SvennoJ said:
That still has the same definition since 1951:
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf
Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in
time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to
punish.
Article II
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.
Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c ) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be
punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private
individuals.
And continued in the link
If anything Israel/Aipac try to change the definition of genocide to only be relevant after total extermination. |
It is the "in part" part of that definition that I take issue with. It opens the term up to be applied to nearly any conflict. You killed say 5% of a group and left the other part alone that is still "in part" and falls under the LEGAL definition of Genocide that the UN adopted. It washes the word out and muddies it's meaning.
Encyclopedia Britannica
genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race. The term, derived from the Greek genos (“race,” “tribe,” or “nation”) and the Latin cide (“killing”), was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-born jurist who served as an adviser to the U.S. Department of War during World War II.
Miriam-Webster
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Lemkin defined “genocide” as "a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves."
Notice those do not say "in part" they refer to the targeting of the whole group for elimination.
What is the difference between war and genocide?Genocide is the deliberate and often systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious, or racial group. As in warfare, one side often dehumanizes the other side, but unlike warfare, genocide is often waged by one group against another and not the other way around.
It comes down to what you think is correct. I understand that you use the UN Legal definition because it fits your narrative. I disagree with the "in part" section of the legal definition and adhere to the creator of the word's definition. If I think something is Genocide then it fits both Lemkin's (and most dictionaries) definition and the UN / US Legal definition. You seem to only support the Legal definition that does not always fit the dictionary definition.
As an aside I did see one dictionary definition that was an almost verbatim take from the UN legal one it included ("in part"). Also the fact that the English-Oxford dictionary is behind a paywall kind of sucks.
End of the day we will still be in disagreement over Genocide fitting the original point of definitions being weakened.
Genocide is the deliberate and often systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious, or racial group. As in warfare, one side often dehumanizes the other side, but unlike warfare, genocide is often waged by one group against another and not the other way around.
Currently Online 
