And I think restricting context and acting like anything started recently is an inaccurate way to frame what’s going on. This conflict has been going on far longer than a week. Wars don’t just pop up out of nowhere, they are based on context from before the war.
Because you’re lumping in the unavoidable disease transfer of first contact with intentional conquest and violence. Take away that, which was going to happen whenever any Afro-Eurasian community first interacted with people from the americas, and you get a very comparable situation to many things throughout history.
Cutting context does allow one to make easy value judgements and frame them to support their preexisting position, that’s true.
It’s a different level, yet part of the same story. And the only way this is actually a different level is by only looking at Israeli casualties (another way restricting context can twist one’s understanding). Palestinians have been killed by Israeli military at a much higher rate for decades.
18 Palestinian journalists have been killed since 2001, all wearing identifying press gear. Russia did this as well in Ukraine and got lambasted for it yet I rarely hear about how Israel killed journalists like Shireen Abu Akleh. Because people love to cut context like this out of their worldview.
They’ve been in the wrong for over 20 years. Celebrating getting back pats for stating the obvious isn’t that useful. Another area where context vastly improves the quality of a discussion.
Did disease not account for the vast majority of death? Even still, I never discounted the brutal conquest that was engaged in. My point is that Europeans aren’t special for brutal conquests. Imperial Japan is a prime example this.
You’re also treating a bunch of competing individuals as a hive mind with a coherent plan. I find that “grand scheming entity” kind of narrative to be just as naive as the people buying into racist narratives. It doesn’t make sense when it’s Jewish people and they’re a smaller demographic than “Western European”.
Interesting that you use the idea that English is a living language to push back against people using a term in a way you’ve decided is incorrect. Seems like you don’t think English is that alive after all if you refuse to incorporate all Semitic people into the concept of antisemitism.
You can’t cite descriptivist arguments to defend your prescriptivist attitude towards the term antisemitism. It betrays your own bias and deflates your argument.
Language evolves, just like you said. Which is why people are realizing the double speak nature of this idea that antisemitism is only when you’re prejudiced against a specific Semitic people group and the others don’t get a term to describe prejudice against them. Your position is an Orwellian attempt to deny a group of people the ability to specifically identify their oppression and it’s sad.