Your ‘definition’ allows us to cavalierly accept all manner of brutal oppression and economic exploitation because it doesn’t meet a set of criteria you happen to feel comfortable with, and that leaves every crooked gangster businessman conveniently off the hook.

What an utterly absurd statement. Because ONE WORD doesn’t fit the definition of a certain type of abuse, then that abuse is just fine and dandy!? Dude, your arguments here are getting weaker every time.

The reason there is so much debate today on a precise definition for “genocide” is that the word has a specific legal meaning that can trigger specific litigation. Lawyers need to do that to legitimize their arguments, just as you are insisting on it to authenticate yours.

At one time, slavery was OK in the USA as long as it was inflicted on and limited to specific classes and races of people, you know, those subhuman unpeople from Africa. Even the Romans had more honesty than that. Their society was completely egalitarian, ANYONE could be a slave.

Your ‘definition’ allows us to cavalierly accept all manner of brutal oppression and economic exploitation because it doesn’t meet a set of criteria you happen to feel comfortable with, and that leaves every crooked gangster businessman conveniently off the hook.

And there is actually talk of a Marshall plan for Gaza once this is all over.