Copyright: Ted Eytan
Words mean what we say they mean. There is one caveat however, we have to agree on that meaning otherwise communication fails. Meanings do evolve, sometimes naturally over time and sometimes intentionally. Intentional shifts in meaning are often efforts by interest groups to influence or manipulate people. Slap “phobia” on the end of “fat” and it’s no longer a health issue but an accusation of intolerance. Refer to drug abusers as “addicts” or rebrand “addiction” as a disease and scorn and distaste may give way to sympathy or empathy. Efforts to redefine words occur on a daily basis, some good, some bad, and some harmless and the only guarantee is that those directing these efforts will always claim they are doing it “for the greater good.”
If you follow the news, reports are constantly being published which illustrate the extent to which activists and the media like to play word games. “Play” is of course the wrong word as it makes what they do sound like harmless fun when it is far more dishonest and nefarious and has a negative impact in the real world. Several events have brought media manipulation to the forefront recently including the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7th and the Israeli response.
Reporting of the on-going Israeli–Hamas war demonstrates the longstanding truism that “the first casualty of war is truth” as both sides bandy about the terms “genocide” and “war crimes” with little concern regarding their actual definitions. While what constitutes a war crime can be difficult to discern at times, especially when civilian casualties occur, there is a legal definition of the term and the death of civilians is not necessarily indicative of a war crime. International law prohibits direct attacks against civilians and civilian targets however these situations are not always clear cut especially when enemy combatants use civilians as human shields as is allegedly the case with al-Shifa hospital in the Gaza Strip. Amnesty International has accused the Israeli Defense Force with violating international law “by failing to take feasible precautions to spare civilians, or by carrying out indiscriminate attacks that failed to distinguish between civilians and military objectives.” Is al-Shifa hospital a civilian target because it cares for civilians or a military target because Hamas uses it as a base from which it can launch further attacks. What is a “feasible precaution?” Should the IDF provide enough time for all civilians to flee the area and risk Hamas fighters using the time to escape or should the IDF attack knowing that some civilians will be killed? Unless one has a very simplistic view of the world, the answer is not clear cut.
“Genocide,” like “war crimes,” also has a legal definition. In 1946, the U.N. General Assembly recognized genocide as a crime defining it in 1948 as:
“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
As the definition of “genocide” is more succinct that that of “war crimes,” one might think that abusing the term would be more difficult and yet both sides of the conflict routinely accuse the other of, if not genocide, at least genocidal intent. The Left has taken to categorizing the IDF’s attack on Hamas as genocidal despite there being no indication of any intent to eradicate the Palestinian people. One might disagree with the Israeli approach to fighting Hamas and condemn the actions of the IDF but accusing Israel of genocide demonstrates either ignorance or malicious intent.
While the left engages in mental gymnastics in its efforts to paint Israel as an outlaw nation, it is equally adept at bending the rules the other way to pardon the actions of its “chosen” side. This is clearly the case when the press attempts to dismiss the chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as “merely expresses hope for freedom, rather than a desire to wipe Israel off the map.” The words of Hamas’ former leader Khaled Mashal easily reveal this to be a lie:
“Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on any inch of the land.”
For those unfamiliar with the geography or the history of the Middle East since the Second World War, the “Palestine” he refers to is not limited to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank but all land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river, land that includes the current State of Israel. Even though this does not sound like the cry of a people longing to live in harmony with their neighbors, most left-wing media outlets continue to argue that it is a merely a cry for Palestinian freedom.
By Wickey-nl - Own work, based on http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ochaopt_atlas_opt_general_december2011.pdf on [1], CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31797179
The abuse of the “genocide” is not limited to the war in Gaza. In Canada, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls has labeled the murders as “genocide” despite that fact that “genocide” requires intent and there is no proof that the murders were “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” What’s more, the fact that 50% of the murders were committed by family members and 26% by acquaintances usually goes unmentioned. As is frequently the goal when dealing with activists, the goal is not truth, the goal is the advancement of “the agenda.”
Watering down of the term is also a concern. While there is no doubt that the murders are tragic, labeling them “genocidal” is troublesome to say the least. Between 1980 and 2014, the period studied by the report, there were on average 32 murders of indigenous women per year, and while for much of this time this was 6x the murder rate of non-indigenous women, it hardly rises to the level of genocide. An even great exaggerated use of the term “genocide” belongs to Transgender activists who have somehow convinced themselves and others that there is a “Transgender genocide” underway. Easily available data would argue otherwise. According to Transgender Europe’s Trans Murder Monitoring Project, 1509 trans people were murdered around the world between January 2008 and March 2014 or approximately 250 per year. More recent reports indicate that that number has increase to 320 in 2023. Tragic perhaps, but neither legally nor numerically rising to the level of genocide. In fact, within the United States, the murder rate of transgender people, according to a study by the American Journal of Public Health, was significantly lower than that of Cisgender people.
Equally concerning are attempts by activists to expand the definition of “genocide” to fit their agenda. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC), established to uncover the truth about the Canadian Indian residential school system released a report that concluded that the school system amounted to cultural genocide despite it not being included in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention). As difficult as it may be for some to accept, it is possible for a crime to be horrible without rising to the level of genocide. “Playing” with the term “genocide” is also insensitive to victims of recognized genocides.
What is our takeaway here? Does the intentional misuse of terms such as “genocide” and “war crime” matter? How one answers these questions might come down to how one feels about a two other questions: how much do words matter, and do the ends justify the means? I prefer to address a much simpler question, does the truth matter? My training as an engineer and an historian means I am more concerned with facts than I am with the more philosophical question “what is truth?” But “truth” and “facts” share a relationship with another word, “accuracy” and I view that in much the same way as A.E. Housman, it is a duty not a virtue. How can we as a society determine the right path when activists and the media insist on lies and half-truths? Words, facts, and yes, the truth matter if we are to have any chance of moving forward in the right direction. If an argument cannot withstand the rigorous of open and honest debate, if the truth will kill it, let it die.
The use of "genocide" and "war crimes" as focal point examples is a strong choice, and the phenomenon has spread to myriad other terms as well. It is now common to refer to right-wingers as "Nazi", even though Hitler was his own brand of Socialist (National Socialist German Workers' Party). Republicans are now "Fascist", even though they call for LESS government intervention while fascism by definition is a centralized autocracy.
We also hear elected officials like Rashida Tlaib et. al. refer to Israel as an "Apartheid" state. Do she and her supporters even know what Apartheid actually was, when a 20% white population had government control over South Africa and oppressed the 80% black and mixed race population? (Israel, by contrast, accepts people of all faiths and allows Arab Israelis to serve in government positions and the Knesset; Palestinians are mostly self governed, despite the fact that many are intent on destroying Israel. Is Israel perfect? No, but Apartheid? Please.)
It's become so pervasive that there are no baseline standards for communication anymore, and the impact of these labels has deteriorated. This (as you said regarding actual survivors of genocide) minimizes the impact of those who can truly be defined by such words, lessening their actions down to equal status with those who are mislabeled to push an agenda, while it simultaneously causes further damages to those who are their legitimate victims.
Great post Philip. ZL
"despite there being no indication of any intent to eradicate the Palestinian people"
This is a lie. Israel's actions shows its goal is to wipe the native people of palestine off the map. One can deduce this due to the lack of planning to address the 56-year illegal occupation of millions of native people. instead of ending the occupation, which israel could do any day it wishes since the native people of palestine pose zero threat to the nation of israel; instead israel's defacto policy is ethnic cleansing and genocide. yes, the occupation of millions of native palestinians is illegal under international law. israel's actions against an occupied people are war crimes partly becuase the occupation of native Palestinians is illegal under intl law. Hama's crimes were wrong as well. but hamas actions represent a crime issue only and are a byproduct of israels illegal occupation. hamas actions pose no threat to the nation of israel.
"IDF’s attack on Hamas".
this representation is another lie. IDF is attacking innocent natives. did you know israel financed the creation of hamas? hamas actually serves the interests of israel extremists. when the extremists on both sides set the agenda civilians and peace are always the victims. in this case its only israel that holds any cards, thus israel is responsible for all outcomes.
"paint Israel as an outlaw nation"
israel is an outlaw nation. what israel is doing is illegal under intl law. Israel's actions are 100% unnecessary and optional. israel refuses to end its illegal occupation of native Palestinians in violation of intl law.
pro israel supporters are victims of a decades long carefully crafted well financed PR and lobby campaign. the modern state of israel is just another US cold war experiement gone wrong. when the US started we also had a big problem: slavery. israels similar problem is the occupation. instead of freeing the slaves , like the US did, israels goal is ethnic cleasing and genoaicde. This is the truth.