In defense of the the indefensible

George Orwell, in his 1946 essay ‘Politics and the English Language‘, wrote that:

“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. [….] Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.”

He continued:

“Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification.

Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers.

People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. “

A clear definition of genocide

We currently have a clear definition of the act of ‘genocide’, summarised on the website of the US holocaust museum:

“Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts fall into five categories:

1. Killing members of the group
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

There are a number of other serious, violent crimes that do not fall under the specific definition of genocide. They include crimes against humanity, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and mass killing.”

The Oxford Dictionary of phrase and fable defines the word ‘genocide’ as: “The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular race or nation.”

Does this apply to what the Isareli state is doing and saying?

There is little debate about naming Hamas’ actions of 7th Ocrober “mass killing” or “war crimes”.

The debate – in the quiescent West, at least – is about whether the state of Israel is commiting genocide.

Every day we read of the state of Israel bombing Palestinian civilians, ordering them to flee to nowhere, even as their ministers make statements such as:

“There are no uninvolved people … we must go in there and kill, kill, kill. We must kill them before they kill us” (deputy Knesset speaker Nissim Vaturi, 6th May 2024)

“There are no half measures [… ] Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat—total annihilation. […] you will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven” (Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, 30th April, 2024)

These, and many more statements, are also reported in Omer Bartov’s heartwrenching and terrible article in the Guardian.

Such statements, the relentless news cycle of horror, and my capacity to understand the definition of words and use them appropriately, are prompting me to write this post.

We should listen to Israeli ministers’ own claims about their actions

It is time we, and our politicians in Canada, use clear vocabulary to describe what is happening: it meets the definition of genocide, both by action and intent. Reluctantly, eminent – and personally involved – thinkers, such as Omer Bartov and Aryer Neier, have come to this conclusion.

Neither are members of the Israeli government hiding their intent, which is backed by daily action.

Why should we cloak this intent, ignore what we see and hear on TV every day, or deny Israeli ministers’ own (direct and non-euphemistic) words?

It is beyond high time to call the state of Israel’s actions genocidal, and act in consequence.