In a tweet last year (that I just came across), the Lemkin Institute for the Prevention of Genocide, long captured by the far left, writes: "The Lemkin Institute has had it with the cynical lies and propaganda from Israel and the USA. One can have different views about the definition of genocide, but one may not use definitional disputes to deny genocide."
Where to begin? If Party A and Party B are arguing over whether Israel is committing genocide, and Party A says, "genocide requires an intent to wipe out a large percentage of a civilian population defined by race, ethnicity, or religion, and action in accordance with that attempt, and that does not describe Israeli action in Gaza," and Party B says, "Israel is committing genocide because I believe that it has a long-term plan to dispossess and expel all Palestinians, and the Gaza War is consistent with that plan," *of course* the definitional dispute should be used by Party A to deny there is a genocide (and Party A could add that just because Party B believes something, doesn't make it true!)
Let's try out the Institute's perspective in a murder case. Defense lawyers: "Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the definition of murder in this state requires both malice aforethought by the accused, and action resulting in the death of the victim. However, my client had no such malice, and the victim is still alive." Lemkin: "Objection, we don't think murder requires either malice aforethought or death, and one may not use definitional disputes to deny murder."
