Report

And alarmingly easily it works too. I thought his response to Bethrigbyskynews was good though 

Ok, well ICJ have only found a few cases of genocide since it was defined, so not easy to prove...I think intent partly the hardest bit to determine, but also what defines the group. The all or part thing also comes into it, but Israel has destroyed most of Gaza...so.... I think ok to accuse Israel of genocide, ICJ  said it was plausible...but I agree that it is thrown at Israel a lot as well as accusing them of being as bad as the Nazis and all that. But, we have this genocide definition, it is plausible Israel has been committing it, we'll see what happens, may well end up that there is just not enough evidence to conclude either way.

No chance of plaiting piss for 2025, they've signed an exclusive with Green Man

Yeah, really does not work well. Also causes a bit of a jam with so many outside the tent  for headliners standing or sitting around blocking traffic between Common and Castle.

I'm not arguing with its history or impugning its intention. It just has an inherent weakness that allows it to be applied to, essentially, any loss of life. I understand why that phrase is there, the job it's doing. It just seems to me to be unhelpfully nebulous. In this particular situation, it has allowed people to argue that the death of, when it was first applied, a fraction of a percent of a population, rising 16 months later to around 2% of that population (again, not to downplay this terrible loss of life), is something it manifestly is not.   Obviously the Jewish state is capable of genocide. But it is my belief that the inappropriate use of this word to describe Israeli actions, like the use of swastikas and other Nazi imagery and language, is clearly if not always consciously antisemitic. Its use is a demonstration that an individual or an organisation's intentions, or their analysis, is weak or prejudiced.