Biden: What's happening in Gaza is not genocide
Biden: What's happening in Gaza is not genocide
US President Joe Biden strongly defended Israel on Monday, saying Israeli forces are not committing genocide in their military campaign against Hamas militants in Gaza.
"What's happening in Gaza is not genocide. We reject that," Biden said at a Jewish American Heritage Month event at the White House.
I can't tell if he's pandering or trying to lose the election
You're viewing a single thread.
Oh, well it's totally okay then. /s
He's might be technically right so far, since most of the population is still standing, but depending on where things go next this line could be remembered along with "peace in our time".
Genocide, per it's UN definition, just requires "actions with the intend to destroy, in whole or in part". So no, just because they're not done yet doesn't mean it's not genocide
Doesn't that make every war genocide?
sorry, left out part of the definition:
any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.So destroying a military - no, destroying a national or racial group - yes
Don’t stop there:
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:
-
A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
-
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.
-
Depends on what they do next, right? Technically they still haven't, but that's a bit of a minor detail since we all know guys like Smotrich want Palestine and/or Palesinians gone, and they're doing things that would eventually lead to that outcome if continued.
You don't need to be successful to have committed the crime.
I see it as a classic intent vs outcome. If someone tries to commit atrocities and fails then their moral character is just as bad. People can change and reform but the attempt, exuberance, and time involved are all bigger signals than how the victim is affected. Incompetence can't be a defense for evil at a certain point.
Technically is doing a lot of work here, that was the point.
That being said, requirement for success varies by crime (murder charges are only used if it works), and success usually has to be reasonably forseeable in the cases where it isn't. Genocide would definitely be in the latter category, and as it is it will be very hard for ZA's lawyers to prove to the ICJ that Israel has attempted to kill all Palestinians in Gaza, given that only a fraction are actually dead, and Israel could do it very easily if they committed to it.
IANAL
You should go read what the UN has to say about genocide. You are wrong. The idea that you have to kill most or all of a group to be guilty of genocide is the biggest misconception there is about it. The entire idea is to prevent it from starting and if it does start, stop it before it gets to the proportions of the Holocaust. At any rate the ICJ just today ordered Israel to halt it's offensive; allow official access for UN war crimes investigators; and let in all of the aid it's holding at the borders. Netanyahu immediately refused all three orders.
How much more clear does it need to be?
Edit to add - Just because I can't not. Attempted Murder is the crime they charge for trying to murder someone. So no you don't get away just because you failed. And Israel is a lot closer to succeeding than it is failing.
Yeah, attempted murder is a different charge. That was, again, the point.
Technically is doing a lot of work here, that was the point.
^ You're responding to something other than what I said, so I'll just repost this.
The UN has written a lot about genocide, at various different levels with different levels of authority. Not all of it matches, and the only thing that's definitely included is trying to remove a group one of the 5 ways listed.
At any rate the ICJ just today ordered Israel to halt it’s offensive; allow official access for UN war crimes investigators; and let in all of the aid it’s holding at the borders. Netanyahu immediately refused all three orders.
Yep, although that wasn't a ruling on the charge of genocide itself.
Who cares what the specific charge is? Attempting the crime is still illegal. That's the point. And those 5 ways are the definitions of Genocide.
Lawyers, judges, fact checkers. I'm not the first two, but I like to play at the third.
If you're going by the Geneva convention and not something from the Lemkin school of thought, it's easier to talk about. There's an effort to create conditions of life which will kill Palestinians, and limited success, but calculated to destroy in whole or part is the sticky bit, since the body count is still low compared to the population. I don't know, it's like a drunk that beat someone severely. Was it a poor attempt to kill, or just a successful attempt to maim? The standard of proof required is usually beyond reasonable doubt.
If you were to put using starvation as a weapon or collective punishment to them, there wouldn't be much doubt, but those are (slightly) lesser charges. Just like you could indict the drunk for aggravated assault or similar fairly plausibly.
How is a man made famine not calculated to destroy them at least in part? This isn't a case of aid just having trouble. Israel refuses to let the vast majority of it into Gaza.
If they stopped now, no significant part would be destroyed. They won't, but that's a matter of prediction, not fact.
Okay? And that's a bad thing? Again, the goal is to recognize it happening and stop it in time to save people. Not to sit back and declare it after it's done.