The G-Word is Not What It Used To Be

The importance of precision and nuance in the language of accountability

Since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas conflict (a word pairing that has its own serious flaws), I have probed the views of colleagues and friends, many Arabs and Jews, on the use of term genocide (antisemitism, and ethnic cleansing) in the context of the current conflict. Those views are not completely uniform within, let alone across different groups. And what emerges is a term whose contemporary usage is problematic at best, counterproductive at worst.

****

The 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide defined the the term very broadly, i.e., as linked to any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,” including: 1.) killing members of the group, 2.) causing them serious bodily or mental harm, 3.) imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, 4.) preventing births, and 5.) forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership in that group.

In the context of the post-World War II era, and the creation of the UN, these ‘acts’ made broad sense, precisely because they were tethered to an event that the vast majority of people identified with the word, and agreed was genocide: The Holocaust. Yet a recent poll held that nearly 2/3 of American youth have no idea what the Holocaust was, or how many Jews were killed (the number of people killed is relevant, even if genocide can more easily apply to a smaller, more obviously endangered group).

One can extrapolate from this to assume that a large group of Americans (and the ones President Biden is most worried won’t vote for him in the Fall) has less context than, for example, someone Biden’s age (for example) might. Today, reference to any of the “five genocidal acts,” without context, could turn many situations, however grave, and whatever the context, into a unquestionable genocide.

But it’s far from clear that this is a good idea (even, and precisely if, the line between genocide and not genocide is getting thinner by the day) In fact, it’s almost decidedly not, as without the best possible precision and objectivity (and I’m not suggesting I personally have it) threatens to weaken the term, rip up the sinews of moderation, and drive wedges between groups who might otherwise agree to detailed descriptions of the scale and scope of grave crimes committed, if less predominantly political, but still accurate, terms were used.

****

Within the formal discussions of genocide, there is a pervasive notion of one group’s determined efforts to ‘erase’ another people and culture. That’s a very high bar — undeniably met in Rwanda and Armenia, for example, where rhetoric met intention, action, and implementation — and millions died as a result.

The fact that Israel has flattened most of Gaza’s surface infrastructure, killed nearly 30,000 Palestinians, a large percentage of which are civilians, and women and children; and that many of its ministers have publicly advocated expulsion of Gaza’s 2.3 million residents, is appalling enough.

And I believe it’s currently best described the way the UN has described it, with much controversy, i.e., a situation that could quickly turn into a genocide. A very strong warning.

This will undoubtedly anger some who insist that genocide is the only possible term to describe what the Israeli government and military are doing in Gaza right now. It should be clear something drastic needs to be done, to save and redeem Palestinians and Israelis both — and the United States is, of necessity, at the center of that effort. Any outside party with the capacity to de-escalate the situation, which does nothing much, is complicit in what happens next.

****

The clamor for use of the word genocide by some governments (South Africa, e.g.) and bodies reinforces the belief by ordinary Israelis that they’re being singled out — even if what their government is currently doing is reprehensible and certainly, many would say, immoral and unconscionable. This has practical consequences (see below).

But herein lies a complicating fact: Hamas didn’t just attack Israel, as it has in the past, it did so in a manner specifically designed to evoke maximum emotional reaction from ordinary Israelis, and to induce an extremist government in Israel (whose actions are predictable) to channel public rage into an operation Hamas operatives knew would kill many times more Palestinian civilians than they had killed Israelis— leaving the international community to (justifiably) heap criticism on Israel. The plan worked. Israel fell into the trap. But if anything, isn’t that tantamount to two potential genocides being perpetrated on the Palestinians — one by Israel, and one by Hamas and its backers outside of Palestine?

Further, of course Israel has the power to stop its present campaign (when and how is a matter of strategic importance, as it determines the parameters of the next war, when and if it comes, and whether peace is possible— all of which have future body counts attached to them). But so does Hamas. The international pressure on Israel, and leeway to restrain against Israel, would be far greater if Hamas released all the Israeli hostages. Of course they won’t, unless sufficient pressure from other parties is put on them, or their demands are met in a way that is extraordinarily unlikely, if not impossible. But if one looks at other textbook genocides (Rwanda, Armenia, e.g.), this isn’t the case.

Then, of course, there’s the emotional baggage, of which there are mountains on both sides, and the two formalized narratives, both of which (and their endless detours) are deeply flawed, or at best, “partly true.” But as in any other conflcit like this, the more you go back into all but the most essential and verifiable history, the more lost you become. Anyone who takes either narrative as Gospel, will wind up with nowhere good to go.

****

If terms like genocide were applied with equal weight and precision by all parties, it would be clearer what’s at issue. The case of Ukraine is instructive. If the United Nations can’t call the war in Ukraine a genocide when it meets the five acts requirements more neatly (and/or in an unqualified fashion) than the Gaza conflict does, what is the utility of calling what Israel is doing in Gaza genocide? What value does the word have? And, in fact, the United Nations hasn’t called what’s happening in Gaza a genocide. To its credit, albeit perhaps also for political reasons. But that doesn’t fix the inconsistency in application.

There are a few stark differences between what’s happening in Ukraine and Gaza. First, Ukraine did not deliberately provoke Russia into attacking it, nor does it have the power to stop the war (though one might suggest that the Ukrainians surrender unilaterally, which I certainly am not. Nor am I suggesting that Gazans and Palestinians cease to demand their rights to dignity and self determination (a two-state solution). 

What the Netanyahu government is currently doing in Gaza is morally wrong.

What’s happening now is not just because a rage- and hate-blinded government and its opportunistic Prime Minister decided to kill lots of Palestinians (although there’s much truth in this — the Prime Minister has personal reasons to have formed an extremist government, which is now dictating many of his actions): The conflict involves multiple states and other organizations using Hamas as a proxy for their collective and separate political ends — only some of which have to do exclusively with Israel.

And, at least in my view, for all the above reasons, at the moment (as of right now, Thursday March 5), genocide isn’t the right word for the war in Gaza. Many will immediately say this is “semantics” — but my argument is about the importance of semantics, i.e., that word choice, even if it produces emotional gratification, can also have practical consequences. What I am decidedly NOT arguing is that something that is something, should not be called that.

****

There are several practical reasons to be careful with the word genocide, generally, and in this specific case. First among which: it does nothing to stop the killing of innocents. 

An international finger-pointing game at Israel is not going to make Netanyahu or his far-right ministers disappear. It goads them on, and entrenches their positions. It does the same for Hamas.

The louder the cries of genocide against Israel, the more likely the resistance within the more moderate side of the political spectrum (in Israel, and the global Jewish community), who otherwise are (or were) in favor of a Palestinian state and equal rights. This is precisely because the term strips the situation of its moral complexity, while evoking within Israelis and Jews the feeling that they are being judged and condemned uniquely for events that have multiple overlapping causes.

To the vast majority of Jews and Israelis, implicitly or explicitly comparing the killing of 6 million Jews to the killing of 29,000 Gazans following a surprise attack that killed 1200 Israelis, also mostly civilians, is deeply provocative.

This is important because I believe the Biden administration has a very narrow window in which to speak directly and frankly to the Israeli people, describing the apocalypse that will almost certainly result from the current path — and another possibility, which is directly in Israel, and the Palestinians and the region’s interests. And encouraging them to trust that the United States, which supported them so strongly on and after 10/7, will do what’s best for them, i.e., put a stop to the war, and put both peoples on a sustainable path to a much better future.

This outcome depends more on popular sentiment, than it does on extremists, whether Israeli or Palestinian.

****

Today, more often than not, genocide is word that organizations and individuals use to hide their own or others’ inaction. It’s easier to say, “well, we called it a genocide,” than actually to do something about it. Had the multilateral organization and countries and organizations using the g-word now advocated more strongly for protections for Palestinians at the start of the conflict, this could conceivably considerably dampened Israel (and Hamas’) ability to use Palestinian civilians’ lives for political purposes.

There are more clear cut, descriptive and appropriate terms for what’s happening currently in Gaza. These include “war crimes”, “crimes against humanity,” and even, given the statements of Israeli ministers, “incitement to genocide and ethnic cleansing.” which under the original UN framing carry stiff penalties. These terms have similar usage restrictions, but don’t carry the emotional baggage and inconsistency of the G-word. They’re also easier to apply to multiple parties.

****

To be effective and produce humane outcomes, words like genocide, antisemitism, and others must be applied in a strict, almost antiseptic and - to the extent possible- legal sense, without bias, and with full consideration of the individual and broader context of every conflict.  Any failure to meet these conditions undercuts value of the term, and derails its intended effect.

If you insist, now, on calling what’s going on in Gaza genocide, rather than war crimes, or something more openly descriptive like “homicidal codependence” — just be aware that you may be feeding the hyperbole that allows extremists on both sides to perpetuate their overwhelmingly political and ideological agendas, at the expense of the lives of tens of thousands of civilians.