Searched it, and it looks like all usage of the term is from the Zionist lobby. Not surprising, because they use the holocaust as justification for occupation and genocide in Palestine.
They surely do abuse the term, but not always. Which don’t change the fact that banalisation of genocide, not necessary only holocaust, is a form of genocide denial - genocide here, genocide there, genocide for everyone, one more, one less, real or aspulled in Langley…
This here is clear example as the one guy above posted the table and got immediately destroyed in next comment - Ukrainian atrocities against Donbas definitely have most of the marks of genocide, and Ukraine definitely is trying to spin tale of “russian genocide” on Ukrainians partially to hide the fact they were shelling civilians for 8 years.
Analogy between Israel and Palestine is coming to mind very quickly, but the roles aren’t as libs imagine them to be. To get a full picture imagine a third country attacking Israel.
and the term “soft holocaust denial” is complete nonsense.
I think you need to learn where the origin of the word genocide comes from. The word was developed in direct response to the holocaust by Raphäel Lemkin in 1944. The word did not exist before then.
You can not disconnect the word genocide from its origin as a word that was specifically created to prevent people from being able to deny the holocaust, a huge amount of effort was put into making sure the holocaust would be extremely difficult to revise and/or forget by contorting it into something other than what it was.
When you misuse it, you are directly taking part in misusing an important word in describing and defending the holocaust, developed specifically for the purposes of preventing holocaust denial.
It is an action the helps holocaust deniers by changing the meaning of the word genocide. It is soft holocaust denial.
I dont care what you and your buddies have recognized, and the term “soft holocaust denial” is complete nonsense.
It’s a real term whether you think it’s nonsense or not
maybe on twitter…
Now I know you didn’t even Google it because no. You’re very wrong.
Searched it, and it looks like all usage of the term is from the Zionist lobby. Not surprising, because they use the holocaust as justification for occupation and genocide in Palestine.
They surely do abuse the term, but not always. Which don’t change the fact that banalisation of genocide, not necessary only holocaust, is a form of genocide denial - genocide here, genocide there, genocide for everyone, one more, one less, real or aspulled in Langley…
This here is clear example as the one guy above posted the table and got immediately destroyed in next comment - Ukrainian atrocities against Donbas definitely have most of the marks of genocide, and Ukraine definitely is trying to spin tale of “russian genocide” on Ukrainians partially to hide the fact they were shelling civilians for 8 years.
Analogy between Israel and Palestine is coming to mind very quickly, but the roles aren’t as libs imagine them to be. To get a full picture imagine a third country attacking Israel.
I think you need to learn where the origin of the word genocide comes from. The word was developed in direct response to the holocaust by Raphäel Lemkin in 1944. The word did not exist before then.
You can not disconnect the word genocide from its origin as a word that was specifically created to prevent people from being able to deny the holocaust, a huge amount of effort was put into making sure the holocaust would be extremely difficult to revise and/or forget by contorting it into something other than what it was.
When you misuse it, you are directly taking part in misusing an important word in describing and defending the holocaust, developed specifically for the purposes of preventing holocaust denial.
It is an action the helps holocaust deniers by changing the meaning of the word genocide. It is soft holocaust denial.