The word genocide has a legal definition, it’s not up for discussion or debate. What is happening in Gaza is a genocide according to genocide scholars.
If you're referring to the "International Association of Genocide Scholars" (IAGS), all it takes to join that organization is $30 and self identifying as a genocide scholar. Furthermore the resolution was passed with a total of 129 voting members, and about 107 voting in favor, out of over 500 total members.
Here's a letter from 514 verified scholars and legal experts calling on IAGS to retract their resolution, along with their rebuttal of the substance of the resolution:
> If you're referring to the "International Association of Genocide Scholars" (IAGS), all it takes to join that organization is $30 and self identifying as a genocide scholar.
They have certainly had some interesting members[0].
Legal definitions are often up for discussion and debate. That’s a large part of what lawyers do, in fact.
Anyway I have no comment on the specific claim being made here, I just really dislike it when discussion is stifled by saying “I’m right and no one can ever disagree”.
The definition of genocide is absolutely up for debate. And even legal definition (presumably you mean UN definition) is highly subjective, too. Less than 1% of Palestinians have been killed since Oct 7. Germany saw 10% of its population killed in WW2. France lost 4% in WW1. Why the former is a genocide but not the latter two is a pretty big hole in the logic behind the allegations of genocide.
I think you actually, without intending to, raise the reason why this is an exceptionally powerful point. Given the diversity of academic opinion on so many fundamental subjects, consensus on any topic is extraordinary.
I actually don't agree with you that "legal definitions" are as hotly debated or that the existence of debate in general negates consensus on specific topics. And I do think one important point with genocide scholarship is regarding muddying the waters with tom-ay-to/to-mah-to approach to definitions. Treating definitions as inherently transient is an important instrument in normalizing cultural acceptance of genocides when they're unfolding in real time, which is why that tactic is targeted by so much scholarly criticism.
Also - many many institutions have declared that what’s happening is a genocide, and unfortunately that hasn’t changed anything. (Perhaps naive of me to believe that it would change anything)
But here we have UN and other twisting it to fit a situation that clearly weren't meant to be covered by it.
Because if the war in Gaza can be called a genocide so can almost every single other major war!
Also it is absolutely ridiculous to call a war that is started by one side, and one that only that side can end, a genocide against the same side that started it!
This is indeed a big obstacle to credibly calling the Israel-Palestine conflict a genocide. Germany lost ~10% of it's population in WW2. France lost 4% in WW1. Less than 1% of the Palestinian has been killed since Oct 7.
Heck, the US Revolutionary war saw the British perpetrated genocide against the Colonists if the military actions following Oct 7 count as a genocide.
I think the debate (/question) is whether it is Israel’s goal to eliminate the entirety of the Palestinian people. That does not seem to be the case, which is where the “not genocide” argument comes from.
Now I understand that the UN has specific criteria, etc. But the most famous genocide was the systematic execution of millions in gas chambers. This is not akin to that, is what people are arguing.
Anyone who watches Israeli news/media in Hebrew knows that Palestinians are not considered human in the Israeli society. Israel dehumanizes and genocides the Palestinians with the intention of wiping them off the face of the earth.
It is perhaps important, also, for genocide scholarship to survey the ways proponents rotate through various forms of apologetics. Not that I would wish it to be the case but the last few years are rich in case studies for how people debate and communicate about genocide, and it's attempts to muddy definitional waters that make it so important to have strong scholarship and scholarly consensus.
A long way of agreeing with your point, I suppose.
It definitely depends on the proximity to the genocide itself. Plenty of Americans easily call what happened with the Uyghurs in China a genocide. And if they know about, the genocide in Sudan a genocide as well. But when it comes to Israel it's a real reluctance. Will definitely be interesting to see how this time is viewed through history. It's close enough to western culture that it will likely stick around and just be something that happened in a poor country that gets forgotten.
The word genocide has a legal definition, it’s not up for discussion or debate. What is happening in Gaza is a genocide according to genocide scholars.
If you're referring to the "International Association of Genocide Scholars" (IAGS), all it takes to join that organization is $30 and self identifying as a genocide scholar. Furthermore the resolution was passed with a total of 129 voting members, and about 107 voting in favor, out of over 500 total members.
Here's a letter from 514 verified scholars and legal experts calling on IAGS to retract their resolution, along with their rebuttal of the substance of the resolution:
https://www.scholarsfortruthaboutgenocide.com/
> If you're referring to the "International Association of Genocide Scholars" (IAGS), all it takes to join that organization is $30 and self identifying as a genocide scholar.
They have certainly had some interesting members[0].
[0] https://archive.ph/J52WH
Legal definitions are often up for discussion and debate. That’s a large part of what lawyers do, in fact.
Anyway I have no comment on the specific claim being made here, I just really dislike it when discussion is stifled by saying “I’m right and no one can ever disagree”.
That's like debating the definition of homicide or rape. There is no nuance here.
4 replies →
The definition of genocide is absolutely up for debate. And even legal definition (presumably you mean UN definition) is highly subjective, too. Less than 1% of Palestinians have been killed since Oct 7. Germany saw 10% of its population killed in WW2. France lost 4% in WW1. Why the former is a genocide but not the latter two is a pretty big hole in the logic behind the allegations of genocide.
Any "debate" is for the courts, not a subject of debate for hacker news. People don't debate the definition of murder/rape. Genocide is a legal term.
1 reply →
This is a bit off topic but there isn't anything more debated in history than legal definitions. Maybe religious scripture?
I don't think you could have raised a weaker point.
I think you actually, without intending to, raise the reason why this is an exceptionally powerful point. Given the diversity of academic opinion on so many fundamental subjects, consensus on any topic is extraordinary.
I actually don't agree with you that "legal definitions" are as hotly debated or that the existence of debate in general negates consensus on specific topics. And I do think one important point with genocide scholarship is regarding muddying the waters with tom-ay-to/to-mah-to approach to definitions. Treating definitions as inherently transient is an important instrument in normalizing cultural acceptance of genocides when they're unfolding in real time, which is why that tactic is targeted by so much scholarly criticism.
Also - many many institutions have declared that what’s happening is a genocide, and unfortunately that hasn’t changed anything. (Perhaps naive of me to believe that it would change anything)
It shouldn't be.
But here we have UN and other twisting it to fit a situation that clearly weren't meant to be covered by it.
Because if the war in Gaza can be called a genocide so can almost every single other major war!
Also it is absolutely ridiculous to call a war that is started by one side, and one that only that side can end, a genocide against the same side that started it!
This is indeed a big obstacle to credibly calling the Israel-Palestine conflict a genocide. Germany lost ~10% of it's population in WW2. France lost 4% in WW1. Less than 1% of the Palestinian has been killed since Oct 7.
Heck, the US Revolutionary war saw the British perpetrated genocide against the Colonists if the military actions following Oct 7 count as a genocide.
2 replies →
In your opinion, is there a neutral organization in the world that could define whether the legal definition of genocide is being met or not?
[flagged]
5 replies →
I think the debate (/question) is whether it is Israel’s goal to eliminate the entirety of the Palestinian people. That does not seem to be the case, which is where the “not genocide” argument comes from.
Now I understand that the UN has specific criteria, etc. But the most famous genocide was the systematic execution of millions in gas chambers. This is not akin to that, is what people are arguing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intent_and_incitement_in_the_G...
Anyone who watches Israeli news/media in Hebrew knows that Palestinians are not considered human in the Israeli society. Israel dehumanizes and genocides the Palestinians with the intention of wiping them off the face of the earth.
It is perhaps important, also, for genocide scholarship to survey the ways proponents rotate through various forms of apologetics. Not that I would wish it to be the case but the last few years are rich in case studies for how people debate and communicate about genocide, and it's attempts to muddy definitional waters that make it so important to have strong scholarship and scholarly consensus.
A long way of agreeing with your point, I suppose.
It definitely depends on the proximity to the genocide itself. Plenty of Americans easily call what happened with the Uyghurs in China a genocide. And if they know about, the genocide in Sudan a genocide as well. But when it comes to Israel it's a real reluctance. Will definitely be interesting to see how this time is viewed through history. It's close enough to western culture that it will likely stick around and just be something that happened in a poor country that gets forgotten.
[flagged]
I encourage you to step outside of the Israeli echo chamber of lies and deception.
Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, UN commission of inquiry says https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8641wv0n4go
Gaza: Top independent rights probe alleges Israel committed genocide https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/09/1165856
ICC issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant and Hamas commander https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/11/1157286
Israel is a naziesque society through and through.
1 reply →