Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Indeed. It is defined in the relevant Convention as follows:
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:
(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.
Killing an innocent in the course of killing a terrorist, while tragic, is not remotely akin to genocide.
Nor is attempting to wipe out an enemy military, such as Hezbollah.
The Apache, the Huks, the Hmong, and a very very lengthy list of others were victims of genocide. Hamas and Hezbollah cannot be, by definition.
|
Not that I believe that Israel is engaged in genocide ('cause they are not), but this does not help you. Is there not close question as to whether Hamas and Hezbollah are either a national or a religious group? They certainly have national aspirations. And, in theory at least, they share a set of religious convictions.
And I note that there is nothing in there that says the victims of genocide must all be innocents. Certainly there were enemy combatants among the victims of genocide in Rwanda and Balkans.
I'm just saying this may not be your strongest line of argument.
