A Word So Casual It Is Used Without Thought

The New York Times publishes yet another truly slanderous op-ed, this one by M. Gessen:

Do you even need to ask what that word is? Gesen describes the thoroughly discredited NAZA movie as if it is real journalism:

More than halfway through the film, Yuval Abraham, who conducted the interviews and co-directed the movie with Rachel Szor, asks one of the subjects if he realized that he was taking part in a genocide. This interviewee has already said that he found the work to be fun, because staying up late with your buddies, working toward a common goal, is fun. Now he agrees calmly, indeed casually, that yes, he has been taking part in a genocide.

The word doesn’t appear in the movie again.

This is all the evidence Gessen needs. After comparing this film to a new  dark comedy (again, not a documentary) about a mistaken Mossad hit, he concludes:

The difference between the practice depicted in “Checkout,” the comedy, and the unrelenting, unbearable horror described in “NAZA” is scale. Now, it’s industrial. That’s what makes it a genocide. It really is that unequivocal, and perhaps this is why the makers of “NAZA” didn’t need to use the word more than once.

"Genocide," to NYT columnists, is defined by vibes. And that's all you need. It isn't a serious word; it is something that is more like pornography; you know it when you see it. It is a term that can be casually tossed around without evidence, without even a clear definition. It is whatever you decide it is.

But that isn't what genocide is. And using it as casually by the headline of an op-ed is the opposite of seriousness.

A new academic paper from Indiana University actually does take the word seriously, along with other terms used casually about Israel, apartheid and settler colonialism.

The genocide accusation is governed by a treaty definition requiring enumerated acts and the specific intent to destroy a protected group, in whole or in substantial part, as such. The record establishes killing within the meaning of Article II(a) and serious bodily and mental harm within the meaning of Article II(b) together with the civilian and combatant death and deprivation described above. It does not establish that conditions of life were imposed for the purpose of physical destruction under Article II(c), that measures were imposed with the intent required by Article II(d), or that Israel intended to destroy Palestinians as such rather than defeat Hamas, the armed organization governing Gaza and embedded within the civilian population. Military and genocidal aims can coexist as a matter of law, but genocidal intent must still be established from the totality of the evidence. Genocidal intent cannot be inferred from the consequences of a military campaign alone; where plausible competing explanations remain, it is not the only reasonable inference. The genocide accusation is therefore not established under the Convention.

This isn't as catchy as viewing a popular film and deciding that it must be accurate. But it does take the term "genocide" with the seriousness it deserves. The word isn't powerful because it is tossed around as a side comment: it is powerful because it has a specific definition meant exactly to stop it from being used casually, the way it is used by New York Times columnists.

This NYT piece will be read by hundreds of thousands of people,  if not millions. The serious academic paper that methodically takes apart the actual accusation of genocide will only be read by dozens. 

The word can be used as propaganda or it can be used with seriousness. The average person only hears the former version. And that is the only version the Newspaper of Record decides is worth employing.

---