Everybody stick on the legal definition of genocide, and as a strategy it does make sens. However, their is a political struggle, and not as we may expect. "Genocide" word was first defined by a Jewish jurist during WWII, as such :
"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."
His works did inspire the UN definition with a more restrictive definition we know today. Raphael Lemkin made a definition that try to prevent inequality, colonialism and oppression that may lead to mass murder. But in preventing hierarchy between people, he made a definition that would make the concept of nationality illegal : every national-state has been made through genocide, according to Lemkin definition.
Personally, I found that silencing this definition to made a new one that allow nationalism after WWII is antisemitic (and racist oc). But I want to underline that the fascist state of Israel is right to point out the hypocrisies of national-state; this propaganda will work until we will stand against our nations as well as against Israel.
top 50 comments