The term “genocide” is incorrect and lazy when used to describe Israel’s defensive actions in Gaza.

He argues that the crime of genocide is not limited to specific benchmarks of deaths but includes physically destroying a way of life and can be a separate activity from killing.

Goldberg questions whether life in the Gaza Strip will ever return to its former state, and whether Israel’s intent is to root out Hamas if it results in Gazans losing their ability to create a life for themselves.

He suggests that Israeli and U.S. solutions to the problem are to rebuild Gaza in their own image, with the desires of its inhabitants ignored due to Hamas’ infiltration. He believes that the world uses “genocide” to describe Israel’s actions in the name of “safety.”

The editor criticizes Goldberg for disregarding the definition of genocide in the Genocide Convention, which Israel is a party to.

The Convention defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy a group, including killing, causing serious harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions of life that lead to its physical destruction.

Goldberg also fails to mention that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) granted South Africa’s request for provisional measures to prevent genocide in Gaza, pending a decision on the merits of South Africa’s claim.

The editor believes Goldberg’s disregard for the standard by which all parties to the Convention are judged and creating a standard that is not recognized in international law is unjust.