In celebration of @FranceskAlbs recent standing ovations at both LSE and SOAS, let me highlight the main contributions her Reports have made to the way we understand the genocide of the Palestnian people in Gaza 🧵
.@FranceskAlbs' first and perhaps most important contribution is to put the issue of settler-colonialism front and centre of the discussion of genocide. In essence, genocide is not an accident, but a feature of colonialism; and it is not a rare find in colonial societies
This connection to colonialism is what informs her latest conclusion that colonial genocide does not need to take the form of "mass killing"
.@FranceskAlbs has also advanced the theory of "humanitarian camouflage" - That, as she puts it, Israel's use of int'l legal terminology as been strategically deployed "in such a permissive manner as to gut those concepts of their normativ content".
In other words, Israel's IHL rhetoric advances rather than constrains Israel's abbility to commit genocide. Take for example the rhetoric surrouding "human shields"...
...military use of civilian objects...
...proportionality...
... evauations...
... and the protection of hospitals
.@FranceskAlbs has then pointed out that, in the context of this humanitarian camouflage, Israel's genocidal intent needs to be discerned from what she calls a "totality triple lens".
This means that analysing Israel's actions with regards to Palestinians as a people through the lens of its "humanitarian camouflage" might lead us to believe that no genocide is taking place, rather a normal war...
...Or that looking at Israel's actions with regards to Palestinian land might lead us to believe there's no genocide taking place, rather a military occupation for security reasons...
...Or that looking at Israel's rationalisation of its conduct might lead us to believe there's no genocide taking place, rather an argument for self-defence under international law...
But when one looks at the totality of Israel's actions, through a triple lens, focused on its plans for the land, its attack on Palestinians as a group and its rationalisation of its conduct, the inescapable conclusion of this collective evaluation is indeed genocide
In terms of the totality of the land, Israel's actions are tied to the establishment of a Greater Israel, a colonial and inevitably genocidal plan - not simply a military occupation.
In terms of the totality of the group, Israel is turning Gaza into an "unliveable" geography, not just fighting a war.
In terms of the totality of conduct, Israel's purported objectives (defeating Hamas and rescuing the hostages) do not preclude the finding of genocidal intent, given that much of what is done in Gaza is not in line with these objectives
.@FranceskAlbs deserves much credit for making these connections: the relationship between colonialism and genocide, between humanitarian law and genocide, and between decontextualised legal analysis and genocide.
Yesterday she described herself as a chronicler of genocide. While this is definitely one of her great roles, I think she is more than that. She is showing us how to engage with a colonial, racist and warmongering international law in anticolonial, antiracist and peaceful ways
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread of Islamophobic and still un-community-noted tweets calling the AfD-supporting, Greater-Israel-advocate atheist attacker an “Islamist” and/or blaming all Muslims for his crimes.🧵
This thread is making the rounds, so let's test it. Why is it problematic to craft a standard so narrow that it concludes there was no genocide in Croatia/Gaza? Well, let's apply it to something we know was a genocide and see where we land. Let's imagine it's Germany in mid 1941
I don't think I need to convince you that The Holocaust was a genocide. It obviously was. It is the paradigmatic genocide. But where we may find some disagreement is *when* - when did the Holocaust become a genocide?
If you're like me, and you define genocid *broadly*, you'd say as early as 1935 with the Nuremberg Laws. If genocide is, to quote Lemkin, "the destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group", then it was these laws that made it impossible to be collectively "Jewish"
Many are asking me what is a “Platt Amendment”, so here it goes.
After the 1898 Spanish-American War, the US ended up occupying Cuba. They did not want to annex it, because cheap Cuban sugar was bad for Colorado’s sugar beets industry, so the Senate came up with a compromise 🧵
The US would not annex Cuba and end its occupation on condition that the new independent Cuban republic amended its constitution to specifically state the following:
“That the government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty (…)”.
The result was the incorporation of Cuba into a form of US suzerainty. It marked the beginning decades of US imperialism in the Caribbean. By 1904, Roosevelt declared that the US would be the region’s “police man”, saying:
“Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United Sates to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power”.
This is an incredibly racist worldview. It essentialises Muslims into a single category (“the dominators”) against the overwhelming evidence that Israel’s own security actually depends on Muslim allies like Jordan, Egypt, the Gulf states
It also discriminates against Muslim Israelis who are looked down as receiving the favour of rights in a non-Muslim state. Democracy is based on the idea that human rights protect minorities from the dictatorship of the majority, not on the mercy of the democratic dictators
It discriminates against Palestinians by erasing their own struggle for survival as they are killed by the tens of thousands and starved by the millions. They are rendered “potential dominators” that must be contained by the supposed democracy of apartheid
Tracking state reactions to the ICC Arrest Warrants against Netanyahu, Gallant, & Deif 🧵
Methodology notes:
Except for key actors (Israel, Palestine, US) I will only track MFA, HoS and HoG statements.
Simple retweets of the ICC press release are not counted
Hen likes to portray himself as the friendly face of genocide denial, which is why him joining the talking point du jour, about the CIA estimating population growth in Gaza as proof there is no genocide, is rather out of character. It is a really bad & violent argument 🧵
Hen doesn’t specifically say it, but the claim is there between the lines: “if population grew, there can’t be a genocide under way”. This is of course patently false from the definition of genocide alone. Population decrease is simply not part of it
In fact, only one item of the definition (item a) could potentially lead to population decrease. Items b, c, d, and e can be carried out without any impact on population growth. What’s more, they can be committed without a single person dying. Genocide ≠ mass killing