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?

  • Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah yes, but of course “Hamas is going to wipe out Israel and then everyone is going to live happily ever after 😊” is not a fantasy that’s completely detached from reality.

    And yes, I do believe that Israels stance will change over time. Many young Israelis actually oppose the policies of their government. If this trend continues, they will be in the majority at some point. Same for Gaza, Hamas hasn’t been allowing elections since 2006, the younger generation of Gaza never got to choose their government and given the chance, they would likely vote for someone less extremist (as in the west bank).

    Peace will indeed be possible as soon as both parties decide that that’s what they want. This might not be right now, but as an eventuality, this is way more realistic than any side eradicating the other.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Stances changing over time does absolutely nothing for the people dying and suffering in the meantime. Will Israel maybe liberalize in 40 years? Maybe. That’s about the equivalent of the Gaza life expectancy though!

      Hamas hasn’t been allowing elections? That’s just a lie - the PLO doesn’t allow elections because Hamas doesn’t recognize them as the legitimate rulers of Palestine (and because the PLO knows Hamas would only win more power of there were elections)

      Here is how Hamas might achieve peace - using violence they force Israel into a negotiated return of Palestinian land to Palestinians and to disband the government. The goal isn’t to just kill everyone after all.

      That’s a lot more realistic than Israel just spontaneously deciding to give Palestinians rights. There’s no proof that Israelis are becoming more sympathetic to Palestinians over time, and in fact, they’re only getting worse. Get real.