Quote:
Originally Posted by Beninho
I was referring to Segal and Finkelstein. Waxman does not believe a genocide is taking place.
See here.
https://jewishcurrents.org/letters/o...se-of-genocide
My issue is with the usage of the word genocide. As Waxman says
“However, to claim that genocide is already occurring requires stretching the concept too far, emptying it of any meaning.”
Thanks for proving my point. Peace |
Only one of us is struggling with differing points of view on these subjects, so I’m happy to share the thoughts of academics that disagree with others and my own feelings on the subject. It’s the same reason I took zero issue and didn’t try to mock or dismiss you when presented Pensky’s thoughts. He’s worthy of respect and consideration. You should try giving the same to Bartov and try actually reading that article.
That said, if you respect Waxman and the university he works out of, and you trust him enough to prove “your point” for you, is it safe to assume that you’d like to walk back your comment about “from river to sea”? Because Waxman disagrees with you. And you’ve already mocked him for disagreeing with you, so which is it? Is he reputable enough that you’re willing to leave your point in his hands alone? Or are you going to go back to mocking him when he says something you disagree with?