It’s always morally wrong to construct hierarchies of victimhood, and in this case it’s also factually wrong too, with it amounting to hate speech for former Israeli President Reuven Rivlin to deny the Nazis’ genocide of Poles during World War II and claim that they can’t consider themselves victims of that regime like Jews can.
I agree with Andrew's basic point rejecting the demonization of Poles re WW2.
While it is true that many Jews and Israelis weaponize the holocaust for political advantage, and it is also true that other groups suffered during WW2, we should be careful about using the word 'genocide' to describe such suffering. Even the German Hunger Plan to subdue Soviet civilians through starvation and the Muslim depredations against Armenians do not meet the correct definition.
The German plan for the Jews was genetic extinction. This is, or in my opinion, should be the correct definition of genocide: extermination of every member of an ethnic group.
Armenian babies were taken from their murdered parents to be raised as Turks, Polish babies likewise we not singled out for extermination by those German soldiers who ran amok in Poland. Germans always made certain that Jewish babies were never spared because the goal was genocide.
One idea that came out of Nuremberg in 1946 was the idea that genocide was a crime unlike any other in its moral monstrosity. I think that idea is false and is one reason for the victimhood competition that Andrew critiques. Hiroshima, Dresden, and Gaza are not examples of genocide, but mass state implemented killing does not need to be genocide in order for it to be wrong.
I guess that means if it's not Jews being wiped out, it's not a genocide, according to this Israeli ghoul.
At least it's consistent with the other nonsense they're spewing.
Perhaps someone should ask the Armenians what they think about this new definition of genocide.
I agree with Andrew's basic point rejecting the demonization of Poles re WW2.
While it is true that many Jews and Israelis weaponize the holocaust for political advantage, and it is also true that other groups suffered during WW2, we should be careful about using the word 'genocide' to describe such suffering. Even the German Hunger Plan to subdue Soviet civilians through starvation and the Muslim depredations against Armenians do not meet the correct definition.
The German plan for the Jews was genetic extinction. This is, or in my opinion, should be the correct definition of genocide: extermination of every member of an ethnic group.
Armenian babies were taken from their murdered parents to be raised as Turks, Polish babies likewise we not singled out for extermination by those German soldiers who ran amok in Poland. Germans always made certain that Jewish babies were never spared because the goal was genocide.
One idea that came out of Nuremberg in 1946 was the idea that genocide was a crime unlike any other in its moral monstrosity. I think that idea is false and is one reason for the victimhood competition that Andrew critiques. Hiroshima, Dresden, and Gaza are not examples of genocide, but mass state implemented killing does not need to be genocide in order for it to be wrong.