We live in a world where words have changed places, if I may say so (this is a very easy trick to disturb people's consciences).
For my part, on the tragedy of Gaza (I will say it very simply): it is an unspeakable massacre. A shame, for the one who perpetrates it (a disgrace, for a people who experienced the Holocaust!); I think of the average Jews, who just want to live their religion in complete tranquility. They too have dingoes to guide them.
But, since the question of genocides is raised, let's go back in time a little (a lot). France also experienced a genocide in 1793. A populicide, it was said at the time. It was a Franco-French populicide. The Vendéens, royalists and Catholics, were "exterminated" precisely because they were royalists and Catholics (especially Catholics!) There were around 200,000, men, women, children, old people: murdered, burned, raped, flayed. When the troops of the republic left, Vendée was a dead land. In some people's mouths, the expression "fire and blood" really means something: desolation. We are still waiting for the “Republic” (which was established under the Terror) to make amends and recognize this great crime. This is something that will never happen, because in order not to lose face, this daughter of Satan calls this crime: a civil war. When I say that the words have changed places...
Another good post but with, it seemed to me, something missing, a conclusion approached but never reached or, at least, a question implied but not asked: if it’s the Jews in Israel who are threatened with genocide does that make the killing of all those civilians in Gaza something other than murder? (I am assuming that by ‘murder’ we mean something absolutely wrong and beyond justification and also assuming, contra Tom Welsh earlier, that the only thing that can save the Jews in Israel from genocide is the Israeli state.)
Obviously not all killing is wrong, not killing in self-defence or defence of another, not legal capital punishment, not soldiers killing one another in battle, not even soldiers in war killing civilians unintentionally. But modern methods of waging war blur lines. It’s hard or impossible to imagine a war between modern states that doesn’t involve the bombing of cities; and how are cities to be bombed without civilians being killed, en masse? It can’t be done, but, perhaps, it can be done unintentionally, and then it’s not murder. But what are the tests for ‘intentionally’ and ‘unintentionally’?
There is a (once very well known) essay by Elizabeth Anscombe condemning the bombing of Hiroshima in which she—along the way—argues that to intend civilian deaths must be more than to be able, even with certainty, to predict them. She says, “For killing the innocent, even if one knows by statistical certainty that what one does will lead to that, is not necessarily murder.” What might make it murder though is “the lack of scruples in considering the possibilities”. And, of course, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagazaki were dropped with no scruples at all—and hence were murder. The same must be true of the ‘area bombing’ of German cities, including of Dresden, and the fire-bombing of Japanese cites that preceded Hiroshima. And is that also what we must think of the Israeli bombing of Gaza?
Perhaps but the Americans and British were not after all ever threatened with genocide as the Israeli Jews are. And what difference, if any, does that make? If the civilian deaths in Gaza couldn’t be defended as unintentional—and were therefore murder—could they be defended as, whether intentional or not, necessary to save Israeli Jews from genocide, and therefore for that reason (is this David McGrogan’s missing conclusion?) not murder?
Don't understand why some of my comment seems to be cut off but it was supposed to go on ...
... be defended as unintentional—and were therefore murder—could they be defended as, whether intentional or not, necessary to save Israeli Jews from genocide, and therefore for that reason (is this David McGrogan’s missing conclusion?) not murder?
This is a timely reminder of what has always been taken as the meaning of 'genocide', a word that is now bandied about figuratively in ways that terrifyingly obscure the literal. One could include in this case, the frankly reprehensible way that adherents to certain forms of gender metaphysics claim there is a 'trans genocide' - in a context in which no murder is committed, much less anything genocidal. The blurring of the meaning of the word here is beyond tragic, although walks hand in hand with our blissful wriggling free of human rights as obligations that were meant to place limitations on the behaviour of nation states towards people, of any background and circumstance.
I am especially relieved to hear you bring up the point that "indiscriminate bombing of civilians is a war crime" - a different kind of horror, but a horror nonetheless. I understand your wish to reserve 'evil' for genocide, but I am never fond of this attempt to draw a line on a sliding scale of atrocity. I cannot say with any certain universality what deserves the name 'evil', but genocide is surely not the sole evil humanity commits.
You do not mention the fire bombing of Dresden, which in some estimates was just as murderous as the bombing of Japan - and was chosen as a target because of the special significance of Dresden, which negative evokes parallels with Kyoto which was mercifully spared from destruction. Even today, Brits act as if World War II was a righteous fight that "we won". I detest this attitude to this grotesque cavalcade of inhumanity. I feel, without any disrespect for the men and women who honourably served in this conflict, that we Brits should look back on our conduct and feel shame for the firebombing of Dresden. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is not genocide, but it is (now) a war crime, and even before the Geneva conventions was dishonourable, despicable, and indefensible without moving beyond any ethical space and into the moral vacuum of calculative ethics.
You say: "Still, there is no question that nowadays that kind of war simply could not be fought. The public in America would not allow it."
If it was reported on, perhaps, but herein lies much of the problem. The public in America permitted the indiscriminate killing of civilians in the 'war on terror', which was not a war in any meaningful sense, and became an extermination. They did so in part because the legacy media largely avoided reporting on it. Even when they did, drone assassinations were presented as 'precision strikes'. Yet they are no such thing, they are the *discriminate* bombing of civilians, which is to say, rather than just unloading enormous volumes of bombs to indiscriminately kill civilians, the US 'security' apparatus sent expensive robot bombs to kill people they wished dead, without any interest in a trial - along with anyone who happened to be nearby who were deemed 'collateral damage', meaning murders of innocents we choose to ignore. They blew up town meetings to kill one warlord, because they believed, as so many do today, that righteous ends justify despicable means.
We can and must reject this entire logic, for it is not only in warfare that it destroys any sense of the moral.
Thank you for writing this piece, David. Language circumscribes reality, and it is precisely in the loosening of these practices that so many of our current disasters rest.
PS: I cannot like this piece, I'm sorry. It feels like I am 'liking genocide'. If this is irrational on my behalf, so be it.
Honestly Chris, you changed the subject and went off on a ridiculous rant here. I think you could use a little time in a war zone to clear your head of the academic theory-land you seem to often inhabit from your comfy armchair. (Liking genocide... give me a break!)
Sorry you feel this way. It is true my only experience of war is letters I wrote to people serving in warzones, and anecdotes recounted by family who served in Vietnam and elsewhere. But I did not change the subject here, I just walked through a door David opened in a direction that, apparently, you don't appreciate.
As for not liking posts with strongly negative subjects, it's much the same as when someone posts news of a family death. How can I 'like' that...? Here I might be behaving quirkily, but it's hardly a cause for censor.
The UN's immorality and evil started when it promoted decarbonisation in the late '70s - the humanity-hating plot to impoverish ordinary people by ruining industry, stopping economic growth and intentionally reducing population sizes. Genocide of ordinary people. Ariane
This is wrong, McGrigan clearly doesn't understand human beings. We will always do what is necessary to defeat our enemy. WWIII is likely to involve nuclear weapons, the japanese civilian losses will be seem inconsequential. The UK had been fighting for its survival for 6 years, not the 4 of the USA.. how many would gave died, how long would WWII have lasted without this bombing of cities?
My first comment is a question: why, if one goes away in the middle of writing a comment, has what one has written disappeared when one gets back? Is it to do with my computer, this substack or substack generally? How, short of remembering to copy to notebook, is one to prevent it?
Hamas certainly calls for the eradication (literally "uprooting") of the Jewish state - which, let us remember, is defined by its own constitution as "Jewish", meaning that it is a state run by Jews for Jews and no one else.
No one, to my knowledge, has ever called for the eradication of Israeli people. It is perfectly feasible for the "Israeli entity", as some call it, to be dismantled and abolished, to be succeeded perhaps by a Palestinian state occupting the full extent of Palestine, and governed in the interests of all its citizens - Jews, Palestinians, whoever.
In 1945 there was no such thing as Israel. Why should there be in 2025? States are articial creations made by people for people. As it happens, the state of Israel was made exclusively by Jews (and their little helpers abroad) for Jews, with the explicit intention that no one but Jews should be full citizens or - ideally - even allowed in the country.
In 1947-8 there was an enthusiastic, merciless burst of massacres and destruction aimed at driving out as many Palestinians as possible, and killing quite a lot of them "pour encourager les autres". Ever since, the Israeli government has worked energetically and relentlessly to get rid of the Palestinians. Such behaviour by a state is obviously immoral, illegal, and unacceptable.
'It is perfectly feasible for the "Israeli entity", as some call it, to be dismantled and abolished, to be succeeded perhaps by a Palestinian state occupting the full extent of Palestine, and governed in the interests of all its citizens - Jews, Palestinians, whoever.' Would you take that risk if you were an Israeli, given the events of October 7th? I certainly wouldn't. You would have to be suicidal.
I don't intend to get into a debate about the Israel-Palestine issue (or indeed, any issue) in comments on substack, as I would much rather write in long form, but it is important to reflect on where we are now, not in some ideal moral universe in which we can simply redraw borders as we see fit and everything will be fine.
Hear hear! Such a difficult subject to parse, and so incredibly well navigated and executed.
We live in a world where words have changed places, if I may say so (this is a very easy trick to disturb people's consciences).
For my part, on the tragedy of Gaza (I will say it very simply): it is an unspeakable massacre. A shame, for the one who perpetrates it (a disgrace, for a people who experienced the Holocaust!); I think of the average Jews, who just want to live their religion in complete tranquility. They too have dingoes to guide them.
But, since the question of genocides is raised, let's go back in time a little (a lot). France also experienced a genocide in 1793. A populicide, it was said at the time. It was a Franco-French populicide. The Vendéens, royalists and Catholics, were "exterminated" precisely because they were royalists and Catholics (especially Catholics!) There were around 200,000, men, women, children, old people: murdered, burned, raped, flayed. When the troops of the republic left, Vendée was a dead land. In some people's mouths, the expression "fire and blood" really means something: desolation. We are still waiting for the “Republic” (which was established under the Terror) to make amends and recognize this great crime. This is something that will never happen, because in order not to lose face, this daughter of Satan calls this crime: a civil war. When I say that the words have changed places...
Very well said indeed 👏
Another good post but with, it seemed to me, something missing, a conclusion approached but never reached or, at least, a question implied but not asked: if it’s the Jews in Israel who are threatened with genocide does that make the killing of all those civilians in Gaza something other than murder? (I am assuming that by ‘murder’ we mean something absolutely wrong and beyond justification and also assuming, contra Tom Welsh earlier, that the only thing that can save the Jews in Israel from genocide is the Israeli state.)
Obviously not all killing is wrong, not killing in self-defence or defence of another, not legal capital punishment, not soldiers killing one another in battle, not even soldiers in war killing civilians unintentionally. But modern methods of waging war blur lines. It’s hard or impossible to imagine a war between modern states that doesn’t involve the bombing of cities; and how are cities to be bombed without civilians being killed, en masse? It can’t be done, but, perhaps, it can be done unintentionally, and then it’s not murder. But what are the tests for ‘intentionally’ and ‘unintentionally’?
There is a (once very well known) essay by Elizabeth Anscombe condemning the bombing of Hiroshima in which she—along the way—argues that to intend civilian deaths must be more than to be able, even with certainty, to predict them. She says, “For killing the innocent, even if one knows by statistical certainty that what one does will lead to that, is not necessarily murder.” What might make it murder though is “the lack of scruples in considering the possibilities”. And, of course, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagazaki were dropped with no scruples at all—and hence were murder. The same must be true of the ‘area bombing’ of German cities, including of Dresden, and the fire-bombing of Japanese cites that preceded Hiroshima. And is that also what we must think of the Israeli bombing of Gaza?
Perhaps but the Americans and British were not after all ever threatened with genocide as the Israeli Jews are. And what difference, if any, does that make? If the civilian deaths in Gaza couldn’t be defended as unintentional—and were therefore murder—could they be defended as, whether intentional or not, necessary to save Israeli Jews from genocide, and therefore for that reason (is this David McGrogan’s missing conclusion?) not murder?
A complicated question that needs a full answer in a different format I think.
Don't understand why some of my comment seems to be cut off but it was supposed to go on ...
... be defended as unintentional—and were therefore murder—could they be defended as, whether intentional or not, necessary to save Israeli Jews from genocide, and therefore for that reason (is this David McGrogan’s missing conclusion?) not murder?
This is a timely reminder of what has always been taken as the meaning of 'genocide', a word that is now bandied about figuratively in ways that terrifyingly obscure the literal. One could include in this case, the frankly reprehensible way that adherents to certain forms of gender metaphysics claim there is a 'trans genocide' - in a context in which no murder is committed, much less anything genocidal. The blurring of the meaning of the word here is beyond tragic, although walks hand in hand with our blissful wriggling free of human rights as obligations that were meant to place limitations on the behaviour of nation states towards people, of any background and circumstance.
I am especially relieved to hear you bring up the point that "indiscriminate bombing of civilians is a war crime" - a different kind of horror, but a horror nonetheless. I understand your wish to reserve 'evil' for genocide, but I am never fond of this attempt to draw a line on a sliding scale of atrocity. I cannot say with any certain universality what deserves the name 'evil', but genocide is surely not the sole evil humanity commits.
You do not mention the fire bombing of Dresden, which in some estimates was just as murderous as the bombing of Japan - and was chosen as a target because of the special significance of Dresden, which negative evokes parallels with Kyoto which was mercifully spared from destruction. Even today, Brits act as if World War II was a righteous fight that "we won". I detest this attitude to this grotesque cavalcade of inhumanity. I feel, without any disrespect for the men and women who honourably served in this conflict, that we Brits should look back on our conduct and feel shame for the firebombing of Dresden. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is not genocide, but it is (now) a war crime, and even before the Geneva conventions was dishonourable, despicable, and indefensible without moving beyond any ethical space and into the moral vacuum of calculative ethics.
You say: "Still, there is no question that nowadays that kind of war simply could not be fought. The public in America would not allow it."
If it was reported on, perhaps, but herein lies much of the problem. The public in America permitted the indiscriminate killing of civilians in the 'war on terror', which was not a war in any meaningful sense, and became an extermination. They did so in part because the legacy media largely avoided reporting on it. Even when they did, drone assassinations were presented as 'precision strikes'. Yet they are no such thing, they are the *discriminate* bombing of civilians, which is to say, rather than just unloading enormous volumes of bombs to indiscriminately kill civilians, the US 'security' apparatus sent expensive robot bombs to kill people they wished dead, without any interest in a trial - along with anyone who happened to be nearby who were deemed 'collateral damage', meaning murders of innocents we choose to ignore. They blew up town meetings to kill one warlord, because they believed, as so many do today, that righteous ends justify despicable means.
We can and must reject this entire logic, for it is not only in warfare that it destroys any sense of the moral.
Thank you for writing this piece, David. Language circumscribes reality, and it is precisely in the loosening of these practices that so many of our current disasters rest.
PS: I cannot like this piece, I'm sorry. It feels like I am 'liking genocide'. If this is irrational on my behalf, so be it.
Honestly Chris, you changed the subject and went off on a ridiculous rant here. I think you could use a little time in a war zone to clear your head of the academic theory-land you seem to often inhabit from your comfy armchair. (Liking genocide... give me a break!)
Sorry you feel this way. It is true my only experience of war is letters I wrote to people serving in warzones, and anecdotes recounted by family who served in Vietnam and elsewhere. But I did not change the subject here, I just walked through a door David opened in a direction that, apparently, you don't appreciate.
As for not liking posts with strongly negative subjects, it's much the same as when someone posts news of a family death. How can I 'like' that...? Here I might be behaving quirkily, but it's hardly a cause for censor.
Making disingenuous gestures toward your sorrow over my feelings does not actually make you morally superior, Chris. Get over yourself.
I'd better email you.
The UN's immorality and evil started when it promoted decarbonisation in the late '70s - the humanity-hating plot to impoverish ordinary people by ruining industry, stopping economic growth and intentionally reducing population sizes. Genocide of ordinary people. Ariane
This is wrong, McGrigan clearly doesn't understand human beings. We will always do what is necessary to defeat our enemy. WWIII is likely to involve nuclear weapons, the japanese civilian losses will be seem inconsequential. The UK had been fighting for its survival for 6 years, not the 4 of the USA.. how many would gave died, how long would WWII have lasted without this bombing of cities?
I didn't say that the firebombing of Tokyo was the wrong decision strategically.
Call it what you like, but Israel’s aim is obvious: push everyone in Gaza into Egypt, or kill the lot.
My first comment is a question: why, if one goes away in the middle of writing a comment, has what one has written disappeared when one gets back? Is it to do with my computer, this substack or substack generally? How, short of remembering to copy to notebook, is one to prevent it?
I have no answer for that, I'm afraid. Beyond my pay grade.
Words matter. Not in Canada, where the death of aboriginals has been officially declared a genocide.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/trudeau-s-acknowledgment-of-indigenous-genocide-could-have-legal-impacts-experts-1.5457668
Hamas certainly calls for the eradication (literally "uprooting") of the Jewish state - which, let us remember, is defined by its own constitution as "Jewish", meaning that it is a state run by Jews for Jews and no one else.
No one, to my knowledge, has ever called for the eradication of Israeli people. It is perfectly feasible for the "Israeli entity", as some call it, to be dismantled and abolished, to be succeeded perhaps by a Palestinian state occupting the full extent of Palestine, and governed in the interests of all its citizens - Jews, Palestinians, whoever.
In 1945 there was no such thing as Israel. Why should there be in 2025? States are articial creations made by people for people. As it happens, the state of Israel was made exclusively by Jews (and their little helpers abroad) for Jews, with the explicit intention that no one but Jews should be full citizens or - ideally - even allowed in the country.
In 1947-8 there was an enthusiastic, merciless burst of massacres and destruction aimed at driving out as many Palestinians as possible, and killing quite a lot of them "pour encourager les autres". Ever since, the Israeli government has worked energetically and relentlessly to get rid of the Palestinians. Such behaviour by a state is obviously immoral, illegal, and unacceptable.
'It is perfectly feasible for the "Israeli entity", as some call it, to be dismantled and abolished, to be succeeded perhaps by a Palestinian state occupting the full extent of Palestine, and governed in the interests of all its citizens - Jews, Palestinians, whoever.' Would you take that risk if you were an Israeli, given the events of October 7th? I certainly wouldn't. You would have to be suicidal.
I don't intend to get into a debate about the Israel-Palestine issue (or indeed, any issue) in comments on substack, as I would much rather write in long form, but it is important to reflect on where we are now, not in some ideal moral universe in which we can simply redraw borders as we see fit and everything will be fine.