Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubble_Balls
Right, because that’s not defensible and people are more deceptive in their arguments. Instead, they’ll argue something doesn’t meet a definition, dwell exclusively on that, and then simply never address whether the state of things is otherwise acceptable, because they’re not interested in a fair assessment of things They’re interested in defending their side and making up the rules arbitrarily to do that.
They might also say any response to X event or condition is morally justifiable because of how terrible X was or how evil the perpetrators are. They might also not question whether there could have been reasonable alternative responses to X. Instead, saying something akin to, if you didn't want Y to happen, you shouldn’t have done X, completely ignoring whether Y is a reasonable response. They might also argue that all deaths are the fault of the other side because they started the hostilities. They might also just say, “it’s war”. There are more examples I could give but I’ll stop.
None of those things is explicitly saying an action is ok as long as it’s not genocide but it is a pattern of reasoning that gives cover to or refuses to address anything that doesn’t meet the absolute highest standards of atrocity, because it weakens the moral authority of your side. I don’t think this is exclusive to one side or the other btw.
for words like genocide and human right (and some others) precise definitions matter because they trigger actual significant legal consequences.
so if you argue event x is a genocide , it's not only a moral assessment, it's also a call for legal (and so violent, but justified) action to prevent it.
it's not only about fairly assessing, it's about which reactions are possible within the rule of law to the situation you are discussing.
if people claim X is a human right, and X isn't achieved in a country, they are transparently implying it would be legal (and compelling) to mandate any action to achieve X.
and they are saying people who disagree have illicit political preferences, not only different political preferences.
that's very very very different from claiming "I would like x in my country" and accepting as a democratic outcome x won't come because elected representatives decided otherwise.
if what Israel is doing was actual genocide, it would be illegal (as in criminal, as in subject to prosecutions) to help Israel in any way.
So proponents of that thesis aren't just saying "I dislike what Israel is doing, I would want my country to be out of it, and I'll vote for that outcome". they are saying "all domestic residents who want to help Israel are actual criminals who belong to jail".
and the other side believes that for people who in any way, direct or indirect, help Hamas achieve it's goals.
it's not just about moral authority nor it is mainly about it. it's about whether it's actually legal, acceptable, tolerable, to have that preference in a western country.