1

The Accusation of Genocide as Political Propaganda:

A Critique of John Docker’s J’Accuse.

Abstract

The 2012 essay by John Docker, “Instrumentalising the Holocaust:

Israel, Settler-Colonialism, Genocide,” essentially accuses

Israel of committing genocide against the Arabs living in British

Mandate Palestine. Further, he insists that this genocide

continues unabated. While Docker claims to follow the lead of

Martin Shaw, an eminent holocaust scholar, the claim is not

solid. Rather, Docker follows international attorney and

firebrand, Francis A. Boyle, in an exercise of political

propaganda designed to demonize and delegitimize Israel. Even

Shaw disassociates Docker as emulating his work. This essay

furthers that disassociation as well as links Docker’s and

Boyle’s shared goal.

*****************************************************************

**********

2

“The images of Israel’s military force have been transmitted

worldwide. … children’s drawings shredded, crucifixes

shattered,… . … can anyone claim they didn’t know that the

Israelis’ were carrying out genocide against a whole people…

?” (Petras 2010: 162).

“I would say first of all and it’s important to many people

to make it very clear that one doesn’t, shouldn’t and cannot

equate a genocide with ethnic cleansing. They are both

terrible things but definitely a genocide is a far worse

human crime than ethnic cleansing. And one should not equate

the Holocaust with the Nakba. I think that should be very

clear and I think that most of my Palestinian friends at

least don’t” (Ilan Pappe being interviewed by Greg Dropkin

(2002: 1).

“…, ethnic cleansing is an effort to render an ethnically

mixed country homogenous by expelling a particular group of

people and turning them into refugees… . Massacres accompany

the operations, but where they occur they are not part of a

genocidal plan; they are a key tactic to accelerate the

3

flight of the population earmarked for expulsion. … . From

official planning to final execution, what occurred in

Palestine in 1948 forms a clear cut case, according to these

informed and scholarly definitions, of ethnic cleansing”

(Pappe 2006: 3).

“Certainly the idea of peaceful ‘transfer’ lives on:

nowhere, perhaps, with as long a history as in Zionism. From

the movement’s inception, its leaders envisaged displacing

the Arab population of Palestine. Initially, displacement

was conceived in gradual terms, as Theodore Herzl advocated

in 1895: ‘We must expropriate gently…’.” (Shaw 2007: 58).

“Docker also implies a closer link between settler

colonialism and genocide than is justi ed…” (Shaw 2013: 3).fi

In 2012, John Docker, the Honorary Professor in the School

of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry at the University Of

Sydney, in the pages of the Holy Land Journal, claims that he

follows Martin Shaw’s determination of ethnic cleansing as

genocide in accordance with Shaw’s 2010 article accusing Israel

4

of genocide during the 1947-49 Palestinian Civil War that became

the first Arab-Israeli War upon Israel’s declaration of

independence in May of 1948 (Docker 2012: 1). However, Docker

does not follow Shaw, he precedes Shaw. In 2012, Docker merely

reiterates his 2003 declaration; that the forced removal of the

majority of Arabs residing in the 78% of British Mandate

Palestine that is now recognized as the state of Israel was an

act of genocide. Further, that this genocide against these Arabs,

now commonly referred to as the Palestinians, continues unabated.

In this matter, as in 2003, Docker relies heavily on Ilan Pappe’s

material and his own interpretation of Raphael Lemkin’s writings.

Martin Shaw does attempt to distance himself from Docker’s

conclusions. In his article revisiting his 2010 paper, Shaw

faults Docker’s narrow interpretation of Lemkin’s work as well as

his one dimensional analysis (Shaw 2013: 3). Indeed, rather than

a scholarly exercise to generate discussion as to the definition

of genocide through exploring Lemkin’s original works, as Shaw

controversially attempts, Docker desires to end discussion, as

seen by his conclusions:

5

Zionist Israel, from 1948 to the present, is guilty of genocidal

acts as defined in Article II, in that it historically intended,

and still intends, to destroy, in whole or in part, the

Palestinians as a group… Furthermore, the worldwide Zionist

organizations, along with the nations across the world,

principally the United States, that support Zionist Israel in its

genocidal acts, are guilty, in terms of Article III, of

‘complicity in genocide.’ (Docker 2012: 29)

With this type conclusion, it does not appear that Docker

emulates Martin Shaw at all. After all, Shaw makes no judgment

call regarding his findings, only that those findings should be

further discussed. In this, while I believe him to be incorrect

in his assessment, Shaw follows the educator’s path of scholarly

debate. Docker does not follow that path. Instead, it appears

that Docker actually follows and emulates a controversial

supporter of Palestinian supremacy, the international attorney,

Francis A. Boyle, Ph.D, in posting little more than rationalized

political propaganda.

There is a growing controversy over a new definition of

genocide. That a new definition has been contemplated is not, in

6

and of itself, new. Indeed, many genocide specialists, including

those who academically deal with the subject from a historical,

philosophical, or political frame work, have issued statements

expressing their dissatisfaction with the definition of genocide

as promulgated by the official UN document detailing genocide as

a crime; The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the

Crime of Genocide. However, the UN document does serve as an

important benchmark as a starting place for other’s definitions

(Hewitt 2004: 9). The convention defines genocide as “acts

committed with the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a

national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such.”

Regardless, there remain specific complaints, mostly regarding

the exclusion of other groups, such as social class and political

affiliation.

As stated above, and as cited by William Hewitt in Defining the

Horrific, several genocide specialists have reworked the definition

of genocide (Hewitt 2004: 9-10). Pieter Drost, a Dutch legal

scholar, defines genocide as “the deliberate destruction of

physical life of individual human beings by reason of their

7

membership of any human collectivity of such.” Israel Charny

defines genocide as the “mass killing of substantial numbers of

human beings when not in the course of military action against

military forces of an avowed enemy. Leo Kuper, who pioneered

comparative studies of genocide defines it as a “crime against a

collectivity, taking the form of massive slaughter; and carried

out with explicit intent.” Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn define

genocide as “a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or

other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and

membership in it are defined by the perpetrator.” Helen Fein sees

genocide as “sustained powerful action by a perpetrator to

physically destroy a collectivity directly or indirectly, through

interdiction of biological and social reproduction of group

members, sustained regardless of surrender or lack of threat

offered by the victim” (Hewitt 2004: 9-10). Additionally, Barbara

Harff sees genocide as “the promotion, execution, and/or implied

consent of sustained policies by governing elites or their agents

– or in the case of civil war, either of the contending

authorities – that are intended to destroy, in whole or in part,

8

a communal, political, or politicized ethnic group” (Harff 2003:

58). However, none of the above scholars and specialists, all

acclaimed experts on the subject of genocide, considers ethnic

cleansing to be genocide, as Docker claims.

Perhaps the reason for Docker’s premise is his possible

misunderstanding and following misapplication of the term

genocide, regardless of his intent. Dr. Paul Bartrop, Director of

the Genocide Studies Center at Florida Gulf Coast University,

explains that in “the realms of education and journalism,” it

appears that “any definition or understanding of the term is

apparently as legitimate as any other” (Bartrop 2012: 47).

Bartrop continues, explaining why other crimes are misunderstood

as genocidal, such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and

ethnic cleansing (Bartrop 2012: 48). Basically, the three

aforementioned crimes are not as well legally defined and are

thus liable to be misidentified. In fact, the World War Two

German Nazi criminals were found guilty of committing crimes

against humanity, not for committing genocide. However, that

9

explanation would be a kindness to Docker, of which he is neither

deserving nor desirous.

In his review of “Genocide: An Anthropological Reader,”

Bartrop implies that the word “genocide” carries such power that

its usage, when referring to a specific event, requires that the

event fit the precise definition consistent with a “multifactoral

analysis” of the event; a combination of “political, social,

military, economic, religious or cultural perspectives.” Failing

this, the term is liable to be misapplied. Additionally, if left

up to the individual scholar who can then pick or discard any

example of human evil as genocidal, then the entire concept

become debased and the word loses it power (Bartrop 2004: 269).

Even Shaw recognizes that the use of the word genocide to

describe an event automatically links and brings up images of the

Holocaust (Shaw 2013B, 1).

Efforts to change the meaning of labels have been tried,

politically, in the attempt to lessen the charge of antisemitism.

There are some, including a Nobel Laureate, who have inferred

that Arabs cannot be antisemitic as they are of a Semitic people

10

(Tutu 2002; Zogby 2012; Walker 2013). Additionally, one well

known and respected author has charged that the vast majority of

Jews are not Semitic at all; rather they are descendents of the

Khazars (Walker 2013). However, antisemitism, like genocide, is a

coined word. The originator had a specific meaning in mind when

coining the word. The word “antisemitism” was invented to

differentiate the hatred of Jews for practicing Judaism,

judeophobia, from the hatred of Jews as a distinct people.

Therefore, it would not matter what any particular bigot believes

concerning the ancestry of today’s Jews; the bigot’s behavior

remains antisemitic.

There are recent events wherein the misuse of the cry of

Genocide has been used to justify military action. In 2008,

Russia accused Georgia of committing genocide against the ethnic

Ossetians living in Tskhinvali, claiming that 2000 civilians had

been “slaughtered,” as well as 10 villages destroyed in one hour

(Akhavan 2012: 4-5). The accusations were untrue. However, the

accusations were enough to set off a chain of retaliatory attacks

11

by Ossentia in the attempt to ethnically cleanse the region of

the 138,000 ethnic Georgians in residence (Akhavan 2012: 6).

The declaration that genocide had not been committed

appears to some states to be a vindication that excuses all war

crimes, crimes against humanity, and mass atrocities. This was

seen in all of the headlines that appeared after a UN commission

declared that it could not pinpoint a “specific genocidal intent”

on the part of the Sudanese government despite the conclusion

that “massive atrocities were perpetrated, on a very large scale”

(Akhavan 2012: 4).

The word genocide grips the imagination. It connotes the

“mother” of all crimes that began with the Armenian Genocide and

ended with the Holocaust, despite the fact that there have been

genocides committed before and after those two episodes. It

conjures images of a fervent ethnic cleansing of a race, via

systematic mass murder, from the face of the earth; a Henry Ford

inspired mechanized slaughterhouse factory. “The labels we use

have their own their own communicative power” (Akhavan 2012: 23).

William Schabas labels genocide as the apex of the “hierarchy of

12

crime” (Akhavan 2012: 10). Finally, Stephen Davis considers

genocide to be “the work of homo sapiens at its worst” (Akhavan

2012: 11).

“A crimes against humanity” might be a more appropriate

charge for the ethnic cleansing as charged against Israel, for

the partial reduction of the Palestinian population in what is

now Israeli territory. According to Akhavan, this crime is

committed as “a wide spread and systematic attack directed

against a civilian population” (Akhavan 2012: 35). However, the

action committed must also “shock the conscience of Mankind”

(Akhavan 2012: 35). However, the world had just witnessed

millions of people being ethnically cleansed from Germanic

provinces of Poland and Czechoslovakia, population swaps between

Pakistan and India, and the resulting millions of death from

those marches provoked little discussion or protest from the

major powers of the day.

“The crime of genocide is intent- rather than result-

oriented in terms of its relationship to harm” (Akhavan 2012:

45). There must be intent to destroy (Akhavan 2012: 44) which is

13

distinct from the intent to carry out the act of expulsion which

might result in the destruction of the group (Akhavan 2012: 44).

For example, the ethnic cleansing of 50,000 Arabs from Lydda and

Ramle wherein the inhabitants were forced to march into the West

Bank during a time claimed by Pappe to be one of the hottest

places in Palestine during one of the warmest months (Pappe 2006:

166-169; Docker 2012: 22). Pappe ensures that we know that 426

Arabs were killed in Lydda in a rampage of murder. However,

during the march to the West Bank, Pappe tells us that many died

of thirst and hunger. How many is many? Regardless, was this

march ordered by the Israelis with the intent, or even the hope,

that most would perish on the way? It is not enough that there

might have just been a deliberate indifference to the reasonable

expectation that some might die along the way.

Akhavan reminds us that genocide is a goal oriented crime;

it is not enough to be aware of what might happen, the charge of

genocide requires it must be the intent (Akhavan 2012: 45). For

this reason, it is possible that the UN secretary General noted

that the “General Assembly wished to give special treatment to

14

the crime of genocide because of the particular gravity of that

crime, which aims at the systematic extermination of human groups

(Akhavan 2012: 81-2). Continuing in that vein, Hannah Arendt

discussed her inability to fathom the punishment for Nazi war

crimes, the epitome of what is normally the first thought when

genocide is mentioned, “For these crimes, no punishment is

enough” and “… the guilt, in contrast to all criminal guilt,

oversteps and shatters any and all legal systems” (Akhavan 2012:

10).

Whether Docker precedes or follows Shaw is a minor issue.

The major issue is that Docker’s thesis is incorrect. Further,

that Docker’s work in this area, rather than being scholastic in

the manner of Shaw, is political in nature. Docker deliberately

misapplies the “genocide” label to Israel’s action, not because

it is, through manipulation of terminology and semantics, and

through searching through Lemkin’s original work to see how far

Lemkin’s definition of genocide might be stretched, incorrect,

but because Docker’s intent is to damage Israel’s historical

basis for existence by trying to persuade others that no matter

15

how many and how heinous Arab acts of violence toward Israelis

have been and continue to be, Israel is worse because, during its

re-birth, they committed genocide. Therefore, in Docker’s moral

judgment, the re-birth should not have occurred. Indeed, its’

legality should be rescinded. In this manner, instead of

following Shaw, Docker follows Francis A. Boyle, a professor of

law at the University of Illinois School of Law and perhaps

better known as a purveyor of an utter hatred of Israel.

Professor Boyle, with a J.D. and a Ph.D. from Harvard

University, is certainly as qualified as Docker to scholastically

research the possibility that Israel might have committed

genocide in 1948, and continues to commit genocide unabated

through today. However, Boyle’s work does not reflect such

research. Rather than noted as an academic researcher, Boyle is

better known for having a role in politically charged “kangaroo”

courts, notably the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal of 2011 and

2013, as well as the International Tribunal of Indigenous Peoples

and Oppressed Nations in the USA (CNS News 2011; Shimatsu 2013;

Boyle 2013a). Further, Boyle takes great pride in referring to a

16

previous position as the assisting attorney for a U.S.

Congressman bent on impeaching U.S. President George H. W. Bush

for the war crime of rescuing and liberating Kuwait from Iraqi

occupation (Boyle 2013a).

In 1997, Boyle proposed that the Palestinian provisional

government and its president bring Israel before the world court

on a charge of genocide so that it “will prove to the entire

world and to all of history that what the Nazis did to the Jews a

generation ago is legally similar to what the Israelis are

currently doing to the Palestinian People today: genocide” (Boyle

2000: 161). Of course, as mentioned earlier, the Nazi war

criminals were not charged with the crime of genocide. Rather,

they were charged and found guilty of crimes against humanity.

However, the actual purpose of Boyle’s suggested suit is

sinister;

The Palestinian filing of this genocide lawsuit in 1998

would deliver yet another body-blow to Israel along the same

lines of the major body-blow already inflicted on Israel by

17

the creation of the State of Palestine in 1988.  Israel has

never recovered from the creation of the Palestinian State. 

So too, Israel will never recover from this genocide lawsuit

brought against it by Palestine before the International

Court of Justice.  Likewise, the United States government

will never recover from a World Court lawsuit brought

against it by Palestine for aiding and abetting Israeli

genocide against the Palestinian People. (Boyle 2000: 166).

Never recover? Boyle does not go on to explain what “never

recover” actually means, and as Arafat’s declaration of statehood

in 1988 was a rather meaningless affair, it follows that Boyle’s

discourse is the same as Shaw’s opinion of Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric

– “wild” (Shaw 2013: 7).

In Martin Shaw’s epilogue of his correspondence with Omer

Bartov, Shaw denies Bartov’s accusations and declares that his

goal is not that ascribed to him by Bartov: He insists that he is

not stating that “the argument of Israeli genocide of the

Palestinians is clearly meant to de-legitimize the state and to

18

say that it was born in the blood of innocents and should

therefore also go down in blood” (Shaw and Bartov 2010: 258).

Docker, on the other hand, has no such illusion of scholarly

purity. In his conclusions, he claims that Israel, the United

States, any state that has supported Israel, and all Zionist

organizations, are guilty of the crime of Genocide, in accordance

with the UN Convention (Docker 2012: 29). Now, of course, if one

is guilty of committing a crime, surely there is a punishment

involved. But such punishment can only be imagined as Docker

does not suggest one.

Additionally, there is Docker’s call for intellectual

independence of the Jewish community in their support or lack

thereof of Israel, which appears to mean that the Jewish

community must believe in what Docker believes. For example, this

is Docker’s demand of the Diaspora community in Australia

regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “To attempt to regain

honour and dignity, its autonomy, its self-respect, the

Australian Diaspora has to recover intellectual independence. It

has to say to Zionism and Israel: …” (Docker 2003). In order to

19

recover its intellectual independence, the Jewish community of

Australia must state what Docker tells it to state? Apparently,

that is Docker’s standard of intellectual independence.

In a lecture delivered at the United States Holocaust

Memorial Museum in 2004, Docker attempts to conflate Lemkin’s

usage of “concentrations camps” to describe the tactics used by

the U.S. military to defeat American Indian with Hannah Arendt’s

concept of the purpose of concentration camps in Nazi Germany and

the Soviet Union (Docker 2004: 14). It is an interesting theory

but it lacks any meaning; there is no way to know if Lemkin’s

concept meshed with Arendt’s.

Of course, Docker has declared that genocide does not

require killing any member of a group; indeed, that is true to a

certain extent. The Convention does state that; causing serious

bodily or mental harm to members of the group, imposing measures

intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly

transferring children of the group to another group, are

genocidal crimes. However, these acts must be committed with the

intent to destroy in part, a national, ethnical, racial or

20

religious group. While still tragic, the death toll associated

with the Palestinian Nakba, approximately 6,000, pales in

comparison to just about every single ethnic conflict since the

end of World War Two (WWII). Indeed, it pales so much that one of

Docker’s opening quotes, “The mini-holocaust (Palestinian Nakba,

or catastrophe in Arabic) ... is one of the great war crimes of

the twentieth century” (Masalha 2007: 1), almost becomes a joke.

Even Richard Falk, hardly a supporter of Israel for any purpose,

states that, “While each civilian death is an unacceptable

tragedy, the ratio of death and injury for the two sides is so

unequal…” certainly as unequal as any actual genocide over a

similar or lesser period of time as to call into question how

anyone could use the word genocide or holocaust to describe the

event (Falk 2010: 58). Indeed, even Masalha’s use of a term like

“mini-holocaust” begs comparison to other terms such as

“genocide-lite” and “misdemeanor genocide,” terms almost

guaranteed to minimize the seriousness of the actual crime of

genocide.

21

In a 2002 paper reflecting on Ilan Pappe’s delusional belief

(delusional in the same manner in which Pappe describes the

Zionist’ belief that they were facing “annihilation on the eve of

the 1948 war”) that the Israeli government planned, or even

intended, to ethnically cleanse the entirety of the Judea and

Samaria (the West Bank), as well as Gaza, of Arabs during the

2001 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Docker states that Pappe intimated

that there is a possibility that Israel would commit genocide

against the Palestinians (Docker 2003). Of course, Pappe states,

in no uncertain terms, that genocide has not occurred nor was

genocide threatened, but Docker disagrees, putting his own words

into Pappe’s mouth as to what Pappe mistakenly believes genocide

means; “swift mass or total extermination as in the Holocaust:

'the horrible phase of extermination'” (Docker 2003). Pappe

certainly never uttered such a definition in his 2002 interview

by Greg Dropkin, to which Docker refers in his article on the

matter.

One of Docker’s pre-introductory statements is a paraphrase

from Pappe: “The attempt [by Ben-Gurion in his public speeches in

22

1948] to portray Palestinians, and Arabs in general, as Nazis was

a deliberate public relations ploy to ensure that, three years

after the Holocaust, Jewish soldiers would not lose heart when

ordered to cleanse, kill and destroy other human beings. (Pappé

2006: 72; Docker 2012: 1). Twenty two pages later, Docker

reflects on another Pappe paraphrase, “The ‘inevitable question’,

Pappé reflects, presents itself: ‘three years after the

Holocaust, what went through the minds of those Jews who watched

these wretched people pass by?’ (Pappé 2006: 166–9; Docker 2012:

22). Of course, the question is ostensibly answered by the first

Pappe statement, if it is indeed true. Unfortunately, neither

Pappe nor Docker offers any proof that Ben-Gurion was worried

that Jewish soldiers would “lose heart” only three years after

the Holocaust. Indeed, it seems unreasonable to expect the horror

of the Holocaust to fade so quickly, especially when reminded

daily by the Arab press, threatening another holocaust.

Ilan Pappe offers the opinion that when compared to so many

other tragic situations in world history, the numbers involved in

the Nakba appear trivial (Pappe 2006: 8), especially when

23

compared to similar situations in a similar time frame such as

the expulsion, or as Pappe would phrase it, the ethnic cleansing,

of Germanic people from portions of Europe, up to 12.5 million

ethnic Germans, many whose families had lived those areas for

centuries, were forced in the dead of winter to march into

Germany. The estimated death toll from that episode of ethnic

cleansing is 2 million.

Finally, the study of genocide as a part of the historical

outcome of settler-colonialism, appears to be more political than

scholastic. After all, other than condemning every state on the

face of the Earth as being created through some form of genocide,

what is the point? It would seem that the study of violence

should have the goal of suppressing violence. But that does not

appear to be John Docker’s purpose for his research. As a

vociferous supporter of several groups and movements dedicated to

“erasing the Zionist regime from the pages of history,” it

appears that John Docker has utilized his scholastic training

toward the goal of providing significant propagandistic material

to those groups. Consider Docker’s conclusion in his 2008 book,

24

“The Origins of Violence”: “The most egregious example in the

twenty-first century of such supersessionist destruction can be

daily seen in the ongoing attempts by the Zionist government of

Israel to destroy the foundations of life of the Palestinians”

(Docker 2008: 218). Of course, this is merely a continuation of

his preface/introduction and his later claim that “they

(Zionists) have kept on working towards genocide of the

Palestinians, to subjugate, reduce, displace, expel and kill them

whenever and wherever within Palestine-Israel they can…” (Docker

2008: xiv-xv, 142).

The twenty-first century has witnessed far more egregious

examples of supersessionist destruction; Darfur and the genocide

there committed by the supersessionist Sudanese Arabs wherein

they have murdered (by UN accounting) over 200,000 Sudanese

Africans through 2006 and many more since (NBC 2008; Kristoff

2007). Iraq and Afghanistan; both have exclusionary ideologies

and their adherents have murdered thousands of those they believe

to be beneath them (Harff 2003: 71). Finally, there is Sri Lanka,

with estimates of 70,000 dead and 146,000 missing in the genocide

25

against the Tamils (DiManno 2013). Perhaps Docker is not

concerned because Israeli Jews are not involved in any of those

horrific examples of supersessionist destruction that have

occurred in the twenty-first century. Regardless, it is painfully

obvious that Docker is willing to support any ideology which will

increase the hatred of Zionism and Israel. That is not normally

considered a scholarly endeavor. Possibly, it is the same type of

pursuit that is the hallmark of the pseudo-scholars who haunt the

halls of the Institute for Historical Revision, the infamous

holocaust denial society. In this manner John Docker follows

Francis A. Boyle, and not the genocide scholar, Martin Shaw.

References

Akhavan, Payam (2012) Reducing Genocide to Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Bartrop, Paul R, Feinstein, S., Ungor, U., Winston, M., Smith, R.W., Zahar, A., and Huttenbach, H. (2004) ‘Book Reviews’, Journal of Genocide Research, 6(2): 269-304.

Bartrop Paul R. 2012 ‘Getting the Terminology Right’, in Chima J.Korieh (ed.), The Nigeria-Biafra War (Amhearst, NY: Cambria Press): 43-60.

Boyle, Francis A (2000) ‘Palestine: Sue Israel for Genocide before the International Court of Justice!’, Journal of Muslim MinorityAffairs, 20(1): 161-166.

26

—(2013a) ‘Francis A. Boyle’, Illinois.edu, at: http://www.law.illinois.edu/faculty/ profile/francisboyle (accessed 31 October 2013).

—(2013b) ‘The Palestinian Genocide by Israel’, Othersite.org, at: http://othersite.org/francis-a-boyle-the-palestinian-genocide-by-israel/ (accessed 7 September 2013).

CNS News (2011) ‘Symbolic 'War Crimes' Tribunal to try Bush, Blair’, CNSNews.com, at: http://cnsnews.com/symbolic-war-crimes-tribunal-try-bush-blair (accessed 31 October 2013).

DiManno, Rosie (2013) ‘How the United Nations failed Sri Lanka’, Thestar.com, at: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/11/04/how_the_united_nations_failed_sri_lanka_dimanno.html (accessed 6 November 2013).

Docker, John (2003) ‘New History and the New Catastrophe: Ilan Pappe, the New History and the Question of Israeli Genocide’, Arena Magazine, at: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ New+history+and+the+new+catastrophe%3A+Ilan+Pappe,+the+new+history+and...-a0107894268 (accessed 3 November 2013).

—(2004) ‘Raphael Lemkin’s History of Genocide and Colonialism’, USHMM.com, at: http://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20040316-docker-lemkin.pdf (accessed 19 October).

—(2008) The Origins of Violence (London: Pluto Press).

—(2004) ‘Instrumentalising the Holocaust: Israel, Settler-Colonialism, Genocide (Creating a Conversation between Raphaël Lemkin and Ilan Pappé)’, Holy Land Studies, 11(1): 1–32.

Dropkin, Greg (2002) ‘Ilan Pappe: Israeli Jewish Myths and the Prospect of American War’, TheFreeLibrary.com, at: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/New+history+and+the+new+

27

catastrophe%3A+Ilan+Pappe,+the+new+history+and...-a0107894268 (accessed 16 October 2013).

Falk, Richard (2010) ‘Slouching Toward a Palestinian Holocaust’, in William A. Cook, (ed.), Plight of the Palestinians (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

Hanafi, Sari (2013) ‘Explaining Spacio-cide in the Palestinian territory: Colonization, separation, and state of exception’, Current Sociology, 61(2): 190-205.

Hewitt, William L. (2004) Defining the Horrific (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson).

Kristoff, Nicholas D. (2007) ‘The Death Toll in Darfur’, NYTimes.com, at: http://kristof. blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/the-death-toll-in-darfur/?_r=0 (accessed 6 November 2013).

NBC (2008) ‘Death Toll of 200,000 Disputed’, NBCNews.com, at: http://www.nbcnews.com /id/23848444/#.UnrtPuK9Vi0 (accessed 6 November 2013).

Nelson, Lars-Erik (1990) ‘Revisionists Concoct a Myth That the Holocaust Didn't Happen’, Orlandosentinel.com, at: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-10-19/news/9010180646_1_jews-auschwitz-nazi-germany (accessed 6 November 2013).

Pappe, Ilan (2006) The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: One World Publications).

Petras, James (2010) ‘Palestine: The Final Solution and Jose Saramago’, in William A. Cook (ed.), The Plight of the Palestinians: A Long History of Destruction (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

Schabas, William A. (2009) Genocide in International Law, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

28

—(2011) ‘Palestine in an International Historical Perspective on Genocide’, Holy Land Studies, 9(1): 1-25.

Shaw, Martin (2013a) ‘Palestine and Genocide: An International Historical Perspective Revisited’, Holy Land Studies, 12(1): 1–7.

—(2013b) ‘Understanding Today’s Genocides – The Snare of Analogy’, at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_Cdd4GJuSeHMFeKjEwfdwLqg TdXFH0IhnxeQmb4mtaE/edit?pli=1 (accessed 30 August 2013).

Shaw, Martin and Omer Bartov (2010) ‘The Question of Genocide in Palestine, 1948: An Exchange between Martin Shaw and Omer Bartov’, Journal of Genocide Research, 12(3–4): 243–259.

Shimatsu, Yoichi (2013) ‘Genocide Tribunal Against Israel Fails Palestinian Victims’, GlobalResearch.ca, at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/genocide-tribunal-against-israel-fails-palestinian-victims/5346841 (accessed 31 October 2013).

Tutu, Desmond (2002) ‘Apartheid in the Holy Land’, TheGuardian.com, at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/29/comment (accessed 19October 2013).

Walker, Alice (2013) ‘Blessed Unhingedness and the Struggle to Free Palestine’, AliceWalkerGarden.com, at: http://alicewalkersgarden.com/2013/06/blessed-unhingedness-and-the-struggle-to-free-palestine/ (accessed 20 October 2013).

Zogby, James (2012) ‘Nadar is Right: Double Standard is Real’, HuffingtonPost.com, at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/nader-is-right-double-sta_b_1621129.html (accessed 19 October 2013).