[[link removed]]
HOW WE’VE FAILED THE PROMISE OF MAKING “GENOCIDE” A CRIME
[[link removed]]
Noah Lanard
June 3, 2024
Mother Jones
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]
_ The lawyer Raphael Lemkin hoped to use international law to curb
abuses of power. But his efforts were curtailed from the start. _
, István Szugyiczky
Israel declared its independence in 1948. That same year, the United
Nations adopted the convention that defined genocide as a crime. The
tension between these two “never agains” was there from the start.
The word “genocide” was coined in 1941 by Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish
lawyer from a Polish family, who combined the Greek word for a people
(_genos_) and the Latin translation for killing (_cide_). At its most
basic, genocide meant systematically destroying another group. Lemkin
laid it out as a two-phase, often colonial process in his 1944 book,
_Axis Rule in Occupied Europe_
[[link removed]]: First, the
oppressor erases the “national pattern” of the victim. Then, it
imposes its own. Genocide stretched from antiquity (Carthage) to
modern times (Ireland).
“The term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may
mean that,” Lemkin explained
[[link removed]] in a 1945
article. “More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at
destruction of the essential foundations”—cultural institutions,
physical structures, the economy—“of the life of national
groups.” The “machine gun” was merely a “last resort.”
Lemkin was a lawyer, not a sociologist. By birthing the term
“genocide,” he was not trying to taxonomize the horrors of war.
Instead, Lemkin—who lost 49 family members in the Holocaust—hoped
that he could identify a crime to stop it. Nazi terror could not
simply be Germany’s “internal problem.” With genocide, Lemkin
hoped to give legal and moral weight to international intervention. He
hoped to bring into being an offense that could be policed and, in
turn, stopped in a new and supposedly civilized world.
Today, as Israel stands accused by South Africa of genocide before the
International Court of Justice for the methods used in its war on
Gaza, it is worth recalling Lemkin’s arguments. The question of
Israel’s actions has been a narrow one: Has the killing met the
criteria for genocide under current international law? But Lemkin’s
broader conception of the term—though it has been chipped away at by
courts and has faded from public memory—has been less discussed.
The sad reality is that Israel’s actions likely met Lemkin’s
original definition long before the war on Gaza. Starting in 1947,
roughly 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled by Israel and
barred from returning. After the 1967 war, Israel began occupying the
remainder of what was once Palestine. It has since settled hundreds of
thousands of people on that land, while subjecting Palestinians to
what international human rights groups increasingly consider to be a
system of apartheid. The goal of its settlement policy has been clear:
to replace one cultural fabric with another.
Israel is not the only nation whose actions fit Lemkin’s conception
of genocide. The same could be said of the formation of the United
States and the mass slaughter of Native Americans. (In fact, Lemkin
listed it as a textbook case.) What is different now is a more obvious
hypocrisy after decades of international governance designed
[[link removed]]
to create a supposedly new, rules-based order.
“Genocide” represented Lemkin’s desire to move toward this
internationally policed peace. Douglas Irvin-Erickson, a George
Mason professor who wrote an intellectual biography of Lemkin, said he
aspired for a form of world citizenship that reflected his
“stunningly broad indictment of oppressive state powers.”
It’s no surprise then that when making it a crime after World War
II, nations were careful to protect themselves. The Soviet Union
removed political groups from those that could be victims of genocide,
to secure a free hand for its purges of dissidents. The United States
kept Lemkin’s ideas about cultural genocide out, lest it be in
violation for Jim Crow laws. The convention was a “lynching bill in
disguise” in the words of a Louisiana segregationist
[[link removed]].
(Congress only ratified the genocide treaty in 1988 after Ronald
Reagan caused a backlash by laying a wreath at a German military
cemetery that included the graves of 49 members of the SS.)
“Outlawing genocide becomes this marker of a civilized society,”
Irvin-Erickson explained. “But at the same time, [Lemkin] is
watching the delegates who are negotiating the Genocide Convention,
and they’re literally writing their own genocides out of the law.”
His greatest allies came from what is now called the Global
South—the nations that had been, or reasonably feared becoming,
victims.
Since the Genocide Convention’s adoption, international courts have
arrived at a narrow reading of the already narrow interpretation of
Lemkin’s concept, says Leila Sadat, the James Carr Professor of
International Criminal Law at the Washington University in St. Louis
School of Law. The emphasis of the law is determining whether a
country or individual has killed massive numbers of a group of people,
and whether they did so with a provable intent to destroy that group.
This poses a problem for prosecutors since most perpetrators of
genocide are not as transparent as Adolf Hitler.
This winnowing of what counts as genocide would have deeply frustrated
Lemkin. As Irvin-Erickson has written, genocide was “not a
spontaneous occurrence” for Lemkin but a “process that begins long
before and continues long after the physical killing of the
victims.” Melanie O’Brien, a visiting professor at the University
of Minnesota’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, emphasized
that the dehumanization that leads to one group killing another en
masse is not a prelude to genocide but a part of it.
But because its definition has been narrowed, Rwanda has been the most
clear-cut case of genocide since the Holocaust according to
international judges. For the horrors that occurred in Bosnia, a
seemingly textbook genocide of Bosnian Muslims at the hands of
Slobodan Milošević and fellow Serbs, only the 1995 slaughter of
8,000 men and boys at Srebrenica cleared
[[link removed]] the bar
as an act of genocide in international trials of Serbian war criminals
[[link removed].].
(Milošević died in prison before any conviction could be secured.)
In the eyes of Sadat, one of the world’s leading experts on
international criminal law, the Genocide Convention has become more of
“a monument to the Holocaust” than a tool that can be effectively
deployed in court. Still, she says South Africa may prevail in
clearing the “very high bar” needed to prove a charge of genocide
in court due to the scale of death in Gaza, the extreme rhetoric of
top Israeli officials, and Israel’s decision to restrict food and
other humanitarian assistance. “A question I have is: Is this a
Srebrenica moment
[[link removed]]?”
she says. “And I fear that we may well be looking at exactly
that.”
In May, Aryeh Neier, a co-founder of Human Rights Watch, concluded
that Israel’s actions in Gaza have crossed the line. Neier wrote
[[link removed]]
in the _New York Review of Books _that he initially refrained from
using the term but that the obstruction of aid into Gaza had convinced
him: “Israel is engaged in genocide.”
The situation is so grave that, even under the current constrained
definition, the judges of the International Court of Justice may
eventually agree. In the face of Hamas’ brutal attack and its
officials’ repeated calls to annihilate
[[link removed]]
Israel, the Netanyahu government has turned to physical
destruction—a technique that Lemkin considered to be the “last and
most effective phase of genocide”—at a scale that is unprecedented
in its history. More than 36,000 Palestinians have been killed in
Gaza, most of them civilians. The deaths of thousands more
Palestinians trapped under the rubble are believed to still be
uncounted. A famine has begun.
Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court,
is now seeking
[[link removed]]
warrants for the arrest of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense
Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas’ leaders for war crimes and crimes
against humanity. But Israel remains undeterred. In late May, the
International Court of Justice ordered
[[link removed]]
Israel to halt its assault on Rafah. Days later, the Israeli military
used American bombs in a strike on Rafah that killed dozens of
civilians. Lemkin saw something like this ineffectiveness of
international governance coming.
“Better laws are made by people with greater hearts,” Lemkin wrote
about how his original definition of genocide had been undermined in
its codification. “They want nonenforceable laws with many
loopholes in them, so that they can manage life like currency in a
bank.”
===
Fight disinformation: Sign up
[[link removed]]
for the free _Mother Jones Daily_ newsletter and follow the news that
matters.
* HIstory of Genocide; Israel and Palestine; Raphael Lemkin;
International Law;
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]
INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT
Submit via web
[[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]
Twitter [[link removed]]
Facebook [[link removed]]
[link removed]
To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]