UKC

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gaza-crisis-israeli-military-fire-warning-shots-in...

I find this troubling.

The killing is too of course.

In reply to Timmd:

Yes, I can see they wouldn't like any information about the massacre coming out

In reply to Timmd:

More troubling than them firing tank shells at hospitals and killing bed-ridden patients ?

In reply to lummox:

Or more troubling than shelling four children playing football on a big, wide, open beach in daylight with excellent visibillity, from a warship bristling with state-of-the-art reconnaissance technology and crewed by experienced military personnel?

In reply to Shani:

Or the guided missile the week before that hit a cafe full of people watching the world cup.

In reply to Removed User:

It's almost as if the IDF are visiting a Holocaust on the people of Gaza...imagine such a thing!

In reply to Shani:

It has more similarities to the Warsaw Ghetto. You really need to see this
Dr Norman G. Finkelstein Reply to a Jewish Woman www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=673202166081794

In reply to Lord of Starkness:



The concentration and then systematic annihilation of an entire people?

Oh, I do agree.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Politicians only seem to learn from the selected bits of history that suit their own narrative.

If only we could uninvent religions - then there would be no "God on my side / My god is the only true god and my way of worship is the only true way" kind of rhetoric, and people could see that the politicians only true motives are greed and hanging on to power!

In reply to Lord of Starkness:

That was really good.

In reply to Mike Highbury:



What's Gaza but a concentration camp? And what has happened to the Palestinians except expulsion and slow annihilation? It's slower than the nazis, I agree, but that's to keep the support of wonderful Western world... only 650 in a what is it, a couple of weeks?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


On average about 40 Palestinians died in Gaza in the first 14 days of this 'operation'. Odd that the death of 300 Westerners in a single incident is deemed somehow more tragic and newsworthy.

The real hypocrisy is that Russia supplying a Buk used to kill those 300 passengers is bringing much political power to bear, and yet those that arm Israel with weapons which yielded the 40 deaths a day average (over that first fortnight), are beyond any kind of political scrutiny or mainstream-media analysis.

In reply to Shani:


If you wanted to make a less emotive argument that this is a genocide, try comparing it to Rwanda or the Armenian Genocide. Or possibly to the liquidation of the Kulaks and the Ukrainian famine. In all cases you'll see that there are very few similarities.

Horrible as Israel's actions are, it is not a genocide.

In reply to seankenny:

I don't think that my statement is particularly emotive - and what is going on in Gaza would appear to fit the description of Genocide wouldn't you agree? (http://bit.ly/1rKjYfj):

Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group via the

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

In reply to Shani:

It's "in part" that's the sticking point tho, isn't it? There are 1.8m people in Gaza, currently 600 deaths. That's a very tiny percentage.

Consider the blockade. Whilst vile and demoralising (and perhaps ultimately pointless for Israel too), it isn't "calculated to bring about its [the group's] physical destruction". On the contrary, it's designed to keep people alive, struggling but alive:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/17/israeli-military-calorie-limit...

The Soviets killed millions of people in Ukraine. Millons of Tutsis were slaughtered in Rwanda. Palestine quite simply isn't the same situation.

Still, as long as you enjoy emoting, that's what counts.

In reply to seankenny:

This has been ongoing since the 40's. That is bad enough

In reply to woolsack:

Genoicide is a particular event tho, isn't it, with a strict definition. As is famine, for instance. That's because calling something a genocide has lots of real world consequences, so we'd better make sure genocide is defined. Israel/Palestine quite simply isn't meeting that definition.

In reply to seankenny:

I'm sure Israel would like to move harder and faster on Gaza -- it's rate of action over many years has been influenced by the strength (or lack of) amongst it's near Arab neighbours, and just how much it thinks it can get away with before it risks losing popular US support!

In reply to seankenny:

No, genocide is defined as per the criteria in the link above. Not by YOUR definition. Not by your determination of an 'event', its start-point and its end-point.

With regards to famine, Ireland's Great Famine occurred between 1845–1852.

In reply to Shani:

Erm, yes, I think you have misunderstood me. I'm aruging it doesn't meet the definition which you quoted, and which I agree is the definition we should go by (being as it's the Geneva Convention and all).


>Not by your determination of an 'event', its start-point and its end-point.


So, with neither of us being lawyers, do we have more information on what international law says about duration of a genocide? Or, alternatively, do you believe that since 1967 the number of Palestinians killed by Israel meets the "in part" section of the definition? Has what they've done "been calculated to bring about its physical destruction"?

In reply to Lord of Starkness:


Well, maybe. So you're saying it would like to have a genocide, but doesn't dare? I would like to climb Archangel, but don't dare. Nobody is as yet commenting about my ascent however.

In reply to seankenny:
Even before this latest round of bombing, The Goldstone Report (http://bit.ly/1obypsJ), suggest possible crimes against humanity by Israel (http://bit.ly/1A61T07).

To go that far, given the political clout behind Israel, that is massively significant.

Furthermore, given the ongoing bombing of civilian residential targets, public spaces (beaches), and hospitals, and the Blockade (air, land, naval, fishing, energy and water), I think the following qualifies:

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;


Archangel is technically HVS over an increasingly bad drop!

In reply to seankenny:


The historical facts disagree with you, compare Palestine in the latter part of the 19th century and Palestine today, a simple comparison of the figures, remember Jews made up about 4% of the population then, is absolute proof that genocide has taken place. It is not total yet but it doesn't have to be to fit in with the term genocide - there are still quite a lot of Armenians left - I know I live with one! - and quite a few Jews but who would deny that these people suffered a genocide in the 20th century? Genocide includes the displacing people and destroying their towns and villages too, all of which the Israelis* have done, and are still doing.

Have a google on population breakdown in Palestine by over the last century or so and you'll find graphs which show the change absolute clearly.

*by Israelis I mean Jewish Israelis, of course.

In reply to Shani:



I'm not arguing that this isn't important, or that Israel has not broken international laws, the Geneva convention, etc. I'm arguing that it hasn't committed a genocide.




Well, clearly they are not bringing about destruction of the Palestinians "in whole". What about "in part"? Well, as I said above, it's a very very small part. 0.03% according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations.

To put that into context, around 70% of Tutsis were killed in Rwanda.

In reply to seankenny:


The Tutsis were killed with greater immediacy and largely by machete. The conditions inforced upon the Palestinians are more gradual and evidently destructive to the point of being considered a crime against humanity by an independent UN report.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce, yes you are right it doesn't have to be destruction of the whole group - see my comments above about it being "in part".

Let's just look at the definition again:
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Now you are right about Palestinians being forced to move but that doesn't actually make it a genocide, according to the UN's convention. Unless you want to argue that making people homeless en-masse is "calculated to bring about their physical destruction" - I think you'd be on dodgy ground with that. Tho of course I'd love to read what an actual lawyer has to say on this.

Plus, if I read it correctly, there must be "intent" as well. This is where your argument falls down, as you are considering Palestine since late 19th century, when clearly Israel didn't exist. So we should really only be considering 1947 onwards, and how can you show intent when the government has changed many, many times over the course of Israel's existence?




You can show the same in Detroit over the last 15 years, but that is not proof of a Motown Genocide.

In reply to Shani:

I'm not arguing that - as I said above, I agree that Israel has broken all sorts of international laws. All I'm saying is that it hasn't committed a genocide, and I think in my comparision with the Tutsis you completely miss my point.

There is another point, too, of course: by shouting "genocide" like a bunch of enraged sixth formers, you do you cause no good whatsoever.

In reply to seankenny:

You are reducing the debate to one of death and statistics. You've failed to engage with the Goldstone report above. The Israli political intention if clear when we look at acadmeics like Mordechai Kedar (lecturer on Arabic literature at Bar Ilan University), who believes the sisters and mothers of Palestinian “terrorists” should be raped, or Moshe Feiglin (deputy speaker of the Israeli parliament and a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party), who urged the Israeli army to kill Palestinians in Gaza indiscriminately. There are few in the Israeli media or political system countering this view. So when we see bombs dropping on Palestinians...by the fruits and all that.


A fatuous and emotive comment. That the death rate isn't sufficiently quick for you does not support your opinion. Again, see 'destruction' above.


A typo! Check my other posts where you will see I am usually rather rigorous on this matter.

In reply to Shani:

Well, I couldn't comment upon the whole of Israel, and whether liberal Israelis are opposed to Mr Kedar (tho Haaretz writes: "[Mr Kedar's] organization is engaged in a battle against professors identified with the left" - so I'm guessing there might be a divergence of opinion).

Nor do I deny that the report doesn't make some extremely serious allegations.

What I do take issue on is your idea that a genocide has or is taking place. Quite rightly, you were the first to post the relevant criteria under international law. All I'm saying is that the current situation does not meet those criteria, ie of the destruction of an ethnic or national group.

To put it into some context, accoring to Wikipedia 8 - 10% of Germans were killed in WW2 (going by the 1937 borders). Does that mean the Allies were "intending to kill, in whole or in part, a national group"? By your argument, it does - as they killed a far bigger proportion of Palestinians killed by Isreal. If 0.03% killed counts as "intending to kill... in part, a national group" then killing 8% of them certainly does.

I'm sorry to reduce this to a statistical argument, but if you want to argue that it's a genocide, then you need to produce an argument that what is happening fits those criteria. My argument is that it doesn't, and I believe I have the facts to prove it.

I'm not denying that Israel isn't committing some atrocious, horrendous acts. This conflict is making me, too, sad and angry. But that doesn't make it a genocide.



No, it is not the rate, it is both the issue of intent and the "physical element" which I believe are lacking. I don't think you can prove that the Gaza blockade, for example, is a genocidal act - even though the UN and lots of lawyers believe it's against international law.


Fair cop.

In reply to lummox:

Cough 'The killing is too of course'

What is it about UKC which makes people ask things like your post?

Obviously, killing is troubling, including firing tank shells at hospitals.

It's weird, this forum.

In reply to Timmd:



Typing is easier than thinking. Or reading. Or possibly reading, followed by thinking. Which would be the ideal.



You've only just noticed?!

In reply to seankenny:

I think it's only just started bugging me. ()

In reply to Timmd:

Read this today...

They call us now.
Before they drop the bombs.
The phone rings
and someone who knows my first name
calls and says in perfect Arabic
“This is David.”
And in my stupor of sonic booms and glass shattering symphonies
still smashing around in my head
I think "Do I know any Davids in Gaza?"
They call us now to say
Run.
You have 58 seconds from the end of this message.
Your house is next.
They think of it as some kind of war time courtesy.
It doesn’t matter that
there is nowhere to run to.
It means nothing that the borders are closed
and your papers are worthless
and mark you only for a life sentence
in this prison by the sea
and the alleyways are narrow
and there are more human lives
packed one against the other
more than any other place on earth
Just run.
We aren’t trying to kill you.
It doesn’t matter that
you can’t call us back to tell us
the people we claim to want aren’t in your house
that there’s no one here
except you and your children
who were cheering for Argentina
sharing the last loaf of bread for this week
counting candles left in case the power goes out.
It doesn’t matter that you have children.
You live in the wrong place
and now is your chance to run
to nowhere.
It doesn’t matter
that 58 seconds isn’t long enough
to find your wedding album
or your son’s favorite blanket
or your daughter’s almost completed college application
or your shoes
or to gather everyone in the house.
It doesn’t matter what you had planned.
It doesn’t matter who you are
Prove you’re human.
Prove you stand on two legs.
Run.

Running Orders by Lena Khalaf Tuffaha

In reply to seankenny:

Ok, so we'll have to agree to disagree on genocide. I will reiterate that my argument is not premised on 'proportions' killed. It is the policy of targetting children, and the sources of medicine and antenatal care that will affect fertility at population level in conjunction with the policy of destruction against infrastucture and control of resource such that quality of life becomes unbearable and life expectancy plummets. It is a war of attrition and a destruction of a people over a long time scale and this is where I see one of the conditions for genocide to be met:


Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

In reply to Lord of Starkness:

Kudos Starkness, that was worth watching

In reply to Shani:

By your definition, is not the Syrian government also attempting to commit genocide against the sections of the Syrian population that don't support it? Syria has seen a the huge displacement of population (9 million over all, 2.5 driven out of the country) and now deaths are believed to be between 100 and 150 thousand. The government has for years now been accused of targeting hospitals, schools, universities, bakeries and civilian homes in rebel controlled areas.

In reply to Shani:

Thing is, I don't disagree that all these things are happening. It's awful. But, and this is my point, I don't believe the purpose of it all is to kill large numbers of Palestinians. In that respect, it's totally different to Rwanda, or Armenia, or the Russian Famine of the 1930s. This has been going on for over 40 years, the Palestinian people have not been destroyed. I'm fairly sure (off the top of my head) that there are actually more of them now than in 1967. Or 1947.

And since they haven't been destroyed "in whole" then we have to examine the question - are they being destroyed "in part"? This is from the generally defined meaning of genocide, which you yourself introduced first. And the "destoyed in part" which has undoubtedly happened to the Palestinians, does that count for it to be a genocide? Clearly, you believe it does. I'm saying you're setting the bar extremely low, and by your own logic you have to declare that the Allies in WW2 were also genocidal, and perpetrated a genocide on the Germans.

You may be willing to take that position, of course.

In reply to seankenny:
The crux of our difference then is that I believe the IDF is trying to wipe out the Palestinians and you don't. On a statistical level, agreed that it is different to Rwanda etc... but that is probably because Israel is a nation making some attempt to operate within international legislation (at keast in part), and is overtly backed by the USA which obliges it to act with a degree of discretion.

That death rates aren't as high as you'd consider sufficient to be called genocide may be due to Palestinian resolve and the politico-legal constraints placed on Israel alluded to above. But the cost of Israeli action on life expectancy and mental wellbeing, and the destruction of their infrastructure still classifies in my eyes as genocide.

If the Allies can be accused of genocide then anyone pushing that opinion would have to make the case against the necessary criteria.

In reply to seankenny:


I often agree with you on many subjects, but you're wrong on this.. ..go out to Gaza and see for yourself. It is not a pleasant place to live, if you could call it living. Of course there are many deaths in many other conflicts, but that doesn't make what is happening in Gaza any the less disgusting. It is remarkable that there have only been 600 deaths, given bombing intensity of about 1 bomb per 5m2, but will be much more now. Its not just the current situation though, its the apartheid before hand, the control of trade, electricity, water, sewage, constant surveillance state, restriction of land, restriction of basic freedoms and the walk of shame to get in. These people are being treated as if they are alot less than human, and that on its own makes comparisons with other historical international events relevant. Furthermore, this has been a very long time in the making, and the land has been ethnically cleansed with huge refugee populations, and their decendents, in countries like Jordan. Currently, children are being disproportionately killed, and Dr Mads, is having to help them without recourse to anaesthetic. That sounds nice doesn't it.

In reply to seankenny:


This is getting sillier and sillier, no one is claiming there is a genocide of Detroit, no one is even saying there was a distinct people and culture in Detroit. I don't think you are using the usual definition either, the more common one us something like:

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" (from a 1948 UN document.

But whole books have been written on the subject and I don't think a pedantic approach is very useful. The key point seems to me to be the "in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group", that it can be applied to various human groups and often the destruction of a culture is included, which applies particularly in Palestine as the zionists have a liking for physically destroying villages by bulldozer and then building renamed villages for "Jews only" above them, Palestinians have written of coming back to their village to find it effaced, even the well, mosque, every thing. This deliberate effort to "efface a past" is also a part of the notion of genocide IMO.

In reply to seankenny:


They have killed or displaced man many more than that, something like 700 000 were displaced in 47-48 (and don't say they left voluntarily as zionists do, pleeeze) and every war, colonization, road and wall building has displaced more. The total death toll itself is considerable, it started even before 1948.

All you have to do is start from 90+% Arabs before the zionists started their genocide to the percentage today, from Jews possessing 4 or 5% of the land to the percentage today, the notion of genocide is flagrant, and the stated aims are for it to go on and on until the whole of Palestine is Israel, for the word Palestine to be wiped off the map. If that's not genocide I don't know what is.

In reply to Timmd:

It's amazing the hoops people will jump through to justify killing each other. And so sad.

In reply to Shani:

Do you really believe that or do you say it as a rhetorical flourish? First two thirds of Palestinian within the occupied territories live in the West Bank, where there is no fighting and the majority live in areas under PA security control. That's 2.7 million people who the IDF don't seem to be "wiping out". The war is in Gaza, where there are 1.6 million people in a relatively small area over which Israel has complete air superiority and that is all within easy range of Israeli artillery and naval fire. If the IDF is trying to "wipe out" the Palestinians in the Gaza why don't they just do it? They could level Gaza City, Khan Yunis and the other population centres in hours with artillery - destroy it to the level that Russian army did to Grozny in 99-00 - (thermobarics and ballistic missiles in addition to traditional artillery and rocketry barrages). I imagine they could kill hundreds of thousands with comparative ease. Why send in ground troops and get their own soldiers killed if all they are trying to do is wipe out Palestinians? They could do that without crossing the border fence.

The IDFs actions in Gaza might be brutal, indifferent to civilian casualties, immoral or illegal - take your pick - but quite self evidently they are not trying to "wipe out the Palestinians".

And of course that's not even to mention the over a million Palestinians who live in Israel as Israeli citizens.

In reply to TobyA:

You know full well the IDF do just enough killing that it doesn't unduly upset their US paymaster, they know exactly how much they can get away with each time, usually under the cover of some other 'event' like the killing of the three teenagers. They are masters at seizing an opportunity and exploiting it. There isn't the remotest shred of evidence that Israel wants peace with the Palestinians is there? How much are you being paid Toby?

In reply to woolsack:

I don't think that is true.. they are getting bad press here.

I really don't think they give a shit… Quite clearly they are over stepping the mark. I don't think you realise how much other press there is than fox news.. on that you do here a different version I admit...

The 'how much are you being paid' is just a cheap comment at Toby.. he's one of the most balanced posters on this site. Sometimes people can just differ in views.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

brilliantly effective piece of writing. horrible to watch this going on.ordinary people getting stuffed as usual.

In reply to woolsack:

I don't know that but it's perhaps arguable, but that isn't what Shani said is it?


Not the current government, no. Who said there was?


Currently nothing by anyone, and its only going to be worse next autumn when I have to pay tuition fees on top of not having a job. Do you want to know how much my mortgage payments are too Mr Sack? Or do you want to get off your childish conspiracy horse and actually engage with what people write here?

In reply to IainRUK:
correct that.. just watched a US news report on how the US trust the IDF to cope against Hamas attacks and they continue to target Hamas strong holds.. f*cking disgrace..

TBF most I know, academics, intelligent educated people, hold my view.. I was always sympathetic to Israel until maybe 10 years ago.. then you realise this just cannot go on and its not just simple defence..

In reply to TobyA:
Welcome to academia… it's great isn't it?

I've just signed a contract as an adjunct Professor in the US with a decent Uni.. 5 contact hours a week (2 less and 1 prac) for 14 weeks.. barely minimal wage…if I worked full time I'd be on 10 hours a week contact time for 4 times that..

I'll do other work, coach athletics, sub teach etc to pay bills but its a joke how much people think you can make…

In reply to TobyA:



I'm not on about your salary, that's none of my business. I'm wondering if you're on the same payment scheme as Dror, Dek, Mike Highbury and Mike TS, paid to come onto forums and social media and spread the love for the terror State? Certainly seems that way at times!

In reply to woolsack:


That is sharper than you might think. I've got up to a pointed email from Mark Regev suggesting that I up my game or I'll have my retainer cancelled. So be prepared to counter some hurried and rather random tweets and posts across the web.

In reply to TobyA:


They are trying to crush those who have the audacity to react against them. Three days the bomb intensity was one bomb per 5m2. Have a look at the spread of night fire in Gaza by satellite from space. I have friends working as medics in Gaza saying they've never seen such disproportionate killing if women and children. This is the deliberate terrorisation of a people. It says if you react to what we do, we'll crush you. David Ward MP said he would fire a rocket if he was in Gaza and the political class jumped on him. I think a great many in the west if honest and knowledgeable about the relative loss of freedoms, and experience of constant oppression, would say the same. Instead, our leaders, while Israel is committing war crimes, continue to assert Israel's "right to defend themselves", as if that was relevant to the one sided process ongoing. People also decry those who complain about Zisrarl's behaviour as "anti-Semitic", when in reality the most anti-Semitic thing that is being done is supporting Israel and thereby encouraging Jews to be tarred with the same brush as war criminals.

In reply to contrariousjim:

I don't disagree with much of what you say (European political reactions have been different from what I've seen of the Conservatives here) but that's not what Shani said and not what I reacted to. People are throwing around the word genocide like confetti now, having paid little or no attention to other mass human rights abuses elsewhere in recent years of equal or greater scale (in Syria, in CAR, in Sri Lanka).

In reply to Timmd:

Some people don't seem to find killing that troubling at all..

In reply to seankenny:

Care to elaborate on your sneering at my post Sean ? I suggested that shelling patients in their beds trumped warning shots at the Al-Jazeera offices, worrying though that is.

In reply to woolsack:

Oh come on Woolsack, despite your penchant for conspiracy theories and strongly guarded anonymity, that's beneath you. Have you any actual knowledge that any of those people are on a "payment scheme"? dek isn't even very good at it because basically he just seems to hate or fear all Muslims and his "love" for Israel doesn't go much beyond that. Dror gets kicked off regularly so again he's a lousy propagandist. Mike TS is Israeli (or at least lives there) but has has been posting about climbing around the world for many, many years on UKC.

No one is asking you if you post things like the Yinon plan stuff because you're a regular listener to Neo-Nazi radio (found a recent discussion on it on such a radio show last night when trying to read more about it) or suggesting that you don't post about Syria much because you're an Alawi or paid by the Assad regime. So perhaps you could extend the courtesy of just understanding that not everyone else sees the world as you do.

I'm with John on this youtube.com/watch?v=zmCKZYKsiGM&

In reply to IainRUK:


<I've just signed a contract as an adjunct Professor in the US with a decent Uni.. 5 contact hours a week (2 less and 1 prac) for 14 weeks.. barely minimal wage…if I worked full time I'd be on 10 hours a week contact time for 4 times that..

I'll do other work, coach athletics, sub teach etc to pay bills but its a joke how much people think you can make…>

OFF THREAD: Yes, but think of the opportunities...I have got mates who I worked with in 2 UK unis & they left after PhD; one is now the President of a decent state uni, the other runs a good sized lab with good grants etc. Got several others who went as post-doc to NIH and have done vvery well, even able to return to Europe later

ON THREAD: good thing about US academics is that they are more inclined to put their money where their mouth is when protesting about US involvement in conflicts or their govts lack of support for important principles - unlike much of the UK

(sweeping statement: but that's my experience)

In reply to woolsack:


Or of making them.

People seem to have forgotten how they helped the Hamas get started to weaken the PLO.

In reply to TobyA:


At the moment but what about the various Intifadas?

The war is where Israel can get away with it, and as you yourself say it is practical for Israel, no Jewish settlers to kill accidentally, the sea and land basing of artillery makes it very convenient as the Gaza Strip is just that - a thin strip. It is also where the most dynamic resistance movement is at present. At other times it was the camps in Lebanon and they were "dealt with" too.

What I find disgusting in your attitude is that you know all this and you still post lies here, which certainly gives the impression that you have an axe to grind and if you aren't employed now you would like to be later... How easy would this be in a yank think tank if you had been posting in favour of justice in Palestine I wonder?

PS. There have been stories in the press about the way the social media are used by people who want to get a message across, from all sides, what would be surprising if it functioned here?

In reply to TobyA:


Yes it is what I said. "but that is probably because Israel is a nation making some attempt to operate within international legislation (at least in part), and is overtly backed by the USA which obliges it to act with a degree of discretion."

In reply to lummox:


Since when was it a game of top trumps?

In reply to tony:


These thing always become a very dark game of top trumps.

In reply to contrariousjim:


Now let's get one thing clear, right at the outset: I agree with pretty much everything you've written. I'm outraged and saddened by what's happened.

But - that doesn't make it a genocide.

Let's consider, for a moment, another case in which accusations of genocide were used: the end of the Sri Lankan civil war. You're all hot on international affairs so I'll spare the background, you know the situation. I heard plenty of Tamils saying that the Sri Lankan government's shelling of civilians on the beach was a genocide of the Tamils. It sure was a war crime, but I don't think it was a genocide. Why? Because the criteria which we, human beings, have set out to describe this particular type of event, weren't being met. There was no systematic attempt to wipe out the Tamils. Tamils in Jaffna or Trinco weren't being slaughtered. Tamils in Colombo were able to live, not without police harrassement for sure, but they weren't being put in camps and killed en masse. So, no genocide.

I believe we've a similar situation here, and it's why I've taken care, in this thread, to look at the UN's definition of genocide - first helpfully provided by Shani, and then again by Bruce, as if we hadn't been discussing it. I've given plenty of arguments as to why what is happening does not meet those criteria. It may look cruel or dry to measure this by statistics, but that's what we have to do here - look at the situation and see if it meets this definition. If anyone wants to argue from that definition, rather than listing all the bad things done to the Palestinians, I'm all ears.

Interestingly, many people on here have mentioned the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes as evidence that it's a genocide. This isn't actually one of the criteria for a genocide, is it?

What about the "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group". To me - tho I'm no lawyer - this clause is an attempt to cover deliberately starving people to death, or similar. Is this happening in Palestine? Whilst clearly bombing Gaza repeatedly over many years is going to cause serious mental harm - don't for a moment accuse me of not caring about this - I don't think what we are seeing there is equivalent to, say, starving a group of people to death. Nor is it the whole group of people. As Toby says, the Palestinians in the West Bank are not suffering similar. But it's a fine line, you could argue it I reckon but for the legal definition of genocide to hold, there has to be intent to wipe out a national, ethnic or religious group. As Toby says, if that intent was there, the Israeli govt would be doing something rather different.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Let's look at Palestine's demographics, which I've taken from Wikipedia.

"Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews."

"In 1920, the League of Nations' Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine stated that there were hardly 700,000 people living in Palestine:

There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people... Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years."

"By 1948, the population had risen to 1,900,000, of whom 68% were Arabs, and 32% were Jews."

So let's go with the 1948 figures, as these coincide with the Israeli state which you disabree with. Just under 1.3m Arabs in Palestine back then. Now there are around 3.5m in the West Bank and Gaza. Rather than decrease, as in most genocides, the number of Palestinians has more than doubled. Compare that to known and agreed-upon genocides, such as Rwanda, where 70% of Tutsis were murdered.

Now, I don't deny that many awful, horrible things have happened to the Palestinians. But genocide isn't one of them. Unless of course you choose to ignore the usual definitions of genocide, and replace it with one of your own. You're free to do that, if it assuages your feelings of impotent anger about what is happening.

In reply to lummox:

Sorry, which post was I sneering at? I don't remember directly replying to you...

In reply to Shani:

In which case, if they are operating inside international law, then it can't be genocide can it - they can be trying to wipe out the Palestinians and not trying to at the same point. Such statements do nothing to acknowledge the complexity of the situation - my Palestinian friend is an Israeli for instance, at least when she shows her passport at borders. But she loathes the Israeli government and wishes the state was never set up, but she is also quite secure because she's an Israeli citizen.

I take the point that you are trying to make, but genocide is word that gets chucked around to easily.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:




Toby's a big boy and can look after himself, but I must say that when posting a reasonable arguement gets you accused of being a paid-for shill for a govt or lobby group, debate has reached a new low.

In reply to TobyA:


The law is a grey area, not black and white. That is why cases are brought to court and a conviction may or may not be passed. That is why there are questions of human rights being breached today, and why those same questions were aired in the Goldstone report I linked to earlier. International justice is also linked to political and economic pressure, and we know which countries have greater influence than others.

Further to your opening line, "In which case, if they are operating inside international law". Well lets go back to what I said, "but that is probably because Israel is a nation making some attempt to operate within international legislation (at least in part), and is overtly backed by the USA which obliges it to act with a degree of discretion." The bit you need to re-read is 'making some attempt to operate within international legislation (at least in part), 'some part' being the key words.


It may get chucked around too easily, but Israel's war of attrition with the Palestinians in Gaza is inhumane, and in my opinion, qualifies.

In reply to Shani:

Yes, it's inhumane. But I've presented loads of arguments as to why it doesn't qualify, and you've not actually refuted any of them - and instead accused me of playing with numbers.

In reply to seankenny:


I don't want to give trite answers, but your arguments have several times hinged on numbers (death rates). I introduced a link to the definition of genocide and I've explicitly stated the section of the definition that is satisfied (section C).

In reply to Shani:

I think you have it the wrong way around. You said section c was satisfied, and I've produced the numbers to show that section c is not satisfied. The numbers of people killed out of the population are key - imho - to defining whether something is a genocide. Hence the huge difference between Rwanda, or the Holocaust, and what the state of Israel has done.

The issues to me seems to be at what point in a conflict does killing civilians tip into to becomming a genocide. Is the Syrian government committing a genocide? Did the Sri Lankan government? Your logic would suggest that these govts - and indeed the Allies in WW2 - are genocidal, or that Israel is somehow a special case, ie for Israel to enact a genocide, it has to kill fewer people than other states.

I know you find it distasteful to discuss numbers, but the section c which you refer to seems to make that explicit with its "in whole or in part", ie we have to discuss what "in part" means. How can we do that without looking at the numbers? Not to mention the intent to wipe out a particular group, of course. I don't think just saying "they've broken internatinal law" really proves your point.

In reply to seankenny:

Section C does not mandate a death rate, simply that there is deliberate inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. That the tools of death available to the Tutsi and Nazis are not available to the IDF because of international laws and political pressure does not mean that the objectives are not the same.

A modern nation state necessarily has to operate in a different frame of reference - in this case resulting in a slower crushing of a people. So yes there is a huge difference between Rwanda, or the Holocaust, and what the state of Israel is doing.

Look at this another way; you couldn't say that the Hutu "deliberately inflicted conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" of the Tutsis.

Anyone aware of the conditions inflicted upon the people of Gaza would perhaps hold the view that the Palestinians in Gaza are being subject to deliberately inflicted conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part.

------

We fundamentally disagree, and I think we understand each other's position but we're unlikely to manage to change each other's opinion via this forum, so this discussion may have reached a natural conclusion.

In reply to Shani:


No, of course it doesn't, and I'm not actually talking about a "rate" - rather the overall result of the policies. Aside from this micro-discussion of how to judge the "in part" criteria - which you have tried to avoid, lacking I think a suitable measure that separates a genocide from a non-genocide, there is the large issue of intent, in which I thin you mis-read the situation entirely.



And that difference is because the former two situations were genocides, and the later isn't.



Well, you could argue that the Hutus did exactly this with their hate radio, holding lists of Tutsis to kill, etc, but you don't need to, as they fulfill criteria (a) - killing members of the group, along with the intent.



Is this a little dig to suggest I'm not aware of the conditions Gazans live under? You are probably not aware but I work, at least sometimes, in the humanitarian aid sector... Anyhow, if what you saw were correct, then after several years of blockading Gaza, then there would be (huge?) numbers of Palestinians suffering malnutrition and dying from a lack of food, as in Somalia or South Sudan.



I'm okay with fundamental disagreement, but what I find unfortunate about this exchange is that you've not actually dealt with any of the points I've raised, eg differentiating Israel/Palestine with Sri Lanka, or Syria, and why you believe one is a genocide and the others aren't (or perhaps they are?). A fuller exposition of your views, and the reasons for holding them, rather than the usual dull outrage, would have been much more enlightening and interesting.

In reply to Timmd:

15 dead / 200 wounded after Israel shells UN-run school.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/israeli-shells-hits-un-she...

In reply to seankenny:





No dig intended. Again my point that Israel are operating as a nation state overtly under-written by the US and so they cannot as those in Somalia and South Sudan do.



Emotive rhetoric. You've raised the case of Sri Lanka and Syria and so are best placed to qualify those against the criteria of genocide.

In reply to Shani:



Agreed, they can't act in the same way as they're under much more media and politcal scrutiny (tho of course everyone knew a famine was going to happen in Somalia and not much was done to stop it, but that's for another time). So, anyhow, as a result there is no mass hunger in Palestine. Again, doesn't this somewhat undermine your argument that a genocide is occuring as a result of Israel's handiwork?



The point is, I laid out exactly why I thought Sri Lanka wasn't a genocide - I think the case is actually quite similar to Israel, right down to an outraged disapora. I thought you might want to argue how this case was different to Israel, or why my arguments on SL were wrong, and how this affects my arguments on Isreal/Palestine. The point being, that's what arguing is all about, rather than repeating the same points over and over again. (As I said, emoting like this makes us feel good.)

Surely the more salient point is surely that Isreal are painting themselves into a terrible corner. If there are too many settlements to make a two state solution possible, then they have to keep the Palestinians in a bantustan-type situation indefinitely. This is because if they incorporated the Palestinians into Isreal, then Jews would become a minority in the Jewish state. But you can't corral people into a corner forever, as even staunch Israel-supporters in the UK have said.

Of course, if the Jews were trying to wipe the Palestian people out in a genocide, there wouldn't be enough of them left to make this a concern (unless it were a strange type of genocide which didn't actually kill that many people). So by harping on about a genocide, you're missing the real threat to the Palestinian people whom you claim to care so passionately about.

In reply to seankenny:


I don't know enough about SL to comment. Given that specific criteria ("C") above, and in context of the IDF's current behaviour, the blockade and the finding of the Goldstone report etc..., I thought that that was the a sufficient criteria, but you just see it as repetition.



If you want to make this analysis then go ahead. The criteria I cite above still applies IMO, but I concede that without an appropriate rate of death, it may be difficult to make this conclusion stick in law.

In reply to Shani:


I'm pointing out the weakness in your evidence, eg that the blockade isn't fulfilling the criteria. The repetition comes when you merely repeat the list of evidence (killing, blockade, report), rather than explain to me why this evidence fulfils the criteria. I've given plenty of reasons why I think it doesn't. Reasons why it is would include, for example, numbers of deaths as a result of the blockade, or extracts from the Goldstone report which highlights genocidal behaviour. I'd be more than happy to debate any evidence you produce - you might even persuade me!

Again, you'll probably think I'm getting hung up on numbers of deaths, but I can't see how this is avoidable when talking about a genocide, which is about killing large numbers of a particular group.

As for SL, this is an ideal time to read up on what happened and wonder if it's genocide, no? Or don't the homicidal doings of the Sri Lankan govt excite you as much as the Bad Ol' Boys down in J-town?



Well the criteria you listed are essentially a legal definition, right? So if you want to make the charge of genocide hold, you'll need some evidence. Given that this is one of the most reported upon and discussed conflicts in history it shouldn't be hard. If people aren't dying in large numbers than it probably isn't a genocide - however hideous the Israeli govt's actions are.

In reply to seankenny:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28468526

It keep getting better. Sod the two-state solution. Israel can burn.

In reply to Timmd:
have any of the Israeli politicians studied European history.if they read about the warsaw ghetto they can read about a nasty fascist government determined to destroy the inhabitants who they regarded as sub-human and compare!

In reply to seankenny:

Hi Sean, now I'm not at work I've had chance to look in to this a bit more. I agree with you that what is going on in Gaza, whilst savage and brutal, does not satify the legal definition of genocide. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this.

In reply to Timmd:

Brookings often provides an intelligent and balanced perspective on fraught matters such as these.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/flash-topics/flash-topic-folder/crisis-in...

In reply to seankenny:


Well yes it is, for the UN anyway. Obviously there is the quantitative aspect and also whether one looks at it it relatively. For Palestine a lot of people think that the sum of all the aspects makes what is happening a genocide, you don't.

Well here's a question, if the trends continue it doesn't look as if the quality of life in Gaza and the West bank is going to improve much nor that Israel is going to stop killing them, if in a few years the conditions are reached which fits in with the term "genocide" have you got a magic wand which will go back in time and make things better after you've apologised and said "sorry I wuz wrong"?

The situation is a little like in the 20s and 30s,there are plenty of books about it, some Palestinians were saying "look out, this could get dangerous, we should do something", others said "no, we can trust the British just as we could the Ottomans, all we need to do is go through the normal legal procedures, write a petition, things will be all OK". Who turned out to have been right?

In reply to seankenny:


It's not the first time I've wondered this and said it, before he was, apparently, working for some such dubious body and at the time I wondered how he could post independently.

PS. I don't see how anybody who supports Israel even slightly at the present - over 150 children slaughtered, targeting hospitals and school or children playing on the beach etc - can said to be "posting a reasonable argument". The world has really gone sick when governments who see themselves as moral can support this too, while we are on the subject..

In reply to Shani:

Any time. Thanks for being a gent, even when we disagreed.

In reply to seankenny:

You keep mentioning Syria but in what way can this be said to be a genocide? What people is trying to get rid of what other people? Who is trying to wipe out the culture and memory of another and take the place over as in Israel? As far as I can see the only similarity with Palestine is that it's in the Middle East and there's violent fighting going on.

In reply to Removed User:

I don't know what has happened to Israel. Have they no shame. 765 dead and counting. Many of them children. Stuff this human shields stuff, they're shelling (even if accidentally) homes, schools, hospitals and now UN safe havens.

The only thing protecting Israel from international fury is the memory of the Holocaust. That should not protect them now. Enough!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

100,000 dead next door Bruce, but still you maintain that Assad is the legitimate leader for Syria. You've continually denounced governments that have stood against the Syrian government.

In reply to TobyA:

From what I've read of Bruce on syria, I'd say it can be summarised as:
Assad is the better of the evils on offer.

In reply to contrariousjim:



That's about it, but especially the whole civil war was deliberately stirred up from outside. After Libya Syria was the next step, I predicted it long before it happened, and now Libya is turning into a bloodbath too.

I have already tried to explain, dozens of times, that Assad is supported by various minorities of the Syrian population, and still is, but Toby won't have it, he's a cheer leader for the Western media simplistic manipulation which says "Assad bad... someone else who they have a certain difficulty in defining good". None of them seem to ask the question why so many Syrians still support Assad and yet it's not hard to work out, especially if you know someone who knows the country, they'll tell you easy enough.

I wouldn't care but the Libyan experience is hardly a success, even if one disregards the 10s of thousands who died during the NATO offensive it's still not getting any better, a country that had about the highest standard of living in Africa has become an anarchy run by armed gangs.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


No Bruce, you continually said that the US and NATO were desperate to get involved and take over Syria, which of course you have been shown to be wrong about as it never happened. We do know though that Hezbollah and Iran have had soldiers on the ground. I see you are still defending the Assad family though by saying it was outside forces "stirring up" resistance, rather than 50 odd years of corrupt, sectarian and often violent autocracy that turned big sections of the population against them. But we can agree to disagree on that I guess.


I notice now you are getting a bit lawyerly with your word choice here, I'm sure in the past you accused the NATO strikes of killing tens of thousands of civilians. It seems that most studies post the conflict now suggest around 70 civilians killed by NATO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Libyan_Civil_War clearly most civilians were killed either in fighting between Libyan govt. and rebel forces, or were killed by Libyan security forces in the early days when they suppressed anti-regime demonstrations.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Using the legal definition which has been drafted by experts in the matter seems about right to me, but eschewing the experts in favour of the home-cooked view is very early 21st century.

As I've explained many times above, the sum of the aspects don't make it a genocide. You can of course use the word to express the strength of your feelings - many people do. And why not? You're not lawyers, or diplomats, or journalists, or anyone who actually *has* to use terms accurately as part of their work.



You seem to think that a genocide would be a cummulative thing, that suddenly after all this inattention to the real business (the genoicde!) that the numbers would hit some kind of magic mark and then you'd have been proved right all along.

I really don't think it works like this. There are all sorts of reasons about the rates of killing people which are probably distasteful to many, but there is one huge problem with your idea that suddenly it might happen. That is, Israel is too well scrutinised for it to happen. You couldn't get away with mass killings as per Rwanda because too many people are looking. When Rwanda went tits up the media's very small Africa teams were busy with Nelson Mandela and the first free elections in South Africa. That's not ever going to be the case with Israel.

This is of course ignoring the incredible changes in communications since 1994 which mean even remote places are connected...

In reply to seankenny:


Not really "very early 21st century". It might for example recognise that the thinking / intention is not dissimilar even if the result yielded (your numerical obsession) isn't the same. It might recognise that there is nothing different about the behaviour of the aggressor, except what is achieved by virtue of external containment. For me, when the figures are frankly what I would call high, and grossly disproportionately civillian women and children, I would have no problem saying this is genocide, without fear of reducing the horror and severity of those historical genoicides, and leave the bean counters to pick the fluff from the belly buttons as they obsess in a bath of legal terminology.

In reply to seankenny:


I'm flattered but I don't think anything I say can be considered "early 21st century" but as for the definitions I cited they were from UN documents and dated back to 1948. Since there have been many other ideas expressed on the subject, in particular bringing in deliberate attempts to destroy a culture, which is particularly pertinent concerning the Israelis - remember when a Israeli PM said the Palestinians didn't exist? The deliberate destruction, obliteration of Palestinian villages, the effacement of their names from the maps and replacement by names in a different language sums up the intention of Jewish Israelis, they want to make Palestine an all Jewish country - the last lot of talks fell through on their insistence that the Palestinian accepted the term "Jewish State" for the Israeli bit of Palestine.

I could spend hours replying to other points but could you at least react on this idea of obliteration of a culture and physical country, names included?


Genocide is a cumulative thing, ask any Armenian, the writing was on the wall and smaller pogroms had happened, some called for Armenians to arm themselves but their clerical leadership said no, and then when it started it was too late. Where Armenians had arms they defended themselves quite well but the rest were butchered of marched off to die in the desert.

The Israeli method is different, opportunistic, in 47-48 they killed many and drove hundreds of thousands out, never to return (something refused by the Geneva convention BTW) since at each Israeli/Arab war they have killed quite a few an driven more out. Of late it has been more progressive, with the use of many small colonies, piecemeal, and with the most horrendous invention that of Gaza, a strip of land, wired off and used as a concentration camp, but one that they whittle down by regular massacres like the present one... any pretext, real or set up, is good for butchery, just as they did in Lebanon in the past.

Just as in 48 the Arabs woke up to find themselves dispossessed of any power over their land too late to fight back. They should have fought when they could, well before the colonisers reached the critical mass, it's a lesson they aren't likely to forget.

In reply to contrariousjim:


Oh I don't know, the denigration of experts in favour of one's own opinion is a distinctly modern thing. (Not that I'm an expert, of course!)

Anyhow, I'd say that in this case the intention to commit genocide is arguable, and anyhow the law says that both the intent and the "physical element" have to be present for it to be legally considered a genocide. Your arguments above don't prove the second part, the physical part. I just don't see this as an attempt to destroy a people, a whole group. I mean, have you read anything about Rwanda, or the Holocaust? We're not talking about casually bombing schools here, we're talking about upturning societies so they become killing machines and turning ordinary people into agents of death and carnage. Sure, you find the figures "high" but historically they are pretty low for a conflict. In the Blitz 40,000 Londoners were killed in 57 nights and a million houses destroyed. The killing was way, way worse - but we don't call it a genocide, do we?

I'm sorry to get back to my "numerical obsession", but how else can you categorise attempts to wipe out a group of people if not by looking at the numbers? Do you just go by a feeling? That's exactly what I mean, this bandying about the g-word is a way of people expressing how badly this hurts them (oddly Syria doesn't cause them quite the same pain), but it's completely unrelated to anything useable out in the real world, where this "bath of legal terminology" actually has consequences.

In reply to TobyA:


Which as anyone who has a telly and a pair of eyes and ear know is the case, Mrs Clinton was livid that she couldn't have another war like in Libya but she was blocked by the Russian and Chinese veto. You know this too, why do you insist on saying you don't. Everyone reading your words knows they are lies, if it hadn't been for those two vetoes Syria would most probably have gone down like Libya.

It's true that some US military breathed a sigh of relief as they though it might have been a bigger lump to chew, it would certainly have involved more deaths but I doubt, myself, that any second class army could last for long against the full technological power of NATO. So please stop fibbing, you know it was the two vetoes that "saved" Syria, but saved it for what? The Plan B is the horror we see now, whatever happens the West has to see someone dying, as do you apparently.

I'm sorry if in Tobyreality only 16 men an a dog died in Libya, it seems to upset you, but don't worry the reality was far more died than your trumped up reports say, and they are still dying today, look at the news... happy? I don't know if you deliberately try to be sickening or it's a habit you're not aware of.

In reply to seankenny:


You must mix with more genteel people than I do! I've never heard a cockney, taxi-driver or not, who had a good word for any "experts", quite the opposite.


Law? There's a court of law which says what is and what isn't a genocide? How come the Turks haven't been condemned for the Armenian genocide then? I note you refuse to answer on the aspect of destruction of a culture, and a way of life. You also seem unaware of the dispersion aspect, if a people is not only killed but also dispersed to live in camps or all over the world with no hope - a solid refusal - of return where does that fit into your pedantic scheme? Rather than be objective you appear to be trying to devise a tailor made definition to let the Israelis off the hook.

As for the Blitz it was an attempt to demoralize the British, Hitler was convinced he could do a deal with the British establishment, maybe he spent to much time with defrocked English aristocrats? - so it was absolutely not his intention to commit a genocide, Brits are Aryans after all. Why do you and Toby keep bringing in examples that are so inappropriate? There are enough real ones available.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I've been arguing within these parameters all along.


>Since there have been many other ideas expressed on the subject, in particular bringing in deliberate attempts to destroy a culture, which is particularly pertinent concerning the Israelis

Interesting. Do any of these ideas have a legal standing which would actually, you know, result in any kind of prosecution? Or allow the UN, or a major govt, to say "this is legally a genocide" - as the UN have been saying the Israelis and Hamas have both been committing war crimes?






So what time period are you using? The Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, Rwanda - all occured within fairly tight time frames. A policy of mass kiling was decided upon, set up, huge numbers of people were murdered. You haven't settled upon a date which this started, first it was 19th century, then from 1948. Can you give a rough starting date as to when the Israelis' policy of mass murder was instituted (and who decided upon it). When did the mass murder begin?



Agreed. But this doesn't make it a genocide. If, as you said, it's opportunistic that would seem to mitigate against there being intent.


>The most horrendous invention that of Gaza, a strip of land, wired off and used as a concentration camp, but one that they whittle down by regular massacres like the present one...

Gaza is an abomination, that is true. But is it actually a "concentration camp". I could think of many differences, for example a semi-functioning state exists in Gaza which is not usually the case in concentration camps.

Yes, they are killing lots of people, but are the population being "whittled down". If that were the case, wouldn't we see the population of Gaza slowly shrinking? But instead I think it's growing...

Quick question, Bruce. Why do you feel so strongly about the crimes of the Israeli govt, in comparision to the govts of Russia, Syria, Sri Lanka, N Korea etc? And why, as the world faces its second famine in five years, aren't you fuming to the same level about under-funded famine relief programmes, the results of which usually kill more people than bombs on Gaza do? (They certainly did in Somalia.)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yes, that is the point of "the definitions I [Bruce] cited ... from UN documents." I imagine someone who knows more about law then I do (not hard) could tell you much more about how it works.


This is of course an interesting question. Ignoring the fact that the prime mover behind the genocide was assasinated, and the laws weren't drawn up until 35 years later, how can a current govt be held accountable for the actions of a predecessor. Would you indict David Cameron for starting the Iraq war?


>I note you refuse to answer on the aspect of destruction of a culture, and a way of life.

Sorry, I was busy discussing the Palestinian love of donkey jokes with a colleague (not a lie, I really was).

>You also seem unaware of the dispersion aspect, if a people is not only killed but also dispersed to live in camps or all over the world with no hope - a solid refusal - of return where does that fit into your pedantic scheme? Rather than be objective you appear to be trying to devise a tailor made definition to let the Israelis off the hook.

Erm, no, it's not my pedantic scheme, it's the UN's, which you've quoted. I'll quote them again:

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The whole dispersal thing, where would you class it in (a) - (e)? The definition isn't "taylor made to let Israelis off the hook", it's what the UN has decided upon. I can't help that! Instead of bending the rules to fit the evidence, take the evidence and show me how it fits the rules, like a good prosecutor.

In reply to seankenny:


You seem obsessed by legalities whereas most people aren't, they use the term genocide when it fits in with their notion of what the term means to them. Legalities are of no value at this level as there is no court which is clearly independent, any attempts such as Nuremberg are the courts of the winning side, at present it's flagrant that the existing efforts only act when Uncle Sam calls them, if not why isn't Israel ever brought before them despite the massacres?

So get this into your head, to be blunt, calling this a genocide is not in terms of any court, it is in terms of linguistics, I think, as do many others that the Palestinian people is suffering a long slow genocide at the hands of it zionist, Jewish, Israeli (use the term you prefer) conquerors.

Again why look for fixed time scale? There can long or slow genocides, the N American Indians suffered a long, slow genocide, they aren't all dead, some tribes are but not all but it's still a genocide. Their way of life, their culture has been destroyed too, which can be seen a s a cultural genocide. The argument against this is that economic changes do mean some cultures will disappear so for it to be really genocidal there must be violence involved so all in all I think most people would say there was a genocide committed against the native N Americans... No need for courts.

In Palestine it's much the same, it started when the first zionists arrived, their stated intention was genocide, to take Palestine to become Israel, the chosen land for the chosen people - a land without people for a people without a land... says it all really, doesn't it?


Doing a Toby, are you? I'll return the question, why are you posting about Palestine yourself? I guess it's for the same reason as me, because it's here and it's now. Death toll over 800 now more than 200 children, hospitals, schools, safe havens, all deliberately blown to bits by people like us, supported by our governments. Isn't that enough for you? It makes me sick, just as the bombing of Libya made me sick, the brutal work of over-powerful cowards, squashing a people that has lost everything already.

"And to those who have shall be given and from those who have not it shall be taken away even the little that they have"

A passage of the bible that I always did have trouble with.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yes, those people who know things are so annoying aren't they? Much better to just continually repeat things you have no evidence for at all until you convince yourself you're correct.

In reply to TobyA:

Even worse are those who know nothing but just keep on repeating the lies of others. Looking at the world about us does it look like the "experts" are much good at running it? All most of them do is learn to blab then work for the highest payers... Ukraine, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Syria, Gaza... does it look like the experts really know much. Then nearer home the unemployment that has ravaged Europe for decades, despite the advice experts give to governments. We all realise that you see yourself as an expert but maybe you should choose a better role model?

I once heard a funny definition of an expert, here's a page about "experts", it doesn't give the one I was thinking of but it covers some of the ground:

http://bugsinthenews.info/?p=4820

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You shout "liar" a lot these days, but maybe you could just deal with the actual evidence.


You can read the vetoes and the draft resolutions here: http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/scact_veto_en.shtml

4 Oct. 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15177114 "The European-drafted resolution had been watered down to try to avoid the vetoes, dropping a direct reference to sanctions against Damascus."

4 Feb 2012 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/04/assad-obama-resign-un-resoluti... "All 13 other members of the council, including the US, France and Britain, voted in favour of the resolution, which backed an Arab peace plan aimed at stopping the violence in Syria."

19 July 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18914578 "Under the Western-backed plan, the Damascus government would have been threatened with non-military sanctions under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter if it failed to move troops and heavy weapons from populated areas."

22 May 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/22/russia-china-veto-un-draft-res... "Russia and China have vetoed a draft UN resolution calling for the crisis in Syria to be referred to the international criminal court – ignoring support for the measure by 65 other countries and all other members of the security council."

I think it was only the Feb. 2012 one where the Russians claimed it "potentially could" lead to intervention, all the others were because they were seen as interference in internal affairs which is even more of laugh after they invaded Ukraine.

By the time Obama did seek congressional approval for military action, which he didn't get, Kerry was the sec state, not Clinton.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So are you saying because you know the truth about everything that you are "the expert"?

You keep linking Global Research articles with easily demonstrable factual errors in them, but they fit your politics so what does it matter that they're actually bollocks. Was it 10 years ago when we started arguing? I remember you were using a figure from a review of a Ken Loach film on the number of people who were killed in the Chilean coup and dictatorship and wouldn't accept the figure that the Chilean truth and reconciliation committee had concluded. Things don't change much eh?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

A stirring riposte. Can I ask why you introduced the UN's definition of a genocide if you've no interest in using those criteria?

The problem with defining a genocide as whatever you feel it is... Where to start? Your opponents may feel it isn't, you feel it is, blah blah blah. That's why we try to develop frameworks in which to work. You argue that US support makes a mockery of the law - true. So your response is to ignore the law and let your own outrage be the measure of all things. How can that be a positive development?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

As for your belief that there's a genocide going on, a long slow one like the Native Americans suffered. Where's the evidence? Show me the population figures - if these people are being wiped out there'll be fewer of them? Or is it one of those strange genocides in which the population is increasing? I'm sorry to return to numbers, but I can't see any way of resolving this dispute that's not just a subjective maelstrom of outrage and anger...

In reply to TobyA:

Which of these expert quotes prove that the USA wan't keen to interfere in Syria? As an expert you will remember that for Libya the motions were vague and the Russians and Chinese didn't veto them then kicked themselves when the motions were used to justify massive NATO armed intervention. For Syria it was once bitten twice shy and they just said no, to the fury of the USA and puppies... and many experts.

None of which prevented the spin merchants, many trained by US NGOs from using plan B, a bloody civil war and thousands of pseudo jihadis.

In reply to seankenny:

I have to go to bed now, an hour later where I am, but the numbers question could be an argument (quite why you spend so much time on attempts to devalue the critics of Israel I don't know) but it's not only numbers - squeezing hundreds of thousands of people (1.8 million in Gaza) out of their normal homeland into a strip the size of greater Glasgow - and then cutting them off from the outside world to the extent of actually calculating the calories each one needed and only allowing this much in is an act that counts in the notion too. There's also the relative population figure compared to their "enemy" people that puts them in a position of great disadvantage. Add to this the illegal (if you like legalisms) refusal of allowing people to return to their homes after a period of war (Geneva Convention) you arrive at a degradation of life to one that is barely human... sounds like a genocide to me, do you insist that they should also be so thoroughly butchered in a world of population explosion that their actual numbers should drop too?

I'll post an article tomorrow I've just received but I need my sleep for the (illegal) demo tomorrow - great to live in a Socialist country, inventors of the "Rights of Man"

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The UNSC resolution on Libya authorized a no-fly zone and "all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory" http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm It overtly authorized armed action.

In reply to TobyA:


Sorry but that's not how it was understood by the Russians and Chinese, they were furious when they saw they had been shafted, it was all over the press at the time - especially the Chinese as the Libyans had been moving towards them for oil exploitation and the invasion put a block on that, the new regime has gone back to Western countries... one of the probable reasons for the invasion amongst others like sheer hate for Gadaffi.

But you know all this, stop playing the naive.

In reply to seankenny:

Here's the article I promised, nothing very original but he pulls it all together well, written by Mouin Rabbani.

http://www.windmillweb.info/various/Israel_mows_the_lawn.doc

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
It's in the bloody resolution that I linked, just read it. I don't think the entire foreign ministries of Russia and China didn't actually read the resolution they abstained on.

And please stop telling me that I know things that you can't show to be true.

In reply to seankenny:


I'd say the shoe is on the other foot! The denigration of expertise has gone hand in hand with top down post modernism in our political and international news culture. The truth from our leaders (not our punters) is what ever you can get away with saying even in the teeth of contrary evidence, irrationality and lack of philosophical underpinning. So its necessary to look for that evidence, rationality and philosophical underpinning oneself. Personally I prefer history, linguistics and ethics as the proper basis for this discussion, whereas you've made your bed in "political science", a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. It'll keep apologists for political science like Toby happy, but that is why there is so much fundamental disagreement with you on this thread.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Without wanting to sound like a pretentious ponce (ha! some hope!), it's because I'm more interested in the truth than in being partisan. I would like my criticism of a particular state of affairs to be accurate, well-thought out, I'd like them tested by argument. You don't actually argue, I've noticed, just write down lists of outrageous events that you feel strongly about. You bring out the criteria for genoicde when it suits you, then refuse to argue whether this situation fits those criteria, saying it's being pedantic. Your opposition brooks no subtlety, or grey areas, and reminds me of nothing so much as a dodgy copper playing with evidence and law to convict his man.



What is happening - and has happened over years - in Gaza is appalling. There is no excuse for it. But it's not genocide. The whole calories thing, personally I reckon if there was a genocide going on the Palestinians would be being starved to death, whereas actually they're not. It's a horrible state of affairs, but how many people has it actually killed? Because genocide is mass murder, and that's not happening here.


I agree that it is a dehumanising affair, with much that is illegal. It may sound like a genocide to YOU, but why is your opinion equal to experts in the field who've thought long and hard about what genocide is, about how we can define it? My apologies if you've a masters in international relations or something and have actually studied this stuff...

Clearly I do not insist they should be "butchered", and quite frankly it's an insult to suggest that. All I'm saying that if you want to describe it as a genocide, then you're wrong because you're missing the essential attributes of a genocide. As I've said above, it's all very emotive and makes some of us feel good, but it's just hot air.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



I read that article in the LRB where it was first published (bet you don't believe in copyright laws either eh?).

It's a good article, that's true. But tell me, does he say it's a genocide?

In reply to contrariousjim:

>Personally I prefer history, linguistics and ethics as the proper basis for this discussion, whereas you've made your bed in "political science", a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. It'll keep apologists for political science like Toby happy, but that is why there is so much fundamental disagreement with you on this thread.

I'm sorry if I've used as a basis for my argument the definition used by all international organisations whose job it is to analyse these matters in preference to some punter's self-made view, but you've not laid out a definition and shown how this meets your definition. Or rather you have, pretty much by default, but it's so broad that I can include almost anything as a genocide.

I'm not sure where this thing about history comes from, iirc I've posted lots on other historial events, we've discused Armenia, Sri Lanka, Syria, I've pulled in population data for Palestine going back as far as the late 19th century. That looks pretty much taking a historial view to me...

In reply to Timmd:

This is a genuine question because it is something I don't know but keep wandering about in all this so please keep replies civil.

Why is there so much made of the Israeli blockade of Gaza when (as I understand it) Egypt maintains a similar level of control over the crossingat Rafah? The history of this seems very mixed with at times Egypt closing it and Hamas also, who even at one time threatened to shell palastinisns attempting to return to their homes.

Re the genocide discussion above, it seems to me that the difficulty would be in proving intent. As Toby says, if the intent was there then the IDF could easily wipe out the whole of Gaza. On the other side, Hamas has clearly stated its intent but is pretty much impotent to carry out is wishes.

Please don't get me wrong as I really don't know enough about the issues but it seems to me that Israel is held to a standard Hamas is not in these discussions. Yes Israel had committed war crimes and yes those responsible for them should be convicted but there has been almost no mention in this thread of the crimes committed by Hamas, does that mean there are none (again, genuine question) Also, several times the density of the bombing has been brought up and also the concentration of people into Gaza, does this not actually show a deliberate effort not to target civilians? Again I'm not asking in order to take sides but out of genuine interest. How do you shell a area so densely populated without civilian casualties? Certainly we couldn't manage it in Iraq or Afghanistan.

In reply to seankenny:


Genus: a kind of thing, a people, a race. -cide: killing of, elimination of. The obsession with the time and most recent numbers which this deliberate targeted conscious phenomenon has occurred is for those who have moved from moral reasoning to bean counting. What else is it that has occurred over the last century to the Palestinians? Your desire to make recourse to international institutions that have evidentially failed on, if not actually helped to cause this mess via bias and intransigence does not help your argument. Besides which, you've got it backwards: those institutions are not a post hoc authority, but rather a servant to the greater authority in the moral imperatives of people.

In reply to contrariousjim:


So here's a thing. I looked up the etymology of the word genocide in the online etymolgoy dictionary. It was conied in 1944 by a lawyer called Lemkin in response to the Holocaust. Lemkin was one of those behind the Geneva Conventions which we've been discussing - or not - throughout the thread. So taking your prompt of history and linguistics, we find that genocide is inextricably linked with the legalistic description which you abhor.

Interestingly, Lemkin proposed a broader definition of a genocide than the one originally taken up. Actually, here I think you'd be on stronger ground to argue a genocide.

According to wikipedia, Lemkin wrote:
"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group."

Personally, I think the Israelis have aimed for the destruction of the Palestinian people as a viable political force, and they certainly tick off plenty of Lemkins list of horrors, but the fact they've negotiated with the PA, albeit in bad faith, whilst battling Hamas, suggests to me their work is political, rather than tryng to destroy Palestinians "as members of a national group".

As for international organisations not helping, hasn't the UN already declared the possibility of Israeli war crimes in this conflict? Sure, they can't do much about it, but then we're into a whole different kettle of fish about the limits of national sovereignty etc etc.

In reply to contrariousjim:

>The obsession with the time and most recent numbers which this deliberate targeted conscious phenomenon has occurred is for those who have moved from moral reasoning to bean counting. What else is it that has occurred over the last century to the Palestinians?

The problem is, how can I answer your question - what has happened to the Palestinians? - without recourse to the facts, some of which come in the form of numbers? Please, suggest a methodology, a way of examining this conflict, which is free of numbers... You want to talk about land appropriated - how can we talk about this without hectares of olive groves, kilometres of concrete walls? How can we come to a judgement if a people has been eliminated without looking at the numbers of those people?

It's not bean counting, or heartless, just a way of ascertaining what's happening.

In reply to seankenny:


Who coined it with this description:
"By ‘genocide’ we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group."


It is not that that I abhor. It is those who want to turn such description into quantitative bean counts. Its people who forget the phenomenon that led to the term, and the moral imperatives in our objection to it, and obsess about post hoc authorities instead.





I'll leave you to your delusions.


Talking of possibilities has happened many times. Its never happened, and it won't happen here, unless there is a paradigm shift in attitude.

In reply to seankenny:



Its a different thing to define behaviour with numbers, than to describe events with numbers. You're argument with Shani was all about the numbers, and you'd forgotten the axiomatic moral abhorrence that lies at the core of what it is we object to.

In reply to contrariousjim:




Thing is, this is where your argument falls down - by not actually arguing. I put forward a perfectly good case that the Israelis are doing one thing, but not another - and rather than counter that, you accuse me of being delusional.



Well, agreed, and I think that change in attitudes is taking place. But I don't think that talking about genocide actually helps matters, as there are so many reasons why it isn't a genocide, that it weakens your case (which mostly consists of shouting "it is, because I say so!").

Changing society and political viewpoints requires the pairing of genuine outrage with a cool assessment of facts.

In reply to contrariousjim:


I'm confused here, as you can use numbers to do both. Which shouldn't we be doing?


You seem to have become a little windy-worded this morning. Aside from wondering just how you can possibly know what I have remembered or forgotten, I'm not sure what an "axiomatic moral abhorence" is. You mean I've forgotten how terrible the situation is? Or what we mean by war and conflict?

In reply to seankenny:


No, it doesn't give the price orange juice in Miami either.


Not that much, but I very much doubt that the author would object to his text being made public... So it's all a legality thing for you, is it, well what about the Geneva Convention which bans the use of war to change populations? That is to drive out the existing population and replace it with another when the war is over? Or any of the multitude of UN resolutions that Israel refuses to respect?

When you you speak in this post of experts who have decided what interpretation they put on the word "genocide" why should I, and all the millions of people who use the term for what's going on in Palestine, accept your bunch's meaning as being any more exact than ours? It's not as if using the word in itself has any concrete consequences, it's a word, which conveys a feeling. Just as some refer to the 900 dead (it went up when they started clearing the rubble) as butchery and others say collateral damage or some other term, it would be ridiculous to spend days arguing about the word, each person uses the word that conveys their feelings about the event, the difference of words used is down to the difference of opinions.

There is a limit of course and you want to put this limit in a different place to me, because we have different opinions. You may try the pure academic sitting on the fence only looking for truth ploy but that's a cop out, there's no sitting on the fence possible for what's happening in Gaza, not within the realms of decency anyway.

In reply to seankenny:


You haven't you've used one that suited your opinions.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Bruce, if you're going to argue, please do it in good faith. I have consistently and repeatedly refered to the UN's definition, which is the same one that you posted - iirc posted twice.

Posts like this make you look like a big, petulant baby.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Maybe not for Omar al-Bashir.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/12/bashir-charged-with-darfur-gen...

In reply to seankenny:


Well no, it isn't, take a look again. I don't think you can have the pretension to tell others what they mean by "genocide". As I've said already whole books have been written on the subject, you want to limit it to one rather vague definition. You really have to accept that the world isn't run by such methods, if it was there would be no problem, the case would have been tried, a judgement pronounced and everybody would be content - does that look how the real world works?

In reply to seankenny:



Even using your example, he is being tried for what he did, killing thousands of people, whether it is called genocide or murder does that change much?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce, I did just check and we both posted the same definition, the one I've been working with all along. It is the internationally accepted definition based very closely on the definition of the man who actually coined the word. It's not something I've made up. You've posted exactly the same definition yourself and asked me to use it.

Either you're shitting me to get a reaction, or you are genuinely a bit mad. The first would be more reassuring (tho in bad faith).

This has nothing to do with your opinion, btw, only with your denial of having posted things you blatantly have.

In reply to seankenny:

At one point when you were referring to Detroit, I gave a definition from a 1948 UN text similar to yours but with no a, b, c, presentation making it seem more open but I followed this with:


I don't think you've responded to this, nor included other references given by yourself:

"So here's a thing. I looked up the etymology of the word genocide in the online etymolgoy dictionary. It was conied in 1944 by a lawyer called Lemkin in response to the Holocaust. Lemkin was one of those behind the Geneva Conventions which we've been discussing - or not - throughout the thread. So taking your prompt of history and linguistics, we find that genocide is inextricably linked with the legalistic description which you abhor.

Interestingly, Lemkin proposed a broader definition of a genocide than the one originally taken up. Actually, here I think you'd be on stronger ground to argue a genocide.

According to wikipedia, Lemkin wrote:
"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group."

Personally, I think the Israelis have aimed for the destruction of the Palestinian people as a viable political force, and they certainly tick off plenty of Lemkins list of horrors, but the fact they've negotiated with the PA, albeit in bad faith, whilst battling Hamas, suggests to me their work is political, rather than tryng to destroy Palestinians "as members of a national group"

And I don't think you can deny that ethnic cleansing has been carried out against the Palestinians either, which all adds to the charge of genocide. Basically if you accept that the Native Americans have been victims of genocide then I don't see how you can deny the Palestinians are in the same process... but that's up to you, latest figures are over 1000 dead BTW.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So you're claiming that because one definition had the clauses lettered that the meaning was different... Sheesh!

Anyhow, it's clear if you think about it that genocide and ethnic cleansing are different and it's perfectly possible to have one without the other.

Of course the big difference between Palestian and the Native Americans is that massive numbers of them were killed, a huge proportion of their population (it would be I interesting to see the figures) whereas there are now more Palestinians now than in 1947. That's not to belittle the appalling deaths of Palestinians both recently and over the decades.

In reply to seankenny:

Are you sure there are not more descendants of Native Americans today then there were back in the 19th century? I'm not. But they have lost their lands and their culture, a genocide for most people even if you are still looking for "proof". It's the same with the Palestinians, throughout the world there are about 11 million of them, far more than at the beginning of the 19th century, yet they have been mostly chased from Palestine, their way of life has been destroyed pretty well and they have lost all but a fraction of their lands, and that fraction is occupied by violent, racist, alien people. They have no freedom and little dignity except in the way they choose to die, standing up or cowering... sounds pretty much like for the Amerindians, except that it is still going on and on and on.


Really, I thought that that was precisely what your pedantry was about.... pages of posts to get away from the real subject.

In reply to seankenny and Bruce Hooker:
I think this question of genocide is interesting, but it does seem to boil down rather to an exercise in definitions. Personally I see racism along a sliding scale, at the severe end including these 'markers':

- Seeing people of another race as inferior and denying them equal rights and opportunities
- Seeing people of another race as inhuman or worthless, and thus treating their deaths as inconsequential
- Seeing people of another race as a threat to the in-group's access to resources, a an evil force and taking action to eliminate the threat by mass murder

The latter is the way I would define genocide, although of course this definition is not sophisticated and carries no weight as I just made it up. But for me, Isreal's actions sit squarely in the middle of these forms of severe racism. Even if there are elements within the Israeli far right whose intentions are genocidal, on balance the assault on Gaza cannot truthfully be described as an attempt to wipe out the Palestinians in this way.

I would also point out that equally deep racism and genocidal intentions exist within the Hamas nutcases, but given the brutal oppression of the Palestinian people it is at least a little easier to understand how such hatred has been bred.

In reply to contrariousjim:


But why is our/your moral abhorrence axiomatic here but not over the mass murder that has gone on in CAR over the last few months? Or the dispossession of the Saharwis of their homeland? etc. Is it axiomatic because we see it on the news? Do we have moral abhorrence of event only when BBC World or Al Jaazeera have their cameras running? If a Muslim child is macheted to death by the Anti-balaka in a CAR forest does anyone hear him scream?

In reply to TobyA:

These dimwitted, whataboutery remarks have been answered dozens of times, are you never going to give up?

Maybe you should have been in Marseilles yesterday, there was a demonstration there in favour of Israel, lead by the UMP mayor Jean-Claude Gaudin. Surely it time you had a coming out on this subject? You can't keep on beating around the bush like this.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Moving on to "Whataboutery" from "Red Herrings" Brucey? Bring back the fish - although of course last week when people were discussing the downing of MH17 I noticed you didn't have much to say beyond rehashing the shooting down of the Iranian airbus 30 years ago and that the Ukrainian government have been bombing areas of Eastern Ukraine. What colour are your herrings?

Or perhaps you could just let contrariousjim answer the question because I'm interested in his thoughts.

p.s. read this the other day and thought of you http://www.salon.com/2014/07/26/strange_bedfellows_putin_the_chomskyite_lef...

An interesting perspective from Sam Harris: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel

In reply to TobyA:


I hadn't heard the term before but it applies more precisely to what you do, whataboutery is a subset of red-herrings, but just as silly.

Concerning the Ukraine plane maybe we should wait for the black boxes and so on to give us some facts rather than jump on a propaganda train? Asia Times has a little to say on the subject, I know they are not acceptable media for you but as you insist:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-190714.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-230714.html

If I wanted to whatabout you I could ask you why you have never condemned the >1000 civilians dead at the hands of the Kiev chocolate butcher. You or the press in general, perhaps they are Slavs and we all know they don't matter?

Well done though, another thread about Israel's crimes well off subject.

In reply to TobyA:


Well its a simple point of fact that you can only object to what you know about! Which is a reason to be suspicious of the agenda of news and media organisations, and one's sources of information. But this thread being on the subject of Gaza, it has focussed on Gaza, but there is every reason to object to what is happening in CAR, Mosul, Benghazi, Syria, etc. Gaza certainly isn't unique in provoking outrage. It's not just about media coverage, but also about the development of consciousness on international issues, which on Israel is a consciousness that has been developed from many decades of familiarity with the issues. That doesn't mean that there is less of a morally objection in the context of other issues, and it doesn't mean that moral objection has to be unique to the particular situation.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You realise that Pepe is a columnist don't you? Not a reporter who has gone there and looked at things? There is a difference. In fact reading those articles, the Salon column I linked could be written exactly about Mr Escobar don't you think.

In reply to Shani: