To the editor: I have read Raphael Lemkin's ideas on genocide, cited by columnist Jonah Goldberg, in the context of the American genocide of California natives, and it is wrong to conclude that crime can only exist after a specific benchmark of deaths. (“This is what's wrong with the rush to accuse Israel of committing genocide in Gaza,” Opinion, March 5)
It is more than a measure of killing. It includes the physical destruction of a life form and may be a separate activity from killing.
Does Goldberg imagine that life in the Gaza Strip will ever return to the way it was? Does it matter that Israel's stated intention is to eradicate Hamas if the result is that Gazans have lost the ability to create a life for themselves?
The Israeli and American “solutions” to this problem are to one day rebuild Gaza in their own image, conveniently ignoring the wishes of its inhabitants because they are too infiltrated by Hamas.
The world says “genocide” because we are tired of cutting off people's identities and connections to their lands in the name of “security.”
Matthew Neel, Sherman Oaks
..
To the editor: It's rare that I agree with Goldberg, but he eloquently explains how and why using the term “genocide” to describe Israel's defensive actions is incorrect and lazy.
I just hope that those who do it wrong read this column so they can understand why.
Aaron Levinson, Woodland Hills
..
To the editor: I find it strange that, given the current proceedings before the United Nations International Court of Justice to determine whether Israel is violating the Genocide Convention, Goldberg has ignored the definition of genocide contained in the Convention, to which Israel is a party.
Article II, in part, says this:
“Genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
“a) Kill members of the group;
“b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
“c) Deliberately inflicting on the group living conditions intended to cause its physical destruction, in whole or in part.”
It also ignores that the ICJ accepted South Africa's request for provisional measures to prevent genocide in Gaza pending a decision on the merits of South Africa's claim, based on the conclusion that the claim was plausible.
Israel is a party to the Convention and is bound by its terms. Goldberg is doing no one a favor by ignoring the standard by which all parties to the Convention are judged and inventing a standard that is not recognized in international law.
Martine Kawar, Altadena
