The American discourse is beginning to make room for a human-rights argument about the conflict: that there is one state right now, and it’s an unequal one. Khaled Elgindy is a former adviser to Palestinian leadership during the Quartet peace process and is now at Brookings. Here he is at Open Zion all but throwing in the towel on the peace process. His conclusion is similar to that reached by Ziyad Clot, a former negotiator for the Palestinians: There will be no Palestinian state. Note the concern about inevitable violence at the end of this excerpt.
Ask any Israeli or Palestinian–or American or European–official this question (which I do as matter of course) and you are likely to hear only vague reaffirmations of the crucial need for a negotiated resolution based on two states for two peoples. Press them further, however, and they will eventually concede something like the following: “The two-state solution cannot expire because there is no alternative.” But if there is no alternative, then time is certainly not “running out.” It is this paradox that gives American, Israeli, and even Palestinian leaders the illusion that the status quo can be maintained indefinitely, and why it is so easy for all sides to support a two-state solution without ever taking the necessary steps to make it happen.
That a bi-national state may not be an acceptable alternative at this time does not preclude the possibility of one as an eventual outcome. So, while, there can be no normative threshold beyond which a two-state solution officially becomes null and void, it cannot logically remain on the table forever. This is so not only because growing numbers of Israelis, and especially Palestinians, are abandoning the idea of two states, but because they already live in a one-state reality—albeit a highly inequitable and unsustainable one.
In the meantime, there are any number of ways a two-state solution might be rendered permanently unworkable on the ground. The most obvious and tangible of these is the physical collapse of the Palestinian Authority, including its many security and governing institutions. This could happen through an official decision by the Palestinian leadership to dissolve the PA, as President Abbas and other Palestinian leaders have occasionally threatened, or, more likely, as a result of the chronic lack of resources, political dysfunction, and declining legitimacy that plagues the PA. A decision by Israel to formally annex all or parts of the West Bank, as it threatened to do in response to last year’s UN bid, could also put an end to the possibility of two states, as could the eruption of sustained violence similar to what took place a decade ago in the West Bank.
An enormous amount of work needs to be done to clarify what a bi-national state would look like. For one thing, the term is used in two very different senses. Some people use it as a synonym for the democratic secular state, while for others it means a constitutional structure that enforces an equal balance of powers between two “nations” irrespective of their relative demographic weight. This has the advantage of making demographic competition pointless.
That is not to say that political structure is the only thing requiring clarification. It is not necessarily the most important thing and certainly not the most difficult. I think the most difficult question is how to redistribute rights to the land. Presumably at least some of the villages destroyed in 1948 will be rebuilt. What principles will guide this process?
two related points: First, the single state will happen and it is a matter of evolution, of sorts, whether this state will be a Jewish state or a secular state; so the all-of- it is informal and formal process; informal process would be the emergence of getting along between Palestinians and Jewish Israelis, particularly in and around the settlements and formal processes could be institutional arrangements, like dual citizenship over time.
Second, it is astounding how ruthless the single Jewish state crowd is and how much this interest group controls Israel and US policy. This unfortunately makes one consider the prospect of a prolonged ethnic cleansing policy, under various benign and not so benign guises as the most likely outcome.
Zilad Clot former Palestinian negotiator and whistle blower on the Palestinian papers is not optimistic of a two state solution saying these facts on the ground, a sort of de facto annexation are the reason, well the solution is in the PA’s hands, I hope the PA have not forgotten the strategy put forward before its claim for statehood at the UNSC, Zomlot, Senior official in Fatah’s Dept of Foreign Relations said ” How has Israel sustained the status quo for nearly 20 years? The bilateral process has led nowhere, and one of the tools to sustain the status quo was negotiations themselves. We stopped that, and we stopped that strategically. Negotiations under the previous terms were just prolonging negotiations. The terms of reference were created and accepted by Israel before we even started. WE ARE NOT GOING BACK TO THE OLD DAYS OF NONSENSE”. Well it seems they are going back to the old days of nonsense, with Abbas just concluding productive talks with Clinton, Professor Finkelstein once said Abass would be happy with a toilet seat with a Palestinian flag on it, I think the Israelis know that, and is why Livni could say the Israeli position is simple, we keep building and building until the time comes when we say, we have the land, what is there to talk about, and then added, this has been the policy of all Israeli Governments for a long time. [Palestinian papers]. I will know the PA are serious about a state when they go to the UN to get the almost certain vote in favor, then on to the ICC, they must face up to the US, it will be tough, but the Israelis fear the ICC more than anything else and with good reason, IDF Military Advocate General Mandelblit said the PA going to the ICC would be viewed as an “act of war”by the Government of Israel and he hoped the US would weigh in with both the PA and the ICC,[ wikileaks cable released 30-08-2011] well we can assume that’s a given, the status quo suits Israel/US and until the PA fights back through all legal means, they will be crushed.
Right wing Israelis like Caroline Glick and left wing Israelis like Bradley Burston are exploring the “give the West Bank Palestinians the vote”. (I’d assume Glick doesn’t use the term Palestinians, but that is still the gist.)This will not solve Gaza nor will it solve the refugees, but it is an idea being bandied about. The goals of the various advocates differ- Burston wants to give the Palestinians a voice and I suspect Glick wants to get the left to shut up, but nonetheless with the existence of these voices on different parts of the Israeli spectrum, those who want to see “one man one vote” ought to try to figure out how to work on the same side as these disparate Israelis.
“ought to try to figure out how to work on the same side as these disparate Israelis.”
Oh, please, an Israeli is an Israeli.
Maan reported that the HRC had named the team of three experts who will investigate whether Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories violate human rights law. Israel already announced that they will not be allowed to enter Israel or the Palestinian territories. The report also noted that:
– link to maannews.net
Of course nobody is really addressing the status of the 1.6 million people living in the Gaza Strip when they make statements like that. Gaza has a larger population than a dozen UN member states. So it may be a while before the UN or the Human Rights Council adopts Falk’s position.
Gaza is totally unsustainable. It’s a concentration camp with virtually no food production capacity. It can never function as a political entity.
Agreed.
But my question is: what are the conceivable paths by which it could become part of a single-State with Israel and the West Bank?
I mean within the next 50 years or so.
I understand that in a century or two, the whole situation will be different –in unpredictable ways.
“Gaza is totally unsustainable. It’s a concentration camp with virtually no food production capacity. It can never function as a political entity.”
Sounds like the fulfillment of the Zionist dream.
It’s really like some sort of horror movie. There was ‘Zionism’ — this veiled bride for Jews. She came closer, and closer — and then the veil came up.
You may now kiss the bride.
Gaza is totally unsustainable. It’s a concentration camp with virtually no food production capacity. It can never function as a political entity.
That’s an overly broad generalization. Any entity with a stable population, a defined territory, and a government of its own can be considered a person of international law. The government of Israel has statutes which designate Gaza as an “enemy entity”. Classified documents that were published by Wikileaks revealed that Israel is treating Gaza as an “enemy state”. Many of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) countries have always recognized the legitimacy of the Hamas government.
The situation in Gaza that arises due to the closure is unsustainable, but not Gaza itself. What you’re describing certainly applies to the refugees that have been concentrated there. But it doesn’t necessarily apply to the other inhabitants whose families have lived and owned property in the Gaza Strip for centuries. They don’t loose the right to determine their own political status on the say so of the Palestinian solidarity movement.
There are still subsistence farmers and shepherds living among the inhabitants, who are not completely dependent on international aid. You occasionally read about the IDF harassing or killing them, while they are going about the harmless business of providing for their own sustenance. Gaza is still capable of exporting tons of cherry tomatoes, peppers, strawberries, and etc. whenever the Israelis lift their regime of illegal collective punishments. Preventing exports of crops from Gaza is all about denying the inhabitants their livelihood. It has nothing to do with arms interdiction.
Hostage,
Excellent post, as always!
There’s a huge difference between a de facto bi-national state and a de jure bi-national state. Eventually, the state of Israel will annex territory in the West Bank, incorporating the settlers etc., and relegate the Palestinians to their non-contiguous bantustans. Israel will not be forced into annexing those Palestinian enclaves.
Jeff Halper:
link to newint.org
” (Area C of the West Bank) contains less than 5 per cent of the Palestinian population. In 1967 the Jordan valley contained about 250,000 people. Today it’s less than 50,000. So the Palestinians have either been driven out of the country, especially the middle class, or they have been driven to areas A and B. That’s where 96 or 97 per cent of them are. The Palestinian population has been brought down low enough, there is probably somewhere around 125,000 Palestinians in area C, so Israel could annex area C and give them full citizenship.
Basically, Israel can absorb 125,000 Palestinians without upsetting the demographic balance. And then, what is the world going to say? It’s not apartheid, Israel has given them full citizenship. So I think Israel feels it could get away with that. No one cares about what’s happening in areas A and B. If they want to declare a state, they can…
In other words, we’re finished. Israel is now from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, the Palestinians have been confined in areas A and B or in small enclaves in East Jerusalem, and that’s it.”
Halper writes from the point of view that Israel has the power and once Israel decides the story is finished.
And I couldn’t agree less.
The Palestinians decide when it’s over. It may take another 100 years but it won’t be the Jews who decide. For all his decency, Halper is still a Zionist. And it doesn’t matter long term what the Jews do. Ben Gruen was wrong. What matters is what the Palestinians do.
Anyway, Israel won’t make any concessions to the Palestinians, not even leaving Area A alone. Because the machine can’t stop.
The end will be when the Israeli economy collapses.
seafoid says: “Halper is still a Zionist.”
Wrong. He is clearly not a Zionist.
He has expressed support for a single, democratic state in Palestine.
See, for example, back in 2003:
link to fromoccupiedpalestine.org
“One State: Preparing for a post Road-Map struggle against apartheid.”
seafoid says: “It may take another 100 years but it won’t be the Jews who decide… The end will be when the Israeli economy collapses.”
Okay, if you say so.
“He has expressed support for a single, democratic state in Palestine”
But he is still a Zionist. You can’t get away from that by changing the definition of Zionist to suit your convenience. He still thinks the Jews in Israel are entitled to everything they stole, and do not need to make reparations, doesn’t he?
Mooser,
A single, democratic state comprising Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank would surely lead to Jews becoming a minority in that state. I don’t think that is compatible with Zionism, is it?
Mooser says, “He still thinks the Jews in Israel are entitled to everything they stole…”
No, he doesn’t. Please show evidence to the contrary.
Mooser says, “and do not need to make reparations, doesn’t he?”
No, he doesn’t. Where are you getting that stuff?
He does, Mooser.
Here it is in technicolor
link to mondoweiss.net
“But I will tell you my formula for peace. You say to Israel three things. Obama and the international community have to say it.
“One, We love you. Israelis love to hear that. That’s where Sadat succeeded. He hugged Golda [Meir] and the Israelis melted. They just melted.”
“Two, we will guarantee your security.
“Three, you say the occupation’s over
He describes a theoretical 2SS… and so what?
He describes elsewhere why the settlements,”matrix of control”, Israeli intentions, etc. make such a scenario extremely unlikely.
There’s a huge difference between a de facto bi-national state and a de jure bi-national state.
The existence of a de jure bi-national state would render most arguments about international law moot. For example, compensation under the terms of international law would be up to the State of Israel because the relationships between a State and its own nationals are not generally governed by international law. The existing Israeli Supreme Court precedents beginning with CApp 41/49 Simshon Palestine Portland Cement Factory LTD. v. Attorney-General (1950) have cited an article by a widely recognized legal publicist, Hans Kelsen, “Theorie generale du droit international public, problemes choisis”, in vol. 49 of the Recueil des Cours of the Hague Academy of International Law:
Wake me up when the US government gives the “US nationals” living in American Samoa the right to vote in our federal elections or allows them and the residents of Washington DC, or Puerto Rico full representation in our national law making bodies. Anyone who thinks it’s inevitable that the Israelis are going to automatically offer the Gazans the right to vote and compensation is truly suffering from cult-like thinking regarding the magical effects of the single state solution. That sort of thing has been deliberately avoided by many of the so-called liberal western democracies and we should anticipate more of the same.
“Anyone who thinks it’s inevitable that the Israelis are going to automatically offer the Gazans the right to vote and compensation is truly suffering from cult-like thinking regarding the magical effects of the single state solution.”
Thank you, thank you, thank you. In fact, a single-state solution may be exactly what the Zionists need to get rid of the Palestinians once and for all. It won’t be, as you point out, anybody else’s business then what “Israel” does to its own people.
The only way Judaism and “the Jews” will ever free themselves from this plague, this curse which is intent on destroying us is by eliminating ZIonism and Israel entirely, and expunging the idea that the Jewish rerligion and culture is a nationality in search of a soil.
I’d rather have a soul.
>> The only way Judaism and “the Jews” will ever free themselves from this plague … is by eliminating Z[i]onism and Israel entirely, and expunging the idea that the Jewish [re]ligion and culture is a nationality in search of a soil.
>> I’d rather have a soul.
Eloquently put, and a very nice turn of phrase to bout*. :-)
——————————————————
*Some (many? most? all?) Americans seem to think that Canadians pronounce “about” as “a-boot”, even though we don’t. Well, maybe some folks in the Maritimes do pronounce it that way….oops, I mean, pro-noonse it that way. ;-)
“Wake me up when the US government gives the “US nationals” living in American Samoa the right to vote in our federal elections or allows them and the residents of Washington DC, or Puerto Rico full representation in our national law making bodies. “
I don’t buy into such equations. We’d be entirely happy to let Puerto Rico or American Samoa become independent — and we wouldn’t demand a single square foot — much less 78% — of their land.
The difficulty is that they don’t want to go. When the same applies to the Palestinians and Palestine, you wake me up.
I don’t buy into such equations. We’d be entirely happy to let Puerto Rico or American Samoa become independent — and we wouldn’t demand a single square foot — much less 78% — of their land.
Then please explain our naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Cubans declared their independence long ago and asked us to leave. But there’s a four thousand dollar per-year perpetual lease that we negotiated at gun point, back when Cuba was a “US protected state”. It requires our government to consent to the termination. So we continue to claim 45 square miles of the island for our exclusive use absent anyone’s consent. The rest of the world views that as an illegal occupation.
We have a similar lease arrangement with the government of Great Britain that allowed us to depopulate the island of Diego Garcia entirely. The former inhabitants were relocated to a zip code where there are no US ballot boxes. We use their Island for our military installations in the Indian Ocean.
The UK High Court ruled the deportation of the Chagos Islanders was a crime against humanity, but the UK government used a royal prerogative, a Privy Council order, to overturn the decision and protect US interests in the island. When the former islanders took their case to the European Court of Human Rights, the government of Great Britain simply declared the entire area a marine sanctuary to prevent them from returning, pursuing their livelihood, or using their own natural resources for their sustenance.
The collection of “US nationals” or “US Citizens” that I mentioned above are not considered independent. But none of the inhabitants of the United States are considered independent peoples. So please explain why these particular “dependent” peoples are deliberately denied equal representation in the US government, that just so happens to claim their territories?
The last time I was there, Anderson Air Force Base in Guam and its weapons storage area – plus the US Naval Base – take-up a hell of a lot more than a single square foot. It was used to relocate units from our other Spanish American war acquisition when the Mount Pinatubo volcano buried Clark Air Base in the Philippines.
link to benefits.military.com
* link to andersen.af.mil
* link to cnic.navy.mil
American Samoa, like Hawaii, was originally taken-over for use as a refueling station by the US Navy in the 19th century. The Samoans were ruled by a military governor until 1951. link to amsamoa.net
So, you see the US military’s behavior in the Vieques case is pretty typical of what we do when we exercise “sovereign immunity” and jurisdiction over a territory: Judge dismisses Puerto Rico’s lawsuit blocking Vieques bombing by U.S. Navy link to amarillo.com
“For example, compensation under the terms of international law would be up to the State of Israel because the relationships between a State and its own nationals are not generally governed by international law”
Ah, now we understand their affection for the one-state final solution. If what Hostage says is true (and he knows what he is talking about, that we know) Jewish Israelis (or elite Jewish Zionist Israelis, whatever) will be in an even better posisiton to steal from dispossess and oppress Palestinians in a one-state.
Of course, the usual procedure is for the colonial elites (dual-nationality American -Israelis to start with) to strip the assets from the country, leave, and laugh as the poorer Arab and other Jews who have no place to go, and Palestinians fight it out. Okay, they won’t laugh, political correctness will probably cause them to feign concern.
Any two-state solution — particularly any two-state solution that awards the Jews 78% of Palestine — is inherently unjust, so if it is now truly unworkable, I’m glad to hear it.
That leaves Israel with the task of becoming a historical novelty: a conquering state that can neither assimilate, be assimilated by, nor eliminate the conquered population. No such state has ever endured.
“That leaves Israel with the task of becoming a historical novelty”
Seems to me the last act, which will consist of Ahkenazis (except for a few suicidal religious nuts) making haste to the wide western places and leaving the rest to absorb the consequences will be pretty unique.
To at least some extent, isn’t that what’s happening now?
At any rate, I keep reading about Israeli communities in Germany and elsewhere. It seems to go without saying that these communities consist entirely of Westernized, secular, Ashkenazi Jews.
>> Seems to me the last act, which will consist of Ahkenazis … making haste to the wide western places and leaving the rest to absorb the consequences …
Why would Jews wish to leave the safest place in the world for Jews? Is it so that they can gloat about being right when the West visits its next Holocaust upon them?
“See, Shlomo? I told you Israel was the only safe place in the world for Jews!”
“So…why didn’t we stay in Israel?”
“What, and get wiped off the map?!”
That leaves Israel with the task of becoming a historical novelty: a conquering state that can neither assimilate, be assimilated by, nor eliminate the conquered population. No such state has ever endured.
Our Zionist opponents point out Indian Country, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and other historical novelties in their hasbara. It seems rather obvious that Uncle Sam sees nothing wrong with maintaining the status quo in Palestine or any of those other cases.
As I’ve detailed, whatever else may be said about the process, we did get rid of our Indians to all intents and purposes — and I daresay we’ve made considerable progress in assimilating Puerto Rico.
The Israelis can follow neither course — and for them to allow themselves to be assimilated by the Palestinians would make the whole Zionist enterprise pointless.
So in theory they can’t win.
Logically, their best bet would be to precipitate a conflict of such magnitude that under its cover they could totally expel their entire Palestinian population.
Somewhat ominously, they seem to be seeking to bring about just such a conflict. I imagine the drift isn’t conscious — but it is the one way out for the Zionists.
Colin writes: I imagine the drift isn’t conscious — but it is the one way out for the Zionists.
Maybe to the man on the street but I suspect with the Zionist leadership — Perez, Barak, Bibi, etc — it is explicitly in their minds. I wouldn’t be surprised the the IDF already has contingency plans waiting on the shelf for that day when world war yet again breaks out.
Logically– at this point –their best bet, imo, is to do exactly what they are doing: “warehouseing” (imprisoning) Palestinians in Gaza, and areas A,B in the West Bank, let them have a “state” there if they wish, while progressively absorbing area C.
I don’t believe the Israeli leadership believes a total expulsion of the Palestinian population is feasible.
Sibiriak,
Warehousing people in Gaza works out very well for Israel. After cleansing area C, they will move to concentrate area B. It doesn’t matter if Arabs are in West Bank, as long as Israelis don’t have to see, hear or smell them. The West Bank partition wall is already disguised on the Israeli side with clever landscaping, so you can pass it and not know it is even there.
The academic literature on genocide posits a processual as well as an intentional model. In the processual model, there is no prior commitment to genocide but there is an unwanted target population, regarded as a “problem” to be solved. First they are confined to ghettoes. Then attempts are made to deport them. It is when those attempts come to appear impracticable that genocide remains as the “final solution.” Before the Nazis finally opted to exterminate us, they were exploring various deportation options like the Madagascar Plan. Although deportation, especially in wartime, is likely to be under such horrific conditions that a large proportion of deportees never reach their purported destination. And you may have to massacre quite a lot of people to make the rest accept deportation. And what if the surrounding countries refuse to admit another huge wave of deportees? This is the worst option for the Palestinians that has to be thwarted.
The academic literature on genocide posits a processual as well as an intentional model. In the processual model, there is no prior commitment to genocide but there is an unwanted target population, regarded as a “problem” to be solved.
Most of the constituent acts of the “international crime of genocide” do not require that any persons be killed at all.
For example: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life “calculated” to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part – even in the absence of tangible results. Those are all examples of the crime genocide. Simply inciting or conspiring with others to attempt do any one of those things is also a punishable offense.
link to preventgenocide.org
Then again, according to Wikipedia:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Bosnian Genocide:
—
In 2005, the United States Congress passed a resolution declaring that “the Serbian policies of aggression and ethnic cleansing meet the terms defining genocide”.[10]
However, in line with a majority of legal scholars, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have ruled that, in order for actions to be deemed genocide, there must be physical or biological destruction of a protected group and a specific intent to commit such destruction. To date, only the Srebrenica massacre has been found to be a genocide by the ICTY, a finding upheld by the ICJ.[11]
—-
“In September 2006, former Bosnian Serb leader Momcilo Krajisnik was found guilty of multiple instances of crimes against humanity, but while the ICTY judges found that there was evidence that crimes committed in Bosnia constituted the criminal act of genocide (actus reus), they did not establish that the accused possessed genocidal intent, or was part of a criminal enterprise that had such an intent (mens rea).”
—-
On 12 July 2007, in its judgement on the Jorgic v. Germany case, the European Court of Human Rights noted that:
the ICTY, in its judgments in the cases of Prosecutor v. Krstic and Prosecutor v. Kupreskic, expressly disagreed with the wide interpretation of the ‘intent to destroy’ as adopted by the UN General Assembly and the German courts. Referring to the principle of nullum crimen sine lege, the ICTY considered that genocide, as defined in public international law, comprised only acts aimed at the physical or biological destruction of a protected group.
—-
Hostage writes:
“Most of the constituent acts of the “international crime of genocide” do not require that any persons be killed at all. ”
Yes, but according to Article II of the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:
link to preventgenocide.org
“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: ”
“Intent to destroy” is required, and, crucially, “in whole or in part” is extraordinarily vague. How small can the “part” be?
Then again, according to Wikipedia:
Wikipedia is a lousy source of information in this instance. The Congressional resolution declared that ethnic cleansing is equivalent to genocide. It certainly may be, but that’s not always the case. Murder of civilians and forced population transfers within a state or across an international frontier are grave breaches of the customary law of armed conflict. So they are serious war crimes or crimes against humanity in their own right under the ICTY statute. But they are not covered as such by the international genocide convention. Mass population transfer doesn’t necessarily destroy the group as a social unit if they arrive at a destination together.
You are citing the dicta from the Jorgic v. Germany case. The European Court of Human Rights actually went on to disagree with the ICTY. The ECHR upheld the conviction in the German courts for the crime of genocide based upon destruction of the group as a social unit:
link to sim.law.uu.nl
Other international courts have ruled that rape and other acts that destroy group cohesion, may constitute genocide even in cases where they don’t result in the physical destruction of the targeted group members. See The ICTR Prosecutor v. Jean‑Paul Akayesu starting on pdf page 8 link to un.org
“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: ”
Taking babies from the group and giving them to another group does destroy the group “as such”, i.e. as a group or social unit. But it kills no one. Nonetheless, it is one of the specifically enumerated examples of the crime of genocide.
The UN is leaning in the direction of calling the destruction of social units genocide. A report on international criminal law and the defense of the rights of indigenous peoples issued by the Special Rapporteur discusses “cultural genocide” (aka politicide & etc.) consisting of non-violent acts that are included in the definition of the crime of genocide in the international convention. He discusses the fact that the use of the term “ethnic cleansing” has been a tactic to avoid responsibility for genocide in some cases:
On official Genocide Watch, the Israel/Palestine is two steps from Extermination – they are currently at the step 5:
1. CLASSIFICATION: All cultures have categories to distinguish people into “us and them” by ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality: German and Jew, Hutu and Tutsi. Bipolar societies that lack mixed categories, such as Rwanda and Burundi, are the most likely to have genocide
2. SYMBOLIZATION: We give names or other symbols to the classifications. We name people “Jews” or “Gypsies”, or distinguish them by colors or dress; and apply the symbols to members of groups. Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to the next stage, dehumanization. When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups
3. DEHUMANIZATION: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group.
4. ORGANIZATION: Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, often using militias to provide deniability of state responsibility (the Janjaweed in Darfur.) Sometimes organization is informal (Hindu mobs led by local RSS militants) or decentralized (terrorist groups.) Special army units or militias are often trained and armed
5. POLARIZATION : Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction. Extremist terrorism targets moderates, intimidating and silencing the center. Moderates from the perpetrators’ own group are most able to stop genocide, so are the first to be arrested and killed.
6. PREPARATION: Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up. Members of victim groups are forced to wear identifying symbols. Their property is expropriated. They are often segregated into ghettoes, deported into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and starved
7. EXTERMINATION begins, and quickly becomes the mass killing legally called “genocide.” It is “extermination” to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. When it is sponsored by the state, the armed forces often work with militias to do the killing. Sometimes the genocide results in revenge killings by groups against each other, creating the downward whirlpool-like cycle of bilateral genocide (as in Burundi).
8. DENIAL is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres.
Hostage,
I’m not clear at all where any disagreement is (or where Wiki specifically is in error–I did just pull out a few snippets from their article).
Hostage:
“Mass population transfer doesn’t necessarily destroy the group as a social unit if they arrive at a destination together. ”
Yes.
Hostage:
“You are citing the dicta from the Jorgic v. Germany case. The European Court of Human Rights actually went on to disagree with the ICTY. The ECHR upheld the conviction in the German courts for the crime of genocide based upon destruction of the group as a social unit.”
Yes.
Hostage:
“Other international courts have ruled that rape and other acts that destroy group cohesion, may constitute genocide even in cases where they don’t result in the physical destruction of the targeted group members.”
Thanks for pointing that out.
Hostage:
“See The ICTR Prosecutor v. Jean‑Paul Akayesu starting on pdf page 8 link to un.org
‘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: ‘”
As I said, imo, the “in whole or in part” phrase is quite problematic. We are seeing, and will continue to see, and extraordinarily wide range of a actions being labeled genocide.
I personally don’t think that is such a great thing.
As I said, imo, the “in whole or in part” phrase is quite problematic. We are seeing, and will continue to see, and extraordinarily wide range of a actions being labeled genocide.
Prior to 1993 you couldn’t prosecute anyone for systematic crimes against humanity, unless you could establish some connection to an armed conflict. So in many cases the only available option was to overreach and charge the accused with genocide. Nowadays you can prosecute for crimes against humanity with or without an armed conflict. So murder or the aggravated offense of persecution would suffice, because in all likelihood they would carry the same life sentence.