The term itself comes out of the Greek language, around 400 BC. It does not mean mass slaughter or genocide, it means the burning of animals.
In no terms it means anything near mass slaughter. The term though got a different meaning after the second world war, since we called the events holocaust. So, “” akschually"" referring to what happens in Palestine as a holocaust is factually wrong, since the de facto meaning of the word is a religious sacrifice of animals. In modern times the word is only used to refer to the german actions against Jewish people from 1936 to 1945.
Indicating what happens in Palestine is a holocaust is therefore only a comparison between germany 1936 and 1945 to Palestine.
Yes, it may be a genocide, it may be a mass murder/slaughter, BUT it does not even come close to what happened in germany. Therefore it downplays of the events in germany, which is not a good thing.
So, if you want a post it note
A Holocaust is a mass slaughter/genocide
But a mass slaughter/genocide is not a Holocaust.
By the way, my grandparents are still alive and first hand witnesses to what happened here, when the war ended they were 14 and 16 years old. And I have not heard them referring to what happens in Palestine as a Holocaust, neither do I expect them reacting nicely when someone would.
Holocaust has been used and was understood at least since 1189 to describe the burning of Jews. See my comment
Edit: this is btw. not to detract from your point. The word holocaust as the deliberate burning of people was mostly used for burning jews, but also witch-burnings and similar events. Even the great fire of London was called a holocaust.
In pre-WWII parlance, calling what happens in Gaza a holocaust would absolutely be appropriate. Post WWII its usage is just… not helpful and has bad connotations that detract from what is important in the discussion.
The term itself comes out of the Greek language, around 400 BC. It does not mean mass slaughter or genocide, it means the burning of animals.
In no terms it means anything near mass slaughter. The term though got a different meaning after the second world war, since we called the events holocaust. So, “” akschually"" referring to what happens in Palestine as a holocaust is factually wrong, since the de facto meaning of the word is a religious sacrifice of animals. In modern times the word is only used to refer to the german actions against Jewish people from 1936 to 1945.
Indicating what happens in Palestine is a holocaust is therefore only a comparison between germany 1936 and 1945 to Palestine.
Yes, it may be a genocide, it may be a mass murder/slaughter, BUT it does not even come close to what happened in germany. Therefore it downplays of the events in germany, which is not a good thing.
So, if you want a post it note
A Holocaust is a mass slaughter/genocide
But a mass slaughter/genocide is not a Holocaust.
By the way, my grandparents are still alive and first hand witnesses to what happened here, when the war ended they were 14 and 16 years old. And I have not heard them referring to what happens in Palestine as a Holocaust, neither do I expect them reacting nicely when someone would.
And tbh, wtf are we even fighting about.
Holocaust has been used and was understood at least since 1189 to describe the burning of Jews. See my comment
Edit: this is btw. not to detract from your point. The word holocaust as the deliberate burning of people was mostly used for burning jews, but also witch-burnings and similar events. Even the great fire of London was called a holocaust.
In pre-WWII parlance, calling what happens in Gaza a holocaust would absolutely be appropriate. Post WWII its usage is just… not helpful and has bad connotations that detract from what is important in the discussion.