top of page
Search
Writer's pictureHowie Klein

Genocide Is Always Indefensible… And So Is Enabling It With Complacency

AIPAC Is Lobbying For Genocide




I’m from New York but I moved to California in the 1970s. I get the impression that most Californians oppose the genocide and ethnic cleansing going on in Gaza now. And we’ll come back to that in a moment. But did you know that California perpetrated its own genocide for almost 3 decades starting in 1846 against the indigenous people here? As many as 120,000 people were systematically killed or enslaved once the U.S. captured the state from Mexico, acts that were encouraged, tolerated, and carried out by state authorities and militias, as well as by… just folks. In 1848 the indigenous population of California was between 150,000 and 300,000. By 1900 it was 16,000, with whole tribes wiped out entirely.


Ayúdenos a evitar que AIPAC derrote a los progresistas en el Congreso que se oponen al genocidio.


When we think of genocide— if we do at all— we think of the Nazi atrocities against the Jews (and Romani and Poles and other groups) in the 1940s, the destruction of the Native American inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere starting in 1492 and the Ottoman atrocities against Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Albanians and other groups in their empire between 1894 and 1917. Today we’re watching Israel commit genocide against the Palestinian people.


The other day I asked a so-called “progressive” Democratic candidate for Congress a question, in the context of tax policy, about joining the New Dems. He immediately lashed out at me for supporting… a ceasefire. I’ve supported him for years and was astounded. I was even more astounded and saddened when someone else on the call, who I’ve known for decades, congratulated him on his response. 



The way I see it, the failure to intervene or even just speak out against genocide and ethnic cleansing— as witnessed during the Holocaust— represents a moral failure of unspeakable and monumental proportions. Many individuals and nations, including our own, chose to remain silent or turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the Nazis and their allies against Jews, Poles, Romani, and other targeted groups during World War II. This silence allowed and encouraged the genocide to continue unabated, resulting in the deaths of millions of innocent people. Millions— men, women and children. A few years ago, before Elon Musk turned Twitter into a pro-fascist hellhole, Dan Rather warned his followers that “News anchors looking into camera and reading a script handed down by a corporate overlord, words meant to obscure the truth not elucidate it, isn't journalism. It's propaganda. It's Orwellian. A slippery slope to how despots wrest power, silence dissent, and oppress the masses.”


And the reasons for this complicity, indifference and moral cowardice… motivation included fear, self-interest, even ideological sympathies with the perpetrators. Others were influenced by disbelief, denial, or the belief that the atrocities were exaggerated or fabricated. Additionally, geopolitical considerations, such as concerns about provoking conflict or jeopardizing diplomatic relations, played a role in shaping the responses of nations and individuals.


You may think it’s easy for me to say in retrospect but, regardless of the motivations, the failure to oppose genocide represents a profound and abiding moral failing. It highlights the dangers of apathy, indifference, and the normalization of violence, racism and discrimination. It also underscores the importance of moral courage, empathy, and solidarity in confronting injustice and standing up for the rights and dignity of all people.


Reflecting on the past failures to prevent genocide serves as a reminder of the importance of vigilance, accountability, and collective action in confronting hatred, bigotry, and dehumanization. It underscores the moral imperative to speak out against injustice, protect vulnerable populations, and work towards a world where genocide and mass atrocities are never tolerated or ignored. People from groups who have been targeted and have suffered from genocide— like Jews and Armenians for example— should be the first and the most vociferous to oppose it. 


Խնդրում եմ, օգնեք մեզ կանխել AIPAC-ը Կոնգրեսի առաջադեմներին, ովքեր դեմ են ցեղասպանությանը


You want to know if genocide is worse than ethnic cleansing? Genocide with the premeditated intent to destroy a particular group based on its ethnicity, nationality, religion, or other defining characteristics, has as an ultimate goal the eradication of the targeted group. In contrast, ethnic cleansing aims to forcibly remove or expel a particular group from a given territory to achieve political objectives, such as establishing homogeneity or asserting control over land. Ethnic cleansing involves a range of tactics— forced displacement, deportation, expulsion… and it may not always result in mass killings or complete eradication. Sound familiar? Members of the Knesset are debating which is preferable, some quietly, others, like Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir and Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich… less so.




אנא עזרו לנו למנוע מ-AIPAC להביס את הפרוגרסיביים

בקונגרס שמתנגדים לרצח עם


It’s hard to imagine supporting candidates who aren’t strongly speaking out against the genocide and ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinian people. Virtually no Republicans are against it and most are encouraging it. Democrats are at least split, some in the same camp as the Republicans, others fearful to speak out because of the perceived political clout of pro-genocide lobbyists AIPAC and DMFI and a growing number doing the right thing and speaking out with increasing urgency. In my own district in L.A., there is an open House seat with a crowded, competitive contest. One major candidate is clearly and unabashedly taking a stand against genocide, Maebe A. Girl. The others are, literally, backing-- with their indifference and by consistently deflecting-- apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide-- including phony progressives like Laura Friedman, who many misguided voters are supporting, thanks to an endorsement by the L.A. Times. One of my neighbors is absolutely opposed to the genocide in Gaza-- but has a Vote Laura Friedman lawn sign, completely unaware that the former mayor of Glendale (the center of the Armenian diaspora in California) believes Israel should have a virtual blank check in Gaza. One of the minor candidates, Jirair Ratevosian, agrees with Maebe and has called for a ceasefire: “Just like the ethnic cleansing that took place this past September in my homeland, Nagorno Karabakh (Artsakh), the international community should never stand for the killing of innocent people— just because of who they are— or just because they happen to be in the line of fire… I call on the Biden Administration to stop supporting an indiscriminate military campaign and seriously consider putting conditions on any future military aid related to this war.”


Click on Bernie and hear what he has to say


167 views

9 Comments


Guest
Feb 12

hater, doubtful that's it. but if anyone would know, it's you. Assholes don't disagree with ideas so much as disparage who has the idea. One of trump's favorite mechanisms.

Your fawning over other authors here makes you their friend. But it doesn't offer anything to advance the shithole. I'm at least showing the fallacy of the status quo.

Like

hiwatt11
Feb 12

crapper, maybe your problem is that you can't even say something that's right without being an asshole about it.

Like

Guest
Feb 12

YOU wrote that it's indefensible. YOU wrote that so is enabling it with complacency.

YOUR party does a lot more than enable it with complacency, thus, is indefensible.


ergo... your continued obeisance to your party is indefensible.


YOUR words. Own them

Like

Guest
Feb 11

hey, you can't even handle it when I AGREE with you? Your censorship is smelling like nothing more than a hissy fit.

Like

ptoomey
Feb 11

Whether one calls it genocide or merely Malthusianism in Action, Queen Victoria's goverment (which directly ruled Ireland then) consciously thinned surplus Irish population by roughly 1 million people in the late 1840's:


https://www.ighm.org/learn.html


Within Ireland itself there were substantial resources of food that, had the political will existed, could have been diverted, even as a short-term measure, to feed the starving people. The policy of closing ports during periods of shortages in order to keep home-grown food for domestic consumption had on earlier occasions proved to be effective in staving off famine within Ireland. During the subsistence crisis of 1782–84, an embargo was placed on the export of foodstuffs from the country. The outcome of this humanitarian and imaginative policy…


Like
Guest
Feb 11
Replying to

Human history is lousy with leaders implementing policies, either on purpose or by sheer stupidity, that caused many famines and killed many 10s of millions.

A Mao dictat to kill sparrows because that fucking moron thought they ate crops led to mushrooming populations of bugs that DID eat crops and led to a long-term famine.

Stalin's farming strategery directly after WWII led to starvation deaths of as many as 40 million. Though many attribute this to an intentional purge, it was likely due to Stalin naming a fucking moron as his ag minister.

etc. etc.

Like
bottom of page