The case of “genocide” is a classic in the annals of deliberate linguistic manipulation for unethical goals.
A detailed essay in the New York Times explains the machinations around the word, which is similar to what we have seen recently in other cases, like that of “women,” “racism,” “lying,” “ad hominem” (in a debate here on Ethics Alarms), “fascism,”and “insurrection,” to name just a few of many. The proliferation of this Orwellian process should set off not just ethics alarms but evil alarms.
As the article correctly explains, international law addressing genocide was aimed at extreme and unequivocal examples where a nation sets out to exterminate an entire race or ethnic group for no other reason than that group’s existence. It is the ultimate hate crime, and thus was labeled a “crime against humanity.” The Holocaust was the prime example: nothing describes genocide more indisputably than a group of experts, military officials and government leaders sitting around a table and deciding on a “Final Solution.”
But as the article relates, mission creep has invaded the anti-genocide brigade, for example with the United States being accused of genocide in its treatment of Native American and because of the actions of the KKK and others during the Jim Crow era, and now, with Israel being vilified by the genocide label for being determined to eliminate a terrorist organization pledged to commit genocide against Israelis.
Naturally, the United Nations is complicit in this process, and, naturally, so is the I.C.J., the U.N.’s top court. The U.S., among other nations, supports the Geneva Convention but doesn’t accept the authority of the I.C.J. The article doesn’t explicitly explain why, but the reason is obvious: the court is subject to political motives and bias. It can’t be trusted.
“Genocide” has been slowly made a synonym for “human rights violations,” and wars are by definition human rights violations. Thus the U.N. can always use a politicized definition of “genocide” to declare any war, even one triggered by a nation’s right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens, as “genocide”—particularly if the nation waging the war is Israel.
By the standards being weaponized by the protesters at the Democratic National Convention, the U.S. ending World War II with two atom bombs would qualify as genocide.
This is the unethical—but effective—process:
1. Identify a nation, group, individual, or leader that you want to demonize.
2. Find a word universally regarded as describing conduct that is heinous and unforgivable.
3. Redefine that word so that the policies, conduct or stated position of that nation, group, individual, or leader can be described by it.
4. Repeat that word in association with the nation, group, individual, or leader’s policies, conduct or stated positions so that the word itself is defined by those policies, conduct or stated positions, rather than the other way around.
The average member of the public—you know, morons—won’t know the difference.
What makes this tactic so effective, diabolical, and impossible to stop is that there are many examples of pejorative words that should be used and understood to apply beyond their most narrow definitions. Child abuse. Indoctrination. Propaganda. Totalitarianism. Conflicts of interest. The distinction, perhaps, is whether the expanded definition is made in good faith, or it it is only aimed at a particular adversary to achieve strategic political gains.
The article, “The Bitter Fight Over the Meaning of ‘Genocide’” is here for you to read, freed from the paywall.
Ethics Alarms 
The Leftist crusade to redefine words has been going on for awhile. It reached ridiculous heights during the Trump administration when Merriam-Webster would add, omit or otherwise edit definitions of words to either suit the purposes of Democrats or to enable criticism of Trump.
Well, white genocide is back on the books. It really is obvious if you want a lesser definition of genocide.
Which many in fact do claim, despite the vexatiousness of the claim.
Yes, war is a war crime.
The US government criticizing Israel is a tacit endorsement of the theory that Truman was a war criminal. “Unnecessary taking of innocent civilian life.”
Windy Pundit developed Jack Marshall Derangement when I wrote that the citizens of any nation that starts a war or that has a brutal leader (like Saddam) could not claim “innocence.” Those who live in a nation share responsibility for the leadership and conduct of that nation. This especially applies to Gaza. (I confess that my father’s perspective had a large part in making me think this way. He often said, “Did you know there were no Nazis in Germany?” Every civilian he encountered after the US marched into Germany fervently claimed that they never supported Hitler.”Amazing!” Dad would say.
Sounds like another lawyer’s dad, who was in command of a company that liberated one of the smaller “satellite” camps. Of course, the local townspeople swore up and down they didn’t know what was going on. There were no Nazis of course, just like the jails in this country are full of innocent people, who, at the most, were just in the wrong place at the wrong time or mixed up with the wrong people.
Yes, per modern day Germans, World War Two and all its concomitant features were perpetrated by “the NAZIs.” Germans were not involved.
Precisely, without the German voters support Hitler would have been nothing more than a second rate painter.
Well, to be fair, he might have learned to be a first rate painter….
As I’ve mentioned, I do not like “The Holocaust” as a term to describe the industrialized mass murder of millions of men, women and children because of their ethnicity. Reading Jonathan Turley’s piece today about Chicago denying demonstration permits to Jewish and Pro-Israel groups, I was struck by what a terrible term “anti-Semitic” is. “Anti-Semite.” That means against Jews. That is “hostile to Jews.” For what? What justifies the hostility? Being Jewish. The term itself is an indictment of simply being Jewish. “Jew hate” is much better. “Anti-Semitism” gives its proponents as pass. It implies “anti-Semites” are responding to something worthy of being responded to. It implies all Jews have to do is stop being Jews. Easy peasy! From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free of Jews.”
Shut Out in Chi-Town: Jewish Groups Blocked from Marching During the Democratic National Convention – JONATHAN TURLEY
Old Bill,
I don’t like the use of Holocaust as a term either. It is a word that encompasses a complex set of facts to the extent that it is really more of a concept than a fact itself. It ends up being something that obstructs analysis, rather than facilitating it.
For similar reason, I don’t care for the phrase, “Jew hate.” “Hate” one of those over-abused words that is practically meaningless. Using it instead of Anti-Semitic just introduces that meaningless concept into the mix. And, in one sense, I think Anti-Semitic could be more useful. In Oliver Twist, the character of Fagin is often referred to as “the Jew.” And, he is not presented as a very sympathetic character; he is the villain after all (or one of them). And, his character exemplifies many negative stereotypes (about villains generally, but also Jews specifically). I think it is probably fair to say that Dickens employed ANTI-SEMITIC stereotypes, regardless of whether Dickens actually HATED Jews. In that sense, “Anti-Semitic” is probably a more useful term than “racist” is, as well.
-Jut
I shared your article on Usenet newsgroups and here is a response from Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD, PhD.
https://soc.culture.israel.narkive.com/qBAsTY4Q/brilliant-what-israel-is-trying-to-do-is-self-preservation-not-genocide-so-genocide-has-to-be
Instead of genocide, it’s Purim. Phonetically, Hamas remind us of
Haman, who was so hangry at Mordecai, the Jew, that his hatred/bigotry
extended to latter’s entire ethnic group. Just as GOD utterly
defeating/destroying Haman wasn’t murder, His destroying Hamas isn’t
genocide. It is written that GOD says “Vengeance is Mine. I will
avenge.”
If you barge into someone’s house, and they try to kill you, that’s self preservation of a sense for you to fight back. But few would call it ‘right.’
That zany time Israel stole weapons grade uranium from us. Our greatest ally!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNI7_u99rec
Nothing to see here folks, just taking some prisoners aside for their daily r&ping.
https://x.com/richimedhurst/status/1821008782605889563
Why can’t we just starve 2 million people? We never get to have ANY fun!
https://x.com/PalHighlight/status/1821406015155224723
Oh yeah, these are totally the good guys.
“If you barge into someone’s house, and they try to kill you, that’s self preservation of a sense for you to fight back. But few would call it ‘right.’”
Few? That’s exactly what it is, acknowledged in many jurisdictions. When the “home” is a nation, that right is universally acknowledged.