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.
“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.
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
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.