a good faith effort.
And in this case, people need to stop using the G-word (Genocide) when describing what Israel is doing to Palestinians in response to attacks by Hamas.
Let’s first define terms before assessing counter arguments and the evidence.
What do we mean by “genocide”?
It’s ironic that the term would even be used in this situation given it was first coined (partly) in response to the Nazis systematic killing of Jews during the Holocaust.
The crime of genocide was first defined under the Genocide Convention, which was ratified by 153 states as of April 2022. It is also part of customary international law (meaning everyone must comply regardless of ratification).
Article II of the Genocide Convention states:
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
Notice the “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” This is the mens rea or intent element of the crime.
There’s also a physical or actus reus element, which is described in the enumerated five acts of the definition.
To prove the crime of genocide, one must demonstrate both the intent and physical elements of the crime. One alone is not sufficient.
Assessing the genocide allegations against Israel: mass casualties of Palestinian civilians
First, let me say that the bombings of Gaza to date have been horrific. The evidence of mass civilian casualties is devastating. There’s a strong argument that Israel’s response to the brutal Oct. 7th attacks has been disproportionate given the number of civilian deaths in Gaza.
But as you saw from the definition of genocide above, evidence of death and destruction is not alone sufficient to call something genocide. Otherwise, that would mean any war and any act of violent self defense is genocide.
Intent matters.
Outlets like Al-Jazeera have argued that “despite claiming to target only Hamas, Israel is engaging in an all-out assault on the whole population of Gaza.” They argue that evidence of mass civilian casualties supports allegations of genocide.
But this rhetoric ignores the fact Hamas habitually hides amongst Gazan civilians. Hospitals, schools, and other heavily populated areas in densely packed places like Gaza City are all prime hiding spots for Hamas and its military hardware.
It also ignores the fact Israel has provided windows of time for Gazans to flee. Yes, there’s evidence Israel has not always made right on these promises, but thousands have still escaped safely.
Did the Nazis give Jews time to flee? Did they give advanced warnings of an incoming assault? Were there any credible arguments that the Nazis were acting in self-defense?
As I mentioned, Israel’s response is arguably disproportionate. We can certainly debate the degree of their response. But to deny them any right to self-defense after the brutal attacks its citizens endured on Oct. 7th is unreasonable and bordering on anti-semitism depending on your logic.
Did anyone convincingly accuse America of waging genocide against the Japanese when it dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those bombs killed thousands of Japanese civilians. I’m not sure anyone even tried to make the argument.
Yet they do with Israel. Even though hundreds of its citizens are still held hostage by Hamas. Even though Hamas still threatens to destroy the entire Israeli state. Even though Hamas is encouraging their other Iranian-backed friend, Hezbollah, to ramp up its attacks from Israel’s northern border with Lebanon.
We can debate whether Israel has acted disproportionately. We can debate whether they should be more prudent in their attempts to limit collateral damage. But we cannot deny them a right to self-defense.
Especially when there’s an easier and far more bloodless solution: Hamas surrenders. Hamas gives up the hostages. Hamas agrees to end its own occupation of the Palestinian people, giving way to political leadership actually intent on devising a workable two-state solution.
“No electricity, no food, no water, no gas”
In addition to mass casualties, the other argument made to prove genocide is to point at the life conditions “aimed clearly at the physical destruction of the Palestinian people.”
Clearly?
Who attacked who first again?
And again, Hamas could end this complete siege by simply surrendering. Give up the Israeli hostages still in captivity.
Also, it’s unclear that Israel’s aim is the physical destruction of the Palestinian people when there’s evidence Hamas takes humanitarian aid to fuel its own war machine.
It’s not like Israel has prevented all aid either. They have permitted some aid, but again, this is a reasonable point of debate. There are strong arguments that they need to be letting in more humanitarian aid. Instead of debating this point, many have recklessly accused Israel of genocide, not thinking or considering the full implications and the serious weight behind that term (not to mention who it is being lodged against: Jewish people).
Israel’s blockade against Gaza is extreme. But so was Hamas’ attack on Israel. If we ignore the context of this attack and the persistent threat Hamas poses to Israel (the only Jewish state in the world, which it’s intent on destroying), it might appear like genocide. But this is why context matters. Something many articles that use allegations of genocide conveniently leave out.
Dehumanizing language towards Palestinians
Many Israeli leaders have been reckless in their statements. They have called for the complete annihilation of Gaza. Out of context, these statements look terrible. They sound genocidal.
Statements like those alone ignore the clearly stated intent of the Israeli government to dismantle and destroy Hamas. That does not equal Palestine. At no point has Israel said they intend to target and kill Palestinian civilians.
Saying that “there’s not such thing as uninvolved civilians in Gaza” makes an important point about accountability. The people of Gaza have not tried in any meaningful way to push Hamas from power. That fact obviously does not justify killing them, but it does not absolve them either.
It’s reasonable and understandable for Israelis and their government to be angry. An emotionally charged situation can lead to extreme statements. The overarching goal, however, must be clear. Israel has made reasonable efforts to articulate that goal through warnings to Palestinian civilians, temporary ceasefires, and delays for an all-out siege.
Has Israel acted perfectly? No. It has caused serious collateral damage. But it’s also dealing with an enemy that hides amongst its own citizens. An enemy that believes the ends justify the means, no matter how inhumane or immoral.
Stop using the G-Word for Gaza
The word “genocide” carries enormous and consequential weight. It should be used cautiously and thoughtfully given its history, particularly as it relates to the Jewish people.
Intent matters.
If the intent to destroy a specific group— in whole or in part — is not clear, don’t use the word.
In the case of Israel, it’s not clear at all. In fact, most evidence points to self-defense.
Instead of throwing grenades like “genocide” into the debate, we should be debating how Israel is choosing to defend itself. Whether it’s justified. Whether it’s disproportionate.
The use of genocide in this context, especially considering the threat Hamas poses and the hostages it still holds captive, prevents all of us from having a reasoned discussion on important topics. That’s particularly true when someone uses the g-word in response to a criticism of Hamas. A criticism of their LGBTQ stance at that, as if somehow they’re in a stronger moral position.
It all detracts from the debate we should be having.
How to achieve peace.