Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I firmly believe the use of the word "genocide" [View all]lapucelle
(18,378 posts)145. Many of the folks pontificating on *social media* have no understanding of the actual elements of the crime of genocide.
Elements of the crime
The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.
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.
Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and substantial.
The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation. The latter is less common but still possible. The same article establishes the obligation of the contracting parties to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide.
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.
Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and substantial.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
172 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Deliberately pushing millions of Palestinians into one area then carpet bombing that area is genocide.
lark
Mar 28
#1
Hamas, the elected government of Gaza, launched an attack on the territory of Israel....
Happy Hoosier
Mar 28
#70
They were 100% war crimes, and what is happening in Gaza is ethnic cleansing slipping into genocide
obamanut2012
Mar 28
#75
"From the River to the Sea" is a paraphrase of the 1977 Likud manifesto
muriel_volestrangler
Mar 28
#8
No, it is simply not answering the legimate questions I asked. There is nothing 'to the point' about non-responsiveness.
Celerity
Mar 28
#21
It isn't '2 different ways' in terms of what I am discussing, as some on both sides have and are using it to the extent
Celerity
Mar 28
#26
No, no I am not, and you are ignoring Likud, (who ARE currently in power) both in their sloganeering and their actions.
Celerity
Mar 28
#127
so many RW Israelis, including many in Likud absolutely look at it as a war on all of the Gazans and/or all Palestinians
Celerity
Mar 28
#139
No it is not lying, as that was the gist (notice it was not a quote) of what he was saying.
Celerity
Mar 28
#150
Some would rather quibble over the meaning of words than deal with the actual truth.
Earth-shine
Mar 28
#14
I think you ignore a lot of important aspects, none of which occurred with your two US examples. BUT
hlthe2b
Mar 28
#25
Barricading food aid and allowing starvation is not something the US did. Netanyahu, has.
hlthe2b
Mar 28
#33
We did not barricade/blockade them into starving. You can disagree or debate the atomic bomb
hlthe2b
Mar 28
#38
The Allies during World War One did in fact impose a blockade on the Central Powers
thucythucy
Mar 28
#66
"We did not barricade/blockade them into starving." lol, it was literally called "Operation Starvation"
EX500rider
Mar 28
#129
I could not agree with you more. It's also 100 percent antisemitism as a dog whistle
jimfields33
Mar 28
#29
Do you think the US firebombing of Tokyo where over 80k were killed and over 200k made homeless
ripcord
Mar 28
#65
That is for murdering, raping, genocidal, theocratic extremist Arabs and Persian terrorists
TheKentuckian
Mar 28
#43
If the Israeli's proceed with a military attack on the city of Rafah, I might want to reconsider my position.
patphil
Mar 28
#142
RE: "But I see no evidence that they wish to kill the population of Gaza"
IrishAfricanAmerican
Mar 28
#55
If some other country was doing it to some other walled off minority inside their borders...
Iggo
Mar 28
#58
Our gov't has condemned China and the Saudis for human rights violations and more, many times in the past.
Earth-shine
Mar 28
#165
The WWII Jewish Holocaust is not the only terrible event that is a genocide. There were many before then and many after
obamanut2012
Mar 28
#76
The U.S. has to stop sending money to Israel used to purchase munitions for its massive killing of innocent people,
Squaredeal
Mar 28
#86
Do you know Netanyahu has used the term "river to sea" also as to his aim in the region.
brush
Mar 28
#102
Like "apartheid", "anti-Semitism" and so many others in order to fit their "needs".
Behind the Aegis
Mar 28
#118
Section 101 (starting at p. 59) of South Africa ICJ case extensively addresses intent (linked).
David__77
Mar 28
#144