Wednesday, 11 February 2026

What Is Genocide?

 

Man's Inhumanity to Man

by  Feb 10, 2026 | 2 Comments

Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author’s permission.

Who the hell wants to talk about genocide and man’s inhumanity to man?

I taught courses on the Holocaust, where I came across a two-volume encyclopedia of genocide (see list of references at the end). We humans have a remarkable record of killing each other (usually couched as killing the “other,” the “bad” people). That a two-volume encyclopedia of genocide exists says something truly horrendous about the human condition.

Far too often, a chosen people, a “master race,” decides to eliminate barbarians, inferiors, primitives, race enemies, whatever words are used to demonize other humans. Often, it’s said we must kill them before they kill us, so mass murder is defined and defended in terms of safety and security. The “bad” people force us to kill them. We don’t want to do it – they make us! And we hate them all the more for making us kill.

At the same time, mass murder is often quite profitable for the killers. In the Holocaust, the Nazis systematically stole everything from the Jews they were killing. They stole their houses and apartments, their businesses, their furniture, their jewelry, their clothing: everything they could get their greedy murderous hands on. In Gaza today and on the West Bank, we see Israel stealing land and most everything else from murdered and displaced Palestinians. The Israeli government justifies mass theft and mass death as a defensive war against barbaric terrorists, just as the Nazis saw themselves as being at war with inferior Jews and other racial undesirables like the gypsies.

The Nazis claimed the Jews were an existential threat to the “master race,” thus all Jews had to be killed, even women, children, and babies. The Israeli government claims Hamas is an existential threat to Jews and that all Palestinians are, more or less, members or supporters of Hamas and therefore must be eliminated (murdered or expelled). Women, children, babies: they’re all Hamas.

America has its own history of genocide. Various Native American peoples were murdered, shunted aside onto reservations, sent to “civilizing” schools that denied them their history and identity, most of their land stolen from them. This had to be done, the white man claimed, because the Indians were brutal savages, demonically so.

Today, there is great resistance (certainly among U.S. politicians) to the idea that Israel is conducting a genocide in Gaza. Most U.S. politicians prefer to think of it as a morally justifiable war against Hamas, and even if they don’t completely buy that, they give Israel everything it wants, weapons and money, to facilitate that genocide. Like Pontius Pilate, they wash their hands of blood shed in Gaza, blaming Hamas (or, perhaps for a few, quietly blaming Israel without daring to say it).

Anyhow, these musings came to me as I contemplated a short encyclopedia article I wrote on genocide about 25 years ago. What follows is that article.

GENOCIDE: Legal term coined in 1944 initially to define and condemn Nazi efforts to destroy, deliberately and systematically, Jews as well as Sinti and Roma (Gypsies) in the Holocaust. The term encompasses not only ethnic- and racially-motivated extermination but also cultural, national, and political. Although the term is fairly recent, genocidal practices are nearly as old as recorded history. Witness the Roman annihilation of Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War. Yet genocide as a category is usually applied to events of more recent history, with the Turkish persecution of Armenians during World War I providing a paradigm of ruthless and wholesale murder to extirpate an entire people. Accusing Armenians of being pro-Russian and envying their domination of eastern Anatolia, Turkish officials forced them to emigrate east across mountains in winter. Hundreds of thousands died of exposure, starvation, or in massacres; perhaps 1.5 million died in total from 1915 to 1923.

Josef Stalin’s persecution of Ukrainians in the 1930s also constituted genocide, as Stalin distrusted their political loyalty. By confiscating crops and seed grain and preventing emigration, Stalin consigned five million Ukrainians to early graves. Nazi extermination policies were more racially oriented, as Adolf Hitler considered Jews and Gypsies to be irredeemable biological menaces to the purity of Aryan blood. The machinery of death employed by Nazis – railroads and cattle cars, gas chambers and ovens – and the systematic pillaging and gleeful humiliation of victims set a despicably new standard for human barbarity. Six million Jews and half a million Gypsies died at the hands of this evil regime. The post-war Nuremberg Trials prosecuted a few of the more prominent architects of the so-called Final Solution, but many others escaped judgment.

Although the United Nations’ Genocide Convention (1951) made genocide a crime under international law, lack of military forces and international criminal courts to enforce the convention has crippled efforts to deter or punish perpetrators. Acts of genocide continued, whether by the Khmer Rouge in the Cambodian “killing fields” in the 1970s, where one million perished, or by Hutu extremists in 1994, who massacred 800,000 Tutsis in a matter of months as the international community wrung its hands. Events closer to Europe that endangered Western stability drew greater scrutiny. Thus in 1993 the UN created a War Crimes Tribunal to prosecute practitioners of “ethnic cleansing” in the former Yugoslavia. Despite a handful of convictions, prosecution and prevention of genocidal crimes remain serious challenges facing the international community in the twenty-first century.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  • Bartov, Omer. Mirrors of Destruction: War, Genocide, and Modern Identity, Oxford, 2000.
  • Charny, Israel W. Encyclopedia of Genocide, 2 vols, Santa Barbara, CA, 1999.
  • Power, Samantha. “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide, New York, 2002.
  • Rosenbaum, Alan S., ed. Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide, Boulder, CO, 1998.
https://original.antiwar.com/william_astore/2026/02/09/what-is-genocide/

The IHRA definition of antisemitism—unfortunately adopted by many Christians without acknowledging its serious problems, especially when it comes to Zionism—has made honest conversation nearly impossible.

By now, I’m sure many of you have watched this exchange between Carrie Prejean Boller and an American Jewish Zionist leader. I am deeply grateful for her courage. This confrontation sheds light on two issues that have shaped public discourse for years: the definition of Zionism, and the increasingly aggressive claim that being anti-Zionist is inherently anti-Semitic. I’m also grateful that more and more Americans are finally beginning to see the problem we have been pointing to for years: the attempt to impose one definition and one set of rules on the rest of the world—rules everyone is simply expected to accept without question. Let me be clear: the central problem with Zionism is not complicated. Zionism established a homeland for the Jewish people on someone else’s land. Palestine was not empty. This is not a theoretical debate for Palestinians. We are the people who have lived the consequences: dispossession, expulsion, fragmentation, military rule, and erasure—Muslims and Christians alike. (And yes, I have the same objection to any state built on an exclusive religious identity. A state should belong to all its people.) But Israel was founded on the land of others—and its exclusive identity continues to dismiss, marginalize, and erase half the population. What makes this even more troubling is that this project is repeatedly presented as something “Christian,” as if Christians are obligated to endorse it—something Carrie made clear she does not support as a Catholic. This is precisely why moments like this matter: they expose how the conversation is manipulated. Again and again, they mischaracterize what you are actually saying. Being anti-Zionist does not mean that Israel does not have the right to exist. Being anti-Zionist means Israel does not have the right to exist as a state built through the expulsion of Palestinians, and sustained by policies that treat Palestinians as second-class citizens—including, by the way, Palestinian Christians. So pay attention to the tactic: they try to change the rules of engagement by claiming you are calling for Israel’s destruction, when that is clearly not what you are saying. This is not confusion. It is a deliberate distortion meant to shut down the conversation, avoid accountability, and portray any critique as extremist. And there is another layer to this: the problem of what I can only call an imaginary Zionism—a Zionism that speaks as if Palestinians do not exist. It speaks about safety and refuge, but refuses to account for the people displaced for the project to succeed, and the price Palestinians continue to pay today—in the form of the genocide in Gaza. For Palestinians, Zionism is not an abstract identity debate. It is a political project with a clear history. Zionist leaders themselves spoke openly of “transfer.” They admitted the logic of removal. They named it. They defended it. And the world watched it happen. So let me ask plainly: as a Palestinian—on the receiving end of settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing—if I oppose Zionism, does that make me anti-Semitic? Of course not. And yet, this is what we have been dealing with. The IHRA definition of antisemitism—unfortunately adopted by many Christians without acknowledging its serious problems, especially when it comes to Zionism—has made honest conversation nearly impossible. In practice, it has functioned as a tool to police speech: to make any serious critique of Zionism, or any naming of Palestinian dispossession, immediately suspect. This is why I am grateful for Carrie’s courage. She refused to accept the imposed rules. She refused to allow a political ideology to redefine her faith. And she refused to allow Palestinian suffering to be erased. We need more of this moral clarity. Not to attack Jewish people, deny Jewish suffering, or trivialize antisemitism—which is real and deadly—but to insist that opposing an ideology of dispossession is not hatred, and that justice for Palestinians is not extremism. Because Palestine was not empty. And Palestinians—Christians and Muslims—are not invisible. Not then. Not now. And one final thing: Carrie wore a Palestinian flag. I want to say how much I appreciated that. We felt seen. In a session where Palestinian suffering was dismissed—and where even the reality of genocide was denied—that simple act of symbolism, of choosing to visibly affirm our humanity, meant more than many people realize.

https://x.com/MuntherIsaac/status/2021317095779115442