Example collocations logo

Genocide in sentence

441 examples of Genocide in a sentence

The pragmatic wisdom of early Zionism is easily explained: in contrast to the anti-Semitic cliché about “Jewish power,” Zionism was the national movement of a weak people, decimated by oppression and genocide – a people that might face annihilation if it made the wrong choice at a moment of decision.
With the threat that the US House of Representatives will approve a resolution that accuses Turks of genocide against ethic Armenians nine decades ago, this is a particularly inopportune moment for the two countries to be at odds over Iraq.
During the genocide in Rwanda, mass rape was the rule.
The Rwanda Tribunal was the first in history to describe rape as a possible act of genocide.
This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilizing refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.
The NATO intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide.
If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal, or occupation.
Why Acknowledge the Armenian Genocide?
NEW YORK – The centenary of the genocide carried out by the Ottoman government against its minority Armenian population in their historic homeland, which lies in present-day Turkey, will be observed on April 24.
Given this, one must ask: Is acknowledging the Armenian genocide in Turkey’s long-term interest?
First and foremost, they do not acknowledge that genocide took place.
Based on this new story, deniers then argue that the crime does not fit the legal definition of genocide in international conventions.
Other states are then pressured to accept the revised account and not to call the crime a genocide.
The apology would have to be straightforward and credible, unlike his recent statement, in which he effectively denied the genocide by referring vaguely to “the events of 1915” and trivialized the Armenians’ suffering by equating it with that of “every other citizen of the Ottoman Empire” at the time.
In a country where perpetrators of genocide have been placed in the pantheon of national heroes, all of this would not only help to alleviate Armenians’ frustration and grief; it would also send a message to Turkey’s citizens, especially its many minorities, that the state takes human rights and the rule of law seriously.
Turkey has an important role to play in its region and the world – one that is undermined by its continued denial of the Armenian genocide.
Its disingenuous approach to the genocide is inconsistent with its efforts to cultivate a reputation as an honest, reliable partner.
By acknowledging the Armenian genocide, Turkey would establish itself as a mature democracy and reinforce its standing as a legitimate regional power.
Clearly, the benefits of acknowledging the Armenian genocide are far-reaching.
As the psychologist Israel Charny has put it the denial of genocide enables “the emergence of new forms of genocidal violence to peoples in the future.”
Former President Bill Clinton has said that he regrets his failure to respond adequately to the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, although he was not alone.
America’s European settlers committed a two-century-long genocide against the native inhabitants, and established a slave economy so deeply entrenched that only a devastating civil war ended it.
Many will be similarly slow to accept that when it comes to the most conscience-shocking classes of violence – genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other mass atrocities – dramatic progress has been made recently.
And, of course, Germany engaged in genocide against the Jews and the Roma during World War II, as well as slaughtering many millions of ethnic Slavs.
Memorials to the genocide and other war crimes have been given prominent placement in Berlin, the country’s capital, ensuring that residents of the city and visitors alike are constantly reminded of the atrocities committed by the Nazis.
He was the first person I heard theorize on the sad imbecility of those who engage in competitive victimhood, those who insist that we have to choose our own dead – Jews or Khmer, the martyrs of this genocide or that.
The massacre of some 500,000 members or sympathizers of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) during 1965-1966 is the least talked-about genocide of the last century.
This year also marks the centenary of the Armenian genocide, about which successive Turkish governments have maintained an indefensible denial.
By contrast, the Indonesian genocide remains the only killing of this scale that has not been the subject of minute international attention.
The Indonesian genocide – and it deserves to be so described, even if its impulse was ideological rather than ethnic, religious, or national – is an alarming case study in the politics of mass murder.
BackNext