I agree with Michelle, who blogs about Genocide on change.org, when she says “I have yet to see anything that shows that Israel has set out to systematically wipe out the Palestinian people from the face of the planet.”
Does that necessarily mean that Israel does not “desire to completely exterminate a set population” by “causing the death of all of the groups members, or enough of them that the population as defined will not survive for long?” (this is the definition of genocide). Is it possible that Israel is determined to destroy a “set population,” but that the set population includes all violent extremist Palestinian Muslims rather than Palestine as a whole? Quotes like this, from a recent New York Times article, seem to indicate that many Israelis are indeed out to completely destroy a very specific ideological/religious population within Palestine.
“We do feel bad about it, but we don’t feel guilty,” Mr. Jager added. “The most ethical moral imperative is for Israel to prevail in this conflict over an immoral Islamist philosophy. It is a zero sum conflict. That is what is not understood outside this country.”
It could be construed that Mr. Jager believes all of Islam to be immoral, but it is more likely that the zero sum conflict he mentions is about “prevailing over” a specific, violent faction of Islamists who reside in Palestine. To make the argument that this could constitute genocide, one would need to demonstrate that culturally/ideologically/religiously, violent extremist Palestinian Muslims are a qualitatively distinct subset of Palestinians.
Is it possible that an ideological propensity to violence makes this particular population of Palestinians qualitatively different from the majority of other Palestinians who are just terrified and desperate and want to be protected? Personally, I think that when you imply that people who use Islam to justify radical and violent aggression are the same group as peaceful Palestinians or peaceful Muslims in general, you are doing a disservice to peaceful Muslims. Radical violent Islam is sooooo different than the religion and cultural identity of the Muslims I know. As a practitioner of an Abrahamic religion (Christianity), I sometimes feel like I have more in common with peaceful Muslims than peaceful Muslims have in common violent extremist Muslims. Having never been to Palestine it’s easy for me to think of all Palestinians as just one bunch, but having never been to Rwanda I probably would have said Hutus and Tutsis were all just Rwandans until the ethnic conflict started.
The second criteria for genocide, that the group be exterminated by killing of its members, I think is even more clear. Israel publicly justifies bombing the university in Gaza by saying that Hamas was making bombs there. Israel is “taking out” any people who proscribe to the violent ideology and support the violence, whether or not they are soldiers or leaders in any traditional sense.
The argument that genocide is occurring, and Israel’s acts are intentionally genocidal, targeting a specific ideological/cultural group that is a small subset of and dispersed throughout the geographic area of Palestine is important because it forces us to ask an important question. Are there some cultural/religious/ideological groups that we wish would cease to exist (whether or not we condone violent means)? Are there bounds to moral relativism? Can we draw a line in the sand and say this or that line of thinking is poisoned; it must be changed (again, by non-violent or violent means – I would choose non-violent). Is it possible that genocide could be just the violent approach to something that we actually want to happen (don’t know about you, but these thoughts are very unsettling for me).
I’ve been wondering at how many Americans tacitly support what is happening right now in Israel/Palestine. I wonder if it is because many Americans support genocide in this case. They want to see violent religious (especially Islamic) extremism disappear forever and they are willing to condone violence and accept that some, perhaps many non-extremists will be caught in the cross-fire. Of course most would not call it genocide, but I suspect that more Americans support Israel in this conflict because they think that the killing is going to help eliminate religious extremist ideology (I think that sounds like genocide). I think fewer Americans would support Israel if they perceived the conflict solely as part of an endless tit for tat, cycle of violence.
To close, I’d like to suggest one reason why it could be productive to argue that Israel’s actions are genocidal. Right now most relatively uninformed observers would say that Israel is attacking Palestine. When we point out that the nature of this attack does not constitute genocide on the Palestinian people, we mask the possibility that the purpose of this attack is to permanently alter the cultural/religious/social order of the world. If we are not clear that the goal is to change culture, than we too frequently seem to be reduced to understanding the conflict as a brutish tit for tat that says Israel is justified in fighting back. If so, when will the cycle of violence end? And how? An alternative is to step back and admit we want to drastically change the cultural/religious/social order of this part of the world. What tools do we have at our disposal to change culture? I learned of one from our president elect, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. It’s called community organizing. I know the Gaza strip is dangerous right now, and I daresay community organizing in this region must necessarily be the burden of peaceful Muslims rather than Christians like me (perhaps explaining in part why western powers have failed to promote non-violent social change in this region).
Personally, I feel that genocidal intent is the best explanation I’ve heard of WHY this conflict is happening (I’d love to be proven wrong). Once I understand better why it is happening, it is easier for me to determine what the alternatives are. Ultimately my most important question is, do others come to the same conclusions about culture change and peaceful alternatives when they hear about genocide in this context? Probably not, unfortunately, but I’d love to hear your opinions.
