posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by buster2010
Thank you for your link, it allowed me to learn more about the term. But you can see, I hope, that the definition you supply needs some
clarification. Indeed, the article you linked to provides that clarification. But first consider a Klansman lynching a black. He killed a member of
the group, he had the intent to destroy part of the group, so it's genocide, right? Wrong. And that's where the supplied explanation comes in.
The key questions your source adresses are the meaning of "intent to destroy" and "in part." Without understanding those terms, the definition
from the article is very misleading. Here's how "intent to destroy" is explained:
Intent to destroy
In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), noted in its judgement on Jorgic v. Germany case that in 1992 the majority of legal scholars took
the narrow view that "intent to destroy" in the CPPCG meant the intended physical-biological destruction of the protected group and that this was
still the majority opinion.
In the same judgement the ECHR reviewed the judgements of several international and municipal courts judgements. It noted that International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice had agreed with the narrow interpretation, that biological-physical
destruction was necessary for an act to qualify as genocide.
The evidence that Israel is intending this doesn't exist. In fact, their
precision air strikes on military targets indicate that they are not intending to destroy Palestinians.
The other phrase to look at is "in part." The references that are available indicate that Israel has killed fewer than 10,000 Palestinians in the
last 24 years. israelipalestinian.procon.org...
The current population in the disputed territories is about 3
1/2 - 4 million. If they have killed a part, it is a very small part, indeed.
The phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law. The International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic –
Appeals Chamber paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 addressed the issue of in part and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The
aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to
have an impact on the group as a whole."
The judges continue in paragraph 12, "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number
of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the
ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall
size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a
specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as
substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."
A more thorough reading of the article from which the definition came shows that genocide is not being committed by the Israelis.