Genocide, War Crimes, and the Assault on Language
Genocide, War Crimes, and the Assault on Language
Words mean what we say they mean but we must agree on that meaning otherwise communication fails. Words evolve, sometimes naturally over time and sometimes intentionally. Intentional shifts in meaning are often efforts 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. Rebrand “addiction” as a disease and scorn may give way to sympathy. Efforts to redefine words occur daily and the only guarantee is that those directing these efforts will always claim it is for “the greater good.”
Reporting of the ongoing Israeli–Hamas war demonstrates the longstanding truism that “the first casualty of war is truth” as “genocide” and “war crimes” are bandied about with little concern for their actual definitions. While what constitutes a war crime can be difficult to discern at times there is a legal definition and the death of civilians is not necessarily indicative of one.
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 of 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?” Warnings might save civilians but let Hamas escape. Unless one has a very simplistic view of the world, the answer is not clear-cut.
“Genocide” also has a legal definition. The U.N. General Assembly recognizes 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 than 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 Israeli 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 history of the region, the “Palestine” he refers to is all land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, land that includes the current State of Israel. Despite this not sounding 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 merely a cry for Palestinian freedom.
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 being 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 case when dealing with activists, the goal is not truth, the goal is the advancement of “the agenda.”
Watering down of the term is also underway and labelling these murders as “genocide” is a clear example. Between 1980 and 2014, there were on average 32 murders of indigenous women per year, and while this was 6x the murder rate of non-indigenous women, it hardly rises to the level of genocide.
A similar effort has been undertaken by Transgender activists who are attempting to convince society that there is a “Transgender genocide” underway despite data showing otherwise. According to Transgender Europe’s Trans Murder Monitoring Project, 1509 trans people were murdered around the world between January 2008 and March 2014 (approximately 250/year). While more recent reports indicate that that number has increase to 320 in 2023, within the US, the murder rate of transgender people, according to a study by the American Journal of Public Health, was significantly lower than that of non trans people.
Equally concerning are attempts by activists to expand the definition of “genocide.” The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC), which examined the Canadian Indian residential school system concluded that the system amounted to cultural genocide a term not included in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 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 these terms matter? How one answers these questions might come down to how one feels about 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 a 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 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 society in the right direction. If an argument cannot withstand the rigors of open and honest debate, if the truth will kill it, let it die.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
Words like genocide typically held weight because of the scale of atrocity. Applying ‘genocide’ to events that are not even close in scale waters it down to the point that when the real event occurs it won’t be recognized. That’s my fear with the overuse of these words.
Excellent job highlighting the misuse of language. It is astounding how many people who claim that words constitute violence are so eager to twist the meaning of words to fit their worldview. Putting my conspiracy theory hat on, I might suggest it is intentional: if everything is a “genocide”, then the original genocide (I.e the holocaust) is really not that bad.