I just made an hour-long video on how frustrating it's been to see academics excluded from Israel-Palestine discourse and here we are, a few days later, with ALL my academic mutuals saying this letter on recognition and Montevideo is an embarrasing joke and no media asking them🧵
Marco Milanovic, University of Reading
Vidya Kumar, SOAS University of London
Juliette McIntyre, University of South Australia
Gerhard Kemp, UWE Bristol
Nimer Sultany, SOAS University of London
Adil Haque, Rutgers University
Victor Kattan, University of Nottingham
Mark Kersten, University of Fraser Valley
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The problem with Elliot’s analysis is that frankly it is trapped by two methodological choices: narrow interpretation and excessive formalism. Why he makes these choices is for him to reveal, but I do think it is important for people to know they are choices 🧵
It is a fundamental principle of law that laws that protect rights should be read expansively and laws that restrict rights should be read narrowly. Rules regarding the protection of people from genocide therefore should be read expansively.
Elliot thus incorporates new elements to the definition of genocide (like the only reasonable inference test) because the ICJ mentions them, but he does so to close the door on the protection from genocide by making the narrowest possible reading.
I’m pretty sure I’m one of the people who knows most in the world about a relatively obscure Brazilian diplomat and nobleman called Felippe Lopes Netto. I came across him researching for my PhD and I’ve been obsessed with his life ever since. 🇧🇷 😍
I was looking for non-Euro-American actors implementing the laws of war in the 19th Century. One of the key arguments I make in my dissertation is that 19th Century laws of war were really, literally, *laws* in plural, with different parts of the world adopting different readings
I argued that the Euro-American Clausewitz-inspired interpretation that puts military necessity at the heart of the discipline was just that: one interpretation among a larger global ecosystem. In fact, I argued, it was one that was not as popular as people tell us today
I’ll play
Here’s what Elliot is neglecting: we are not establishing the genocidal intent *of the war cabinet* but *of the Israeli state*. This is part of an ecosystem of genocidal beliefs in Israeli society, from Netanyahu to the IDF grunt singing may your village burn in Gaza 🧵
If this was “just” Israeli leadership making genocidal statements, what we’d have is a “risk” of genocide, demonstrated by the leadership’s “incitement”. But the idea that this neat division can exist in practice is absurd given what we know irl.
First, like I said, these are not isolated statements. When a cabinet member says something, it’s then repeated by a military officer and then eventually by a soldier and then, importantly, *carried out* on the ground.
First: No genocide looks like the Holocaust. Just like no genocide looks like the Rwandan genocide or the Herero genocide. There are common aspects and patterns. But genocide does not come with a franchising manual.
Russia’s kidnapping and transferring of Ukrainian children to Russian families is also genocidal under int’l law. It looks *nothing* like The Holocaust. What it has in common is the intent to destroy another group. Russia does not believe Ukrainians exist as a people
We’ve gone from “Hamas hides under hospitals” to “Hamas made us to build insufficient food hubs in the south far from people in the north and put kill zones in between then Hamas made us to shoot at those who survived the trip and torture those our AI said had a cousin in Hamas..
“Then Hamas forced us to displace those who remained so that we can put everyone in a ghetto while we try to deport them away from Gaza so that we can take control of and colonise this land. Don’t you see? It’s all Hamas’ fault!”
Like seriously who could possibly take this ridiculous take seriously anymore other than the most inhumane and racist twitter ideologues at this point?