Analyzing the legal case
of the accusation of genocide
brought by South Africa against Israel.
I do not know the law about genocide, as the author does, but I read
about what is happening in Gaza and I think I understand how to
characterize it. Killing 20,000 or more civilians out of a population
of 2.5 million is a series of atrocities, a crime, and it must stop.
However, calling it "genocide" is an exaggeration.
Some people think that exaggerative rhetoric is legitimate, that the
harsher-sounding condemnation is justified because it will be more
effective at putting an end to the atrocities. Why do I disagree?
-
Stretching the definition of a crime to apply it to lesser acts of
wrong is harmful in the long run, because it pulls on the moral
compass. It will be hard to do justice to the more severe crimes
when the terms for that have been stretched to cover lesser crimes.
In the snort run, it makes sides hate each other more and thus
interferes with deescalation.
- Committing a series of atrocities is a very grave crime. There is
no need to exaggerate that — it's sufficient to call it what it is.
- I doubt the exaggeration is effective, or necessary, for the
purpose. If we can convince the US government to recognize that this
is a series of atrocities and demand Israel stop, that will I expect
put an end to the atrocities. Convincing the US of that is the hard
part.