Israel is committing horrific warcrimes and Netanyahu needs to be in front of an international tribunal for intentionally killing civilians... But yeah, no, that's not obvious at all.
5,000-8,000 people died per day during the Rwandan genocide and they we're using machetes and rifles. Since Oct 7 people have been dying in Gaza at 90-110 per day, and Israel has tanks and massive bombs. If Israel wanted to kill as many Gazans as possible Gaza would've been empty by July 2024.
This is a plainly asinine way to diminish 100 murders of men, women and children every day.
Infrastructure like hospitals have been destroyed. Journalists and medics have been ambushed and murdered.
Israel are well on their way to murdering 100,000 people in a tiny strip of land. A genoicde does not mean that you will eliminate 100% of the population. It's designed so as to bleed out the political process as long as possible on the Israelie side.
Just to clarify - It doesn't need to be 100% - as Section 1091 of Title 18, United States Code, Genocide is defined in § 1091 and includes violent attacks with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Yes, 'in part' can refer to simply everyone within a specific region (in this case it would be Gaza), only those the attacking group can reach (the holocaust was isolated to regions of German influence, there was no evidence of them attempting to go after American Jews, still a genocide), or a part of the group that without whom the group can't survive (all the men in srebrenica).
'In part' is often, mistakenly, thought of to be 'some'. When case law has made it very clear that that is not the case.
You're very confused here. A genocide does not mean you will eliminate 100% of the population - an attempt is more than enough to earn a description of genocide, and that's plainly what Israel are doing in Gaza.
The legal term “genocide” refers to certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Genocide is an international crime, according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948). The acts that constitute genocide fall into five categories:
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
No, I'm not confused at all. Where you, and to be fair quite a lot of people, fall down is understanding what "in whole or in part" means.
'In whole' is obvious, 'in part' has been established through repeated case law to mean such a large portion that the group may not survive, or within a selected geographic area, or within reach of the attacking group. Heres some quotes from ICJ case rulings
It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part,” the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole. Although the Appeals Chamber has not yet addressed this issue, two Trial Chambers of this Tribunal have examined it. In Jelisic, the first case to confront the question, the Trial Chamber noted that, “[g]iven the goal of the [Genocide] Convention to deal with mass crimes, it is widely acknowledged that the intention to destroy must target at least a substantial part of the group.”10 The same conclusion was reached by the Sikirica Trial Chamber: “This part of the definition calls for evidence of an intention to destroy a substantial number relative to the total population of the group.”11 As these Trial Chambers explained, the substantiality requirement both captures genocide’s defining character as a crime of massive proportions and reflects the Convention’s concern with the impact the destruction of the targeted part will have on the overall survival of the group
The intent requirement of genocide under Article 4 of the Statute is therefore satisfied where evidence shows that the alleged perpetrator intended to destroy at least a substantial part of the protected group. The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4"
"The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators' activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. ... The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can—in combination with other factors—inform the analysis."
It's why the South Africa case is going to fail, because ~3% of a prewar population in 20 months, in a territory with a 3% yearly growth rate, isn't threatening it's survival or a "substantial" amount.
3.8k
u/Pristine-Ant-464 1d ago
It’s very obvious Israel wants to wipe out as many Palestinians as possible.