I saw this article recently that argued that Israel is guilty of committing the international crime of apartheid on an ongoing basis, and that Israel is guilty of committing genocide to different degrees at different times, but that its actions might best be understood as a novel crime against humanity that could be called a “Nakba”.
The theory is that genocide was recognized as a concept following the Holocaust, and apartheid following the South African implementation, and what we’re witnessing challenges description because it has numerous novel elements that make it appropriate to view it as a case study in a form of not-yet-comprehensively studied ethnic violence.
Both are happening, though.
I saw this article recently that argued that Israel is guilty of committing the international crime of apartheid on an ongoing basis, and that Israel is guilty of committing genocide to different degrees at different times, but that its actions might best be understood as a novel crime against humanity that could be called a “Nakba”.
The theory is that genocide was recognized as a concept following the Holocaust, and apartheid following the South African implementation, and what we’re witnessing challenges description because it has numerous novel elements that make it appropriate to view it as a case study in a form of not-yet-comprehensively studied ethnic violence.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/harvard-law-review-gaza-israel-genocide/
Yo that actually makes a lot of sense. And I guess it’d make sense as a crime name because Nakba is catastrophe in Arabic.