this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
1827 readers
667 users here now
Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah on one hand I understand the argument that the term used to describe what's being done to the populace in Gaza doesn't really materially matter in terms of the moral argument and that "genocide" is exploited to bog down discussion into semantics, but I also see the value in expanding people's understanding of what genocide is and how it can manifest.
Up to this point it's kind of had this aura about it that if it's not literally the Holocaust and the perpetrators aren't explicitly saying "We want to kill every single member of X ethnicity" it's not genocide. But that's not true, and if the general public comes to understand that I think it gives less rhetorical cover for genocidal regimes to hide behind.
Genocide applies to more than literally the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean it applies to every brutal war.
The ICC is responsible for prosecuting genocide. They charged the leader of Sudan with genocide, but not the leader of Israel. This suggests that what happened in the Holocaust and Sudan is not the same as what is happening in Gaza.
Alright, I must be missing something here.
Didn't they just charge Bibi? Is he not the leader of Israel?
The ICC has three general categories of charges. The most serious is Article 6, "Genocide". This is how the leader of Sudan was charged.
The leaders of Israel and Hamas were all charged only under Articles 7 and 8, which are less serious. Article 7 is "Crimes against humanity". Article 8 is "War crimes".