The Great Genocide Lie
Criminal Use of the Ultimate Horror
My new book Grand Narrative is being released chapter by chapter exclusively on “Guerre and Shalom”. If you think that my hard work deserves a Paid Subscription, please hit the link below!!
As long time subscribers can attest, the chapter below has been released on Substack in draft form before, but has it since been significantly amended, extended and improved.
CONTENTS:
PROLOGUE: The Oxford Union has betrayed British Values
INTRODUCTION: Who’s afraid of grand narrative?
BOOK 1: LANGUAGE: ON LIES & CIVILIZATIONAL DEMISE
1.1: Living a Lie
![Living a Lie [Grand Narrative, Chapter 1.1]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!WsuS!,w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fca972889-18bb-4d7b-a496-c65cc50d7fa6_1035x696.jpeg)
1.2: Corruption of the Masses
1.3: The Dangerous Confusion of Language
1.4: The Great Genocide Lie
1.5: Hands off Churchill!
1.6 In Praise of the British Empire for Abolishing Slavery Worldwide.
1.7: Declaring War on Post-Modernism
1.8: The Problem with Atheism
1.9: Justice Lost: From Plato to Hamas
1.10: Thou Shalt Not Lie: On the Destruction of Worlds
1.11: Freedom of Speech?
1.12: Democracy cannot survive in a World that accepts Truth as Lies
BOOK 2: TRUTH: ON THE BIRTH OF HUMAN AGENCY
BOOK 3: SOVEREIGNTY: ON THE DEMOCRATIC NATION
BOOK 4: NARRATIVE: ON THE FULFILMENT OF MEANING
BOOK 5: FREEDOM: ON WRITING THE NEXT CHAPTER
BOOK 6: COVENANT: ON CREATING A NATION OF NARRATIVE
BOOK 7: NATIONHOOD: ON EXPANDING THE NARRATIVE
BOOK 8: LEADERSHIP: ON REACHING THE PROMISED LAND
BOOK 9: PEACE: THE END OF THE JOURNEY
Chapter 1.5: The Great Genocide Lie
Criminal misuse of the ultimate horror
Ubiquitous genocide
Homs, Syria (above). Death and destruction by the hands of the Assad regime. Civilian casualties sought and obtained by the thousands1. Murder on a mass scale; a showcase for the evil of man towards man. But one thing it was not: Genocide. There was no attempt to eliminate an entire ethnic or other human grouping,
Assad’s motives - and those of the Russians and Iranians that supported him - were simple. To remove those trying to remove him from power. No anti-Sunni racism was involved. None. Assad's wife is a Sunni after all. When a white Russian and a fatwa-issuing non-Alawite Persian2 wanted to help him, he had no problem whatsoever accepting their aid.
What is genocide? It is the attempt (entirely or partially successful) to destroy an entire group of humanity.3 The endless misuse of this term to describe any death of any civilian in any conflict4 is destroying the awful meaning of the term. Please join me in condemning those who do so as the power of language is preserved by its correct usage.
The unfortunate use of genocide and Holocaust terminology by both sides in the Ukraine conflict5, despite the undoubted war crimes being committed by Russia, is equally misplaced. There is no evidence that Russia is trying to wipe out the entire Ukrainian people; they affirm that they are Russians after all6! Meanwhile, Russia claiming that the Jewish leader of Ukraine is a neo-Nazi is totally insulting nonsense of the first degree7.
Israel and the Palestinians
And then we come to Israel and the Palestinians. President Abbas famously claimed that his people had suffered “50 Holocausts”8. What a mendacious claim! Yet in front of Germany’s Chancellor Scholtz, he stated it unrepentantly. While the Jewish population of Europe plummeted in the face of the Nazi Holocaust, the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza has rocketed upwards. The once-sizeable Jewish population of the Arab world is near to extinction, yet Abbas repeats his lies unmoved; his deceit used to deflect the near-total Jewish ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Arab governments.9
The current Jewish population of Yemen is 0. The current Jewish population of Libya is 0. The current Jewish population of Iraq, a nation’s whose capital was a third Jewish only a hundred years ago and whose history is entwined with that of the Jewish people, now stands at just 410. Daniel survived Nebuchadnezzar, but he couldn’t survive Saddam. And so we could go on. The Middle Eastern Jewish nation has been decimated in its regional home:now that’s genuine ethnic cleansing. The exponential growth of the Palestinian population, particularly in Gaza, is quite the opposite. 11Meanwhile the ever increasing professional, educational and economic success of Israel's 20% Arab minority (with population growth to match) is a wonderful miracle to be celebrated.
October 7th and Gaza
And now we are told that a genocide is being committed in Gaza12. To counter that, supporters of Israel are maintaining that there was a genocide on October 7th13. Let’s examine these claims. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains the following narrow definition14:
A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Now let me quote from the UN Office of Genocide Prevention which provides a commentary on the above legal provisions15:
“The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.
Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”
Dealing first with the October 7th terrorist attacks, it could be argued that the “mental element” of genocide is present in that the Hamas charter calls for the elimination of all Jews. But even if we are to accept this, it is wholly clear that the physical element is absent as the 1200 murdered that day16 was not - in the legal sense - “substantial”. As painful as the events were, it constituted a tiny proportion of the Jewish people, albeit a much more substantial percentage on a per capita basis than the number of Americans murdered on 9/11. It may have been that if Hamas had been given the opportunity, they would have gone onto commit genocide, but in the event that didn’t happen. It is insufficient to say that someone intends to commit genocide. They must actually engage in decimating swathes of the target population. Conclusion: No genocide was committed.
As for Gaza, the claims of genocide are even more laughable. Again the “substantial” element is entirely missing. Lord Andrew Roberts, among other prominent military historians, have confirmed that the civilian to combatant death ratio is the lowest in the modern history of warfare17; thus far from genocide, it’s war at its most humane. In a difficult urban environment, where dwelling after dwelling has been booby trapped or converted into weapons storage facilities, the IDF has been paying scrupulous regard to the fate of non-combatants. Yet the international community, led by the United Nations18 and with the hearty support of neighbouring Egypt19, have refused to allow significant numbers of Palestinians to leave the territory for temporary shelter in refugee camps; the normal humanitarian practice in the event of war. Instead, with the violent blessing of their own elected leaders, women and children have been forced to remain in an urban, overpopulated hellhole designed to maximise their own side’s death count. An intolerable situation, which the Israeli forces have navigated with humanitarian aplomb.
In addition, even if we are to believe the figures coming from the “Hamas health ministry” as entirely impartial and accurate (and why wouldn’t you?!), we know that a substantial proportion of the dead are terrorist fighters. Of the civilians, many have been killed by misfired Hamas / PIJ rockets20 and - when attempting to flee - by Hamas itself21. None of this - not even natural deaths - are accounted for in the “Hamas data”22. We are expected to believe that not a single terrorist fighter has been killed; and supported by discredited NGOs, we are simultaneously asked to reject Israeli figures of the Hamas dead. When faced with numbers provided by Islamist terrorists on one side and Andrew Roberts on the other, we are asked to believe the barbarians23. Incredibly, Amnesty International and the UN think that a democracy is less reliable than the local branch of ISIS in its truthful use of data. It seems that Lenin was right about useful idiots.
But whatever the tragic figure of civilians killed by Israeli bombs, we can say with certainty that the mental element of genocide is entirely absent. There was and there is no "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Put simply, there is no deliberate targeting of civilians. There is no government policy to do so and there is no evidence that it is happening on the ground.
If Israel were deliberately targeting civilians, why did it give evacuation orders? Why did it provide a safe zone for the innocent by the South Western coast?24 Why did it drop leaflets and sent text messages pleading for the civilians to evacuate?
Was it Israel that told the Gazan governing authorities to hide their weapons and military bases in hospitals, schools and mosques25? Was it Israel that asked Hamas to use civilians as human shields while walking in the open air? And so on and so forth. If Israel wanted to murder the entire Gazan population it could have done so on October 8th. It didn’t. It won’t. If it is found in hindsight that there are examples of trigger-happy Israeli soldiers who have committed individual war crimes, then that needs to be dealt with on an individual legal basis. But there is no government policy at all of murder. Conclusion: No genocide is being committed. There isn’t even a primae facie case.
We will leave the last word to Alice Nderitu, the UN’s former special adviser on the prevention of genocide26:
“This push that I should say that there’s a genocide going on in Gaza? They knew that I’m not a court of law, and it’s only a court of law that can determine whether a genocide has happened. But I was hounded, day in, day out. Bullied, hounded, with protection from nobody.”
“It’s instructive that this never happened for any other war. Not for Ukraine, not for Sudan, not for DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo], not for Myanmar. The focus was always Israel.”
“This was a war. Palestinians were killing Israelis, Israelis were killing Palestinians. It needs to be treated like other wars. In other wars, we don’t run and take one side and then keep going on and on about that one side. . . . By taking one side, condemning it every day, you completely lose the essence of what the UN was created for.”
So why are intelligent people giving the Great Genocide Lie a hearing when it is so patently false? No simple response can be given. But perhaps the most generous answer that one can grasp for is the provenance of these claims. The United Nations, the Republic of Ireland27, the Republic of South Africa28, The Guardian newspaper and Amnesty International are seen as reputable sources. How could the “brave Irish who fought against British tyranny” lie? How could the party of Nelson Mandela be party to such injustice? How could the United Nations be in the league with devil, being, as it claims to be, the bringer of world peace and the bearer of Universal Human Rights? But what this whole episode proves is that though a wolf may be clothed in sheep’s clothing, it remains a wolf. All are capable of lies: some for money, some in ignorance and some because of a misplaced sense of their own righteousness.
When, concerned that “genocide” wasn’t going stick in an ICJ court case against Israel, it decided to apply to extend the definition29, Ireland exposed its bad faith. It was more concerned that it could blood libel Israel rather than apply the law and the facts. Through its behaviour, exemplified through its President’s decision to use Holocaust Memorial Day 2025 to repeat his nation’s genocide calumnies30, Ireland has exposed itself to the condemnation of history. Genocide is a lie. A blatant lie. And through spreading its noxious poison, the Irish-ANC alliance have painfully lost their holier-than-thou sheen.
Xingjiang
But perhaps it wasn’t in Gaza or Ukraine that this criminal use of the G word began. And I know what I’m about to say will shock many of you. But regard for the truth allows me no other option. For perhaps it was in reports over the Xinjiang situation that superlative rhetoric became normative. Before we explore this question, it is incumbent upon the author to emphasise that the values of China’s Communist Party are not those of my own. Its stifling of freedom in Hong Kong31 is just one example of its disregard for human rights and its utter ruthlessness in enforcing the Party’s will. Moreover, whatever the true nature of the events in Xinjiang, the mere, incontestable fact of the mass detention of swathes of the population is sufficient evidence in itself of the need to condemn Chinese actions. However does it represent genocide? Is there even a primae facie case? And are we not letting our dislike of Communist rule cloud our linguistic judgment to an unacceptable level.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Guerre and Shalom to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.