The Genocide Dodge
A claim that is out there: Biden’s support for the Israeli blitzkrieg upon Gaza means rejecting him at the polls in November is an ethical slam dunk. It is not.
Nobody can be condemned for deciding that the term genocide makes a vote for Biden unconscionable, especially those with family connections to Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, or Israel itself. The problem is that this view is illogical.
I have no quibble with the term genocide itself, as a description of Israel’s policy. You can call it ethnic cleansing if you like too. What is incontrovertible is that thousands of innocent people have been killed for no good reason, except perverse internal Israeli politics. Hamas will not be eliminated, and Israel’s international reputation, not to mention Judaism writ large, is in tatters. The only impact is that Bibi Netanyahu stays ahead of his personal legal problems a bit longer.
Meanwhile, the Gaza operation is cover for intensified Israeli attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank, not to mention all non-Jewish citizens inside Israel. This is a massive move to rid the entirety of Israel and the territories of Arabs, a long-standing aspiration of the Zionist ultra-right, that is essentially in power now in Israel.
So genocide, mass carnage, or other words banned by the New York Times is certainly transpiring, and the Democratic Party is complicit. The illogic of a conclusion that a vote for Democrats cannot be supported lies in the likely impact: the election of Trump.
Genocide with a higher likelihood and wider scope is in prospect under a Trump presidency. He has made clear his intention to support Israel’s current war on its Palestinian neighbors and constituents. That means the West Bank, not just Gaza. Moreover, the threat to millions more people in Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen should be realized. Trump would like nothing better than to stage his own shock and awe. Iran is a powerful country. An attack by Israel and the U.S. will not go unanswered. Then we have 9-11 redux and we’re off to the races.
The choices in November are terrible, but that doesn’t make them disappear. Rejecting one renders the other more likely. A moral stand in favor of one — withholding a vote from Biden, is not supportable as an ethical matter, but only as a cry of pain. Everybody has a right to pain, and telling them it is illogical will have little impact, but it is still illogical.
Choices may be bad, but we still have to make them. They may be bad indefinitely, but comparing one to the other remains obligatory.
That’s life.
Conservatives prefer punishment to any other means of social engineering. As a consequence, many conservative (and other) noses are cut to spite conservative faces. But the punishment advocates don't think consequentially. The leftoid "vote against Biden" crowd is similar. Again, the horseshoe theory rears its ugly head.
Slightly OT, but I don't like the word "genocide" because it reminds me of screechy prosecutors, for whom every crime is the worstestest they have seen in their long career. I suppose they're afraid that if they say the crime is only very bad, the jury won't be in a hanging mood.
That's why I prefer the technical definition of the term, which hinges heavily on intent. But even technically, Israel is almost certainly committing genocide on the West Bank through its concerted and deliberate program of land theft. Gaza just looks like ordinary war crimes to me: complete indifference to civilian casualties. And that's still very, very bad.