Why is Being Against Genocide So Controversial?
Submitted by Francis Day
Georgia, USA
In order to understand why genocide is so controversial, we need to understand what a genocide is. The commonly accepted meaning of it is the systemic destruction of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group through mass killings, forced displacement, or cultural erasure. When looking at genocides in recent history, such as the Holocaust, the Cultural Revolution, or Rwanda, it seems irrefutable that the horrors endured align with the definition of genocide. However, many people choose to cherry-pick facts or subscribe to fabricated evidence, leading to the denial of genocide taking place. This is a pattern in which history repeats itself – and one we are experiencing today.
As of today, the death toll in Gaza is over 11,000, and over 25,000 wounded. Since October, Israel has enforced a total blockade of basic necessities, such as water, food, fuel, and medical supplies, in hopes that deprivation and destruction will force surrender. Hospitals in northern Gaza are completely out of service, 45 percent of all housing units have been destroyed, and over 1.5 million have been displaced. These actions extend beyond physical violence; it encompasses strategies designed to erase Palestinian identity and heritage, unequivocally signifying a genocide.
However, for some reason, showing support for Palestine comes with the risk of being perceived as anti-semitic, but speaking up against violence and oppression is not an indictment of all Israelies. It must be acknowledged that both sides have caused irreparable harm over the course of their complex and contentious history, but personal beliefs should never serve as justification for committing genocide. Netanyahu is not the first world leader to exploit past grievances to fuel hatred and justify atrocities. We must hold our leaders accountable without killing innocent civilians. This understanding is foundational in fostering productive dialogue.
Finally, the indifference and complacency of those not directly affected is a dangerous precedent. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” a timeless reminder of humanity’s fate. Acknowledging and condemning genocide is an ethical commitment to our collective responsibility to safeguard our communities and future generations.
Submit your 350-word opinion to our new Letters to the Editor section
