On genocide - Dahlia Scheindlin in Haaretz:

‘Genocide: The word is everywhere. It hounds us on our screens, and it haunts us in our sleep. It inflames emotions like few other terms do.
"Genocide" simultaneously carries legal, moral, historical, comparative and strategic meaning. Does it fit the legal definition, codified by the United Nations in 1948 and incorporated into the 1998 Rome Statute, the legal basis for the International Criminal Court? Should one use the term out of moral integrity? Is it recognizably similar to genocides of the past or present?’

(…)

‘It's hard to tell, because the debate has become muddled and very extensive. In his long and pained essays, Omer Bartov, one of the world's foremost genocide scholars, first argued that the war in response to October 7 did not yield evidence of genocide in November 2023, but it does now. His claims launched waves of responses, from academic blogs with a judicious inquiry about what the debate has come to represent, to responses from New York Times' columnists ("no, it's not"). Haaretz has also hosted a vigorous debate over the issue – with Bartov, and additional voices, also the top thinkers and scholars, arguing and responding to one another.’

(…)

‘Interestingly, both Bret Stephens in the New York Times and the authors of the Bar-Ilan report expressed their concern about cheapening or trivializing the term.
"Rather than deterring aggressors and preventing atrocities, the term 'genocide' will lose its profound legal and emotional weight, becoming a political tool. In future crises, including those where deliberate, systematic efforts to annihilate a nation or group occur, the trivialization of genocide will serve as an excuse for future atrocities ... international laws meant to protect vulnerable populations could be severely undermined, with grave consequences for all of humanity," the Bar-Ilan authors wrote.’

(…)

‘It's impossible to shake the impression that ultimately the aim of people devoting such great efforts to dispelling the genocide charge are ultimately seeking to justify a war which frankly cannot be justified at this point.’

(…)

‘Here are two examples of extremely valuable, considered examinations of genocide. The historian Lee Mordechai has produced a terrifyingly a meticulous report about the catastrophic destruction in Gaza, with rolling updates, exhaustively sourced and easy to read – driven by his own conscience with no organizational or institutional agenda.’

(…)

‘If the word genocide is too troubling for you personally, move on – focus instead on the relentless investigations by Haaretz's Nir Hasson, which answer questions like why so many Gazans are getting shot and killed trying to reach food centers, and how many are actually dying? Look at the pictures of starving children and stop worrying about what to call it: Focus instead on ending the war.’

(…)

‘If the word genocide haunts you, what should be haunting you is Gaza.’

Read the article here.
A war that frankly cannot be justified at this point.
The genocide-debate might easily become a distraction.

I repeat: Trump can order Netanyahu to stop the war. He is the only one who can do that.

But apparently, he cannot be bothered.

Maybe he is waiting for, yes for what? For the ghost of Epstein, for a sign?