• Gorilladrums
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    (a) Killing members of the group;

    Israel is not trying to exterminate Palestinians.

    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    You could make a case that the conditions in the Palestinian territories cause bodily or mental harm, but then you would have to approve the intent. You would have to prove that Israel has intentionally caused and kept those conditions (as opposed to the incompetence of the Palestinian authorities) with the purpose to damage Palestinians as much as people. I think the grounds for such a case are weak.

    © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    I take this statement to mean something like a government trying to destroy a group by engineering a famine or something along these lines, like what the Russians did in Holodomor. This isn’t the case in Israel. If anything Israel is going out of its way to provide food, fuel, electricity, and other supplies to the Palestinian territories. The flow of supplies is only ever paused in extreme situations like right now, and the pauses are temporary.

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    Israel is not imposing measures to prevent Palestinian births.

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    Israel is not forcibly transferring children Palestinian children to Israel or elsewhere.

    Based on the definition you provided, the case for calling Israel genocidal is weak at best. So no I don’t it’s fair or accurate to call Israel genocidal.