The long struggle over the meaning of "genocide"

[Valcazar]

Interesting long-form article (gift link) on the meaning of genocide.

Essentially an argument that guy who invented the concept (Raphael Lemkin) wanted a broader interpretation than the one international courts have used since its codification in international law.

The Holocaust is viewed both as the awful standard against which all modern atrocities must be measured and as a supposedly unrepeatable catastrophe to which they must never be compared. The Genocide Convention effectively enshrined this paradoxical understanding of the Shoah and established a nearly impossible bar for genocidal intent based on its example. As a result, international courts have rarely recognized more recent mass killings as instances of the crime, and peoples seeking to have their suffering recognized as such have been bitterly disappointed.

 

[Frankfooter]

This Lemkin, the guy who founded this?
What's going on valcazar, why are you busy trying to find ways to say backing genocide is ok?

 

[basketcase]

This Lemkin, the guy who founded this?
...

Did you not read what he posted?

Interesting long-form article (gift link) on the meaning of genocide.

Essentially an argument that guy who invented the concept (Raphael Lemkin) wanted a broader interpretation than the one international courts have used since its codification in international law.

You keep talking about international law when you think it suits you but you're just admitting that international law doesn't agree with you (and that you didn't read past the name.


BTW. The article lists a bunch of ongoing (potential from a legal standpoint) genocides you choose to ignore like in China, Syria, Darfur.

 

[Frankfooter]

Did you not read what he posted?



You keep talking about international law when you think it suits you but you're just admitting that international law doesn't agree with you (and that you didn't read past the name.


BTW. The article lists a bunch of ongoing (potential from a legal standpoint) genocides you choose to ignore like in China, Syria, Darfur.

So you're arguing that the Lemkin Institute doesn't know what Lemkin wanted but that a NY Post journalist did?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790036042864558423

 

[Valcazar]

This Lemkin, the guy who founded this?
What's going on valcazar, why are you busy trying to find ways to say backing genocide is ok?

Yes, obviously that Lemkin.

Are you saying you disagree with him on this point?

(EDIT - Sorry, I misread your question. No - not that Lemkin, since he didn't found that institute. No one named Lemkin founded that institute. It was named after the same Lemkin.)

 

[Valcazar]

Did you not read what he posted?

Of course he didn't read what I posted.
He doesn't read what he posts, as he admitted in another thread.

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes, obviously that Lemkin.

Are you saying you disagree with him on this point?

Disagree with him on what point, exactly?

 

[Valcazar]

So you're arguing that the Lemkin Institute doesn't know what Lemkin wanted but that a NY Post journalist did?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790036042864558423

No one is arguing that.
How on earth did you even come up with that idea?

 

[Valcazar]

Disagree with him on what point, exactly?

Maybe read the article.

 

[Frankfooter]

No one is arguing that.
How on earth did you even come up with that idea?

The article is meant to muddy the waters about Lemkin's intent, though if it makes any point its that the definition should have been easier to fulfill, not harder. Its like the Atlantic piece arguing that the term settler colonialism should be retired.

The Lemkin Institute is clear, what is going on in Gaza fits the more stringent terms the UN approved.

 

[Frankfooter]

Maybe read the article.

Maybe make your statement clear.
What point exactly were you talking about?

 

[Valcazar]

The article is meant to muddy the waters about Lemkin's intent,

Wow.

though if it makes any point its that the definition should have been easier to fulfill, not harder.

The law did not live up to his intent.
No argument.

The Lemkin Institute is clear, what is going on in Gaza fits the more stringent terms the UN approved.

They are arguing that, yes.
They also appear to be among the groups arguing that the interpretation of the law needs to be expanded.

 

[Frankfooter]

Wow.

What is this 'bitter fight' they are talking about?
You think there is one?
Between who?

 

[Frankfooter]

It's only a genocide if certain groups are the victims. It's not a genocide if those same groups are the perpetrators. Pretty simple, really.

Same way the word 'terrorist' only applies to brown people and 'settler colonialism' is a term they think should be retired.
If you can't defend yourself from the accusations just change the terms.

 

[Valcazar]

What is this 'bitter fight' they are talking about?
You think there is one?
Between who?

Between the legal and moral sense of the word.
The one that has been going on since the convention was passed.

 

[Frankfooter]

Between the legal and moral sense of the word.
The one that has been going on since the convention was passed.

Like I said, the article's real goal is to muddy the waters about genocide charges.
The author is declaring there is 'bitter fight' about its meaning, which doesn't appear to be the case.

Is that why you posted this article?
You've stated here you think what Israel is genocide.
The amount of evidence for this is very overwhelming, from public statements of officials to mounds of evidence and bodies.

Do you really think there should be a debate about the implemented genocide legal terms?

 

[shack]

This Lemkin, the guy who founded this?
What's going on valcazar, why are you busy trying to find ways to say backing genocide is ok?

Obviously the UNGA and UNSC also agree as evidenced by the the fact that no resolutions have been passed in terms of condemning Israel for genocide. That's a bit of a problem for you.

 

[Valcazar]

Like I said, the article's real goal is to muddy the waters about genocide charges.
The author is declaring there is 'bitter fight' about its meaning, which doesn't appear to be the case.

So you don't think the last few decades of history have happened?

Is that why you posted this article?

I posted this article because the history of the concept is interesting and relevant.
As is the fact that the general usage and the legal usage are different.

You've stated here you think what Israel is genocide.
The amount of evidence for this is very overwhelming, from public statements of officials to mounds of evidence and bodies.

Do you really think there should be a debate about the implemented genocide legal terms?

Yes.
If you are happy with the current legal definition, that's fine.

 

[Frankfooter]

Obviously the UNGA and UNSC also agree as evidenced by the the fact that no resolutions have been passed in terms of condemning Israel for genocide. That's a bit of a problem for you.

Not at all, Shazi.
The ICC and ICJ have to issue verdicts then they go to the UNGA and the UNSC.

The fact that the only thing holding the UN from adding to the 62 resolutions Israel is already ignoring is the US veto, just makes your entire defence rely on the outgoing US POTUS.

Do you think you can just wall in the 5 million Palestinians who have lived through your genocide?
How do you think Israel continues after this?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826273168996360375

 

[Frankfooter]

So you don't think the last few decades of history have happened?

I posted this article because the history of the concept is interesting and relevant.
As is the fact that the general usage and the legal usage are different.

Yes.
If you are happy with the current legal definition, that's fine.

Not believable.

You really think this looks like an honest discussion on the history and legal definition of genocide?
This looks more like testing the grounds for future defence against your personal support of Israeli actions.