https://portside.org/2024-12-30/2024-word-year-genocide-gaza

Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – The word of the year was certainly “genocide.” It was alleged of Israel’s Gaza campaign by South Africa in a case brought before the International Court of Justice, and this charge was also lodged by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders, and the UN Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices.

In addition, at least 14 countries have requested the International Court of Justice to allow them to intervene on behalf of South Africa’s genocide case against Israel, including Ireland, Spain, Belgium, Mexico, Türkiye, Nicaragua, Colombia, Libya, Egypt, Cuba, Palestine, Chile, the Maldives, and Bolivia. Spain, Mexico and Türkiye are in the G20.

On the other hand, the most powerful man in the world, Joe Biden, insisted that what Israel is doing in Gaza is not genocide. In fact, most US politicians of both parties have either issued similar denials or have just been quiet on the issue. US so-called cable “news” has barely mentioned Gaza at all this year, despite the daily carnage wrought by the Israeli military there, and typically does not invite on as commentators guests that might use the “G-word.” I did a database search in broadcast transcripts. CNN mentioned on December 6 that the US State Department had denied an Israeli genocide in Gaza. On November 1, CNN anchors reported that a UN official had resigned, calling Israeli actions in Gaza a textbook case of genocide. On May 24, CNN reported on the South Africa case against Israel at the ICJ for the crime of genocide. In January CNN reported two or three times on the ICJ case pursued against Israel for the alleged Gaza genocide. These six or so mentions seem to be the extent of CNN broadcasting on the genocide issue for the entire year, and mostly they covered denials or things that other people said.

Many of those contesting the charge of genocide against Israel do not understand the current technical definition of the term. It does not require killing millions of people. It cannot be excused by war-fighting, since the laws of war require that everything possible be done to minimize civilian casualties. If a country cavalierly throws aside this requirement and deliberately and consciously adopts rules of engagement allowing a hundred civilian casualties for each high-value militant killed, as both Israel’s +972 Mag and the New York Times say Israel has done, that course of action could fall under the heading of genocide.

Polish attorney and academic Raphael Lemkin, of Jewish heritage, coined the term “genocide.” It is from the Greek genos or people, race, or tribe, and the Latin -cide, having to do with killing. (The modern Greek is γενοκτονία (yenoktonía), from genos and ktonia, which means ‘killing.’ In my view it would have been better to have an all-Greek term rather than a Greek-Latin hybrid.) Lemkin used it in his 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. He also invoked it at the Nuremberg war crimes trials and worked to get the 1948 Genocide Convention passed and ratified, in which he succeeded by 1951.

In Axis Rule, Lemkin wrote,

• “New conceptions require new terms. By “genocide” we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homocide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.

  The following illustration will suffice. The confiscation of property of nationals of an occupied area on the ground that they have left the country may be considered simply as a deprivation of their individual property rights. However, if the confiscations are ordered against individuals solely because they are Poles, Jews, or Czechs, then the same confiscations tend in effect to weaken the national entities of which those persons are members.”

In contemporary Ireland, government officials are pushing back against Lemkin’s emphasis on intent and a “coordinated plan,” which are almost impossible to prove. They argue that genocide should be defined not by the intentions of the perpetrator but by the harms experienced by the victim.

This Google Books ngram shows how the use of the term skyrocketed after 1945:

Google Books Ngram for “Genocide.”

Unfortunately, the mentions may be increasing so much because the crime is becoming more common. In 2009 and 2010, the International Criminal Court issued warrants against then dictator Omar al-Bashir of Sudan that included 3 counts of genocide because of his brutal repression of the Fur people in the western Darfur province.

In this century, as Alexander Wentker points out, genocide is increasingly being litigated at the International Court of Justice, which was established by the United Nations to adjudicate disputes between member states. Gambia has filed a case against Myanmar (Burma)’s military junta for genocide against the Rohingya Muslims. Nicaragua filed a case against Germany for abetting Israel’s Gaza genocide, but the ICJ judges turned it back on the grounds that Germany has a robust judiciary that can decide this matter itself. Nicaragua, undeterred, is interested in prosecuting Britain and Canada for complicity in the Gaza genocide, which Wentker suggests may help explain the Labour government’s tepid announcement that some 14 weapons export licenses were being withdrawn from firms selling to Israel.

As South Africa noted in arguments before the ICJ, Article II of the Genocide Convention says,

• “In the present Convention, genocide means 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”

This language was adopted into the Rome Statute that underpins the International Criminal Court.

The ICJ judges have taken special interest in the Israeli destruction of hospitals and their displacement of pregnant women to unhealthy rubble and tents, noting that “The WHO has estimated that 15 per cent of the women giving birth in the Gaza Strip are likely to experience complications, and indicates that maternal and newborn death rates are expected to increase due to the lack of access to medical care.” The point is that these actions might constitute “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”

Juan Cole is the founder and chief editor of Informed Comment. He is Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History at the University of Michigan He is author of, among many other books, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace amid the Clash of Empires and The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Follow him on Twitter at @jricole or the Informed Comment Facebook Page. 

Informed Consent sheds light on how war, climate change and globalization are shaping our world.  Drawing on insights of expert journalists, activists, and academics, we strive to publish deep geopolitical analysis that's readable for a general audience.  And unlike most foreign-policy oriented publications, our editorial line isn't dictated by beltway think tanks or corporate boards.