NationStates Jolt Archive

Guess I was wrong about it being systematic. Oh well.

How would one decide if it was systematic?

We know that Darfur is pretty much a genocide. How do we see systematic behaviour there that we don't see here?

How much death is widespread death? Do we have numbers for this?

How does one define cultural loss?

While I agree it's subjective, I think that's where the intent question comes in. It's the question of, if we look at the relative power levels, and ask ourselves "if Israel intended to significantly destroy the Palestinian people, given their military and technological superiority, how would such an intent manifest itself? What would it look like?"

And then we can look at what we have, and see if that holds up to our expectations. And, in my opinion, if Israel was to actually undertake a genocide of the Palestinian people, they'd all be dead. Every single one of them.

And they're not. Their population is growing. Very very quickly. The reason I say that this isn't a genocide, in fact, isn't even close, is because if Israel really wanted to commit genocide, there'd be no debate as to what it was.

Yes, it's an evasion. I thought that was pretty bloody obvious. But not wrong, because the Israelis are not conducting Genocide.

Which doesn't matter. Because what Israel IS doing won't remove the threat. And genocide - which was the extreme I posited to test the 'any means necessary' claim - wouldn't remove the threat.

But, if it would? Would it be 'worth it'?

wait a moment. Are you seriously saying that with a population that is one of the fastest growing in the world, and a two week war with one of the most modern and powerful armies in existence, that has amounted to a death toll of less than 1000, you need a report to tell you that Israel is not committing genocide?

Fucking seriously? Do you need a committee to issue you a report telling you when it's raining outside before you take an umbrella?

All that is actually kind of irrelevent.

If Israel is systematically killing a group (theoretically, a genepool, but I believe they allow a less academic interpretation), it's not unreasonable to question whether or not it counts as 'genocide'.

Of course, the only way there could be a TOTAL absence of debate, would be if they'd wiped out EVERYONE... then it unquestionably IS genocide. But, not everyone is going to hold the phone waiting for that kind of terminal confirmation.

The fact that Israel are either indiscriminately killing civilians... or even, possibly, targetting them... makes this a real question.

I don't think Israel is always correct in their military actions. I think they have a right to defend themselves. I think they have a right to kill people who attack their country. I think in the process of doing so innocents will, unfortunately, die, but I still think their measures could be carried out with a bit more....openness to the idea of looking before shooting.


Hamas is a guy with a gun. Palestine is a hotel. Israel is a cop. The guy with the gun is threatening some hostages maybe... and it's been argued that he's hiding behind a visiting children's softball team. He also occassionally cracks a shot out of a window at the surrounding cop cars.

The cop has decided to cure this hostage crisis by calling in airstrikes of bunkerbuster bombs and napalm.


In other words - you don't massacre civilians to get at suspected militants. Force of response has to be measured against real threat.

The fact that Israel are either indiscriminately killing civilians... or even, possibly, targetting them... makes this a real question.

no, it does not. Because indiscriminately killing civilians, or even possibly targeting them, isn't genocide.

Genocide requires intent. Even if the europeans had never colonized the new world, the single largest cause of death would still have occurred - the spread of disease.

The europeans also intended to kill everyone there, so that's a bad example.

no, it does not. Because indiscriminately killing civilians, or even possibly targeting them, isn't genocide.

Sure it is. If you kill enough of them, and you're specific about it.

I'm not quite sure what you're arguing - that Israel simply haven't indsicriminately killed enough of one group for it to 'count'?

Just for reference, Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, states:


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.

Just for reference, Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, states:

Strong arguments for Israel as genocidal on... well, at least three counts, I'd say.

Strong arguments for Israel as genocidal on... well, at least three counts, I'd say.

Perhaps. But, it's one of those things that also applies to so many other situations that have never nor will ever come to trial. It doesn't carry as much weight as one would wish for... but I think it's a bit more definitive than Merriam-Webster in this context.

The strength is debatable: with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The question is whether Hamas constitutes a part of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group in the sense the article intends...I would say probably not, as inherent to "member of Hamas" is not the concept of "Palestinian", but rather "goal of Palestinian state."

Honestly, at best you could say that Israel is being genocidally negligent, perhaps. Unfortunately, that is neither a legally nor popularly recognized term. It is the height of hyperbole to say that Israel is engaging in a true genocide, though, but whatever, on this board you are either fervently for Israel and all its actions, carte blanche, apparently, or fervently against anything, absolutely anything, it does. I really don't understand why these debates are so susceptible to being completely polarized by otherwise somewhat intelligent people.

The strength is debatable: with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The question is whether Hamas constitutes a part of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group in the sense the article intends...I would say probably not, as inherent to "member of Hamas" is not the concept of "Palestinian", but rather "goal of Palestinian state."

Honestly, at best you could say that Israel is being genocidally negligent, perhaps. Unfortunately, that is neither a legally nor popularly recognized term. It is the height of hyperbole to say that Israel is engaging in a true genocide, though, but whatever, on this board you are either fervently for Israel and all its actions, carte blanche, apparently, or fervently against anything, absolutely anything, it does. I really don't understand why these debates are so susceptible to being completely polarized by otherwise somewhat intelligent people.

Strawman. No one is saying Israel has no right to destroy Hamas.

Sure it is. If you kill enough of them, and you're specific about it.

I'm not quite sure what you're arguing - that Israel simply haven't indsicriminately killed enough of one group for it to 'count'?Not enough to be within several orders of magnitude of the population growth among the Palestinians, let alone to be any threat of "wiping them out". A car crash is tragic, but it's not "the same as" 9/11. An anthill is not "the same as" Mt. Everest.

Not enough to be within several orders of magnitude of the population growth among the Palestinians, let alone to be any threat of "wiping them out". A car crash is tragic, but it's not "the same as" 9/11. An anthill is not "the same as" Mt. Everest.

and 970 dead and 4,300 wounded Palestinians is not a "car crash", nor is it an "anthill". Especilly when the vast majority are civillians. Many of which died because the Israelis didnt quite know how to target, apperantly.

All that is actually kind of irrelevent.

If Israel is systematically killing a group (theoretically, a genepool, but I believe they allow a less academic interpretation), it's not unreasonable to question whether or not it counts as 'genocide'.

Of course, the only way there could be a TOTAL absence of debate, would be if they'd wiped out EVERYONE... then it unquestionably IS genocide. But, not everyone is going to hold the phone waiting for that kind of terminal confirmation.

The fact that Israel are either indiscriminately killing civilians... or even, possibly, targetting them... makes this a real question.

It's more like apartheid with a dash or two of slow-drip ethnic cleansing added to the cocktail. Not genocide, but nobody rational says what's going on is bunnies and rainbows either.

You see what I'm getting at? The influx of westernised and relatively wealthy Jewish people to Palestine must have seemed like the sushi restaurant. The social and cultural change might have been a great idea, but it probably wasn't what they wanted, certainly not what they'd planned to deal with, and definitely provoked a response of some sort. The response they gave was disproportionate and out of line, doubtlessly, but not irrational. Frustration and the feeling of a loss of communal identity provoke very strong reactions in people, and it's no wonder they wanted to reclaim what they thought had been taken from them when their sale turned out to be more than they'd bargained for.
What is your attitude when German toughs burn Turkish immigrants out of their homes, fearing that their country is being "stolen" from them? The Palestinians are closely akin ideologically to the neo-Nazis (more accurately, to the paleo-Nazis, whose allies they were).
What would you say if the Germans actually elected the Nazis to be their government; and started attacking their neighbors; and as a result ended up with their country occupied, and millions of Germans chased out of their homes so that other people could settle in those lands, which the Germans are told they can never reclaim? Oh wait...

and 970 dead and 4,300 wounded Palestinians is not a "car crash", nor is it an "anthill".
Compared to actual genocides, yes, it is.

Strawman. No one is saying Israel has no right to destroy Hamas.

Actually, you're wrong. It has been said in this thread that Israel has no right to destroy Hamas. Regardless, the only thing you could possibly be referring to (because I have to assume you are literate...you wrote a post, so it must have been something you read in my post) was a small component at the end of the post. Even then, I'm not sure wtf you're claiming is a strawman, to be honest.

Actually....ignore what I just wrote. Maybe I should just respond with the naming of a fallacy. Slippery slope. No one is saying Palestinian conduct will eventually allow them to pull the moon into the sea.

Wait. If they can't determine what a genocide is, how are they supposed to come up with policy to prevent them?

I didn't say they couldn't. What I said was, the current situation in Israel/Palestine being ongoing, it is not a useful example with which to define Genocide, which is what the council has to do first.

Actually....ignore what I just wrote. Maybe I should just respond with the naming of a fallacy. Slippery slope. No one is saying Palestinian conduct will eventually allow them to pull the moon into the sea.

lolwut?

The europeans also intended to kill everyone there, so that's a bad example.

Well...no, actually. The Spaniards wanted slaves, land and Gold, not necessarilly in that order. The church wanted to convert the "heathens". Most of the rest of the settlers wanted land.

Most of the wiping out was unintentional by-product, of a sort. If anything, I find that somewhat more horrible.

Do you have an alternate explanation?
I am sick and tired of hearing you claim that the Palestinian violence is caused by the occupation, when the reverse is true.

I've yet to see you come up with proof for your claim that Hamas blew up the school the IDF claimed they did because someone was shooting not inside it, but in the neighborhood.

Will you vanish again until you think I've forgotten about it then?

On a side note, one interesting factoid is that the most infamous Israeli massacres (cave of Patriarchs) and assassinations (Rabin) were done not by native born Jews, but by American immigrants Jews. I wonder if that says something.

Compared to actual genocides, yes, it is.

I see. Could you explain what you mean by "actual" genocide? Is that sort of like "TRUE" Scotsman?

I think it is. There is no set number requisite for it to be "actually" genocide, by whatever definition. Apparently in your definition you have a number range. 970 is clearly below the lower limit; what is it? 1000? 10,000? The maximum of the 'group' in question (i.e, there has never been any 'actual' genocide)?

On a side note, one interesting factoid is that the most infamous Israeli massacres (cave of Patriarchs) and assassinations (Rabin) were done not by native born Jews, but by American immigrants Jews. I wonder if that says something.

Not really surprising. Meir Kahane was a native New Yorker after all.

You know, I went to New Zealand on a two week holiday hoping that all this Gaza shit would be over when I returned - no such luck.
I haven't caught up on the two weeks of postings from all the interested parties and nor do I think I shall - though no doubt there were some interesting posts.
Let's face it, whatever is posted here will have zilch effect on what is going on there, so appalled humanitarians, keep venting your spleen if it does you good, and socialist zionists keep despairing (remember that being a good Jew and feeling that you have to defend Israel no matter what CAN be two different things.... expressing an wish for eventual peace is the safest bet here guys) and Palestinian supporters, yeh the Palestinians are getting a crap deal - whatever happens the Palestinians lose.
So what's my point? This Tsouris (trouble) will continue. Israel won't kill off Hamas because no country could. Israel can win the Battle for Gaza but in the long term it will have to claw back world sympathy. Thank G-d that Bush has only a week left.... noyt that Obama will be able to change things in a hurry.

Well what can be said for war and violence? Does it clear the air?
Napoleon was generally for it ("What cannot be won on the battlefield will not be won over the negotiating table".) But Napoleon lost.

Maybe we should reverse it.... "What cannot be won on the negotiating table will not be won on the battlefield."

Maybe we need both.

This war and peace dance between Israel and Palestine seems like one step forward and two steps back.

Remeber that there are plenty of Palestinian and Israelis who are sick of all this crap and who just want peace - just as there are fanatics on both sides who will do everything they can to stop the peace process.
Salaaam/Shalom!

What is your attitude when German toughs burn Turkish immigrants out of their homes, fearing that their country is being "stolen" from them?
I would blame them of overreaction, just as I am the Palestinians. There is a subtle difference there in that the Turkish immigrants are not actually economically powerful enough to significantly change the way Germany works, when the Jewish immigrants to Palestine were, but the same argument applies - the Germans here are merely being even more disproportionate.

From 1920-1947, what was their excuse then?

Being shafted by the Brits over their own independence, fear, ignorance.......O - Sorry - it was blood lust.


The question was....

The conflict between the British and the Arabs in 1916, and the Balfour declaration, concepts of land ownership and a rake of other reasons......Not the kind of simplistic shite you keep trotting out

What is your attitude when German toughs burn Turkish immigrants out of their homes, fearing that their country is being "stolen" from them?....

As the Federal Government of the GDR isn't committed to creating a Turkish state within Germany, I fail to see what - apart from trying to score some emotive point - you're bringing that in as an example for.

and 970 dead and 4,300 wounded Palestinians is not a "car crash", nor is it an "anthill". Especilly when the vast majority are civillians. Many of which died because the Israelis didnt quite know how to target, apperantly.

Equally, it's hardly a substantial quantity, given that the combat has been in urban, populated areas, and that Hamashas shown precious little courage on its use of human shields.

Not that either side are paragons of virtue, but Israel does not consciously intend to kill citizens as an independant goal; Hamas does.

Not that either side are paragons of virtue, but Israel does not consciously intend to kill citizens as an independant goal; Hamas does.

This cannot be said to be a certainty either, given that Israel has struck UN relief centers and schools which have had no militant activity in them in the days leading up to the attack, although they did try to fake it with year old photos later on as justification.

Compared to actual genocides, yes, it is.

I want numbers. How many deaths per day is required before we're allowed to call it a genocide?

I didn't say they couldn't. What I said was, the current situation in Israel/Palestine being ongoing, it is not a useful example with which to define Genocide, which is what the council has to do first.

So, the fighting has to be over before we can decide?

That would imply that Colin Powell was talking out of his ass whe he described the Darfur conflict as a genocide.

Just to be clear, I don't think Israel is guilty of genocide. I just think it's odd that people seem to be unwilling to even debate about it.

I want numbers. How many deaths per day is required before we're allowed to call it a genocide?

It has nothing to do with deaths per day, it has to do with the manner in which the deaths are caused. No one would call the 2.5 million Germans killed in WWI a genocide. The question is whether the Palestinian deaths in Gaza are a result of deliberate attempts by Israel at widespread extermination, or the result of legitimate, if often times seemingly incompetant, military actions.

It has nothing to do with deaths per day, it has to do with the manner in which the deaths are caused. No one would call the 2.5 million Germans killed in WWI a genocide. The question is whether the Palestinian deaths in Gaza are a result of deliberate attempts by Israel at widespread extermination, or the result of legitimate, if often times seemingly incompetant, military actions.

Tmutarakhan was asserting that this can not be a genocide because of the low numbers of death. He or she obviously has some number in his or her head about how many deaths it takes to qualify. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what that number is.

As to the question of whether or not is a deliberate attempt, how does one go about deciding that?

Tmutarakhan was asserting that this can not be a genocide because of the low numbers of death. He or she obviously has some number in his or her head about how many deaths it takes to qualify. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what that number is.

As to the question of whether or not is a deliberate attempt, how does one go about deciding that?

I think it's unreasonable and a deliberate misconstruing of his point to ask for a magic "genocide number". He did not claim that the number alone is why it does not qualify as a genocide; he merely stated that the deaths in Gaza due to the most recent military action are minor in comparison to actual genocide. These attempts to reduce his argument down to some sort of genocide cut-off number are just strawmen arguments.

As far as determining whether the current actions are a deliberate attempt at the extermination of the Palestinian people, I think anyone with even a modicum of reason can plainly see that it is not the case. Any and all rational minds will agree that Israel possesses the military capabilities to cause a lot more death than they currently are. If their goal really was a Palestinian genocide, I don't think anyone would have to debate it.

Tmutarakhan was asserting that this can not be a genocide because of the low numbers of death. He or she obviously has some number in his or her head about how many deaths it takes to qualify. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what that number is.

As to the question of whether or not is a deliberate attempt, how does one go about deciding that?

If someone was actually trying to commit genocide, using the weapons available to the Israelis, everyone in Gaza would already be dead.

Use your head.

I think it's unreasonable and a deliberate misconstruing of his point to ask for a magic "genocide number". He did not claim that the number alone is why it does not qualify as a genocide; he merely stated that the deaths in Gaza due to the most recent military action are minor in comparison to actual genocide. These attempts to reduce his argument down to some sort of genocide cut-off number are just strawmen arguments.

So, we know that it's far less than the deaths of an actual genocide, but we don't know how many deaths there are in an actual genocide. I guess we're just assuming.

As far as determining whether the current actions are a deliberate attempt at the extermination of the Palestinian people, I think anyone with even a modicum of reason can plainly see that it is not the case. Any and all rational minds will agree that Israel possesses the military capabilities to cause a lot more death than they currently are. If their goal really was a Palestinian genocide, I don't think anyone would have to debate it.

So, if it not self-evident, then the person must be irrational and devoid of reason?

That doesn't answer my question at all. I'll ask it again.

How does one go about determining whether or not it is a deliberate attempt?

I want numbers. How many deaths per day is required before we're allowed to call it a genocide?



So, the fighting has to be over before we can decide?

That would imply that Colin Powell was talking out of his ass whe he described the Darfur conflict as a genocide.

Just to be clear, I don't think Israel is guilty of genocide. I just think it's odd that people seem to be unwilling to even debate about it.

Oh, I get that. My point is that an ongoing conflict isn't useful for establishing a baseline, which is the first thing this council needs to do. For that purpose alone, neither the current situation in Palestine/Israel nor Darfur is particularly useful.

Once the baseline is established, the council can compare current, ongoing events to it and determine whether those events meet the criteria for genocide. This is important, because while genocide has been forbidden, exactly what constitutes it in a real-world sense has never been adequately defined.

How does one go about determining whether or not it is a deliberate attempt?

Easy. In 5 years time we ask the Israeli population what they think of what happened. If they answer with "wir haben es nicht gewusst" ...

So, we know that it's far less than the deaths of an actual genocide, but we don't know how many deaths there are in an actual genocide. I guess we're just assuming.

The number is irrelevant. If there is a single person in the entire world that belongs to a particular ethnic group, and you kill them specifically because they are of that ethnic group, that is genocide. If you kill millions and millions of people at random, with no thought towards killing them for being part of any particular ethinc, racial, religious, or whatever else group, that is not genocide. I cannot make it any clearer for you.


So, if it not self-evident, then the person must be irrational and devoid of reason?

That doesn't answer my question at all. I'll ask it again.

How does one go about determining whether or not it is a deliberate attempt?

Yes. If you look at the situation in Israel right now, considering the military capabilities at Israel's disposal, and you believe that they might still be trying to exterminate the entire Palestinian population, then that is irrational. Israel possesses the means to wipe out the entire Palestinian population. That they have not, and are not attempting to, means genocide seems to not be their goal. Israel could just start levelling Gazan cities if they wanted to kill as many Palestinians as possible.

Your question was answered, but I'll answer it again for you. If you look at a conflict, if one side has the means to completely eradicate the other side, but does not, then you can safely determine that completely eradicating the other side isn't their ultimate objective.

How does one go about determining whether or not it is a deliberate attempt?

Look at the weaponry available to the Israelis.

Any military expert could tell you that if the Israelis really wanted to commit genocide, they would send in zero ground troops.

They would bomb Gaza out of existence in a single day, and level every single building to the ground.

Then, and only then, would they send in ground troops to kill the survivors.

Obviously, they are not doing this. The casualty rate would already have been in the hundreds of thousands - and it's nowhere near that rate.

You're just wishing that it was genocide, to justify your own views of Israelis.

Tmutarakhan was asserting that this can not be a genocide because of the low numbers of death. He or she obviously has some number in his or her head about how many deaths it takes to qualify. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what that number is.

As to the question of whether or not is a deliberate attempt, how does one go about deciding that?

For one, as any classicist would know, "genocide" is a conscious attempt to exterminate a "gentes". Since Israel quite manifestly is not attempting to exterminate every Palestinian, irrespective of the opinions of some in the west, it isn't genocide.

The civilian casualties are unfortunate, innocent victims, and nothing more.

I'm not sure if this should be in the Palestine-Israel megathread (if the mods think so, move it or lock it, by all means) but here it goes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_al_qaida_israel

CAIRO, Egypt – Al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden urged Muslims to launch a jihad against Israel and condemned Arab governments as allies of the Jewish state in a new message aimed at harnessing anger in the Mideast over the Gaza offensive.

Bin Laden spoke in an audiotape posted Wednesday on Islamic militant Web sites where al-Qaida usually issues its messages. It was his first tape since May and came nearly three weeks after Israel started its campaign against Gaza's militant Hamas rulers.

The al-Qaida leader also vowed that the terror network would open "new fronts" against the United States and its allies beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. He said President-elect Barack Obama has received a "heavy inheritance" from George W. Bush — two wars and "the collapse of the economy," which he said will render the United States unable to sustain a long fight against the mujahedeen, or holy warriors.

"There is only one strong way to bring the return of Al-Aqsa and Palestine, and that is jihad in the path of God," bin Laden said in the 22-minute audiotape, referring to the revered Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. "The duty is to urge people to jihad and to enlist the youth into jihad brigades."

"Islamic nation, you are capable of defeating the Zionist entity with your popular capabilities and your great hidden strength — without the support of (Arab) leaders and despite the fact that most of (the leaders) stand in the barracks of the Crusader-Zionist alliance," bin Laden said.

The authenticity of the tape could not be independently confirmed, but the voice resembled that of bin Laden in previous messages.

The tape, entitled "a call for jihad to stop the aggression on Gaza," was played over a still picture of bin Laden and the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem's Old City, one of Islam's holiest sites. But there were no English subtitles and flashy production graphics that usually accompany such messages.

Does anyone here think that bin Laden is giving an ultimatum to Obama? Comments.

I repeat what I said about Osama Bin Laden being king of the trolls.

He's flamebaiting us, and hopefully Obama doesn't take the bait like Bush always does.

Look at the weaponry available to the Israelis.

Any military expert could tell you that if the Israelis really wanted to commit genocide, they would send in zero ground troops.

They would bomb Gaza out of existence in a single day, and level every single building to the ground.

And a day later Israel would be very big hole in the ground. For some reason the rest of the world does not like genocide being committed so openly.

And a day later Israel would be very big hole in the ground. For some reason the rest of the world does not like genocide being committed so openly.

By whom?

I repeat what I said about Osama Bin Laden being king of the trolls.

He's flamebaiting us, and hopefully Obama doesn't take the bait like Bush always does.

I hope so too because, otherwise, I don't see a time when the US troops can be taken back to their homeland or an end to the war.

Oh, I get that. My point is that an ongoing conflict isn't useful for establishing a baseline, which is the first thing this council needs to do. For that purpose alone, neither the current situation in Palestine/Israel nor Darfur is particularly useful.

Once the baseline is established, the council can compare current, ongoing events to it and determine whether those events meet the criteria for genocide. This is important, because while genocide has been forbidden, exactly what constitutes it in a real-world sense has never been adequately defined.

That makes sense. It helps me understand why it's so difficult to debate whether or not any nation is commitiing genocide. Or perhaps it has been defined as per the previous links, but the definition is hard to pin to real world circumstances.

This is why I keep asking about how we determine systemisation. It is part of the definition for genocide. But it seems like no one can tell me how this is manifest in real life, or how we test for it.

Easy. In 5 years time we ask the Israeli population what they think of what happened. If they answer with "wir haben es nicht gewusst" ...

Okay. that went over my head.

By whom?

Several I think. Quite a few countries in the region have nukes - Iran in fact is one of the few who doesn't.

They would bomb Gaza out of existence in a single day, and level every single building to the ground.

Then, and only then, would they send in ground troops to kill the survivors.

Look, here's how you commit genocide. You develop a disease in a lab, and a cure. You lock down the Gaza strip, and then have "a reconnaissance plane" drop the disease over the Gaza strip.

Everyone starts dying by the truckload, but you keep the cure under wraps. Once everyone is dead, then you take over the Gaza strip. If the disease spreads to soldiers guarding the checkpoint, you give them an "experimental" cure.

As soon as it works (which it will, because you built it), you provide it to the Palestinian population, which has already been 95% wiped out. Then, you look like the great magnanimous Israel that provided the cure to people who hate them.

Game, set, and match - Israel.

Several I think. Quite a few countries in the region have nukes - Iran in fact is one of the few who doesn't.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. They are the only Muslim country, and the only country that could be considered "in the region" to possess such capabilities. Unless you consider Russia in the region.

The number is irrelevant. If there is a single person in the entire world that belongs to a particular ethnic group, and you kill them specifically because they are of that ethnic group, that is genocide.

This muddies the term and waters it down. It cannot be considered to be genocide, or every other racially motivated killing, no matter how small becomes genocide.

Arguing that race based killings is genocide is deceptive at best.

Race based killing with the goal of terminating all members of that ethnic group is genocide, no more, no less.

Look, here's how you commit genocide. You develop a disease in a lab, and a cure. You lock down the Gaza strip, and then have "a reconnaissance plane" drop the disease over the Gaza strip.

Everyone starts dying by the truckload, but you keep the cure under wraps. Once everyone is dead, then you take over the Gaza strip. If the disease spreads to soldiers guarding the checkpoint, you give them an "experimental" cure.

As soon as it works (which it will, because you built it), you provide it to the Palestinian population, which has already been 95% wiped out. Then, you look like the great magnanimous Israel that provided the cure to people who hate them.

Game, set, and match - Israel.

Funny how that isn't happening.

This is why I keep asking about how we determine systemisation. It is part of the definition for genocide. But it seems like no one can tell me how this is manifest in real life, or how we test for it.

I think we can safely say though that Israel is not committing genocide.
Israel IS however using a disproportionate response. One can compare it to a farmer who decides to grab his mini-gun to exterminate all the kids that ever nicked an apple as well as everyone standing close to them.

Okay. that went over my head.

It was a reference to the fact thatmost Germans in WWII did not realise (or at least claim they did not know) genocide was being committed until afterwards.

I hope so too because, otherwise, I don't see a time when the US troops can be taken back to their homeland or an end to the war.

Bush falls for the flamebait every time. He's not a very good forum goer. Either that, or he doesn't recognize the trolling qualities of Al-Qaida.

I'm hoping Obama has spent some time on this forum and can recognize the trolls. *nods sagely*

Hi Obama! If you're reading this, I'd like a vacation to the White House once you get in.

Funny how that isn't happening.

I'm just saying: that's how you would do it and get away with it.

That makes sense. It helps me understand why it's so difficult to debate whether or not any nation is commitiing genocide. Or perhaps it has been defined as per the previous links, but the definition is hard to pin to real world circumstances.

This is why I keep asking about how we determine systemisation. It is part of the definition for genocide. But it seems like no one can tell me how this is manifest in real life, or how we test for it.


Now you grasp the essence of the problem. And why I'm ver happy that a council such as this is being formed to answer such questions.

George W. Bush: Not only the head of the World Police, but also the head of the World Wide Web Police. Were ED not banned, there's a wonderful article that speaks volumes about internet tough guys. <3

George W. Bush: Not only the head of the World Police, but also the head of the World Wide Web Police. Were ED not banned, there's a wonderful article that speaks volumes about internet tough guys. <3

The media has given us tons of those.

Look, here's how you commit genocide. You develop a disease in a lab, and a cure. You lock down the Gaza strip, and then have "a reconnaissance plane" drop the disease over the Gaza strip.

Everyone starts dying by the truckload, but you keep the cure under wraps. Once everyone is dead, then you take over the Gaza strip. If the disease spreads to soldiers guarding the checkpoint, you give them an "experimental" cure.

As soon as it works (which it will, because you built it), you provide it to the Palestinian population, which has already been 95% wiped out. Then, you look like the great magnanimous Israel that provided the cure to people who hate them.

Game, set, and match - Israel.

Disease has five natural vector possibilities. Waterborne, airborne, direct contact (topical or bodily fluids), insects or rodents.

Of the five, only two are air deployable. Waterborne or airborne. Of these two, only airborne allows for a spread rate that is not dependent on the patchwork of water supply infrastructure.

Waterborne diseases, if seeping into the groundwater, have a high probability of affecting nearby friendly settlements which may draw from the same source.

Airborne diseases by their nature cannot be restricted solely by blockades and may very well spread to the blockades and beyond. This also does not account for the possibility of the disease spreading to other possible vectors like insects or animals, further increasing rate of spread that cannot be realistically contained by a blockade.

Additionally, a disease with a 95% mortality rate must have a very long incubation period, or it simply kills all possible hosts in reach and dies off before spreading very far. This greatly increases the risk of early detection, and alerts to international health organizations. Political fallout from such detection would be extreme, especially in the event of disease mutation which allows its spread beyond the containment area.

In summary. It's a terribly stupid idea.

Additionally, a disease with a 95% mortality rate must have a very long incubation period, or it simply kills all possible hosts in reach and dies off before spreading very far. This greatly increases the risk of early detection, and alerts to international health organizations. Political fallout from such detection would be extreme, especially in the event of disease mutation which allows its spread beyond the containment area.

In summary. It's a terribly stupid idea.

Ah, you are quite correct that airborne is a really bad idea. I retract that. However, a direct contact would not be hard to pull off with an agent who can go in and spread the disease around to a few places. But, given the Arab world doesn't seem to really do "touching" that much, that might not work very well either.

Hmm... rodentborne disease would probably be the best, but you run the risk of the rodents running the blockades. Very curious.

*thinks*

And I don't think the incubation period would have to be that long. You only need 2-3 days while infectious with no symptoms for it to keep getting passed.

The number is irrelevant. If there is a single person in the entire world that belongs to a particular ethnic group, and you kill them specifically because they are of that ethnic group, that is genocide. If you kill millions and millions of people at random, with no thought towards killing them for being part of any particular ethinc, racial, religious, or whatever else group, that is not genocide. I cannot make it any clearer for you.

Yes. If you look at the situation in Israel right now, considering the military capabilities at Israel's disposal, and you believe that they might still be trying to exterminate the entire Palestinian population, then that is irrational. Israel possesses the means to wipe out the entire Palestinian population. That they have not, and are not attempting to, means genocide seems to not be their goal. Israel could just start levelling Gazan cities if they wanted to kill as many Palestinians as possible.

Your question was answered, but I'll answer it again for you. If you look at a conflict, if one side has the means to completely eradicate the other side, but does not, then you can safely determine that completely eradicating the other side isn't their ultimate objective.

So, let's say that it requires targetting a significant percentage of a population. That's fine. You could then say that if Israel is not targetting a significant percentage of the Gaza population, then it is not genocide. yet actions such as building a wall and blockading aid target a significant percentage of the population.

This idea that we can determine whether or not it is systematic based on the fact that the gazans are not all exterminated yet doesn't seem logical to me. It could be systematic and slow, for example. Or they may not yet have the opportunity to do it with impunity.

Touché, dear nekomimi. :D

Touché, dear nekomimi. :D

Arigatou gozaimasu, Konata-koibito.:wink:

We need at least one tasteless moment in an otherwise too serious thread

http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v1956/102/24/530078447/n530078447_1892888_9955.jpg

You have just made that song far more fun for me.

You have just made that song far more fun for me.

I had to get in a dig at Celine.

I had to get in a dig at Celine.

...and the grieving victims of war. Tee-hee, that's so funny! You're such a funny guy!

...and the grieving victims of war. Tee-hee, that's so funny! You're such a funny guy!

"The grieving man is obviously a Muslim. And of course, schadenfreude at Muslim suffering and tragedy is not only acceptable, but encouraged."

At least that's how Kimchi logic goes.

...and the grieving victims of war. Tee-hee, that's so funny! You're such a funny guy!

All too much of it you either learn to laugh or you wind up crying.

All too much of it you either learn to laugh or you wind up crying.

I'd like to see someone laugh about it if the pic used had been from the Oklahoma City bombing or 9-11.

I'd like to see someone laugh about it if the pic used had been from the Oklahoma City bombing or 9-11.

It really wouldn't have made that much difference to me. People are people, when all's said and done.

All too much of it you either learn to laugh or you wind up crying.

I think that's a bit of a false dichotomy. I don't have either reaction, and in this case I'm merely pointing out how incredibly witty and humorous Hotwife is. He should go into comedy once he completes another three law degrees.

Several I think. Quite a few countries in the region have nukes - Iran in fact is one of the few who doesn't.???
Name your "quite a few countries in the region" who have nukes.

I want numbers. How many deaths per day is required before we're allowed to call it a genocide?
At the very least you should be talking about more deaths per day than births per day, rather than a laughably small fraction of one percent of the birth rate.
This ought to be considered utterly absurd: here the Palestinians are, by a wide margin, the fastest growing ethnic group on the planet, and you are asking whether they are being exterminated?

Several I think. Quite a few countries in the region have nukes - Iran in fact is one of the few who doesn't.

Eh? Pakistan is the only Muslim country with nukes, and they're not even that close to Israel. You're talking shit.

At the very least you should be talking about more deaths per day than births per day, rather than a laughably small fraction of one percent of the birth rate.
This ought to be considered utterly absurd: here the Palestinians are, by a wide margin, the fastest growing ethnic group on the planet, and you are asking whether they are being exterminated?

That's like saying pest exterminators aren't killing cockroaches because there are loads of them. Palestinian isn't an ethnic group, as well, by the way.

At the very least you should be talking about more deaths per day than births per day, rather than a laughably small fraction of one percent of the birth rate.

I see nothing inherent about any definition of genocide where the "births per day" matters one bit. Because it don't.

Because it don't.

Doesn't.

Doesn't.

Yes, thank you, Grammar Goebbels. :)

Yes, thank you, Grammar Goebbels. :)

That's OK, grammar Jew.

Eh? Pakistan is the only Muslim country with nukes, and they're not even that close to Israel. You're talking shit.

Wow - you (and the others calling me on this) are claiming George W Bush LIED when he said there were WoMD hidden there ;) ?

Oh dear. This is horrible !

I see nothing inherent about any definition of genocide where the "births per day" matters one bit. Because it don't.
Uh... the concept of "genocide" is that the end result is supposed to be none of the targeted group left. When the rate of killing is orders of magnitude below the rate of expansion, obviously there is no prospect of that.
That's like saying pest exterminators aren't killing cockroaches because there are loads of them.
Exactly. Pest exterminators are not trying to commit "genocide" on cockroaches; they have no intention of eliminating the species. They DO, however, try to "exterminate" the entire subpopulation of cockroaches within a particular dwelling: if all they do is kill an occasional cockroach, far fewer than the number of new cockroaches that are born every day, then they are not very good "exterminators" now, are they?
Palestinian isn't an ethnic group, as well, by the way.
HUH??? What exactly would you call them, then?

HUH??? What exactly would you call them, then?

A nationality made up of ethnic Arabs, with some Philistine influence.

Uh... the concept of "genocide" is that the end result is supposed to be none of the targeted group left.

Oh, really?

So the Holocaust wasn't really genocide? Jews remain today, in case you didn't notice. So do Armenians, for that matter - maybe the Armenian Genocide really wasn't?

Oh, really?

So the Holocaust wasn't really genocide? Jews remain today, in case you didn't notice. So do Armenians, for that matter - maybe the Armenian Genocide really wasn't?

The Holocaust was intended to be genocide. They wrote out the plan and the intentions at the Wannsee Conference. It was actually well on the way to being successful.

The Armenian genocide was also genocide. There were written orders to carry it out. And, like the Holocaust, it was well on the way to being successful.

Completing a genocide, however, requires that you have the ability and will to finish it.

Completing a genocide, however, requires that you have the ability and will to finish it.

minimize the number of Palestinians
Some might say they have the will, and they certainly have the ability.

The Holocaust was intended to be genocide. They wrote out the plan and the intentions at the Wannsee Conference. It was actually well on the way to being successful.

The Armenian genocide was also genocide. There were written orders to carry it out. And, like the Holocaust, it was well on the way to being successful.

I'm glad you agree that birth rates have nothing to do with genocide. Thank you for supporting my argument and I look forward to the next time you unintentionally do so.

I'm glad you agree that birth rates have nothing to do with genocide. Thank you for supporting my argument and I look forward to the next time you unintentionally do so.

Actually, they do. If you notice my post, it didn't support anything you said.

Both the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide killed at a rate that far outstripped the birth rate in the target populations.

But there were no English subtitles and flashy production graphics that usually accompany such messages

There usually were subtitles? In English? Wow, Bin Laden has actually been an alright dude, you know, making sure those of us who don't speak or understand arabic can watch his movies. Was THX part of the package?

Actually, they do. If you notice my post, it didn't support anything you said.

It did, once we get over your flawed and demonstrably incorrect assumptions.

Both the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide killed at a rate that far outstripped the birth rate in the target populations.

The Holocaust and the Armenian genocides happened in Europe. Therefore, if it doesn't happen in Europe, it's not genocide.

Again there is nothing inherent in the definition of genocide about "birth rates." The only place that it is not so is when using your own, special, and completely made-up 'definition' of genocide.

Hasn't he already got like 5 of these on the go anyway? Or are they Fatwas?

The Holocaust was intended to be genocide. They wrote out the plan and the intentions at the Wannsee Conference. It was actually well on the way to being successful.

Therefore, the Holocaust was not a genocide because it was not successful....


Both the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide killed at a rate that far outstripped the birth rate in the target populations.

Now the Holocaust is a genocide...... which is it?

The Holocaust and the Armenian genocides happened in Europe. Therefore, if it doesn't happen in Europe, it's not genocide.

He didn't say that, and Armenia's in Asia.

Just transplant my post about this as regards Obama here for the win. Not that it's even remotely necessary, as both stupid Americans and most Israelis seem to be in favour of the current operations in Gaza and most enlightened people ought to see through this kind of bullshit as a matter of course.

Now the Holocaust is a genocide...... which is it?

He said the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, not the Holocaust and Armenian genocides.

Actually, they do. If you notice my post, it didn't support anything you said.

Both the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide killed at a rate that far outstripped the birth rate in the target populations.

In what way do birth rates have anything to do with genocide? Just because you're so bad at genocide that your target is reproducing faster than you're killing them does not mean you aren't still trying.

You know, if abrahamic religions weren't a total joke, osama bin-laden would probably qualify as a dajjal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dajjal)...

Therefore, the Holocaust was not a genocide because it was not successful....



Now the Holocaust is a genocide...... which is it?

I apologize for your confusion. Neither was a genocide that went to completion. Both were "genocides in progress".

The action in Gaza is not a genocide. For starters, I do not believe the Palestinian casualty figures. There is plenty of historical evidence never to believe their assertions - we can take Jenin as a classic example.

We'll have to wait until the smoke clears, and someone like the ICRC does an investigation. We'll probably find what they found in Jenin - that there were far fewer Palestinian casualties, and that there was no genocide.

In what way do birth rates have anything to do with genocide? Just because you're so bad at genocide that your target is reproducing faster than you're killing them does not mean you aren't still trying.

It means you suck at it.

He didn't say that

Nope, but that is exactly the same reasoning.

I'll just say it again so you guys can continue dancing around the point: "birth rates" have nothing to do with genocide.

, and Armenia's in Asia.

That's debatable, at least. It's sort of in the crossroads of Asia and Europe. Not that it's relevant to the argument.

That's debatable, at least. It's sort of in the crossroads of Asia and Europe. Not that it's relevant to the argument.

It's never relevant if you're wrong.

It means you suck at it.

It doesn't mean it's not still a genocide. Just because you're really, really bad at exterminating a population doesn't mean you're not still attempting to exterminate a population. I'm just not seeing the inherent relevance in the birth rate being greater than the casualty rate.

That's debatable, at least. It's sort of in the crossroads of Asia and Europe. Not that it's relevant to the argument.

Well, the argument was that apparently he said "genocides don't happen in Asia." Seeing as Armenia is entirely within Asia, that does affect the argument.

It's never relevant if you're wrong.

It's never relevant if it's never relevant. And i'm not even wrong on this irrelevant point. You're really reaching.

Once again.


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.

Huh. I don't see anything in there about birth rates and how it's not genocide depending on the birth rate of the target.

Know why?

Cuz there isn't.

Q.E.D.

Armenia is geographically Asian and culturally European. Anthropologists are near universal in this evaluation.

There usually were subtitles? In English? Wow, Bin Laden has actually been an alright dude, you know, making sure those of us who don't speak or understand arabic can watch his movies. Was THX part of the package?

Subtitles in your enemies language generally help them get the message

Well, the argument was that apparently he said "genocides don't happen in Asia.

If you look straight up you might catch a glimpse of the point, flying way the fuck over your head.

Huh. I don't see anything in there about birth rates and how it's not genocide depending on the birth rate of the target.

That was how Tmutarakhan defined genocide, not Hotwife.

If you look straight up you might catch a glimpse of the point, flying way the fuck over your head.

Oh shut up. You're so bloody superior. If this was reversed you'd be all over the place with how Armenia is in Asia and the other poster was wrong etc.

You're so bloody superior.


Yes, yes he is.


Oh, you meant that in a bad way?

That was how Tmutarakhan defined genocide, not Hotwife.

Yes Hotwife was merely supporting a stupid definition, he didn't initially make the stupid definition himself. So what?

Oh shut up. You're so bloody superior. If this was reversed you'd be all over the place with how Armenia is in Asia and the other poster was wrong etc.

If this was reversed I wouldn't be clinging to some imaginary definition for my argument.

Obama has expressed an interest in DEATing the troll. Personally, I think a 40 year ban to that supermax prison in Colorado would be a better idea. Rotting away is such a pleasing way to end someone. :)

Yes Hotwife was merely supporting a stupid definition, he didn't initially make the stupid definition himself. So what?

If this was reversed I wouldn't be clinging to some imaginary definition for my argument.

Ah, no one can have their own definition - they must only accept Trostia's!

Tell you what - call me when you've proven that the Jenin incident was genocide. Then I'll believe the current Gaza death toll is actually real, and that Israel is committing genocide.

If this was reversed I wouldn't be clinging to some imaginary definition for my argument.

The imaginary definition being?

Does anyone here think that bin Laden is giving an ultimatum to Obama? Comments.

No. He's merely telling to his potential followers "Obama won't change the current US foreign policy"; he fears Obama could win more people to more moderate stances.

Anyway, Bin Laden calling jihad against Israel. And, in other news, water is quite humid.

The imaginary definition being?

If it's not Trostia's definition, it is by definition, "imaginary".

That's debatable, at least. It's sort of in the crossroads of Asia and Europe. Not that it's relevant to the argument.

Not really. Historically, Armenia has ever been an Asiatic state; it was never subject either to direct Roman control, or the Hellenic influence that confined itself to the NW Anatolia and the coast.

OMG Bin Laden hates Israel now!!11

he doesn't seem the type does he?

water is quite humid.

sponges expand when wet but also live in the sea perfectly happy (and surely air humidity would make them perma wet?)

tbh I've always wondered where bears would get shit paper in the middle of the woods more :confused:

Ah, no one can have their own definition - they must only accept Trostia's!

It's not "Trostia's." It's the United Nations.

It's also Merriam-Webster.

Yes, the entire world is just being mean to you for not accepting your own unique redefinitions. Wah. Wah.

And, in other news, water is quite humid.

Humid doesn't mean what you think it means.

Humid doesn't mean what you think it means.

Uh... wait...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humid
: containing or characterized by perceptible moisture especially to the point of being oppressive

Yes it does. I won. Gimme a Toblerone!

It's not "Trostia's." It's the United Nations.

It's also Merriam-Webster.

Yes, the entire world is just being mean to you for not accepting your own unique redefinitions. Wah. Wah.

Yes, if everyone thought as you do, then you probably would still believe that we have 48 chromosomes.

Yes, if everyone thought as you do, then you probably would still believe that we have 48 chromosomes.

Wait, I thought we did have 48 chromosomes?

EDIT: Nope, that's chimps.

sponges expand when wet but also live in the sea perfectly happy (and surely air humidity would make them perma wet?)

How do you know they're happy? They're quite scared by the idea of someone coming with a large liquid soap dispenser and sexually assaulting them - you know, when sponges are used to wash one's privates...

tbh I've always wondered where bears would get shit paper in the middle of the woods more :confused:
There's plenty of wood in the woods. They make paper out of said wood in papermills located in said woods.

Btw, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck Chuck Norris' wood?

Uh... wait...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humid
: containing or characterized by perceptible moisture especially to the point of being oppressive

Yes it does. I won. Gimme a Toblerone!

But you can't call water humid. You can call air humid when it's hot and wet, but not water.

Bin Laden is like the guy in school that starts a fight then stands back and laughs

Yes it does. I won. Gimme a Toblerone!

Ummmm.... Toblerone pwns with it's goodness.:tongue:

Yes, if everyone thought as you do, then you probably would still believe that we have 48 chromosomes.

This is true because not only do I believe humans have 48 chromosomes, I've said so and you can easily link to where I did.

Also, this is relevant to the definition of genocide, even though it isn't.

This is true because not only do I believe humans have 48 chromosomes, I've said so and you can easily link to where I did.

Also, this is relevant to the definition of genocide, even though it isn't.

It's relevant because you believe that no one should think outside of what is written in textbooks.

https://eee.uci.edu/clients/bjbecker/PlaguesandPeople/lecture19.html

It's relevant because you believe that no one should think outside of what is written in textbooks.

If you're going to argue about the definition of genocide, it would help if you had a definitive source to support your cozy little interpretation.

But you don't, so now you're just making stupid shit up. GTFO.

Then I'll believe the current Gaza death toll is actually real, and that Israel is committing genocide.

Fortunately/unfortunately, your specific 'belief' is irrelevent.

If it matches the definition, it's genocide. (And that, apparently, is regardless of birthrates).

By the recognised definitions of genocide, Israel can definitely be argued as meeting three of the five possible markers.

Fortunately/unfortunately, your specific 'belief' is irrelevent.

If it matches the definition, it's genocide. (And that, apparently, is regardless of birthrates).

By the recognised definitions of genocide, Israel can definitely be argued as meeting three of the five possible markers.

3 out of 5 doesn't make it genocide. Besides, you would have to accept the Palestinian figures as well.

We've found out through the Jenin experience that they are adept at lying about casualties.

3 out of 5 doesn't make it genocide.

Oh, now you're accepting "Trostia's definition?" How dare you collaborate with those evil, textbook-waving oppressors!

Oh, now you're accepting "Trostia's definition?" How dare you collaborate with those evil, textbook-waving oppressors!

Did I say I accepted it? I'm just discussing it.

3 out of 5 doesn't make it genocide. Besides, you would have to accept the Palestinian figures as well.

We've found out through the Jenin experience that they are adept at lying about casualties.

As are Israel about lying about who they shoot/fire rockets at.

As are Israel about lying about who they shoot/fire rockets at.

Here's the Jenin example,

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODY1NjNiMmQyMThlN2ZhZDhjYmYwYWM4M2ZlOTk4MDE=


It’s time to recall another Israeli incursion in which Palestinians used casualty numbers seemingly plucked out of the air to justify its claim that Israel was employing “disproportionate force.” In the spring of 2002, after months of near-daily suicide bombings inside Israel, the IDF decided to make a major incursion into the Jenin refugee camp, which even Al-Fatah documents identified as “the capital of suicide bombing.” The civilian population was warned that an incursion was imminent and given several days to move to adjacent towns in the West Bank. Then Israel moved in with infantry soldiers who picked their way among mined buildings looking for weapons stores and hidden enemy fighters.

Palestinians, this time from the Fatah side of the street, immediately started to play to the international media. Several outlets, including Al-Jazeera for instance, quoted one Dr. Abu-Rali, director of a Jenin hospital, who said that “the western wing of [his] hospital was shelled and destroyed,” making for “casualties in the thousands.”

Nasser al-Kidwa, a Palestinian representative to the United Nations, told CNN: “There’s almost a massacre now taking place in Jenin. Helicopter gunships are throwing missiles at one square kilometer packed with almost 15,000 people in a refugee camp. . . . Just look at the TV and watch, watch what the Israel forces are doing. . . . This is a war crime, clear war crime, witnessed by the whole world, preventing ambulances, preventing people from being buried. I mean this is an all-out assault against the whole population.”

“All my nine children are buried under the ruins,” a resident of Jenin named Abu Ali told the Le Nouvel Observateur, a French weekly magazine. The weekly apparently did not do any checking; it dutifully reported Ali’s story of losing his children in a piece titled “The Survivors Tell Their Stories.” Newspapers in the U.K. went into a positive frenzy, running pieces like the Independent’s “The Camp that Became a Slaughterhouse.”

Finally, in August 2002, the U.N. sent a team to investigate charges of a massacre. The U.N. — no friend of Israel — found no evidence of a massacre, and it supported IDF claims that about 45 Palestinians had died, mostly men aged 18 to 45. It confirmed only three children and four women. Abu Ali’s nine children were not among them. “Fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the hospital in Jenin by the end of May 2002. . . . A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged,” the U.N. report said.

Amnesty International, also no friend of Israel, did its own investigation and came to a similar conclusion. In fact, the PLO itself had already revised its figures. In May 2002, a PLO spokesman named Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, who apparently had decided to “rebrand” the Jenin incursion, produced a list of 56 dead as part of his brief to Paul Martin of the Washington Times that the battle had been “a victory” in which “the Israelis, who tried to break the Palestinian willpower, have been taught a lesson.”

Here's the Jenin example,
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODY1NjNiMmQyMThlN2ZhZDhjYmYwYWM4M2ZlOTk4MDE=

I'm not denying that, but that doesn't stop Israel from lying.

Did I say I accepted it? I'm just discussing it.

You were awfully keen to dismiss it wholesale as "textbooks" and "Trostia's definition" before. Now you're willing to discuss it. Funny, that.

3 out of 5 doesn't make it genocide. Besides, you would have to accept the Palestinian figures as well.

1 out of 5 would be enough.

If the rest of the stated conditions are filled, of course.

1 out of 5 would be enough.

If the rest of the stated conditions are filled, of course.

I still don't buy the Palestinian figures.

They said "thousands" during the Jenin operation, which turned out to be mostly fighting age males, a total of 45 to 56.

So I don't buy the "genocide" thing - it's something Palestinians quickly raise, knowing that they'll get some PR mileage out of it.

Until the ICRC and Amnesty International show up, investigate, and find out that there wasn't a massacre.

While I agree it's subjective, I think that's where the intent question comes in. It's the question of, if we look at the relative power levels, and ask ourselves "if Israel intended to significantly destroy the Palestinian people, given their military and technological superiority, how would such an intent manifest itself? What would it look like?"
Also, how openly would they do it, in face of world opinion?

I'm sure one could argue that Israel by the embargo is deliberately inflicting on the Palestinians conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the whole or significant parts of the people by slowly starving them and not providing them with sufficent aid.

One could argue that, though I wouldn't buy it. But my point is, a genocide doesn't have to happen quickly or by the massive use of force. There doesn't have to be concentration camps or death squads.

And they're not. Their population is growing. Very very quickly. The reason I say that this isn't a genocide, in fact, isn't even close, is because if Israel really wanted to commit genocide, there'd be no debate as to what it was.
Net population growth doesn't negate the possibility of a genocide though.

I still don't buy the Palestinian figures.
That's your prerogative.

Strong arguments for Israel as genocidal on... well, at least three counts, I'd say.

The question would be about the intent. The other alternative conditions is easy to meet. Unfortunately.

As for numbers, it's not easy to draw a line, but it has to be more than one. (killing members of the group)

Look at the weaponry available to the Israelis.
No.

Look at the intent.

3 out of 5 doesn't make it genocide.


It's not a checklist. You don't have to score all 5 to make it genocide. Any one of them is a marker for genocide.


Besides, you would have to accept the Palestinian figures as well.


Actually, you wouldn't... since at least two of the three qualifications that Israel can currently be argued to be satisfying... don't hinge on casualty numbers.


We've found out through the Jenin experience that they are adept at lying about casualties.

We've found out that Israel fires on UN convoys.

How about you stop arguing poisoned wells. If you think you can show that the current data is false, do so. I don't expect you to, because you're only resorting to logical fallacy because there IS no evidence to condemn the data.

They said "thousands" during the Jenin operation, which turned out to be mostly fighting age males, a total of 45 to 56.


Actually... that's not what it 'turned out to be'. You should read your own sources.

They CONFIRMED a smaller number, within certain catchments. That doesn't actually prove the original claims false... just not evidenced.


So I don't buy the "genocide" thing - it's something Palestinians quickly raise, knowing that they'll get some PR mileage out of it.


You mean, kind of like the way Israel refers to other nation's 'freedom fighters' as 'terrorists'?

It's all about perception.


Until the ICRC and Amnesty International show up, investigate, and find out that there wasn't a massacre.

When are they going to show up? During the conflict? And be fired on by Israel...

At the very least you should be talking about more deaths per day than births per day, rather than a laughably small fraction of one percent of the birth rate.
This ought to be considered utterly absurd: here the Palestinians are, by a wide margin, the fastest growing ethnic group on the planet, and you are asking whether they are being exterminated?
As have been said repeatedly: The birthrate has no impact on whether or not a genocide is occurring. The question is whether or not any of the acts listed in article 2 of the CPPCG (or article 6 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court) is being done with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

That's it. Birthrates and/or success isn't relevant.

Actually... that's not what it 'turned out to be'. You should read your own sources.

They CONFIRMED a smaller number, within certain catchments. That doesn't actually prove the original claims false... just not evidenced.



You mean, kind of like the way Israel refers to other nation's 'freedom fighters' as 'terrorists'?

It's all about perception.



When are they going to show up? During the conflict? And be fired on by Israel...


"thousands" as claimed by the Palestinians with "hundreds of women and children" turned out to be 45 to 56 mostly fighting age males. That's a substantial difference.

I'm saying, therefore, that I don't buy any of the Palestinian claims for casualties. None of them.

Until the ICRC and Amnesty show up, and count skulls, I won't believe it.

Huh. I don't see anything in there about birth rates and how it's not genocide depending on the birth rate of the target.

Know why? Why? Because you don't understand that "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" requires at least an intent to diminish their numbers. Are you arguing that Israel really intends to be killing hundreds of times as many Palestinians, but they just can't find enough Palestinians to kill, or are running out of ammo, or what?

Ummmm.... Toblerone pwns with it's goodness.:tongue:

No apostrophe in its.

Why? Because you don't understand that "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" requires at least an intent to diminish their numbers.

They are diminishing their numbers.

"thousands" as claimed by the Palestinians with "hundreds of women and children" turned out to be 45 to 56 mostly fighting age males. That's a substantial difference.


And, I'm going to have to correct you again - it did not 'turn out', at all.

You seem to be mistaking 'what has been CONFIRMED' with being evidence AGAINST the claims.

'Confirmed' deaths in Stalinist Russia are somewhere near the couple-of-millions mark, but there are reasonable claims that are of the order of tens, or a hundred times, as many.


I'm saying, therefore, that I don't buy any of the Palestinian claims for casualties. None of them.


Which is irrelevent, because you're not the arbiter of genocides.

And a logical fallacy, to boot.


Until the ICRC and Amnesty show up, and count skulls, I won't believe it.

Are they going to turn up, while Israel are attacking clearly marked UN vehicles, do you think?

Why? Because you don't understand that "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" requires at least an intent to diminish their numbers.

Killing people is no longer a way to diminish the numbers of people?

Regardless, now you're arguing about intent, not birth rates.

Are you arguing that Israel really intends to be killing hundreds of times as many Palestinians, but they just can't find enough Palestinians to kill, or are running out of ammo

No. They only need an intent to "destroy, in whole or in part." There is no number limit. There is no birth rate ratio involved with the definition. There's no number.

Now you can realize this and concede, or just try to shift the goalposts and hope no one notices. But I notice, so it won't work on me.

As have been said repeatedly: The birthrate has no impact on whether or not a genocide is occurring. The question is whether or not any of the acts listed in article 2 of the CPPCG (or article 6 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court) is being done with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

That's it. Birthrates and/or success isn't relevant.

So, if you're killing them, but not fast enough, that could still be an attempt at genocide, I'll buy that.

Is it solely international scrutiny that stops them from dialing it up and killing them faster?

I guess my concern is, if Israel wanted to, couldn't they be killing Palestinians much, much faster, and have a much better chance at successful genocide if that's what they wanted?

So, if you're killing them, but not fast enough, that could still be an attempt at genocide, I'll buy that.

Is it solely international scrutiny that stops them from dialing it up and killing them faster?

I guess my concern is, if Israel wanted to, couldn't they be killing Palestinians much, much faster, and have a much better chance at successful genocide if that's what they wanted?

They could, if they didn't mind the subsequent war crimes trials and the destruction of their nation. I'm guessing their leadership does mind, however.

But you can't call water humid. You can call air humid when it's hot and wet, but not water.

This is a very important point and clearly deserves a thread of its own.

"is water wet?"

They could, if they didn't mind the subsequent war crimes trials and the destruction of their nation. I'm guessing their leadership does mind, however.

So, they're dialing it back, to a level that has no hope of being a successful genocide.

They know that what they're doing now isn't killing Palestinians fast enough to even be reducing their population, their population is increasing.

If the Israelis know what they're doing won't destroy the Palestinians or even stop their numbers from increasing, how can it be with the intent of genocide?

Could it have other motivations, other intent?

"is water wet?"

No.

I'm still in favor of sealing off the Middle East (Israel included) in a giant dome, and in 500 years, we crack it open to see who the winner is. Or we could just do what America does with landfills, which is cover it up with earth and build on top of it.

So, they're dialing it back, to a level that has no hope of being a successful genocide.

The term "successful genocide" implies that unless total extermination has happened, it isn't really genocide. That remains untrue.

They know that what they're doing now isn't killing Palestinians fast enough to even be reducing their population, their population is increasing.

If the Israelis know what they're doing won't destroy the Palestinians or even stop their numbers from increasing, how can it be with the intent of genocide?

Perhaps they have a plan that is longer-term than the few weeks of the latest bombings we are talking? They didn't exactly slaughter Jews in the millions right away, either. In the beginning they didn't even slaughter them en masse. Just - the little things. The checkpoints. Economic control. Political restrictions. It was genocide from start to finish and it was as "successful" regardless of whether, at any time, Jewish birth rates exceeded the death rate.

Could it have other motivations, other intent?

Sure could. And in fact, I'm less concerned with arguing that Israel *is* committing a 'textbook case of genocide,' if you will, and more concerned with rebutting this rather tiresome and plainly false notion that it's not genocide unless the death rate is higher than the birth rate.

Whether it qualifies as "genocide" or not, it is an abhorrant loss of innocent life. I don't like the term always being dragged out, but I didn't like it being plainly (mis)-used in a transparent attempt to justify or dismiss said loss of life.

They could, if they didn't mind the subsequent war crimes trials and the destruction of their nation. I'm guessing their leadership does mind, however.

There are only war crimes trials for the losers.

There are only war crimes trials for the losers.

Israel versus most of the civilized world. Hm, who wins?

Israel versus most of the civilized world. Hm, who wins?

Only Iran and Syria want to attack Israel, and Syria got their ass kicked the last time they tried.

Just wait until Iran has a few nukes. Then you'll be happy. Of course, that means that the Palestinians will all be dead at the hands of Iranian nukes, but I guess that would be ok with you.

No apostrophe in its.

Posessive darling, I'm referring to the goodness of the candy. Hence, apostrophe proceeds.:wink:

They are diminishing their numbers.

No, they're not.
Why this absolute indifference to matters of scale here? Sri Lanka has killed hundreds, simultaneously, in their Kilinochchi campaign, but no-one accuses them of trying to "exterminate" the Tamil, because that would be absolutely absurd.

lJust wait until Iran has a few nukes. Then you'll be happy.

That looks remarkably like the sort of comment you were complaining about others making, a page or two ago.

Only Iran and Syria want to attack Israel, and Syria got their ass kicked the last time they tried.

We were discussing the hypothetical situation in which Israel started slaughtering Palestinians by the millions, with or without the use of WMDs, in effect committing blatant, open, and quick genocide; and what would happen as a result.

At least pretend to keep up. Better yet, you can quit trolling.

Just wait until Iran has a few nukes. Then you'll be happy. Of course, that means that the Palestinians will all be dead at the hands of Iranian nukes, but I guess that would be ok with you.

or keep on doing it, I guess!

So, if you're killing them, but not fast enough, that could still be an attempt at genocide, I'll buy that.

Is it solely international scrutiny that stops them from dialing it up and killing them faster?

I guess my concern is, if Israel wanted to, couldn't they be killing Palestinians much, much faster, and have a much better chance at successful genocide if that's what they wanted?

Yes. But would the US stand for a hypotetical outright genocide of Palestinians? Massacres and exterminations? I doubt it.

And it's likely that the Israelis have other motives than genocide in this case. Exactly what the motives are I'm unsure of, in part because I see the Israelis seemingly act against their own best interests time and time again.

That looks remarkably like the sort of comment you were complaining about others making, a page or two ago.

Apparently, it's all good, so what's good for me, is good for everyone else.

The term "successful genocide" implies that unless total extermination has happened, it isn't really genocide. That remains untrue.

I'm not saying "Its not genocide until total extermination has happened".

I even said I'll buy the idea of "attempted genocide", and I have no problem with "genocide in progress" IF its being done with the intent to destroy the target. My point was, if they know that it will never destroy the target, then it isn't really intent to destroy them.

To be honest, I don't think I ever said anything like "Unless total extermination has happened, it isn't really genocide".


Perhaps they have a plan that is longer-term than the few weeks of the latest bombings we are talking? They didn't exactly slaughter Jews in the millions right away, either. In the beginning they didn't even slaughter them en masse. Just - the little things. The checkpoints. Economic control. Political restrictions. It was genocide from start to finish and it was as "successful" regardless of whether, at any time, Jewish birth rates exceeded the death rate.

If this is only step 1 (or some further step, probably), won't the final step still be as interdictable by the global community?

Are they anticipating some future condition where the world won't or can't stop the phase where the actual destroying of Palestinians happens?

What kinds of things would Israeli be doing to evoke that condition?


Sure could. And in fact, I'm less concerned with arguing that Israel *is* committing a 'textbook case of genocide,' if you will, and more concerned with rebutting this rather tiresome and plainly false notion that it's not genocide unless the death rate is higher than the birth rate.

Whether it qualifies as "genocide" or not, it is an abhorrant loss of innocent life. I don't like the term always being dragged out, but I didn't like it being plainly (mis)-used in a transparent attempt to justify or dismiss said loss of life.

I'll buy that.

I'm just not yet sure that the current operation is being done with the intent to utterly destroy the Palestinians, but it would be interesting to see if, somehow over the years, world opinion shifts to the point where they would allow Israel to start killing Palestinians at a rate that would actually lead to their destruction.

If this were happening before the age of media and relatively higher global awareness (sort of), 200 years ago or something, I suppose its possible that they would have just done it.

Yes. But would the US stand for a hypotetical outright genocide of Palestinians? Massacres and exterminations? I doubt it.

And it's likely that the Israelis have other motives than genocide in this case. Exactly what the motives are I'm unsure of, in part because I see the Israelis seemingly act against their own best interests time and time again.

It's called government by committee. You get contradictory action all the time.

Yes. But would the US stand for a hypotetical outright genocide of Palestinians? Massacres and exterminations? I doubt it.


That's the international scrutiny I mentioned. But is that the only thing keeping them from notching it up?

I can see where it might be the principle thing.

It's the General Assembly.

A big pile of meh.

The president of the Genetal Assembly even, wasn't it? One individual?

Posessive darling, I'm referring to the goodness of the candy. Hence, apostrophe proceeds.:wink:

There is a whole usenet group that disagrees with you there :p
alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe/)

My point was, if they know that it will never destroy the target, then it isn't really intent to destroy them.
I disagree. One may have the intent to do something even if one tries to do it using means that (objectively) won't ever lead to the intended result.

That's the international scrutiny I mentioned. But is that the only thing keeping them from notching it up?

I can see where it might be the principle thing.
Surely there's dissent within Israel about how far to go, what means to use etc.

Amnesty International Israel has voiced strong protest about the current situation. Several other NGO's have as well - despite the fact that about 90% of Israelis approve of attacking Hamas right now.

Posessive darling, I'm referring to the goodness of the candy. Hence, apostrophe proceeds.:wink:It's is the contraction "it is". Its is the possesive form. ;)

I disagree. One may have the intent to do something even if one tries to do it using means that (objectively) won't ever lead to the intended result.

By qualifying "ojectively", are you saying that they don't know it won't work? Because I was careful to explain my assertion was applying to the case in which they did know it wasn't going to work.

In the case that they don't know it won't work (again, I was clear this is not the case I was speaking to), then sure, it could be genocide.

I was saying if they know that it won't work, then it isn't intent. If you take an action knowing it won't have a given result, by definition that result isn't your intent. (Absent some kind of rage, frustration, cognitive dissonance, which I suppose could result in some sort of futile attempt at genocide that they know in some part of their minds won't work, but its still not really intent).

Amnesty International Israel has voiced strong protest about the current situation. Several other NGO's have as well - despite the fact that about 90% of Israelis approve of attacking Hamas right now.

If Israeli's intent was to destroy Hamas as an organization, but they don't consider the destruction of the Palestinian peole as part of their goal, is it genocide?

(I'm not saying they only want to destroy Hamas, but if that were to be the case, would there actions be genocide?)

Apparently, it's all good, so what's good for me, is good for everyone else.

More to the point, if you find it acceptable to do it, it was hypocritical of you to make a fuss about others doing it...

Posessive darling, I'm referring to the goodness of the candy. Hence, apostrophe proceeds.:wink:

No. His and hers are possessive, no apostrophe in them. Its does not have an apostrophe.

I'm still in favor of sealing off the Middle East (Israel included) in a giant dome, and in 500 years, we crack it open to see who the winner is. Or we could just do what America does with landfills, which is cover it up with earth and build on top of it.
Yes yes, ha ha, very funny, has not been posted in a thousand different ways before, and is very helpful.

By qualifying "ojectively", are you saying that they don't know it won't work? Because I was careful to explain my assertion was applying to the case in which they did know it wasn't going to work.
I'm saying that it doesn't matter if they know if it will work or not as long as they have the intent.

Mind you, intending to do something with a tool you know won't work kinda negates the intent, wouldn't you think? Unless there is some kind of rage, frustration, cognitive dissonance, or insanity involved?

I think we agree, but that you have missed the part about "destroy, in whole or in part". It's enough for someone to have the intention to, yes, only destroy a part of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group for it to qualify as genocide.

If Israeli's intent was to destroy Hamas as an organization, but they don't consider the destruction of the Palestinian peole as part of their goal, is it genocide?

(I'm not saying they only want to destroy Hamas, but if that were to be the case, would there actions be genocide?)
I would say that their actions would not be genocide. (Which is a big part of my reasoning for not wanting to classify the ongoing situation as a genocide.)

Bolivia's pissed: Linky~ (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2009/01/14/8021381-ap.html)

LA PAZ, Bolivia - President Evo Morales announced Wednesday he was breaking relations with Israel over its military offensive in the Gaza Strip and said he will ask the International Criminal Court to bring genocide charges against top Israeli officials.

Morales' ally Hugo Chavez of Venezuela broke ties with Israel last week.

Morales told the country's diplomatic corps that the Israeli attack "seriously threatened world peace" and he called for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his cabinet to face criminal charges.

Morales chided the United Nations' "Insecurity Council" for its "lukewarm" response to the crisis and said the UN General Assembly should condemn the invasion.

He also said Israeli President Shimon Peres should be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize for failing to stop the invasion.

The Israeli offensive has killed more than 940 Palestinians, half of them civilians.

The Israeli prime minister responded to this by saying "Who?"

I'm not saying "Its not genocide until total extermination has happened".

I even said I'll buy the idea of "attempted genocide", and I have no problem with "genocide in progress" IF its being done with the intent to destroy the target. My point was, if they know that it will never destroy the target, then it isn't really intent to destroy them.

It's kind of an assumption to suggest that if you want to commit genocide, any one (1) thing you do will be intended as the end-all be-all tactic to do so. Obviously the Israelis do not think that the casualties inflicted is going to have the effect of killing all Palestinians. Also, even the most radical Palestinian firing a rocket doesn't believe his rocket is going to wipe Israel off the map.

Unless they are delusional and have no real sense of reality, in which case the intent and capability alone is enough to fulfill that condition.

If this is only step 1 (or some further step, probably), won't the final step still be as interdictable by the global community?

Not necessarily. People tend to notice when atom bombs get thrown around like hotcakes, or when the news reports one day that millions of innocent people were brutally slaughtered. Well, they sometimes notice.

But in the Israel-Palestinian situation they sure as shit would notice.

A slower, long-term approach has more a chance of avoiding that. At least that is more plausible for the leadership to believe, then the idea that they would think "hey we have nukes, let's nuke Palestine! We'd win!"

Are they anticipating some future condition where the world won't or can't stop the phase where the actual destroying of Palestinians happens?

Possibly.

What kinds of things would Israeli be doing to evoke that condition?

Well. If I were in charge, and I wanted that outcome, my plan would involve the destruction of Hamas, and ultimately of the independent Palestinian state. Once reabsorbed into Israel, I would possess more control. I would subsequently incourage a state of peace and affluence, made more striking by the brief but brutal violence in which Hamas was toppled. This contrast would help put me in a good light. Birth rates, as it turns out, have a trend of declining in inverse proportion to levels of affluence and development. So while the world would be collectively sighing with relief at how peaceful and rich former Palestine is, then I could ... unleash my Jewish death spores and slaughter them to a man.

:p

No, seriously, I don't know, I don't have an elaborate conspiracy in my mind and I'm not saying there necessarily is. I would hope not.

But I do know that the definition of genocide does say intent to destroy "in whole or in part," and so a "partial" destruction - say, lots of deaths, and the eventual neutralization of a Palestinian state - certainly can qualify without having to be intended to be a total destruction.

(You could also have an "accidental" genocide, sort of like "I didn't mean to kill innocent people, I was aiming for the terrorists" with my nuclear weapon.))

If this were happening before the age of media and relatively higher global awareness (sort of), 200 years ago or something, I suppose its possible that they would have just done it.

Oh, very likely. You could say that about a lot of relatively small-scale, ongoing conflicts that seem to start and stop and start and stop again.

That's one thing I do appreciate about the pervasiveness of global media and communications. It'll make it, eventually, hard to do this sort of thing everywhere. On the other hand, that won't stop people from trying.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231760642497&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Olmert seems to think that Bush is his puppet, and that the US is at his beck and call.

Well, I guess only a really good ally could get away with gloating so openly about having caused the embarrassment of one of Bush's closest aids...

Both the State Department and White House spokesmen said that Olmert's claim that he had essentially gotten Bush to twist Rice's arm and abstain on the measure was simply untrue.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Olmert's story of what happened in his conversation with Bush was "just 100 percent, totally, completely not true," while White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said "there are inaccuracies."

Well, someone is lying...

Middle East expert Steven Spiegel described the episode as "the worst faux pas by an Israeli prime minister in history."

"You really do wonder what the prime minister was thinking - if it's true, you'd really want to keep it as quiet as possible, and if it's not true, why would you want to make up a story that would embarrass both the Bush administration and the Israeli government and draw criticism from those who are antagonistic to Israel?" asked Spiegel, director of the Center for Middle East Development at UCLA.

"No matter how you play it, exaggeration, falsehood, whole truth, the whole thing makes them all look bad," Spiegel told The Jerusalem Post.
:tongue:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231866576464&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I'm saying that it doesn't matter if they know if it will work or not as long as they have the intent.

That's where I disagree. If you know it won't work, its not your intent.


Mind you, intending to do something with a tool you know won't work kinda negates the intent, wouldn't you think? Unless there is some kind of rage, frustration, cognitive dissonance, or insanity involved?

That was my entire point, I explained that multiple times.

Your pulling my leg at this point, aren't you?


I think we agree, but that you have missed the part about "destroy, in whole or in part". It's enough for someone to have the intention to, yes, only destroy a part of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group for it to qualify as genocide.

That seems to really weaken the word, then. A word like "genocide" carries a certain nightmarish weight, and watering it down to "if you kill some of them, that's genocide" pulls some of the pathological potency from the idea.


I would say that their actions would not be genocide. (Which is a big part of my reasoning for not wanting to classify the ongoing situation as a genocide.)

I wouldn't call it genocide, yet, either, but Trostia made an interesting point that this could just be a first stage in some larger plan.

Im not a real fan of this consolidated thread thing. If consolidated threads were a good idea then we should have like 5 or 6 of them Gun Control, Middle East, Religion/God, Political Stories etc and noone would ever have to make a new thread ever again.

Im not a real fan of this consolidated thread thing. If consolidated threads were a good idea then we should have like 5 or 6 of them Gun Control, Middle East, Religion/God, Political Stories etc and noone would ever have to make a new thread ever again.

You can't post this here.

It has to go over in the "Objections to Megathreads Megathread".

That's where I disagree. If you know it won't work, its not your intent.


I'm not sure I buy that - certainly not in the context of genocide.

If you set out to kill a certain group... to wipe them from the face of the earth... and you fail - it was still your intent.

The Old Testament has several 'genocides' that fail. The text claims that the offending parties have been utterly destroyed... but then the same players turn up again in survivor form... little pockets that must have been missed.

And that's got to be an understanding of even the most dedicated genocidal regime/individual... even if you try to wipe 'them' out... you're practically guaranteed to miss some here or there. So - knowing you'll fall short can't be a qualifier for 'intent'.

In this particular case, if Israel really is exterminating Gazans, the 'intent' doesn't hinge on whether or not the methodology will actually allow absolute removal of the population.

even if you try to wipe 'them' out... you're practically guaranteed to miss some here or there.
But they're not missing "some here or there", they're missing a million and a half of them; they're only HITTING a few, here or there. Would you say that the Russians "wiped out" the Georgians last fall? That the Sri Lankans are "exterminating" the Tamils right now? That the Mumbai attackers "committed genocide" on the Indians?

I'm not sure I buy that - certainly not in the context of genocide.

If you set out to kill a certain group... to wipe them from the face of the earth... and you fail - it was still your intent.

The Old Testament has several 'genocides' that fail. The text claims that the offending parties have been utterly destroyed... but then the same players turn up again in survivor form... little pockets that must have been missed.

I'm really explaining this poorly. I'm not saying that its only genocide if it succeeds. I'm not saying that if someone is trying, but doesn't make it, it isn't genocide.

My claim is that if, out the outset, you know what you're doing won't result in their destruction, or even result in an overall decline of their population, then the intent of the action isn't their destruction.

You know your action won't result in "A", therefore, its reasonable to say that "A" isn't your reason for doing it.



And that's got to be an understanding of even the most dedicated genocidal regime/individual... even if you try to wipe 'them' out... you're practically guaranteed to miss some here or there. So - knowing you'll fall short can't be a qualifier for 'intent'.

If they were killing them enough that they were merely "missing" some, I'd agree with you.

But because of international consequences or some other reason, they are prevented from killing them at that rate, they aren't even causing their population to decline, much less reduce them to hiding fragments, as in your example.

They know they can't kill them at a rate that even causes net reduction in Palstinian population. So, it seems there is likely another motivation.


In this particular case, if Israel really is exterminating Gazans, the 'intent' doesn't hinge on whether or not the methodology will actually allow absolute removal of the population.

But overall, they aren't even reducing the population, and they know that.

I'm not holding the word to a standard of success in killing them all, or even to a standard of reducing them to little fleeing groups.

But if the intent is to destroy them, the action taken would have to at least be enough to reduce their numbers in the aggregate.

Israel has the ability to do that, but because of world opinion or another reason, they don't. They are prevented from engaging in genocide. They action they are taking, then, likely has some other intent.

Hamas quite nakedly states its INTENT to wipe out the Israelis. But nobody calls them "genocidal" because, poor things, they don't have the means to accomplish more than a handful of killings once in a while. Well I say: good, let's keep it that way.

Hamas quite nakedly states its INTENT to wipe out the Israelis. But nobody calls them "genocidal" because, poor things, they don't have the means to accomplish more than a handful of killings once in a while. Well I say: good, let's keep it that way.

Hamas is genocidal. They are not succeeded in genocide, however.

Hamas is genocidal. They are not succeeded in genocide, however.OK, so I take back my claim that "nobody" calls them genocidal. I still find it odd that an openly-stated intention on the Palestinian side carries less weight than imaginary projections of secret plans on the Israeli side.

Hamas quite nakedly states its INTENT to wipe out the Israelis. But nobody calls them "genocidal"

lol, they don't? I get reminded of it practically any time a rocket is launched. It is in fact one of the supporting arguments found in favor of Israel is it not? That they're just protecting their country from being "wiped off the face of the map?"

(Never mind that Hamas cannot in its wildest dreams ever wipe Israel off the map?)

OK, so I take back my claim that "nobody" calls them genocidal. I still find it odd that an openly-stated intention on the Palestinian side carries less weight than imaginary projections of secret plans on the Israeli side.

Actions speak louder than words.


I dont think Israel is genocidal, for the record. I just dont think Israel should be let off the hook for its atrocities.

They know they can't kill them at a rate that even causes net reduction in Palstinian population. So, it seems there is likely another motivation.
You have to free yourself a little more from thinking in numbers. As an illustration, let me mention that mass rape and forced impregnations can be viewed as tools of genocide. While technically raising the numbers in the population, it's still serves as a basis for the destruction of the ethnic group from the inside, as it were.

OK, so I take back my claim that "nobody" calls them genocidal. I still find it odd that an openly-stated intention on the Palestinian side carries less weight than imaginary projections of secret plans on the Israeli side.

Probably in part because of the State actor Vs. non-state actor issue, and in part because while Hamas has the intent it doesn't have the means or the opportunity - while Israel the means, the opportunity, and...?

...well, that would be the question we shouldn't say too loudly.

You have to free yourself a little more from thinking in numbers. As an illustration, let me mention that mass rape and forced impregnations can be viewed as tools of genocide. While technically raising the numbers in the population, it's still serves as a basis for the destruction of the ethnic group from the inside, as it were.

I'm not sure the parallel carries. In this case, the population increase is of offspring that are (by the rapists view) of a different ethnic group then that being genocided, so they are reducing their population, by subsuming its ability to iterate.

If you're trying to illustrate why numbers aren't a useful descriptive tool here, I don't think you've succeeded, because in your illustration, the numbers of the target ethnic group are still going down in the twisted view of the raping group, because they are being replaced a different ethnicity.

I'm not sure the parallel carries. In this case, the population increase is of offspring that are (by the rapists view) of a different ethnic group then that being genocided, so they are reducing their population, by subsuming its ability to iterate.

If you're trying to illustrate why numbers aren't a useful descriptive tool here, I don't think you've succeeded, because in your illustration, the numbers of the target ethnic group are still going down in the twisted view of the raping group, because they are being replaced a different ethnicity.

I was trying the latter, and it was a stretch, I know. But I still hold that my illustration works to a point, because the whole "different ethnicity" thing is vague. If a Hutu rapes a Tutsi (for further illustration) and a child is born, what ethnicity is the child?

I was trying the latter, and it was a stretch, I know. But I still hold that my illustration works to a point, because the whole "different ethnicity" thing is vague. If a Hutu rapes a Tutsi (for further illustration) and a child is born, what ethnicity is the child?

Well, that raises the question of whether forced impegnation is a good method of genocide.

Yeah, I think its a big stretch, and I renew the premise that if what the attacker is doing won't reduce the enemy numbers as an ethnicity, and the perpetrator knows that, then it doesn't have the intent that is central to the given criteria for genocide.

To expand your comparison, suppose a bunch of your soldier rape a bunch of the enemy women. You have to explain it to your hardliners who consider sex with one of "them" to be akin to beastiality.

You can't just say "Discipline is bad and our soldiers are rapists". So, instead, you say "Its just another means of destroying them. This is part of our secret genocide plan."

But I won't yet discount Trostia's point that this could just be one small part of a larger, long term series of actions that might have genocide or something close to it as the purpose, but I don't think that's established yet.

OK, so I take back my claim that "nobody" calls them genocidal. I still find it odd that an openly-stated intention on the Palestinian side carries less weight than imaginary projections of secret plans on the Israeli side.

Well, sources are hard to get at the moment, but UNICEF (http://voanews.com/english/2009-01-14-voa28.cfm) claims that 300 children have been killed in Gaza and 1500 children wounded.

Comparing that to 13 Israelis killed since the conflict.

It's not just intent.

Well, sources are hard to get at the moment, but UNICEF (http://voanews.com/english/2009-01-14-voa28.cfm) claims that 300 children have been killed in Gaza and 1500 children wounded.

Comparing that to 13 Israelis killed since the conflict.

It's not just intent.

You have to free yourself from thinking in numbers, I've been told.

That said, if the Israelis have only lost 13 people so far (which I have no reason to think is false), they must have their defensive shit together.

Does the US send our people over there to train in counter-whatever? If we don't we should, shit.

Well, that raises the question of whether forced impegnation is a good method of genocide.
And it is - it destroys the societies.It's a cheap and extremely effective weapon that sees far too much use in different regions of Africa. :(

...and it would fall under
"deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;"
...because the effect it has in the long run leds to the destruction of the group.

Yeah, I think its a big stretch, and I renew the premise that if what the attacker is doing won't reduce the enemy numbers as an ethnicity, and the perpetrator knows that, then it doesn't have the intent that is central to the given criteria for genocide.
But again, you don't have to go by the numbers now to ensure the destruction of the group down the road. Destroy the infrastructure and the economy and make the lands infertile. Use weapons for a short period of time that increases the risk of cancer and/or infertility exponentially. Etc. That won't reduce the numbers today, and they may even have more children before the decline sets in...


To expand your comparison, suppose a bunch of your soldier rape a bunch of the enemy women. You have to explain it to your hardliners who consider sex with one of "them" to be akin to beastiality.

You can't just say "Discipline is bad and our soldiers are rapists". So, instead, you say "Its just another means of destroying them. This is part of our secret genocide plan."

But I won't yet discount Trostia's point that this could just be one small part of a larger, long term series of actions that might have genocide or something close to it as the purpose, but I don't think that's established yet.
Well, I would shoot for Crimes against Humanity and Colonization.

You have to free yourself from thinking in numbers, I've been told.

That said, if the Israelis have only lost 13 people so far (which I have no reason to think is false), they must have their defensive shit together.

I think it's not just that (though true) but that the offensive, so to speak, consisted of a handful of shitty rockets. I'm fairly certain most of the Israeli casualties are soldiers and a fair number of them are due to friendly fire.

It's the disproportionateness of the response which makes people go "shit, are they TRYING to kill innocent people?" when Israel pulls a heavy handed hardline stunt like now.

I'm not saying Hamas is making anything easier, but it almost seems to be Israel playing right into their hands. It's like the Hamas honchos got together with certain Israeli honchos and said "Hey, let's both kill innocent people so we can maintain power over our increasingly helpless respective populations."

But again, you don't have to go by the numbers now to ensure the destruction of the group down the road. Destroy the infrastructure and the economy and make the lands infertile. Use weapons for a short period of time that increases the risk of cancer and/or infertility exponentially. Etc. That won't reduce the numbers today, and they may even have more children before the decline sets in....

You're still using numbers to describe the effect, just on a time-dependent scale. If it can be shown that Israeli attacks will cause an eventual net decline in numbers, and they know that and that's the intended result, then sure, genocide.

But what you're describing still goes "by the numbers", it just adds the additional axis of time, which is reasonable.

Now, the infrastucture thing is an interesting point. Maybe Israeli isn't going for the blood points now, but if they can fuck the area bad enough to make it uninhabitable, they're kind of playing the long game?

Making the lands infertile, infertilizing weapons, those things do reduce the numbers, eventually, and that is still critical to the goal. So your argument is still not independent of number.

I don't think you were trying to necessarily claim the Israeli's were doing all of these things here, but as a separate question...have they been?

I think it's not just that (though true) but that the offensive, so to speak, consisted of a handful of shitty rockets. I'm fairly certain most of the Israeli casualties are soldiers and a fair number of them are due to friendly fire.

It's the disproportionateness of the response which makes people go "shit, are they TRYING to kill innocent people?" when Israel pulls a heavy handed hardline stunt like now.

I'm not saying Hamas is making anything easier, but it almost seems to be Israel playing right into their hands. It's like the Hamas honchos got together with certain Israeli honchos and said "Hey, let's both kill innocent people so we can maintain power over our increasingly helpless respective populations."

Heh, there's a case in Anti-Trust law where its an issue of whether the alleged collaborators have to communicate specific acts, or have organized co-operation, for it to be "acting in concert".

If both sides can see what the other is doing, and they both see the benefits...maybe the honchos don't even have to "get together". Maybe the "deal" just sort of coalesces...

You're still using numbers to describe the effect, just on a time-dependent scale.
Do'h! I see what you're saying, and I think I've been unclear before. Sorry :p
I'll see if I can come back to this later...


Now, the infrastucture thing is an interesting point. Maybe Israeli isn't going for the blood points now, but if they can fuck the area bad enough to make it uninhabitable, they're kind of playing the long game?

Making the lands infertile, infertilizing weapons, those things do reduce the numbers, eventually, and that is still critical to the goal. So your argument is still not independent of number.

I don't think you were trying to necessarily claim the Israeli's were doing all of these things here, but as a separate question...have they been?
Well, there's a lot of civilian infrastructure being destroyed, and certain weapons are reported (not confirmed AFAIK) used that can cause long-term health effects. Like the DIME weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_Inert_Metal_Explosive).

Do'h! I see what you're saying, and I think I've been unclear before. Sorry :p
I'll see if I can come back to this later...


Well, there's a lot of civilian infrastructure being destroyed, and certain weapons are reported (not confirmed AFAIK) used that can cause long-term health effects. Like the DIME weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_Inert_Metal_Explosive).

That's interesting. I've worked a bit with HMX when I was out at Argonne National Laboratory.

I can see the value in the "small but effective" radius in trying to avoid non-combatant casualties. If it turns out that these materials cause long term health effects, it would be a suck-ass backfire...

That said, if the Israelis have only lost 13 people so far (which I have no reason to think is false), they must have their defensive shit together.


Errr... yeah, that or they have a modern army, and are fighting militants (which is to say, armed civvies).

Errr... yeah, that or they have a modern army, and are fighting militants (which is to say, armed civvies).

We have a modern army, and we've been hit for more than 13 people. We're farther away of course, but that's still a pretty decent counter-whatever ratio.

Heh, there's a case in Anti-Trust law where its an issue of whether the alleged collaborators have to communicate specific acts, or have organized co-operation, for it to be "acting in concert".

If both sides can see what the other is doing, and they both see the benefits...maybe the honchos don't even have to "get together". Maybe the "deal" just sort of coalesces...

Hmm... well, that's more likely than overt collusion. Mutual self-interest, not conspiracy.

Still, you never know. These are politicians we're talking about.

Hmm... well, that's more likely than overt collusion. Mutual self-interest, not conspiracy.

Still, you never know. These are politicians we're talking about.

Oh, man...the world conspiracy isn't Jews...its Jews and Arabs...and white Christians...and Black Christians...and Asian Moonies...


The only ones that really have your interests at heart are the French Canadian Raelians. Some of whom are Jews.

Tmutarakhan, when are you going to prove your claim that Hamas destroyed those schools and UN buildings? Or maybe you're never going to, because you can't. Maybe you'll just pretend that you never claimed it, but that won't really work since we have a record of things (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14393111&postcount=1173).

Or maybe, you'll just hope that we'll forget about it. If so, I look forward to crushing them.

Tmutarakhan, when are you going to prove your claim that Hamas destroyed those schools and UN buildings?
It's my opinion, based on the record of Palestinian militants doing similar things (the Durrah case and the bombs-on-the-beach case come to mind). I would not pretend to be able to prove it. I cited eyewitnesses (in Gaza, no motive to stretch the truth in the Israeli direction) as saying the militants did indeed fire from near the school to draw the Israeli fire (multiple contradictory versions are to be expected, of course, but this testimony I give high weight too); the further claim that the school was destroyed by "secondary explosions" (possibly just munitions stored in the school, going off accidentally, rather than deliberate self-bombing) came from IDF sources, so as I have said you are free to discount that if you always choose to think the Israeli side is lying.

On the whole "genocide" thing: it's the dishonesty about the language that troubles me here. Couldn't you say "ethnic cleansing" instead? That too is an inflammatory term, but it refers to chasing people out (though often involving killing some, to "encourage the others") rather than an attempt to exterminate, and would be more realistic. It would certainly be an accurate description of the mass expulsions in 1948 (in both directions); there are Israeli extremists, not just on the political fringe but within the "mainstream" Likud party, who openly talk of "transferring" the Arabs out of the West Bank and/or Gaza too; some settlers do manage to chase Palestinians out, which is successful "cleansing" on a small scale (and they make no bones about their wish to be able to do it on a larger scale). THIS is what needs to change in Israel, not some fictitious impulse toward "genocide", which is simply a projection of the very real desire (unaccompanied by means) for genocide from the Palestinian side.

What I can't understand is, how does invading/dropping bombs, count as defense, against rockets?

I mean... surely a point-defense system like that on modern naval ships could take these rockets out before they hit?

This is from the Middle East News Service:
Gaza’s Lost Time

Firing at Israel will stop only if we start discussing history, including that of the Palestinians, instead of talking about territory.



Oren Yiftachel 10/1/09



The sights of death and destruction from Gaza are horrifying, and the residents of the south are still under constant bombardment. It is an infuriating, saddening, suffocating and outrageous situation. During a bloody conflict it is indeed difficult to look beyond the violence, but in my opinion such a look is essential to understand what is happening before us.



A noted Australian Aboriginal author commented once, during the struggle for Indigenous rights: ‘where national territory operates, our time epoch is over. But our epoch has a habit of returning after its death.’ This statement could help us understand what is happening in Gaza.



If we can look at the violent events beyond the terrible destruction, dust clouds, bodies, blood stains and children’s screams, we could appreciate this war as the continuation of the Israeli territorial act, which adopted a cruel and persistent aim – the silencing of Palestinian epoch, that is, the erasure of this country’s complete history. The silencing of history, needless to say, is also the erasure of Palestinian place, and with it all the political rights – those that exist as inherently theirs, and not as acts of Israeli benevolence .



If so, the current invasion into Gaza is not just an operation to halt the rockets, a pre-election effort to improve political profiles or an attempt to rehabilitate Israeli deterrence. The invasion is not just another attempt to ‘make order’ for others and bring down the elected Hamas government, or an imperial (Israeli-American) effort to control the Muslim populace by increasingly violent means. The current invasion is of course all of the above. But it is also the continuation of a long-lived strategy to deny, erase and smash any mention of this place’s history over recent generations. Almost everyone – politicians, artists, the media, university researchers and intellectuals have joined in this erasure project.



So, against the erasure efforts, let us remind ourselves: the Gaza strip was formed as a geographical entity after the 1948 war, when about 150,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled to it from what is today south-western Israel. Most of the expulsion took place during Operation ‘Yo’av’, known for its aim to ‘cleanse’ the area of Arabs. Those expelled and fleeing crammed into the space alongside the 60,000 original Gaza residents. The ceasefire lines with Egypt became the country’s borders, and the Arab refugees remained trapped beyond the border, without any possibility of returning to their villages and lands, which, meanwhile, had been crushed to rubble. The lands of Gazan refugees were expropriated in the Fifties and allotted to dozens of Israeli towns and villages established from Jaffa to Be’er-Sheva.



The refugee population of Gaza today numbers over a million (out of about a million and a half) and its geographical condition has deteriorated beyond measure – crowding, poverty, and an increasingly prohibitive system of restrictions on mobility, employment and trade with the outside world. While the occupation of Gaza in 1967 eased the closure and enabled Gazans to come in contact with other Palestinians, during the first Intifada and more so since the Oslo Accords, Gaza has once again been blocked, this time with a terrifying fence installed in 1994, would you believe it, as part of the ‘Peace Process’.



Israel avoids confronting the issues

The rise of Hamas, which posits an alternative to the Oslo Accords must be understood against this background. Instead of being a route to peace, the Accords became a Palestinian ‘Via Dolorosa’. But since Hamas’s democratic elections victory, Israel further ghettoized Gaza by imposing a siege on the area thereby completely isolating it from the West Bank.



Hamas rejected the illusion of ‘two states for two people’, which itself became an empty mantra, one that enables the interminable continuation of the colonial occupation. Hamas gave a voice to refugees when it appointed Ismail Haniyeh, a refugee from the Shati camp, as Prime Minister. Contrast this with a corrupt Palestinian elite that is trapped inside the Oslo Accords, which ‘prohibited’ raising the refugee issue, i.e. the recent history of this land country, as part of the day-to-day political discourse.



Launching rockets from Gaza at Israeli citizens deserves full condemnation as an act of terror against Jews and an act that severely harms the Palestinian nation. But beyond this it must also be seen as an attempt to remind the world, Israel, and also the Palestinian leadership, that the refugee question is still alive and kicking.



Faced with this continuous outcry, Israel in its typical manner decided to avoid the issue and resorted to State terror. Consequently it commenced a campaign of fire and brimstone into Gaza, one which is meant to liquidate, kill, divide and enclose. But this power is politically and morally weak. Neither tonnes of ‘Cast Lead’, nor the killing of children nor the burning of Gaza towns will not silence the voice of history. The epoch that disappeared at the sound of the war drums, during the violent creation of the ‘Gaza Strip’, will return after its death, as remarked by that Aboriginal author.



The conclusion is obvious: beyond the ceasefire that is needed immediately, the real end to violence will pass only through returning history , back into our political discourse, that is, through an open and profound investigation of the history that generated Jewish-Palestinians relations in this land. As well Israel needs to confront its own negation of history and Palestinian rights.



During such an investigation, which, of course, will be dependent on the termination of Israeli colonial rule, the question of the refugees and with it the question of the entire Gaza Strip will rise again, along with questions regarding the traumatic Jewish history and the prospects of ensuring a Jewish future in an Arab Middle East.



In other words, recognition of Palestinian time is the only way to also acknowledge Jewish time. Only when history replaces territory as the central topic of discourse, that is, when the history of the country included that of all of its residents and exiles, the foundations will set for mutual recognition between two nations with equal rights in a common homeland. Then the rockets will stop, and there may even be a time of reconciliation.



Prof Oren Yiftachel teaches political geography at the Ben-Gurion University, Be’er-Sheva.



Translated from the Hebrew by Keren Rubinstein of Melbourne Australia.



Hebrew original: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3652051,00.html

It's my opinion, based on the record of Palestinian militants doing similar things (the Durrah case and the bombs-on-the-beach case come to mind).


And record of Israeli IDF members and civilians conducting unprovoked massacres of people do exist (cave of patriarchs massacre for example). Should that be the standard when considering all Israeli actions now?


I would not pretend to be able to prove it.


Didn't stop you from presenting your opinion as fact.


I cited eyewitnesses (in Gaza, no motive to stretch the truth in the Israeli direction) as saying the militants did indeed fire from near the school to draw the Israeli fire (multiple contradictory versions are to be expected, of course, but this testimony I give high weight too);


You appear to give high weight to testimonies that paint Israeli action in favorable light, even when the facts do not bear up with the assertion.


the further claim that the school was destroyed by "secondary explosions" (possibly just munitions stored in the school, going off accidentally, rather than deliberate self-bombing) came from IDF sources, so as I have said you are free to discount that if you always choose to think the Israeli side is lying.

A claim of secondary explosions that was proven to be false in the case of the UN centers. Furthermore, it is on record that the IDF used obsolete images years old to claim current actions that they were responding against. Are you going to claim that this did not happen? It is a matter of public record.

I'll give you credit for acknowledging the problems inherent in the Israeli populace and their settlers. But the same problem also affects the IDF, right up to its leadership. Excusing their actions as the fault of Hamas, even when they aren't involved, won't cut it with me.

On the whole "genocide" thing: it's the dishonesty about the language that troubles me here. Couldn't you say "ethnic cleansing" instead? That too is an inflammatory term, but it refers to chasing people out (though often involving killing some, to "encourage the others") rather than an attempt to exterminate, and would be more realistic. It would certainly be an accurate description of the mass expulsions in 1948 (in both directions); there are Israeli extremists, not just on the political fringe but within the "mainstream" Likud party, who openly talk of "transferring" the Arabs out of the West Bank and/or Gaza too; some settlers do manage to chase Palestinians out, which is successful "cleansing" on a small scale (and they make no bones about their wish to be able to do it on a larger scale). THIS is what needs to change in Israel, not some fictitious impulse toward "genocide", which is simply a projection of the very real desire (unaccompanied by means) for genocide from the Palestinian side.
Come now.

You object to the use of the word 'genocide' (as I do) when referring to the Israeli administration's policy on Gaza/The West Bank, because only those on the fringes of Likud are actually using language that indicates ethnic cleansing/genocide, yet you wish to make a silly blanket statement that the entire Palestinian 'side' is motivated towards genocide?

How incredibly nonsensical.

I always enjoy reading you Chumbs!

Tmut, I admire your dedication. Somebody has to be in there fielding the missiles directed at Israel and while I can acknowledge the irritation that Israelis must feel living next to a Hamas-ruled Gaza who lobs the occasional Quassam rocket into Israeli towns, I think that Israel had been far too complacent in the last few years and needeed to slap the fascist settler movement down hard if it wanted to get a lasting peace, I also think that the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" coming from Bush and the neo-cons to treat the Palestinians like shit didn't help Israel either. It emboldened the hawks.

It's my opinion, based on the record of Palestinian militants doing similar things (the Durrah case and the bombs-on-the-beach case come to mind). I would not pretend to be able to prove it..

....but are perfectly content to throw previously used mud again and again in the hope that somebody will give up and let it stick.

Another mistake.

The UN's relief agency, Unrwa, says part of its HQ in the city is on fire after being shelled by the Israelis.

Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon expressed outrage at the attack, and said Israel had told him it was a grave mistake.

Speaking to reporters on the Israel-Gaza border, Unrwa spokesman Christopher Gunness said three of the agency's employees were hurt in the attack.
He said the compound was hit by what Unrwa believed to be three white phosphorus shells, which are incendiary weapons used as a smoke screen.

Asked whether he was sure the attack had been carried out by Israel, he said he was not aware of Hamas having access to white phosphorus.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7829912.stm

This is one big mistake for Israel - the IDF have allegedly shelled the UN building in Gaza setting it ablaze.
The irony is that it was the U.N. that legitimized the state of Israel in 1948 - and now the IDF is shelling it!!!!!!!????????

UN HQ in Gaza 'hit by Israeli shells'
The Age, January 16, 2009 - 8:56PM

Gaza ... smoke billows after an Israeli bombardment.
The UN refugee agency says its Gaza headquarters has been struck by Israeli artillery fire and the building is now ablaze.
Spokesman Chris Gunness said the building was hit on Thursday by what was believed to be three white phosphorous shells.
The weapons burn at extremely high temperatures and can set things on fire.
However, witnesses said a nearby building was struck, and the UN building remained intact.
It was hard to verify the accounts because the entire area was covered in black smoke.
Gunness said the building had been used as a shelter for hundreds of people fleeing Israel's 20-day offensive in Gaza.
It's not clear how many people were there at the time.
He said three people were injured.
The Israeli army had no immediate comment on the incident.
Earlier, Israeli tanks rumbled ever deeper into Gaza cities, barrelling into several neighbourhoods of the enclave's capital and into a major city in the south, witnesses and correspondents said.
The sound of tank shells ripped through the air like thunderclaps and thick black smoke rose into the air from the neighbourhoods of Tal al-Hawa, Zeitun and Shujaiyeh in Gaza City, the coastal strip's main urban hub, they said.
Battles raged in the northern town of Jabaliya and ground troops backed by dozens of tanks lunged at least one kilometre into the southern town of Khan Yunis.
In the early morning hours, dozens of terrified civilians loaded with babies, toddlers and children fled to the Al-Quds hospital in Tal Al-Hawa, an outlying area in the south-west of Gaza City, that has been the site of repeated Israeli ground incursions in the past week.
The sound of tank shells, air strikes, artillery, helicopter gunships and automatic gunfire mixed into a general cacophony as the battles unfolded less than 300 metres from the hospital.
Armed Hamas fighters dressed in blue and black uniforms, one of them carrying the green flag of his Islamist movement, ran down a street 100 metres from the hospital, firing Kalashnikov rifles.
Inside the hospital residents of the neighbourhood huddled where they could. Mothers tried to console their crying children and to make them laugh.
``I brought the children to the hospital because they were scared at home, but here they are even more terrified,'' said Hossein, 40, who came with his wife and five children shortly after the tanks rolled in after dawn.
``The house next door was completely destroyed in the fighting so we had to get out of there. We can't take this any longer. Look at my children, they're trembling.''
Nearby Bashar Murad, a doctor and the head of the ambulance services for the Red Crescent, waited helplessly.
``I have three dead bodies at 500 metres, but I can't get to them,'' he said.
``I have numerous wounded less than a kilometre away, but I can't move without authorisation,'' Murad said.
Before the ambulances can move, the International Committee of the Red Cross must call the Israeli army and receive a green light to move in a certain area, he said.
``It's hard for me to stay here while people may be dying. But I don't have a choice.''
Two wounded as Israel hits media building in Gaza
Two cameramen were wounded on Thursday when an Israeli strike hit a building in Gaza City housing several international and Arab media outlets, witnesses said.
The two cameramen worked for Abu Dhabi television, officials said.
The Al-Shuruq tower, located in the Rimal neighbourhood in the centre of Gaza City, houses several media outlets including the Reuters news agency and television stations Fox, Sky and Al-Arabiya.

Come now.

You object to the use of the word 'genocide' (as I do) when referring to the Israeli administration's policy on Gaza/The West Bank, because only those on the fringes of Likud are actually using language that indicates ethnic cleansing/genocide, yet you wish to make a silly blanket statement that the entire Palestinian 'side' is motivated towards genocide?

How incredibly nonsensical.

According to Tmutarakhan, "Drive them into the sea" translates to a policy of genocide, while "Absorb the maximum land with the minimum Palestinians" is merely ethnic cleansing it seems.

Although I'm curious as to what effect it would have, if all of Israel simply packed up and relocated somewhere far away, on the usual "Drive them into the sea" and similar rhetoric. If it dried up after that, it would put paid to Tmutarakhan's insistence that the Palestinians want genocide.

As to the UN buildings being attacked, it certainly appears to be more and more certain that it is a deliberate move by Israel to expel (in a "whoops, we didn't mean to blow you up, but too bad" way) all international presence from the area, giving them carte blanche without prying eyes.

elements of both sides want genocide.
I rather think that Tmut is not of this element. I think that Tmut wants Peace or he wouldn't be bothering.

This above all must be remembered - that most Israelis and Palestinians are sick of war.

elements of both sides want genocide.
I rather think that Tmut is not of this element. I think that Tmut wants Peace or he wouldn't be bothering.


Tmut is reasonable enough to want peace, I won't deny that. It just seems he interprets things with some bias that's counter-productive to peace.


This above all must be remembered - that most Israelis and Palestinians are sick of war.

Most probably were about a year or three after the sordid affair peaked decades ago. The fringe lunatics, foreign interests, and homegrown elite on the other hand, thought it a good way of solidifying their grip on power.

So you'll get war until the UN gets big fangs and spanks both sides or somebody else does it until they work things out.

elements of both sides want genocide.
I rather think that Tmut is not of this element. I think that Tmut wants Peace or he wouldn't be bothering.

This above all must be remembered - that most Israelis and Palestinians are sick of war.


I suspect that if Israel manage to all but wipe out Hamas they would pull out their heavy military presence. If that's the case and having gained the upper hand, why would they do this if they had a policy of genocide ?
Why not push on and finish the job off ?

In fact terrible though it is, the number of casualties seems more like pissing in the ocean if genocide is the aim.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see their policy as a desire to wipe out the Palestinians. Genocide is a strong word and I as yet see no evidence of it at the moment.

In turn, one has to separate the policies of Hamas from the Palestinian people.
Hamas have been very open and honest about their aims and this in fact does show a desire to wipe out the Jews - Genocide.

The remaining Palestinians simply want to be left alone. Sure plenty of angry individuals hate Jews and no doubt have some extreme views, as is the case with right-wing Israelis. On the whole they want peace.

Hamas has to go, and Israel... I have no idea what is o become of them.
They in short have a huge responsibility along with U.S.A. to provide massive investment to the Palestinian people.

Another question coming up, but I'll keep it separate from this post

I've never really understood what the plan is for a Palestinian state, in particular it's political geography. If you have the State of Palestine split into Golan, West Bank, Gaza, how does that work ? Are they to expand Gaza across the south Negev to swing around and join up with the West Bank?
Are there proposed lines drawn up as to what the shape of Palestine will look like ? - Anyone ?

Are there proposed lines drawn up as to what the shape of Palestine will look like ? - Anyone ?

Only ones around are the rejected ones.....

Both a one-state solution and a two-state solution look pretty unfeasible at the moment. There is a Hamas-controlled Gaza that the IDF is busy trying to eradicate (a bit like the British army trying to destroy the IRA in my opinion), there is an Al Fatah-controlled West Bank and of course there's Israel in the middle.

I would welcome a secular state that contained both Palestinians and Israelis but I can't see it happening for a long while. There is far too much energy invested in Israel maintaining Judaism as a State religion. Saudi Arabia is a shining example of how a state religion can oppress its people. I'd like Israel to be a state for Jews to live in (and there are at least 6 million reasons for this) but not a Jewish State.
But it's not up to us.
We are looking at the darkest hour before the dawn......... The right wing is on the retreat around the world. I want to help to shovel earth on the Neo Con grave
There will be a Palestinian state eventually and maybe two. And Israel will be at peace with the Palestinians.

There will be a Palestinian state eventually and maybe two. And Israel will be at peace with the Palestinians.

Probably by about the time we engineer the propensity for violence out of the entire human race. I just don't see it happening without an overwhelmingly powerful third party grabbing the two and slamming their misshapen backsides on a table and dickering out peace at gunpoint.

Ha! Ha! I love that sardonic scepticism of yours N.A.S.
I'm with MLK Jr "I....I have a dream today!"
And in less than a week there will be a black president with a Moslem-sounding name.

Let's hope he does help to make "Change you can believe in!"

I've never really understood what the plan is for a Palestinian state, in particular it's political geography. If you have the State of Palestine split into Golan, West Bank, Gaza, how does that work ? Are they to expand Gaza across the south Negev to swing around and join up with the West Bank?
Are there proposed lines drawn up as to what the shape of Palestine will look like ? - Anyone ?

Only ones around are the rejected ones.....

So any examples of rejected proposals then?
I haven't as found anything on the web

http://www.sott.net/image/image/9591/israel-palestine_map.jpg

ridiculous

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/15/gaza.aid.plea/index.html

This will help. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/15/gaza.aid.plea/index.html

This will help. :rolleyes:

So, what's the UN going to do?

"Stop! Or I shall say stop again!"

The UN does a lot of good in the world. Situations like this are far beyond it's capabilities.

I'd like to point out that there's more to targeting militants than just saying, "I'm targeting militants'. One actually has to target the militants.

One can't just spray fire in all directions and say, 'I only intend to hit bad people!'

At least Hamas hits who they target: Israelis. :tongue: that was a joke.

There is a Hamas-controlled Gaza that the IDF is busy trying to eradicate (a bit like the British army trying to destroy the IRA in my opinion)
Not even remotely.

Not even remotely.

Something tells me the Germans bombed Belfast a lot harder than the British Army ever did.

Something tells me the Germans bombed Belfast a lot harder than the British Army ever did.
Quite.

So any examples of rejected proposals then?
I haven't as found anything on the web

I'll go looking later.

Quite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Blitz

The Belfast Blitz was an event that occurred on the night of Easter Tuesday, 15 April 1941. Two hundred bombers of the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) attacked the city of Belfast in Northern Ireland. One thousand people died as a result of the bombing and even more were injured. In terms of property damage, half of the houses in Belfast were destroyed. Outside of the city of London, this was the greatest loss of life in a night raid during the blitz.[1][2] Roughly 100,000 people of a total population of 425,000 were left homeless.

So a 200 plane German sortie does more damage to Belfast during WW II than the IAF has done to Gaza over the course of a few weeks...

Ha! Ha! I love that sardonic scepticism of yours N.A.S.
I'm with MLK Jr "I....I have a dream today!"
And in less than a week there will be a black president with a Moslem-sounding name.

Let's hope he does help to make "Change you can believe in!"

Anything Obama can do to bring about substantial peace to that sorry little hunk of land would instantly become fodder for hands in the air frothy mouthed spittle sort of Israelis and their supporters who want to wipe out the Palestinians and take their land and vice versa. And then they'd go about starting the mess all over again.

There's two ways to put an end hate based killings. Re-education, or at gunpoint. Re-education takes way too long. Much longer than 8 years. Gunpoint negotiations, disarmament and enforced peace takes less time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Blitz



So a 200 plane German sortie does more damage to Belfast during WW II than the IAF has done to Gaza over the course of a few weeks...



Oh, right. It can't be all that bad, because hey look, the Nazis were worse!

So a 200 plane German sortie does more damage to Belfast during WW II than the IAF has done to Gaza over the course of a few weeks...

Goddamn, that is without a doubt, the weakest point I have ever seen you try to make.

Goddamn, that is without a doubt, the weakest point I have ever seen you try to make.

Someone was saying that the attack on Gaza was like the British fighting the Irish.

My point is that the Germans blew up more of Belfast than the British ever did.

Which is true. Is that a weak, unsupported fact?

And it's also true that 200 German planes did more damage to Belfast and its inhabitants than the IAF did to Gaza over a few weeks.

How is that a weak point? It's absolutely true.

lol.

lol.

Yes, laugh at the truth. Can you prove otherwise?

Yes, laugh at the truth. Can you prove otherwise?

What's the fucking point? It takes longer to clean the water you just muddied, only to have your next response to be:


"Oh look a shiny coin. Sorry, I wasn't paying attention, now where was I? Yadda yadda yadda no one provides me evidence."

There's no point in entertaining your off the wall points.

What's the fucking point? It takes longer to clean the water you just muddied, only to have your next response to be:


"Oh look a shiny coin. Sorry, I wasn't paying attention, now where was I? Yadda yadda yadda no one provides me evidence."

There's no point in entertaining you.

Sorry - that's not an argument. And since mine is true, and you have no counter, I win.

Yes, laugh at the truth. Can you prove otherwise?

I'm actually laughing at you, not "the truth."

Yes, it is true that the Nazis were worse than the Israelis. Boy, you got me. Golly gee.

I'm actually laughing at you, not "the truth."

Yes, it is true that the Nazis were worse than the Israelis. Boy, you got me. Golly gee.

In one bombing run... gee, if the IAF with modern weapons were really trying to kill Palestinians, you would think there would be far, far more casualties at a much higher rate...