Michael Ejercito
2024-08-21 14:39:47 UTC
https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/08/21/brilliant-what-israel-is-trying-to-do-is-self-preservation-not-genocide-so-genocide-has-to-be-redefined-so-israel-can-be-accused-of-doing-it/
Brilliant: What Israel Is Trying To Do Is Self-Preservation, Not
Genocide. So “Genocide” Has To Be Redefined So Israel Can Be Accused Of
Doing It…
August 21, 2024 / Jack Marshall
The case of “genocide” is a classic in the annals of deliberate
linguistic manipulation for unethical goals.
A detailed essay in the New York Times explains the machinations around
the word, which is similar to what we have seen recently in other cases,
like that of “women,” “racism,” “lying,” “ad hominem” (in a debate here
on Ethics Alarms), “fascism,”and “insurrection,” to name just a few of
many. The proliferation of this Orwellian process should set off not
just ethics alarms but evil alarms.
As the article correctly explains, international law addressing genocide
was aimed at extreme and unequivocal examples where a nation sets out to
exterminate an entire race or ethnic group for no other reason than that
group’s existence. It is the ultimate hate crime, and thus was labeled a
“crime against humanity.” The Holocaust was the prime example: nothing
describes genocide more indisputably than a group of experts, military
officials and government leaders sitting around a table and deciding on
a “Final Solution.”
But as the article relates, mission creep has invaded the anti-genocide
brigade, for example with the United States being accused of genocide in
its treatment of Native American and because of the actions of the KKK
and others during the Jim Crow era, and now, with Israel being vilified
by the genocide label for being determined to eliminate a terrorist
organization pledged to commit genocide against Israelis.
Naturally, the United Nations is complicit in this process, and,
naturally, so is the I.C.J., the U.N.’s top court. The U.S., among other
nations, supports the Geneva Convention but doesn’t accept the authority
of the I.C.J. The article doesn’t explicitly explain why, but the reason
is obvious: the court is subject to political motives and bias. It can’t
be trusted.
“Genocide” has been slowly made a synonym for “human rights violations,”
and wars are by definition human rights violations. Thus the U.N. can
always use a politicized definition of “genocide” to declare any war,
even one triggered by a nation’s right and obligation to defend itself
and its citizens, as “genocide”—particularly if the nation waging the
war is Israel.
By the standards being weaponized by the protesters at the Democratic
National Convention, the U.S. ending World War II with two atom bombs
would qualify as genocide.
This is the unethical—but effective—process:
1. Identify a nation, group, individual, or leader that you want to
demonize.
2. Find a word universally regarded as describing conduct that is
heinous and unforgivable.
3. Redefine that word so that the policies, conduct or stated position
of that nation, group, individual, or leader can be described by it.
4. Repeat that word in association with the nation, group, individual,
or leader’s policies, conduct or stated positions so that the word
itself is defined by those policies, conduct or stated positions, rather
than the other way around.
The average member of the public—you know, morons—won’t know the difference.
What makes this tactic so effective, diabolical, and impossible to stop
is that there are many examples of pejorative words that should be used
and understood to apply beyond their most narrow definitions. Child
abuse. Indoctrination. Propaganda. Totalitarianism. Conflicts of
interest. The distinction, perhaps, is whether the expanded definition
is made in good faith, or it it is only aimed at a particular adversary
to achieve strategic political gains.
The article, “The Bitter Fight Over the Meaning of ‘Genocide’” is here
for you to read, freed from the paywall.
Brilliant: What Israel Is Trying To Do Is Self-Preservation, Not
Genocide. So “Genocide” Has To Be Redefined So Israel Can Be Accused Of
Doing It…
August 21, 2024 / Jack Marshall
The case of “genocide” is a classic in the annals of deliberate
linguistic manipulation for unethical goals.
A detailed essay in the New York Times explains the machinations around
the word, which is similar to what we have seen recently in other cases,
like that of “women,” “racism,” “lying,” “ad hominem” (in a debate here
on Ethics Alarms), “fascism,”and “insurrection,” to name just a few of
many. The proliferation of this Orwellian process should set off not
just ethics alarms but evil alarms.
As the article correctly explains, international law addressing genocide
was aimed at extreme and unequivocal examples where a nation sets out to
exterminate an entire race or ethnic group for no other reason than that
group’s existence. It is the ultimate hate crime, and thus was labeled a
“crime against humanity.” The Holocaust was the prime example: nothing
describes genocide more indisputably than a group of experts, military
officials and government leaders sitting around a table and deciding on
a “Final Solution.”
But as the article relates, mission creep has invaded the anti-genocide
brigade, for example with the United States being accused of genocide in
its treatment of Native American and because of the actions of the KKK
and others during the Jim Crow era, and now, with Israel being vilified
by the genocide label for being determined to eliminate a terrorist
organization pledged to commit genocide against Israelis.
Naturally, the United Nations is complicit in this process, and,
naturally, so is the I.C.J., the U.N.’s top court. The U.S., among other
nations, supports the Geneva Convention but doesn’t accept the authority
of the I.C.J. The article doesn’t explicitly explain why, but the reason
is obvious: the court is subject to political motives and bias. It can’t
be trusted.
“Genocide” has been slowly made a synonym for “human rights violations,”
and wars are by definition human rights violations. Thus the U.N. can
always use a politicized definition of “genocide” to declare any war,
even one triggered by a nation’s right and obligation to defend itself
and its citizens, as “genocide”—particularly if the nation waging the
war is Israel.
By the standards being weaponized by the protesters at the Democratic
National Convention, the U.S. ending World War II with two atom bombs
would qualify as genocide.
This is the unethical—but effective—process:
1. Identify a nation, group, individual, or leader that you want to
demonize.
2. Find a word universally regarded as describing conduct that is
heinous and unforgivable.
3. Redefine that word so that the policies, conduct or stated position
of that nation, group, individual, or leader can be described by it.
4. Repeat that word in association with the nation, group, individual,
or leader’s policies, conduct or stated positions so that the word
itself is defined by those policies, conduct or stated positions, rather
than the other way around.
The average member of the public—you know, morons—won’t know the difference.
What makes this tactic so effective, diabolical, and impossible to stop
is that there are many examples of pejorative words that should be used
and understood to apply beyond their most narrow definitions. Child
abuse. Indoctrination. Propaganda. Totalitarianism. Conflicts of
interest. The distinction, perhaps, is whether the expanded definition
is made in good faith, or it it is only aimed at a particular adversary
to achieve strategic political gains.
The article, “The Bitter Fight Over the Meaning of ‘Genocide’” is here
for you to read, freed from the paywall.