World News

22058 readers

3 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

For US News, see the US News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

How the term “genocide” is misused in the Israel-Hamas war (www.economist.com)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by bedrooms@kbin.social to c/news

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I used to like The Economist, but this is Nazis propaganda right on their page.

Israel, by contrast, does not meet the test of genocide. There is little evidence that Israel, like Hamas, “intends” to destroy an ethnic group—the Palestinians. Israel does want to destroy Hamas, a militant group, and is prepared to kill many civilians in doing so. While some Israeli extremists might want to eradicate the Palestinians, that is not a government policy.

This is not okay. This is Nazi logic. Nazi, fascist logic, from The Economist.

Even Nazi Germany did not make killing the official "intention" or government policy in my understanding. At least not always. It was announced as a safety guarantee, for example.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] itmightbethew 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

"um, akshully, it's not genocide, but it might still be bad or whatever." Ridiculous

Setting aside whether Israel's attacks, killings, civilian casualties and mass displacement meet a particular definition of genocide, what possible reason does the author have to quibble on this?

Either they're merely being pedantic (which I find hard to believe) or they're trying to blunt outrage over what I think any reasonable person would call a genocide. They're reaching for any means possible to make these crimes seem less heinous. Seems like a move of desperation to me.

[–] salarua@sopuli.xyz 10 points 10 months ago

genocide and ethnic cleansing were inevitable from the moment Israel was formed. ethnic cleansing is the inevitable result of an ethnostate, and Israel was formed to be a Jewish ethnostate. an ethnostate is an ethnostate, regardless of which ethnicity it's for

[–] chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

This is kind of The Economist's MO. Their readership is very policy oriented (i.e.: "wonks") so their editorials prioritize first and foremost how world events impact policy and trade. If you think I'm reaching here, then take a gander at their reader response column and have yourself a good laugh sometime.

With that being said, I really do think that they're just that pedantic. Labels are important to them, but not for the reasons that they're important to us (nor the average Palestinian, I think it goes without saying). The fact that taking umbridge here just so happens to reinforce safe and happy notions held by their editorial staff & their readership is without any doubt a contributing factor... but it's probably something that was left mutually understood and otherwise unsaid within the walls of the writer's room.