How to Define GENOCIDE?

[GLASNOST]

This video clearly defines the term "GENOCIDE" and helps to draw a line in the sand.

 

[GLASNOST]

... and if there is any doubt ...

 

[Coyote]

Definition​

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide​

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:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Elements of the crime​

The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.

The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
   • 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

The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.

Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”

 

[Shusha]

This video clearly defines the term "GENOCIDE" and helps to draw a line in the sand.

I've watched the first 10 minutes of this. A lot of talk about how difficult the conditions are. Well, yes. War isn't exactly unicorns and rainbows. Still nothing that meets the definition of genocide. Humanitarian nightmare does not equal genocide. Also, Hamas bears responsibility.

 

[GLASNOST]

Definition​

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide​

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:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Elements of the crime​

The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.

The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
   • 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

The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.

Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”

Yep! The Zionist NAZIS definitely qualify for the definition of subjecting the Palestinians to GENOCIDE. There can be no doubt about it.

 

[MisterBeale]

Book marked to relevant minute mark.. . but I suggest the entire conversation.

Why Israel is in deep trouble: John Mearsheimer with Tom Switzer​

Premiered May 17, 2024

 

[GLASNOST]

Book marked to relevant minute mark.. . but I suggest the entire conversation.

Why Israel is in deep trouble: John Mearsheimer with Tom Switzer​

View attachment 948835Premiered May 17, 2024

Now that’s one hell of a coincidence. I was about 5 minutes into the video already when your contribution popped up.

 

[MisterBeale]

War isn't exactly unicorns and rainbows. Still nothing that meets the definition of genocide.

Yes, you are correct, and I do sympathize with Israel to that extent, because Hamas does not seem to want to surrender.

OTH. . . what is the plan for the end game for the Palestinians should Hamas surrender? I have not heard of such.

How do they end the apartheid?

 

[Shusha]

. . . what is the plan for the end game for the Palestinians should Hamas surrender? I have not heard of such.

Well, it depends. Are the Palestinian Arabs of Gaza capable of building a State which renounces terrorism and violent resistance, abides by the UN Charter, lives peaceably with her neighbors, recognizes Israel's right to self-determination and territorial sovereignty and can be accepted into the community of the world's States?

Yes? Then Gaza proceeds to use the inevitable flood of aide to build such a State, under temporary Israeli military control as safeguard, and after a reasonable length of time demonstrating capacity as outlined above declares independence, signs peace treaties with Israel and Egypt, and becomes a full member State of the UN. Yay!

No? Option one. Gaza is put under some sort of mandate system where another State agrees to provide governance in concert with some sort of Israeli security control until such time as Gaza can "stand alone".

No? Option two. Gaza is annexed and becomes sovereign Israel or sovereign Egypt.


I'm not seeing any other options here. Maybe you can come up with one. The takeaway, though, is that the future of Gaza depends on the decisions of the people of Gaza. It isn't Israel's decision to make. Unless you want to claim that Israel is responsible for Gaza and all the people of Gaza, which means making Israel sovereign over Gaza as default.

 

[peacefan]

This video clearly defines the term "GENOCIDE" and helps to draw a line in the sand.

i really don't think a purposeful military campaign is always 'genocide', like the South Africans put forth in this video.

 

[peacefan]

Yep! The Zionist NAZIS definitely qualify for the definition of subjecting the Palestinians to GENOCIDE. There can be no doubt about it.

calling your military opponents a bunch of nazis just for losing against them, is a sure sign of stupidity.

 

[GLASNOST]

Now that’s one hell of a coincidence. I was about 5 minutes into the video already when your contribution popped up.

I've watched all of it now.

 

[MisterBeale]

Well, it depends. Are the Palestinian Arabs of Gaza capable of building a State which renounces terrorism and violent resistance, abides by the UN Charter, lives peaceably with her neighbors, recognizes Israel's right to self-determination and territorial sovereignty and can be accepted into the community of the world's States?

Yes? Then Gaza proceeds to use the inevitable flood of aide to build such a State, under temporary Israeli military control as safeguard, and after a reasonable length of time demonstrating capacity as outlined above declares independence, signs peace treaties with Israel and Egypt, and becomes a full member State of the UN. Yay!

No? Option one. Gaza is put under some sort of mandate system where another State agrees to provide governance in concert with some sort of Israeli security control until such time as Gaza can "stand alone".

No? Option two. Gaza is annexed and becomes sovereign Israel or sovereign Egypt.


I'm not seeing any other options here. Maybe you can come up with one. The takeaway, though, is that the future of Gaza depends on the decisions of the people of Gaza. It isn't Israel's decision to make. Unless you want to claim that Israel is responsible for Gaza and all the people of Gaza, which means making Israel sovereign over Gaza as default.

That isn't what I asked.

All of that would be very nice.

. . . what I asked, was for you to link us to proof, that these are the proposals of the Israeli leadership. But we know none of these are.


If you had listened to the video I posted, one of the world's leading foreign policy experts even told us, that many of the Israeli IDF leaders are currently demoralized, precisely because there is no end game. They haven't been given any.

Perhaps you should write a letter and forward these suggestions to Bibi? Somehow, I don't think he cares -- when the end game is to ethnically cleanse as many Arab women, children and old folks from Gaza as possible. . .

 

[GLASNOST]

OTH. . . what is the plan for the end game for the Palestinians should Hamas surrender? How do they end the apartheid?

I don't think they can.

 

[GLASNOST]

OTH. . . what is the plan for the end game for the Palestinians should Hamas surrender? How do they end the apartheid?

I don't think they can.

i really don't think a purposeful military campaign is always 'genocide', like the South Africans put forth in this video.

So, admit it, you don't know what is happening in Gaza today.

 

[GLASNOST]

calling your military opponents a bunch of nazis just for losing against them, is a sure sign of stupidity.

"just for"? You're not paying attention.

 

[GLASNOST]

GENOCIDE is the word you're looking for.

 

[MisterBeale]

I don't think they can.

Yep. I ask for proof that the Israeli leadership has an end game. . . Shusha lays out a long drawn out fantasy construct, in her own mind, like it is fantasy football or something. . . which is basically the same damn thing John Mearsheimer envisions, but then right after, flatly states, Israeli elites won't ever go for it.

They have a fifty year history of never having any intention of going for it, ever, or wanting to solve for anything remotely anything like what she proposes. If they did, they would not have been allowing settlers into the West Bank the past thirty years. . . . Nor would they have continually funded Hamas and played it off of the Palestinian authority.




. . . as if these political neophytes can piss on us and call it rain.


(booked marked at time stamp.)

 

[GLASNOST]

Yep. I ask for proof that the Israeli leadership has an end game. . . Shusha lays out a long drawn out fantasy construct, in her own mind, like it is fantasy football or something. . .

You didn't really expect a sensible reply from her, did you?

They have a fifty year history of never having any intention of going for it, ever, or wanting to solve for anything remotely ....... If they did, . . . . they would not have been allowing settlers into the West Bank the past thirty years

I call that proof.

. . . as if these political neophytes can piss on us and call it rain.

They have been getting away with it ..... the UN has been dozing off.

 

[peacefan]

I don't think they can.

So, admit it, you don't know what is happening in Gaza today.

oh i do. the Israelis want to eradicate the last remaining fighters of Hamas, and people like you want to shame them into not doing that.