Letters to the editor
Readers respond
The meaning of ‘genocide’
There used to be a tapestry displayed outside my office at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Pittsburgh. It depicted Jews praying during Yom Kippur. The Jews were in uniform, with distinctive spiked Prussian helmets on their heads. The year was 1870. The soldiers were in a unit on the outskirts of Paris, participants in the Franco-Prussian War. They were fighting for their motherland. They were Jews, but also proud Prussians.
Several decades later Raphael Lemkin coined the term “genocide,” a word used to describe the Nazi plan to exterminate the descendants of these soldiers. The Jewish victims of the Nazis were loyal German citizens. Their families had lived in Germany for generations. They had no plan to drive out or kill non-Jewish German citizens.
On the other hand, Jews and Arabs living in Israel/Palestine have different national aspirations. The lack of accepting the aspiration of the other has led to over a century of bloodshed, culminating in the current horrible situation.
To me, using the term genocide to describe what Israel is doing in Gaza is repugnant. Yes, there are Palestinians and Israelis who would like to drive out or kill the other, but it is not genocide. It is due to a hatred built up after years of conflict.
The article “Amnesty International’s antisemitic agenda” (Dec. 13) reports that the organization accuses Israel of genocide. Many organizations and individuals have used that term since Oct. 7. You may call what Israel is doing in Gaza immoral, but don’t call it genocide. Calling it genocide cheapens the original meaning of the word.
Mitchell Nyer
Pittsburgh
comments