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?

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have! However, I was convinced that’s distinctly different because the occupiers have a nation to go back to after the occupation is defeated. French slave owners in Haiti still got to keep their French national identity. British occupiers in Ireland still got to keep their British identity.

    Israeli settlers, once the Zionist entity is defeated and Israel is dismantled, will have no national identity. They’ll just be Palestinians.

    By the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, that’s genocide. And that can’t be right.

    • Water Bowl Slime@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Isreali settlers can all trace their nationality to some other country since Israel didn’t exist until 1948. Netanyahu would be a American Palestinian for example. We could also come up with a new word to describe the settlers as a district group like we do with Afrikaners (Dutch South Africans).

      Either way, Israel isn’t real and treating Israeli nationality as equivalent to Palestinians’ is a mistake. That’s like carving a chunk out of Mexico, calling it “Freeland”, then crying genocide against Freelandians when Mexico takes its land back.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A lot of Israeli settlers are from mixed national backgrounds, the only national identity they have is Israeli.

        Though if Israel isn’t real then that kinda solves that problem; they’re not Israeli, they’re Zionist settlers and pretending they’re different because they drew some lines on a map and have a flag and use brutal violence to enforce apartheid.

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know the answer but it could be that Zionism is not a nation, race, ethnicity, or religion?