Comment by pxc
2 years ago
This has been a fairly common rhetorical move for defenders of disproportionate Israeli violence, inflicted primarily upon civilians, in recent months. I've seen it done with the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the firebombing of Dresden.
On TV in English, which atrocity is used to justify the current and growing civilian death toll in Gaza seems to depend on who the audiences. US audiences are appealed to with comparison to Hiroshima and UK audiences, to Dresden.
It's easy to read it cynically when it's an Israeli official excusing one war crime with another on television. It's stranger and sadder to see it done by an ordinary stranger online.
You think it's cynical to change your argument to fit your audience? I don't understand this.
The basic argument is "If you think it was legitimate when X country did this, then what's different here?" I think it's very valid to find an X that the person you're speaking to will actually agree with.
I think politicians and government officials using an historic atrocity to justify an ongoing one is cynical.
The other details are mostly incidental.
I don't think it's using an historic atrocity, it's using an analogy. And btw, the analogy isn't to Dresden, because Israel is at the very least claiming it isn't targeting civilians in that manner. The comparison is to ISIS/Iraq/Afghanistan/etc.
You can legitimately think that those wars weren't justified, or that no war is ever justified. Some people think that way. I think most people don't think that way.
I certainly don't, and I think a war against Hamas is incredibly justified. That doesn't mean I automatically agree with everything Israel does btw, nor should it.
5 replies →