“um, akshully, it’s not genocide, but it might still be bad or whatever.” Ridiculous

Setting aside whether Israel’s attacks, killings, civilian casualties and mass displacement meet a particular definition of genocide, what possible reason does the author have to quibble on this?

Either they’re merely being pedantic (which I find hard to believe) or they’re trying to blunt outrage over what I think any reasonable person would call a genocide. They’re reaching for any means possible to make these crimes seem less heinous. Seems like a move of desperation to me.

“It’s not genocide because they’re not trying to murder everyone. Yes, they are killing everyone but it’s not intentional.”

What a stupid fucking piece of shit excuse.

We even used to be subscribers of the Economist for a long time, but they have made a complete u-turn over the years. In the meantime they appear to just echo mostly pro-establishment opinions with weak research and an often weird approach of interpreting data and issues. So this does not come as a surprise unfortunately.

South Africa levels accusations of ‘genocidal conduct’ against Israel at world court are different as we know.

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

Colloquially, it’s genocide, but legally it does not appear to be. And that’s a problem if you’re trying to charge Israel with genocide in a court of law. Inevitably it’s going to be found to not be genocide and that’s one more thing Israel can point to. Crimes against humanity would probably been a better route.

It’s going to be hard, if not impossible to show in court that Israel, as a policy, is deliberately targeting Palestinians. Showing Isael’s actions is resulting in shit tons of civilian casualties seems pretty easy. Maybe there’s super secret documents that show it’s a deliberate act, but I highly doubt they’d be that dumb if genocide is their intention.

Does anyone remember this?

Disinvestment (or divestment) from South Africa was first advocated in the 1960s in protest against South Africa’s system of apartheid, but was not implemented on a significant scale until the mid-1980s. A disinvestment policy the US adopted in 1986 in response to the disinvestment campaign is credited with playing a role in pressuring the South African government to embark on negotiations that ultimately led to the dismantling of the apartheid system.

I don’t think South Africa appreciates the double standard.