I really object to the misuse of the word "genocide" which trivializes the deliberate and systematic murder of millions of people. What it says to me is that the death/murder of 100000 Jews is equivalent to one Palestinian (or a ratio like that).
I am sorry, but this attitude to what qualifies as genocide is wrongheaded and bordering on genocide denial.
By your own logic, the Rwandan genocide should not be called a genocide, because it's death toll was also much smaller to the holocaust. Similarly, the Cambodian genocide. Or literally ALMOST ANY OTHER HISTORICALLY RECOGNISED GENOCIDE:
en.wikipedia.org
For reference, here is a list of
historically recognised genocides that have a death toll lower than the recent bombings of Gaza (much less the whole of the Palestine/Israel conflict):
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
By your reasoning, none of these could ever even remotely be considered "genocide" because their death tolls don't match the recent events in Gaza, let alone the holocaust.
Or, hell, why not instead set the standard for calling something "genocide" at the Belgian occupation of the Congo, which resulted in
potentially more deaths than the holocaust?
"I really object to the misuse of the word "genocide" which trivializes the deliberate and systemic murder of millions of people. What it says to me is that the death/murder of 2 Congolese people is equivalent to one Jew (or a ratio like that)."
Do you not understand how bad that logic is?
Whether or not something counts as genocide isn't as simple as
death toll, it's about the
intent and execution. To essentially argue to de-legitimise every genocide
other than the holocaust is no different, in my mind, to engaging in a form of historical revisionism tantamount to genocide denial. It is literally claiming that
every other genocide doesn't count, because this one specific genocide was an obviously very bad one. I don't accept this logic, and I find it explicitly dismissive to all other genocides throughout history.
What you have to do is demonstrate that the
intent and execution of these events is not to ethnically eradicate or displace a group of people. It's not enough to simply point at death tolls and say "See! This number doesn't even closely match THE HOLOCAUST, so we can't use that word to describe it!". That's just an evasion, because it isn't dealing with the INTENT AND EXECUTION that leads people to argue that it counts as genocide. It's just diversionary one-up-manship, and a blatant weaponizing of Jewish history to silence what may be legitimate criticisms of the Israeli state, and may also be an accurate accusation as to the consequences of their actions.
Try harder.
