Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Inverting Genocide

The latest uproar about Jeremy Corbyn surrounds his description of "Zionists" as being not properly British. While the antisemitism is obvious, I still don't get why all the fuss is being made about such statements and not about the vastly worse things about Corbyn.

A few days ago, footage emerged of Corbyn speaking at a 2014 protest outside the Israel embassy in London. There's fuss being made about a Hamas flag being waved behind him. But what about his actual words?! He said that "This is an occupation, this is a genocidal attack on Palestinian people."

Corbyn accused Israel of committing genocide! This is an extremely grave accusation. It is also utterly false, if words are to have any real meanings. Genocide has a meaning; it refers to the destruction of a race or nation. The killing of hundreds, even thousands of people as part of a war (and especially a defensive war, aimed at stopping the firing of rockets into towns) is not genocide. Britain killed thousands of Germans in World War II; that was not genocide. The same is true for all the people that Britain killed in Afghanistan.

Israel has a very powerful army; the Palestinians do not. Yet since the creation of the State of Israel, and since 1967, the number of Palestinians living in areas under Israeli control has increased enormously. The average lifespan has also increased tremendously, as has the level of literacy. For Corbyn to accuse Israel of "genocide" is the most absurd slander.

But do you know who does desire to commit genocide? Well, first of all, there's Hamas, whose charter calls for the genocide of all the Jews in Israel. And if they had Israel's weaponry, you can be damn sure that they would try to achieve it. Then there's Iran, which has been working at the genocide of Sunni Arabs, and has openly declared its desire to wipe out Israel. Yet Corbyn never speaks out against Hamas or Iran; instead, while claiming to be "pursuing peace," he participates in their activities and lends support to them.

Forget about Corbyn being an antisemite, it's much less significant than the fact that he slanders Israel as a genocidal regime, while he supports those brutal regimes that are truly genocidal!

7 comments:

  1. Your repeated condemnations of this wretched, dangerous individual are appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  2. was sebrenica a genocide ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre

    The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide[7] (Bosnian: Masakr u Srebrenici; Genocid u Srebrenici), was the July 1995 genocide[8] of more than 8,000[1][9] Bosniaks, mainly men and boys, in and around the town of Srebrenica during the Bosnian War.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, because committed the mass murder of a set of non-combatants because they were Bosniak. I'm not sure that genocide is worse than other mass murder (e.g. the non-genocidal mass murders under communism) but this one seems to qualify. If it doesn't for some reason, then it is just mass murder.

      Delete
    2. So Rabbi slifkin's error was to think to qualify as genocide, you need 10s if not hundreds of thousands. ? Not so.
      Which leaves the corbyn's of this world to come come up with their distortions.

      Delete
  3. First of all, the word "genocide" has been tossed around so many times that it's lost all meaning. And the Arabs, especially, have been screaming the word about us for decades now. It's like the propensity to compare Trump with Hitler, y"sh. It's simply lost all meaning.
    I have an acquaintance in the UK and asked him about Corbyn. Specially, why does he remain so popular despite his odious Jew hatred? His answer was informing. Theresa May is a lousy prime minister who supports an increasingly unpopular Brexit. Corbyn is the alternative and frankly, no one takes his Jew hatred seriously or thinks it'll affect how he runs the country. No really, that was his view.
    To rehash an overused trope, everyone knew what a rabid Jew hater Hitler, y"sh, was. Yet at the time excuses came out. He would restore the German economy and put food on people's tables. He would restore Germany's pride and make it a world power again. Power would temper him; he'd never really go after the Jews. And so on. And so on. Sounds familiar, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The definition of genocide is even more nuanced that what you write. There must exist the intent to destroy that nation/ethnic group.
    Shannon

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's just the same ol' blood libel.

    ReplyDelete

Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.

A Role Model for Charities

The other day, I was caught in an ethical dilemma. Someone was asking online if anyone knew of an English translation of Perek Shirah, becau...