Your Hasbara is terrible. You're supposed to falsely conflate being anti-Israel and anti-Zionism with being antisemitic, not claim that people are "barely mask(ing) anti-Israel prejudice." Plenty of people are more than happy to openly and explicitly oppose Israel and Zionism, and rightly so -- without being anti-Jewish. You need to read Israel's talking points more closely next time.
And no, you don't get to redefine "genocide" to mean whatever you want it to mean. The group named after the man who originally coined the term calls Gaza a genocide, and I'm pretty sure their definition of the word is the right one.
Those aren't straw men, they're sarcasm. And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was literally questioning _your_ authority to redefine the word "genocide" to fit your argument. Now, I know that this is what Objectivists do -- tell other people what words "actually mean" -- because that's what Rand taught you to do. But that doesn't make yours the "true" definition. It's just common, run-of-the-mill equivocation.
As far as responding to the "substance" of your argument, frankly, there's not much substance there worth responding to. It's a pretty stock pro-Israel argument that distorts the full history of the region and ignores the facts of reality, all in an attempt to justify Israel's collective punishment that's intrinsic to why its actions in Gaza constitute a genocide. It's similar (if not identical) to Rand's defense of the genocide of indigenous people in the Americas.
That's already been answered in full, and I see no reason to repeat it here. And seriously, how much time do you think that's worth anyone taking?
1) First of all, where do you take me to be redefining the concept? I haven’t even provided a definition here, other than characterizing genocide as being motivated by prejudice. Do you disagree with that characterization? All the paradigmatic cases clearly fit that - Armenian genocide, Holocaust, Rwandan etc. International law defines genocide as « destroying in whole or in part a racial, ethnic , national, or religious group as such. » I don’t necessarily think that’s a great formulation (something I may write about later) but my argument doesn’t depend on rejecting this definition. Anyone claiming Israel is committing genocide has to show that Israel is trying to destroy a national or ethnic group as such (ie out of sheer prejudice) rather than in self defense. And no one has shown that.
2) what’s the « full history » of the region I’m ignoring here? I’m well aware of the history so I’m curious what you think is inaccurate — though my topic here isn’t the history of the conflict so I’m confused why you’re bringing that up.
3) I’m not defending or taking a stand one way or another on Rand’s claim about indigenous people so I don’t see why that’s relevant here.
Orwellian bizarro world in which day is night, up is down, right is wong, victim is aggressor.
Democrat/Progressive 101, and has been, imho, since at least the Soviet Revolution, if not the French.
Your Hasbara is terrible. You're supposed to falsely conflate being anti-Israel and anti-Zionism with being antisemitic, not claim that people are "barely mask(ing) anti-Israel prejudice." Plenty of people are more than happy to openly and explicitly oppose Israel and Zionism, and rightly so -- without being anti-Jewish. You need to read Israel's talking points more closely next time.
And no, you don't get to redefine "genocide" to mean whatever you want it to mean. The group named after the man who originally coined the term calls Gaza a genocide, and I'm pretty sure their definition of the word is the right one.
Strawman, another strawman, and appeal to authority.
Happy to engage with any critical responses to the substance of my actual arguments.
Those aren't straw men, they're sarcasm. And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was literally questioning _your_ authority to redefine the word "genocide" to fit your argument. Now, I know that this is what Objectivists do -- tell other people what words "actually mean" -- because that's what Rand taught you to do. But that doesn't make yours the "true" definition. It's just common, run-of-the-mill equivocation.
As far as responding to the "substance" of your argument, frankly, there's not much substance there worth responding to. It's a pretty stock pro-Israel argument that distorts the full history of the region and ignores the facts of reality, all in an attempt to justify Israel's collective punishment that's intrinsic to why its actions in Gaza constitute a genocide. It's similar (if not identical) to Rand's defense of the genocide of indigenous people in the Americas.
That's already been answered in full, and I see no reason to repeat it here. And seriously, how much time do you think that's worth anyone taking?
1) First of all, where do you take me to be redefining the concept? I haven’t even provided a definition here, other than characterizing genocide as being motivated by prejudice. Do you disagree with that characterization? All the paradigmatic cases clearly fit that - Armenian genocide, Holocaust, Rwandan etc. International law defines genocide as « destroying in whole or in part a racial, ethnic , national, or religious group as such. » I don’t necessarily think that’s a great formulation (something I may write about later) but my argument doesn’t depend on rejecting this definition. Anyone claiming Israel is committing genocide has to show that Israel is trying to destroy a national or ethnic group as such (ie out of sheer prejudice) rather than in self defense. And no one has shown that.
2) what’s the « full history » of the region I’m ignoring here? I’m well aware of the history so I’m curious what you think is inaccurate — though my topic here isn’t the history of the conflict so I’m confused why you’re bringing that up.
3) I’m not defending or taking a stand one way or another on Rand’s claim about indigenous people so I don’t see why that’s relevant here.