https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PMP2ckW6Fw

For Jones and many others, instead, the concept of genocide has de facto replaced the concept of crime against humanity. In his writings, Jones neither challenges nor diminishes the distinction between 'genocide' and 'crime against humanity'; however, he stretches the idea of genocide to the point that all cases of gross violations of human rights can be labelled as forms of genocide.

For Jones and the camp that he represents, people cannot be conceptualized as monads (i.e., isolated, solitary individuals); rather, they irremediably belong to either a social, cultural, political, biological, economical, or cultural group. As such, any attack on an individual is necessarily, voluntarily or involuntarily, an attack on the group to which he or she belongs. Therefore, any gross violation of human rights is necessarily genocidal.

Based on this video or Jones research, where do you stand on this issue? Do you think, like Schabas, that the term 'genocide' should be used to describe only extreme case of crimes against humanity

Or

as Jones' research suggests, 'genocide' is the crime that better describe today's gross violations of human rights?

What are the pros and cons of each position? Please identify examples to support your argument.