Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Clear enough, right?
Under this definition Israel's occupation and war of extermination is absolutely genocide, unquestionably. The goal is to kill, mutilate, and displace the Palestinian people. The goal is the total ethnic cleansing of Gaza, by any means necessary. Israel's war on Gaza is genocide.
However, under this definition are the completely justified goals of Hamas also genocide? They intend to destroy the settler-colonial monstrosity that is Zionism and eradicate the nation state of Israel; Palestine from the river to the sea. That, technically, means they are committed with intent to destroy the national group of Israelis by displacement, death, or simply making them into Palestinians after destroying Israel's government.
That doesn't seem right to me. I am absolutely in solidarity with Hamas and Palestine in their struggle against the Zionist entity. An occupied people destroying their occupier's government and settler identity can't be considered genocide, because it creates this legal and ethical equivalency with the settlers.
And yet, technically, that seems to be the case. Am I wrong?
And, by pointing out this technicality, am I just a dog for Zionism?
I am not saying that there willl be a peaceful solution, at least not in the short to medium term, I am saying that thats the only one one should be advocating for. You claim to be a realist, and that there can be no peaceful solution. I agree, but as a realist you also have to see that there can be no violent one either. No amount of violence is going to resolve this conflict. Both Hamas and the Israeli government will keep being armed by their respective allies, this conflict will likely drag on for decades, maybe centuries without any winner. Even if one state is abolished, partisan groups will keep fighting.
Violence pretty much seems inevitable at the moment, but that doesn't mean that a violent "solution" is any more realistic than a peaceful one.
So violent solutions have worked in other settler colonies, what makes you so certain it can't work here?
Peaceful coexistence is only possible after he Israeli state is destroyed. Surely you see that? Peace is not possible under settler colonialism
For the first point: Well, Hamas hasn't been terribly successful so far in wiping out Israel. If anything is currently being destroyed, that would be Gaza City.
For the second point: No, I don't think I agree. I believe that peace would be possible if Israel stopped discriminating against Palestinians, and if both sites agreed that both Muslims and Jews are allowed to practice their religion anywhere in Israel and Palestine. Additionaly, geographic areas that have been especially contested should be governed by both Israeli and Palestinian representatives. Any reference to ethnicity or religion would have to be removed from Israeli and Palestinian laws as well. It would also probably be a good Idea to mix school classes and to establish exchange programs between schools/universities in Palestine and Israel. Ultimately the underlying issue are the brain diseases called religion and nationalism. If the prevelance of both could be reduced in the population of both states, this would increase the likelyhood of peace. For that, less extremist governments and an overall better education system would certainly help.
Well no shit, but that isn't happening lol
"Peace would be possible if they decided to have peace ๐ "
This is idealism and not based on material reality. Do you think settlers will ever choose to stop colonizing on their own? In every settler-colonial state in history the settlers were either forced to stop... or they succeeded in killing all the colonized.
Ah yes, but of course "Hamas is going to wipe out Israel and then everyone is going to live happily ever after ๐" is not a fantasy that's completely detached from reality.
And yes, I do believe that Israels stance will change over time. Many young Israelis actually oppose the policies of their government. If this trend continues, they will be in the majority at some point. Same for Gaza, Hamas hasn't been allowing elections since 2006, the younger generation of Gaza never got to choose their government and given the chance, they would likely vote for someone less extremist (as in the west bank).
Peace will indeed be possible as soon as both parties decide that that's what they want. This might not be right now, but as an eventuality, this is way more realistic than any side eradicating the other.
Stances changing over time does absolutely nothing for the people dying and suffering in the meantime. Will Israel maybe liberalize in 40 years? Maybe. That's about the equivalent of the Gaza life expectancy though!
Hamas hasn't been allowing elections? That's just a lie - the PLO doesn't allow elections because Hamas doesn't recognize them as the legitimate rulers of Palestine (and because the PLO knows Hamas would only win more power of there were elections)
Here is how Hamas might achieve peace - using violence they force Israel into a negotiated return of Palestinian land to Palestinians and to disband the government. The goal isn't to just kill everyone after all.
That's a lot more realistic than Israel just spontaneously deciding to give Palestinians rights. There's no proof that Israelis are becoming more sympathetic to Palestinians over time, and in fact, they're only getting worse. Get real.