Genocide and terrorism are two different things. If someone is commiting a genocide, then the victims being terrified or not is pretty irrelevant. They’re not there anymore.
Actually, they kinda are. Terrorism is about killing some people so you can influence the rest by fear. Genocide kills them all. If they’re all dead, how do you influence them with fear?
Am I missing something here?
edit: Do people think that any time someone blows up an innocent civilian, that’s an example of terrorism? If so, that’s a shitty definition. Terrorism is instilling terror into a population so you can push them into hurting themselves, usually because they’re too strong for you to defeat with more conventional military methods.
I saw this article recently that argued that Israel is guilty of committing the international crime of apartheid on an ongoing basis, and that Israel is guilty of committing genocide to different degrees at different times, but that its actions might best be understood as a novel crime against humanity that could be called a “Nakba”.
The theory is that genocide was recognized as a concept following the Holocaust, and apartheid following the South African implementation, and what we’re witnessing challenges description because it has numerous novel elements that make it appropriate to view it as a case study in a form of not-yet-comprehensively studied ethnic violence.
Genocide and terrorism are two different things. If someone is commiting a genocide, then the victims being terrified or not is pretty irrelevant. They’re not there anymore.
Conflating the two is silly and helps no one.
They’re not mutually exclusive.
Actually, they kinda are. Terrorism is about killing some people so you can influence the rest by fear. Genocide kills them all. If they’re all dead, how do you influence them with fear?
Am I missing something here?
edit: Do people think that any time someone blows up an innocent civilian, that’s an example of terrorism? If so, that’s a shitty definition. Terrorism is instilling terror into a population so you can push them into hurting themselves, usually because they’re too strong for you to defeat with more conventional military methods.
Both are happening, though.
I saw this article recently that argued that Israel is guilty of committing the international crime of apartheid on an ongoing basis, and that Israel is guilty of committing genocide to different degrees at different times, but that its actions might best be understood as a novel crime against humanity that could be called a “Nakba”.
The theory is that genocide was recognized as a concept following the Holocaust, and apartheid following the South African implementation, and what we’re witnessing challenges description because it has numerous novel elements that make it appropriate to view it as a case study in a form of not-yet-comprehensively studied ethnic violence.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/harvard-law-review-gaza-israel-genocide/
Yo that actually makes a lot of sense. And I guess it’d make sense as a crime name because Nakba is catastrophe in Arabic.