It’s inarguable that a state-sponsored genocide is taking place in Gaza. There are people who are experts in genocide (that’s the saddest specialization ever), like Francesca Albanese, who states the consensus view.
Citing international law, Ms. Albanese explained that genocide is defined as a specific set of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
“Specifically, Israel has committed three acts of genocide with the requisite intent: causing seriously 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, and imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group,” she said.
Furthermore, “the genocide in Gaza is the most extreme stage of a long-standing settler colonial process of erasure of the native Palestinians,” she continued.
Another expert, Raz Segal, explains how the actions in Israel constitute genocide.
Raz Segal, the program director of genocide studies at Stockton University, concretely says it is a “textbook case of genocide.” Segal believes that Israeli forces are completing three genocidal acts, including, “killing, causing serious bodily harm, and measures calculated to bring about the destruction of the group.” He points to the mass levels of destruction and total siege of basic necessities—like water, food, fuel, and medical supplies—as evidence.
He says Israeli leaders expressed “explicit, clear, and direct statements of intent,” pointing to Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s statement during an Oct. 13 press conference. In his statement, Herzog said, “It’s an entire nation that is out there that’s responsible. It’s not true, this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true,” Herzog said. “They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat.” (Herzog later said that he is not holding the civilians of Gaza responsible for keeping Hamas in political power, when asked to clarify by a journalist at the same press conference.) Segal says that this language conflates all Palestinians as “an enemy population,” which could help prove intent.
Segal calls it a textbook case of genocide.
Indeed, Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza is quite explicit, open, and unashamed. Perpetrators of genocide usually do not express their intentions so clearly, though there are exceptions. In the early 20th century, for example, German colonial occupiers perpetrated a genocide in response to an uprising by the Indigenous Herero and Nama populations in southwest Africa. In 1904, General Lothar von Trotha, the German military commander, issued an “extermination order,” justified by the rationale of a “race war.” By 1908, the German authorities had murdered 10,000 Nama, and had achieved their stated goal of “destroying the Herero,” killing 65,000 Herero, 80% of the population. Gallant’s orders on October 9th were no less explicit. Israel’s goal is to destroy the Palestinians of Gaza. And those of us watching around the world are derelict in our responsibility to prevent them from doing so.
You know, the University of Minnesota also has a Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, but they’re not quite so outspoken, for a very good reason. You can be fired in Minnesota if you speak the truth about Israel’s ongoing genocide…or at the very least, you can be denied employment here. Raz Segal — you know, the scholar I quoted up above — was set to be the director of Minnesota’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, but the job offer was abruptly retracted, specifically because of that “textbook case of genocide” article.
A professor who wrote days after the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks that Israel’s military operation against Hamas in Gaza was “a textbook case of genocide” has had his offer to head University of Minnesota’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies revoked after two members of the center’s advisory board resigned in protest last Friday and several Jewish leaders voiced their concerns.
Jeff Ettinger, the interim president of the University of Minnesota, said during a Friday morning Board of Regents meeting that Joe Eggers, the interim director of the center, would remain in the position as a new director search is conducted. Ettinger noted that the search process may extend until 2025 or 2026.
The official withdrawal of Raz Segal’s job offer came after a pause was announced on Monday amid increased scrutiny of Segal’s comments on Israel, Jewish Insider was first to learn.
I always figured Ettinger would be a chickenshit tool of business interests, uninterested in scholarly integrity.
We actually have Segal’s own account of what happened.
What happened is that there was a completely regular hiring process in a public university. There was a public announcement of the job. There were applications. There were Zoom interviews. There were campus visits. There was actually significant community engagement also during this process. And then, eventually, the search committee deliberated and made a recommendation to hire me to the interim dean, dean of the College of Liberal Arts. I was then, on the 5th of June, sent an official job offer.
And then, as you described, two professors who were formerly on the advisory committee of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota resigned and, together with the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas, put a lot of pressure, which was really a hateful campaign of lies and distortions against me and based on their political position in support of Israel. And on 10th of June — so within days, right? — the interim president of the University of Minnesota sent me an email withdrawing the job offer.
He goes on to explain what Ettinger said was the reason, and why that’s a contemptible act of cowardice.
He said that due to the public-facing role of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies and its director, community members have come forward with some concerns. And that was given as the reason for the withdrawal. And it’s important to say, of course, that this is a crude and very dangerous political — the legitimization — right? — of a political interference in an absolutely legitimate hiring process in a public university. It’s, you know, completely unacceptable that a political pressure group, the JCRC of Minnesota and the Dakotas here, and a political position, of support of Zionism and the state of Israel — right? — especially, of course, at a time when Israel is committing the crime of genocide for eight months now, right? But regardless, actually, any political position, any pressure group is not a criteria — should not the defining factor in a hiring process, and certainly once an official job offer has been made.
This actually might be a case of discrimination, because I’m targeted here specifically as an Israeli American Jew, and I’m targeted because of my identity as a Jew who refuses the narrowing down of Jewish identity to Zionism and to support of Israel, whatever it does, which is the position of the JCRC of Minnesota and the Dakotas in its claim to speak for all Jews in the Twin Cities, which is absolutely false. I mean, I’ve received hundreds, hundreds of emails in support, including from many Jews in the Twin Cities, who say explicitly that the JCRC does not speak for them, does not represent them. A community letter from within and outside the university in Twin Cities, again including many, many Jews, have now attracted more than 500 signatures. There’s also a letter of scholars from around the world, including many in the University of Minnesota, of course, that has attracted about a thousand signatures, maybe a bit more, in support of me. So, this idea that the JCRC speaks for all Jews — right? — is absolutely false.
But again, this kind of crude political intervention in the hiring process, and its legitimization by the university, is extremely dangerous. It joins this attack that we’re seeing in the academic world, that has intensified since October, of really suppressing academic freedom. And this is a very, very dangerous sign. That’s the reason that students and faculty members across the University of Minnesota, not only in the College of Liberal Arts, are furious at this decision of their interim president and are not willing to accept it.
We’re missing out here, and that’s a black mark against the University of Minnesota. All it takes is a vocal conservative group complaining to craven caretaker president, and boom, we lose a prominent scholar.
I’m sure we can expect the usual brave defenders of free speech and opponents of cancel culture to be voicing their outrage about this any minute now. /s
I’m surprised his application even got as far as it did without political interference from the pro-genocide lobby.
We have liberals defending this bullshit as well. I had to drop a blog I had been reading for years because of it.
And most of the world continues to stand by and watch it happen. As with all previous genocides.
If a university withdraws a job offer to a conservative professor, you have thousands of pundits crying about cancel culture and the terrible tyranny of the intransigent leftist woke academia, but the only thing you can expect from these same people here is felicitations to the university for a courageous stand against antisemitism
The Unite the Right rally : an exercise in Free speech by fine people ; a pro Palestinian demonstration : dangerous display of antisemitic violence that must be crushed.
In France, surprise elections will be decided between a center right with no hope of winning, a far right party with real Nazi origins that has to fire elected officials every few months when pictures of them doing a Nazi Salute appears on social media and a leftist coalition where some members supports the Palestinians and dare to denounce the far right Israeli regime.
I let you imagine who the press are accusing of antisemitism every hour of every day.
Segal has also written recently on the problematic IHRA working definition of antisemitism which can be weaponized against the Israel-critical:
https://time.com/6977457/weaponizing-antisemitism/
I find Segal’s article above on Congressional deliberation of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism apt as I’ve been reading Rebecca Gould in a similar vein. She was scrutinized in light of that working definition for a highly Israel critical article she wrote in Counterpunch [Rebecca Gould, “Beyond Anti-Semitism,” Counterpunch 18(19) (2011), 1–3] She weathered that storm but wasn’t unscathed. Chilling!
Gould lays out her views here:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872118780660
Gould, R. R. (2022). Legal Form and Legal Legitimacy: The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism as a Case Study in Censored Speech. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 18(1), 153-186.
I’m still grappling with this, especially the issue she takes with some aspects of Critical Race Theory as it overlaps with applications of the IHRA working definition.
Given I support the two-state solution (still???) which at least implicitly recognizes the sovereignty of Israel proper (~pre-67 borders) I guess that makes me a Zionist of sorts? Anti-Zionist Zionist? Or Israel-critical non-Zionist?
I am quite critical of Israel’s post 10-7-23 actions against Gazans. And I despise Hamas not only for what they did on that day. They have helped the Israeli right scuttle any sort of peace plan and have conveniently represented a lingering threat to Isrealis (though not existential) over the years. Does Bibi really want them gone?
Scuttling a peace plan was baked right into Arik’s Gaza Disengagement move. Formadehyde! The ascent of Hamas in Gaza had become icing on the cake as it split Gaza politically from the PA in the West Bank. Nobody to talk to on the other side. Continue then to engage in creeping annexation of “disputed” territory and keep the settler parties happy.
Per Zionism…I know enough to differentiate Labour and Revisionist strands amongst other lesser knowns. Labour was bad enough toward Palestinians over the many years they were in power but a retooled Revisionism is the status quo now under Arik’s enemy Bibi. The neorevisionists stopped fuming over the early 1920s partition of Transjordan from Greater Israel and now insinuate Jordan is Palestine, because those many refugees displaced by the nakba reside there now. Isn’t then the West Bank also Cisjordan instead of “Judea and Samaria”? I suppose the Hashemites have distanced themselves from that pre-67 headache.
Oh and again for the umpteenth time I wonder what Hitchens would think of Israel’s current actions in Gaza given what he has said and written over the years on Israel, Zionism, and Palestinian aspirations (eg- in Hitch-22). I would assume his views quite awkward and cognitive dissonance inducing for Coyne and his parrots who continue to lionize him over at WEIT. I sure wouldn’t demonize Hitchens on that particular issue, many other warts aside.
And I wonder what he would think of that IHRA working definition. Given what he wrote in Blaming the Victims I wonder if he would run afoul of it?
I am quite critical of Israel’s post 10-7-23 actions against Gazans. And I despise Hamas not only for what they did on that day. They have helped the Israeli right scuttle any sort of peace plan and have conveniently represented a lingering threat to Isrealis (though not existential) over the years. Does Bibi really want them gone?
Hamas did what they did on that day in just such a way as to MAKE everyone despise them as much as possible. That’s what Bibi wanted them to do: not only to provoke and provide an excuse for Israeli retaliation, but to bring maximum disgrace and discredit to the Palestinian cause, AND to all of the Palestinians’ supporters everywhere on Earth, AND to everyone everywhere who ever criticized Israel’s actions.
I gotta say it really is super convenient how for 60 years western powers have systematically used “fighting communism” as justification for killing secular nationalist leaders around the third world so we can pilfer their natural resources. Now that all the secular nationalists are dead, and the weed of religious fanatics has taken over we still have a good justification to kill them and pilfer their resources. Regardless of what people outside the imperial core do it is always somehow their own fault that we have to kill them and steal their stuff.
For a better definition of antisemitism, to which Raz Segal is a signatory see https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/
Today I went to town wearing a “CEASEFIRE – Stop the Genocide” t-shirt, and expecting hassles.
The only people who remarked on it said “Thank you!” and shook my hand.
Just as the US Constitution has a very restrictive definition of “treason,” international law has a very strict definition of “genocide” — and the evidence isn’t publicly revealed and authenticated yet. But there are clear atrocities short of technical genocide in progress, and there’s no excuse: for that: They’re still war crimes.
Getting there, Jaws.
http://opiniojuris.org/2024/04/05/the-icjs-findings-on-plausible-genocide-in-gaza-and-its-implications-for-the-international-criminal-court/
Thought you might find this debating interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6sOB2ROq_c&t=1842s
Jaws: have you … read the post you’re commenting on? The consensus view of experts on genocide is that genocide is occurring. They formed that view almost immediately when Israel started its response, because Israel hasn’t been hiding what’s it’s been doing, nor why it’s been doing it.
“This actually might be a case of discrimination, because I’m targeted here specifically as an Israeli American Jew, and I’m targeted because of my identity as a Jew who refuses the narrowing down of Jewish identity to Zionism and to support of Israel”
Lets call this support for genocide and the targeting Raz Segal by Zionasties what it really is; antisemitic.
Numerobis @15: Genocide is distinct from other war crimes in that it requires evidentiary proof of a specific, knowing intent that is directly connected to specific acts (among other things). There are indications that such evidence may well exist — but that evidence is neither validated (and in public) nor clearly and convincingly interpretable only as demonstrating that specific, knowing intent directly connected to specific acts. All of the trustworthy actual experts whose opinions I’ve seen are still holding to “indications, which personally convince me but I’m not there and haven’t seen everything” category; conversely, there’s been a lot of misquotation of the trustworthy-and-qualified (not to mention the bloviation from others) misusing the word “genocide.”
Which is by no means an excuse for atrocities. But it matters because war-crimes-tribunal consequences of a finding of “genocide” extend to a broader range of people than “just” atrocities; put another way, the brush with which one justly tars the offenders (and their governments) is wider and has more tar on it after a full finding of genocide.
This is related to the “overpromising” problem in criminal prosecutions, in which a real bad actor (usually white collar) avoids conviction on some (maybe all) charges because the prosecutor oversold in the charging documents and opening statement — and the evidence didn’t demonstrate each element of the offense on each charge (however reprehensible the defendant is). One of the reasons that a Certain Person was recently convicted on all 34 counts is that the prosecution avoided this error.
All I’m suggesting is that what is publicly verified supports only inexcusable “lesser” war crimes as of yet. And I’m really irritated that it goes even that far; if “Never Again” doesn’t mean everyone it’s just meaningless noise.
Jaws
We have proof that the Israelis are starving the Palestinians in Gaza, and depriving them of water, they said they were going to cut of water, food and power in response to the Hamas attack on 8/10 and they did so. What more do you need? Is dehydrating and starving a population not enough? Particularly as starving women are unlikely to get or remain pregnant, and if they do manage to bring a child to birth will not be able to feed that child.
[Jazzlet, be fair]
Now, in my misspent life, I’ve had opportunity to translate to and from bureaucratese.
Jaws is stating that there are quite specific criteria at hand.
Technically, as it stands.
Given the current international justice regime.
So, no point saying stuff to the effect “I know it when I see it, it fits the definition I personally use, the only reasonable definition”, because that does not dispute what Jaws is stating.
“Genocide is distinct from other war crimes in that it requires evidentiary proof of a specific, knowing intent that is directly connected to specific acts (among other things). There are indications that such evidence may well exist — but that evidence is neither validated (and in public) nor clearly and convincingly interpretable only as demonstrating that specific, knowing intent directly connected to specific acts.”
I certainly can’t dispute Jaws’ claim there.
I noticed the apologetic subtext and the obligatory (obviously, not preemptive) exposition of personal attitudes and values, too. Not overt, but not that subtle, either.
John I’m actually serious about those questions, to be fair I perhaps should have added in reference to the stated policy of some of the Israeli ministers with regard to eliminating the residents of Gaza. But the combination of public statements and actual actions feels like pretty solid evidence to me, but IANAL. If the ministers have been reported accurately, and in many cases there does seem to be plenty of evidence for their statements, and the actions again are widely evidenced what more do you need?
Again: it’s not up to me, or to you, or to Jaws, but rather to the international legal and regulatory regime, such as it is. Jaws is explaining how it is, I can’t say that it isn’t, nor can you.
I reckon that the UN is this close →.← to it, as I noted @13, but that’s only my opinion.
Slow grinding, that’s for sure.
Extremely high threshold, can’t argue with that.
Notice this: “All I’m suggesting is that what is publicly verified supports only inexcusable “lesser” war crimes as of yet.”
The suggestion there is that if these already darn bad and inexcusable war crimes haven’t been addressed (other than by the ICC on leaders) yet, then fat chance for weightier offences that need weightier evidence?
Still. Israel sure has burned through its accumulated stores of goodwill and sympathy, globally.
Basically, Jaws only accepts the holocaust as a genocide. Armenian genocide, Circassian genocide? Nope, not genocides, they didn’t get proven in court.
That’s what I would term “complete bullshit”.
If you want peak irony, in Germany, Jewish scientists, artists and intellectuals who condemn Israel’s acts are being censored and have scholarships and jobs cancelled, all in the name of “fighting antisemitism”.
I’m not being clear enough here, and I’m getting tired of this. I condemn wrongful acts like “withholding food and water from civilian populations.” Those are war crimes, and those engaging in them deserve appropriate punishment after due process and presentation of verified evidence. But being adjudged as a “genocide” has collateral consequences; merely having been a prison guard at a Nazi camp (or in 1990s Yugoslavia), results in those consequences without proof of individual wrongdoing. I suggest only that describing misconduct correctly matters because of those consequences; that the law is imperfect and loophole-ridden and all too subject to “but he’s our bastard” rationalizations is not grounds for misstating it.
We’ve got a body with three bullet-holes in its chest, and the neighbour is standing on the porch with a gun loudly saying they shot him because they wanted him to be dead. We can condemn this, but we can’t call it murder because unlike other property crimes (not that this is a property crime) this crime has specific requirements (same as all crimes).
Your position is completely ludicrous.
Anyway, I’ll take the words of experts on genocide cited above (plus many others; what’s cited here is indeed the general opinion, has been for months) rather than those of someone who’s following our political leadership in wringing his hands about whether an obvious genocide is, in fact, a genocide or just a sparkling destruction in whole or in part of an ethnic group.
@ ^ Jaws : Yes they ae war crimes. There’s also overlap with genocide. These things ain’t mutually exclusive.
Frex, The killing of Hind Rajab and her family and the ambulance sent to rescue that six year old child :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Hind_Rajab
That was a war crime. There’s also a pretty strong case – before the international courts right now :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa%27s_genocide_case_against_Israel
That Hind Rajab’s murder, the murder of her family and the ambulance sent to save her was one of who knows how many war crimes committed as part of a broader genocide.That’s also being judged beyond legl scholars in the “court of public opinion” FWIW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation
Yes, mileage varies.
What is very clearly true is that innocent people are being killed. People same as me and you but for luck of birth and circumstances. Equally human. Inalienable rights. People.
Whatever we choose to call that. Its wrong and needs to stop. Capt’n Obvs.
It does?
What consequences precisely?
That is bad becoz?
It is good to get things right – to see the correct charges apply. To see Justice actually happen.
But see above and too ofetn, alltoooftenn, well what you say next applies inreality anyhow and allows those who who done horrific things to get away with them for too long with too little consequences or justice. Whatever that is, milage and opinions vary natch. . .
Yup. Relevance here precisely?
Numerobis: Your hypothetical is not comparable to the verified, made-public evidence in Gaza. The hypothetical includes an explicit statement constituting an admission against interest by the offender that satisfies the intent elements. The present verifiable, made-public record as to Gaza does not contain such an admission against interest (indeed, it’s replete with denials) — which means that it’s for trial and not for public acclamation prior to presentation of evidence.
StevoR: First a quibble — “genocide” and “war crime” are not an intersection; genocide is a subset of war crimes. Remember that we’re talking about potential consequences, not wrongfulness.
Collateral consequences include things like being barred from immigration to another nation even to avoid other war crimes due to membership in instrumentalities of genocide without any demonstration of an individual wrongful act. This may well be justified — if the conduct of that instrumentality really did meet the standards of “genocide” (such as the Demjanjuk matter, which involved stripping US citizenship and deportation that would not have been lawful absent the genocide finding). By analogy, it’s similar to imposing a “gang membership” aggravating factor in a criminal trial without demonstrating that the membership group met the definition of “gang” in the statute.
Generally: This is an excluded-middle problem. “Not genocide” definitely does not mean “therefore perfectly OK.” It only means “if not genocide, the entire set of consequences of a finding of genocide can’t be presumed.”
Frankly, I feel like the question “is this genocide” often functions (unintentionally, I am sure) as a sort of red herring or Chewbacca defense. Genocide is evil, yes, but it isn’t the only evil thing, and mass slaughter is evil enough whatever word you use to describe the killing.