For the enlightenment of those inclined to consider defamation merely as bad words or temporal insults, we would advise, as an empirical matter, that defamatory words can be dynamically considered as more injurious than a knife wound. In most cases, the wound will heal; however, by contrast, the damage to one’s character and reputation may harmfully endure. By illustration, the venal charge of sexual immorality, however false and unjustified, may, nevertheless, affect a woman’s reputation, albeit her chaste behavior.
Perhaps the most reprehensible accusative noun in the course of human history is the charge of “Genocide.” The very zenith of depravity and evil communicated by that charge conveys the most reprehensible of human motivations and one which, like the above example of sexual impropriety, is enduringly devastating.
The accepted (and legal) meaning of the word “genocide” relates to acts committed to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnic, or religious group. Historical examples can be seen in the Tutsi-Hutu, Serbian-Croatian, and, inarguably, the most devastating and efficient illustration, consisting of the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were programmatically murdered, in Adolph Hitler’s genocide against Jews. Notably, it was the surviving remnants of such unprecedented genocidal victimization who were granted a safe homeland by the League of Nations in May 1948. Contextually, within a few days after such singular establishment of a needed Jewish homeland, Israel, it was attacked by surrounding Arab Nations to destroy it and genocidally eliminate its population. It is ironically tragic that that Nation, albeit imperfect, has itself recently been charged with that sordid and inhumane charge of “genocide.”
As a historic note, the Jewish people have eternally suffered from the virtually universal ‘threat of genocidal extinction since the 4th Century Holy Roman Empire of Constantine; the first Christians were Jews, and the venal prejudice had its advent (and endurance) based upon the refusal of the greater majority to convert to Christianity. (see: for example, “Constantine’s Sword,” by James Carroll.) The historic genocidal effort to eliminate Jews and Judaism has perniciously continued to the present.
It would be manifestly cruel and morally inappropriate to charge the State of Isreal, and by reductionist bias, “the Jews,” with the malignant and historically inhumane crime of “Genocide; ” we are unable to see an empirical basis for such defamatory designation; despite our adamant criticism of Isreal’s right-wing governmental policy of military overreaction to the babartic Hamas attack on October 7, 2023.
The nature and historical anti-Semitic basis for the charge of genocide can, by rational extension, be deduced from the biased and reductionist conflation of America’s Jews with the news-making Israeli population, thus providing, where relevantly applicable, additional fodder for the World’s systemic haters of Jews.
Hamas’s psychopathic tactic of conducting military operations from pre-planned tunnels beneath Gaza hospitals and using the innocent Palestinian population as “Human Shields” is pathological and inhumanely reprehensible; so, in our view, is the Netanyahu government’s military overreaction, causing untold death, deprivation, and misery to the innocent Palestinian population. We, as American Jewish citizens, find it greatly disturbing and adamantly condemn it; yet, contextually, the horrendous charge of “Genocide” is undeserved and definitionally inappropriate, albeit useful for the aberrant perpetuation of reductionist bigotry.
It is contextually relevant that the brutal evisceration of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the atomic bomb and the carpet bombing of Dresden, Germany (See Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut) during the Second World War, notably, were never attributed to “Genocide.”
- Title: Romeo and Juliet, by Wm. Shakespeare
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 