Written by Antonio M. Guez Macho
The fool looks at the finger when a wise man gestures toward the moon.
This quote, which is credited to Conficius, highlights how people often concentrate on a message, messenger, or idea rather than the reality it represents, particularly when that truth is unpleasant or distressing. Given the continuous deaths and famine in Gaza, it is extremely pertinent today.
The activities of the Israeli government in Palestine have been classified as crimes against humanity, war crimes, or genocide by numerous academics, attorneys, journalists, and officials. Instead of denying any objective reality about the events themselves, the Israeli government and its sympathizers frequently do so on the pretext of antisemitism. However, a lot of activists employ these ideas without fully comprehending their theoretical ramifications.
Crimes are not the same as genocide. It is not a term to be used carelessly or to refer to a common crime on a grander scale. Genocide necessitates a political and intellectual underpinning that makes it possible to defend the eradication of a people and their culture on an institutional and communal level, portraying it as a justified and even desirable course of action.
Therefore, in order to conceptualize genocide, we must examine mass violence experiences as political, historical, and anthropological phenomena rather than just as individual incidents.
Conceptualising genocide
Despite the fact that genocides have happened throughout human history, the term itself is a neologism, having been first used in the early 1940s by Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin. He accomplished this by reenacting a number of historical occurrences that had resulted in the annihilation of cultures.
Building on the research of Polish anthropologist Bronis aw Malinowski, he discovered instances of this kind of devastation in acts like the mass murder of Armenians in Anatolia during World War I and European colonial expansion around the world. After analyzing these incidents, he came to the conclusion that there were no political or legal tools that could effectively shield cultural groups from the impending threat of annihilation. He fought to have just such a protective framework recognized internationally as a result of this.
When Lemkin had to escape Nazi persecution and leave behind numerous family members who would be slain for their Jewish identity during World War II, he personally felt the lack of protection. He was successful in convincing the newly formed United Nations (UN) to embrace his novel idea when he was living in exile in the United States following the conclusion of the war.
Lemkin’s influence and the inclusion of historical and anthropological components in the concept of genocide are evident in Resolution 96 of the UN General Assembly, which was adopted on December 11, 1946. The following is the text of the Resolution, “The Crime of Genocide”:
Genocide deprives entire human groups of their right to exist, just as homicide deprives individuals of their right to live. This denial of the right to exist shocks humanity’s conscience, causes significant losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions that these human groups represent, and is against morality, the United Nations’ spirit, and its goals. Numerous cases of genocide have involved the whole or partial annihilation of racial, religious, political, and other groups.
Collective crime, collective victims
From this point on, efforts were made to adapt the idea to political and legal structures. However, there is no clear legal or political definition of genocide. Instead, it is a means of comprehending a particular type of violent process, and discussions about its definition are still going strong today.
A prevalent belief in the legal supremacy of the notion of crimes against humanity has been strengthened by influential thinkers like Philippe Sands, particularly his important 2016 work East West Street: On the Origins of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. This is primarily due to Sands’s adherence to Hersch Lauterpacht’s thesis, which emphasizes the importance of the person. Nonetheless, both the perpetrators and the victims of genocide are inherently part of a communal crime.
Some interpretations of Sands’ reasoning contend that because the individual fits inside our preexisting ideas and frameworks of criminal justice, which are designed to find and bring charges against specific criminals, they should be given priority. However, applying this concept to genocide has always been more the product of political weakness than legal rigor. In other words, a few ringleaders are simpler to prosecute than a whole government or military.
Even this customized model is insufficient. In recent months, nations including Hungary and the US have displayed ICC arrest warrants for Israeli officials, despite calls from human rights organizations based in Israel and others to recognize the conduct of the Israeli government as genocide. Additionally, Israel’s friends in the US, UK, and EU have declined to impose sanctions or take any political measures, and they still provide Israel with armaments.
This demonstrates that genocide is essentially a political offense. Without political enforcement—whether through diplomatic pressure or more overt military action against the aggressor—prosecution under international law is impossible.
Genocide in Palestine
We need to be specific when discussing genocide. Understanding the reasoning behind the behaviors is more important than figuring out whether the requirements have been fulfilled to label particular violent acts as genocidal. Even while a conviction for crimes against humanity or genocide does not save lives, the idea that genocide is occurring or has occurred has significant political ramifications.
However, rather than highlighting this concept’s shortcomings, what we are seeing in Gaza shows how strong it is. As scholars, we argue over whether Israel’s use of mass brutality qualifies as genocide, but so does the indignant public, which is demonstrating in streets across the globe. The Israeli government and its supporters are also unable to avoid considering genocide, even if they choose to deny it.
The killings will continue even if Israel’s violence in Palestine is classified as genocidal, but no other legal designation will either. To accept such an interpretation is just to divert attention from politics, the party ultimately accountable.
Thinking and discussing genocide is still a powerful way to keep our eyes on the moon rather than the finger pointing at it, regardless of any reservations or restrictions.
At the University of Santiago de Compostela, Antonio M. Guez Macho teaches contemporary history.
