Moral genocide

I didn’t read the article itself, just the presentation on Twitter. Genocide scholars are not qualified to determine what is moral and what is not. At most, they can characterize different events and sort them into groups according to characteristics. To determine whether an event is moral or not, one must discuss ethical principles, not the history of genocides. The definition of genocide depends on your perceptions, and it doesn’t really matter. What matters is not whether we commit genocide but whether what we do is moral or not. The basic principle of genocide in the moral sense (i.e., immoral genocide) is the decision to destroy a group simply because they are what they are. I think that pretty much sums it up, and everything else is fluff. Of course, this doesn’t happen in Gaza in any sense, even if all the residents of Gaza die. Killing them is not done just because they are Gazans, but because they threaten us and this is the only way we have to remove the threat. So by definition it is not genocide. That’s all. Not very complicated. The number of deaths is not a decisive indicator in any sense (it may be a necessary condition without which there is no genocide, but it is far from sufficient). That if the Hamas leaders had surrendered everything would have been resolved is clear. But that is not the relevant explanation. The murder is not of Hamas but of those not involved, that is, of the general population. The justification is that Hamas represents them and acts on their behalf (and is also elected by them and receives their support). I have written about this quite a bit on the site here.