@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Yes, the second place to the Nazis. Even in South Africa, under apartheid, they did not kill the blacks like they did under Nazism or the Zionism of their own countrymen. It's not about the length of time. It's about genocide. You probably fail to understand the definition.
Thank you for the confirmation.
From a relative standpoint (which you introduced by your "ranking" of "The Zionists" on your Evil Scale) length of time is entirely relevant, and is the death tolls.
Your ranking of Israel is, on its face absurd, (although all too typical of the disproportionate accusations of its critics) and not worth another line in refuting.
I understand the meaning of genocide very well, but it seems you are having a lot of trouble with it, despite the fact that you toss it around so casually.
It means the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group.
It does not mean wishing those people will go away, it does not mean encouraging or coercing those people to go away, unless by "going away" the group is likely to or intended to be destroyed. (For instance, if Nazi Germany had been content with driving all Jews from Germany into the rest of Europe or to America, it would not have been guilty of genocide. But, as we all know, the Nazis weren't content with forcing Jews to live somewhere else)
It also does not mean persecuting a group of people unless the persecution is likely or intended to destroy the group. American Slave owners were guilty of numerous heinous crimes, but genocide was not among them.
The "legal" definition, pursuant to a UN convention is as follows, and opens the door for interpretation by people like you who like to use "genocide" in their accusations:
Quote:...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Whether the writer intended that anyone reading this would assume the word "significant" that is missing from the phrase "in whole or in (significant) part," I can't say, but to read it in any other way, simply because one can, is a perversion of the concept of genocide.
A "part" of the European Jewish population in the 1930's and 1940's might have been 10 or even 1,000 individuals. It might have been all males over the age of 75, or those with degrees in physics. Acts intended to destroy these groups would not have been "genocide," as there is no plausible scenario where destruction of these "parts" could destroy the whole group.
On the other hand acting with the intent to kill all Jewish women under the age of 75 would be since if it could be accomplished, the Jewish "Group" would eventually die out and cease to exist.
I am unaware of any historical example of successful genocide which is to say the complete destruction of a given group of people, but there are plenty of examples where the intent to wipe a group off the face of the earth was very evident and the efforts to do so went very far - these are examples of genocide. Obviously the Nazis were guilty of genocide, and clearly so too were the Rwandan Hutus, not very long ago. The Zulus under Shaka in the early 1800's were guilty of genocide, as were the Turks in the early 1900s as respects the Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks.
Although Leopold of Belgium had oceans of blood on his hands due to his nation's exploitation of its colony of the Congo, I would argue that the estimated 8 million Congolese who died as a result of this exploitation were not victims of genocide. It doesn't clean any African blood off Leopold's legacy or soul though.But neither he nor the people who he placed in charge of "managing" the colony intended to destroy the Congolese people.
On the other hand, China's systematic efforts to kill
significant numbers of Tibetans and to destroy the Tibetan religion/culture is certainly genocide.
What is clearly not genocide is the actions of Israel towards the Palestinians. First of all a
significant number of Palestinians have not been killed by Israel. The number of dead in no way imperils the continuance of the Palestinian people. Their birth rate is higher than that of Israeli which is why the Right of Return is so important to them, and any argument that Israel is trying to whittle them down to a size than can be assimilated is absurd. Israel is certainly capable of killing more than a hundred or so Palestinians a year with the occasional spike to a few thousand during times of armed conflict (like we've seen this year). One thing Israel's friends and foes will usually agree upon is that the Israelis are not incompetent.
There is also no evidence that there is a systematic effort to destroy the Palestinian culture (however that may be defined) or disperse them to the four winds to such an extent that they would no longer exist as a cohesive people.
The insistence on accusing Israel of genocide is a blatant effort by it's critics to not only cast them in the worst possible light, but to equate them with the Nazis who actually tried very hard to wipe them from the face of the earth. It is a despicable tactic, and generally reserved to anti-Semites whose hatred of Jews pulsates. You are such an anti-Semite.
It is also why you have latched on to the use of "The Zionists." In this way you seek to shield yourself from accusations of anti-Semitism and still express your loathing. Even if the exaggerated crimes of which you accuse Israel were true, and they were perpetrated by men and women who could be described as Zionists, in the true sense of the word, it would be absurdly bigoted to accuse
all Zionists of these crimes.
You attempt to take cover among those who strongly criticize Israel for reasons other than anti-Semitism, but your naked hatred is obvious and sickening.
