Israel/Palestine; has the shit finally hit the fan?

[Cormac]

I go by the definition in the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

The reason I ask what definition you are applying is that Israel's conduct isn't anything like the definition of genocide under international law.

It seems that folks just want to hurl the allegation of genocide about to the point that it doesn't have meaning anymore.

Quite. It is the same thing. Raphael Lemkin - a brilliant human being, fought for many years to have this officially recognised internationally.

http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/ ... nglish.pdf

Here is Article 2, which defines genocide:

Article II

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

(a) Killing members of the group;

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

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

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

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

Article 2a, b, c, and d are the key pieces. Genocide is not always a general programme of physical extermination. It is also where one group makes the conditions of life so awful, that the object of their oppression leaves. Ultimately, the group that is subjected to the genocide are removed from the area - and the object has been realised.


Also:

http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/whatisit.html

Key point explained by Genocidewatch:

Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group's physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.

Lemkin defined genocide as follows:

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

More Lemkin:

"The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows:

"Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide."

Wikipedia on Lemkin:

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

[Coito ergo sum]

You've only quoted one-half of the definition in the Treaty, and it is not genocide if people "leave." Genocide is killing -- destroying a people. That hasn't happened. There are more Palestinians today than there were 5, 10, 15, 20,25, 30, 35, and 40 years ago. There are way more Arabs, both inside and outside Israel, than there were in the past too.

Where is the genocide?

[Seth]

I go by the definition in the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

The reason I ask what definition you are applying is that Israel's conduct isn't anything like the definition of genocide under international law.

It seems that folks just want to hurl the allegation of genocide about to the point that it doesn't have meaning anymore.

Quite. It is the same thing. Raphael Lemkin - a brilliant human being, fought for many years to have this officially recognised internationally.

http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/ ... nglish.pdf

Here is Article 2, which defines genocide:

Article II

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

(a) Killing members of the group;

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

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

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

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

Article 2a, b, c, and d are the key pieces. Genocide is not always a general programme of physical extermination. It is also where one group makes the conditions of life so awful, that the object of their oppression leaves. Ultimately, the group that is subjected to the genocide are removed from the area - and the object has been realised.


Also:

http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/whatisit.html

Key point explained by Genocidewatch:

Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group's physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.

Lemkin defined genocide as follows:

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

More Lemkin:

"The crime of genocide should be recognized therein as a conspiracy to exterminate national, religious or racial groups. The overt acts of such a conspiracy may consist of attacks against life, liberty or property of members of such groups merely because of their affiliation with such groups. The formulation of the crime may be as follows:

"Whoever, while participating in a conspiracy to destroy a national, racial or religious group, undertakes an attack against life, liberty or property of members of such groups is guilty of the crime of genocide."

Wikipedia on Lemkin:

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

Sounds like that definition applies quite accurately to Hamas and ever other Islamic group that advocates the destruction of Israel and the Jews.

Therefore, Israel is fully justified in defending itself against the obvious, advertised, nakedly open genocidal hostility of pretty much the entire Arab world.

Moreover, quite literally EVERYONE ELSE ON EARTH who is not a Muslim has exactly the same justification for opposing Islam, which has as its core principle and intent the destruction of ALL "infidels" and the imposition of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate.

[Cormac]

You've only quoted one-half of the definition in the Treaty, and it is not genocide if people "leave." Genocide is killing -- destroying a people. That hasn't happened. There are more Palestinians today than there were 5, 10, 15, 20,25, 30, 35, and 40 years ago. There are way more Arabs, both inside and outside Israel, than there were in the past too.

Where is the genocide?

I quoted the entire definition.

Looking at the expansion of Israel's territory, and the wall, and the blockade, and so on and so on, it appears to me to have the hallmarks of a genocide.

We are free to disagree with each other. I agree with you on lots of matters - just not this one my friend. I hope we don't fall out just because we have a difference of opinion.

[Coito ergo sum]

You've only quoted one-half of the definition in the Treaty, and it is not genocide if people "leave." Genocide is killing -- destroying a people. That hasn't happened. There are more Palestinians today than there were 5, 10, 15, 20,25, 30, 35, and 40 years ago. There are way more Arabs, both inside and outside Israel, than there were in the past too.

Where is the genocide?

I quoted the entire definition.

Looking at the expansion of Israel's territory, and the wall, and the blockade, and so on and so on, it appears to me to have the hallmarks of a genocide.

We are free to disagree with each other. I agree with you on lots of matters - just not this one my friend. I hope we don't fall out just because we have a difference of opinion.

No falling out due to differences of opinion on my part. I just don't see how you can claim genocide when the population of the group that is supposedly being destroyed increasing in population exponentially. It seems like a piss-poor genocide. Now the Nazis and the Turks, they knew how to commit a genocide. In Rwanda, that was a genocide.

[Cormac]

You've only quoted one-half of the definition in the Treaty, and it is not genocide if people "leave." Genocide is killing -- destroying a people. That hasn't happened. There are more Palestinians today than there were 5, 10, 15, 20,25, 30, 35, and 40 years ago. There are way more Arabs, both inside and outside Israel, than there were in the past too.

Where is the genocide?

I quoted the entire definition.

Looking at the expansion of Israel's territory, and the wall, and the blockade, and so on and so on, it appears to me to have the hallmarks of a genocide.

We are free to disagree with each other. I agree with you on lots of matters - just not this one my friend. I hope we don't fall out just because we have a difference of opinion.

No falling out due to differences of opinion on my part. I just don't see how you can claim genocide when the population of the group that is supposedly being destroyed increasing in population exponentially. It seems like a piss-poor genocide. Now the Nazis and the Turks, they knew how to commit a genocide. In Rwanda, that was a genocide.

Good that we're not falling out.

Regarding the increase in population - that is all very well. But if the Israeli policy of land-grabbing continues, and the constitution continues to deny Palestinians citizenship within Israel, then the ultimate scenario will be the squeezing of those Palestinians out of the territory controlled by Israel (and all Palestinian territories are under Israeli control in that access to it, and from it is at the sufference of Israel alone).

[Coito ergo sum]

Arabs can be citizens in Israel, including Palestinian Arabs. They can't be citizens of Israel if they weren't born in Israel or weren't naturalized Israeli citizens, and you can't live in the Ramallah and just apply for Israeli citizenship. Wouldn't make sense that they could.

Land grabbing, assuming it is occurring, arguendo, is not genocide if they're not destroying the Palestinian people. It may be wrong, but it wouldn't be genocide.

[Seth]

Regarding the increase in population - that is all very well. But if the Israeli policy of land-grabbing continues, and the constitution continues to deny Palestinians citizenship within Israel, then the ultimate scenario will be the squeezing of those Palestinians out of the territory controlled by Israel (and all Palestinian territories are under Israeli control in that access to it, and from it is at the sufference of Israel alone).

"Land grabbing" otherwise known as "conquering your enemies" and denying foreign terrorists citizenship does not equate to genocide by any sane metric.

[Cormac]

Arabs can be citizens in Israel, including Palestinian Arabs. They can't be citizens of Israel if they weren't born in Israel or weren't naturalized Israeli citizens, and you can't live in the Ramallah and just apply for Israeli citizenship. Wouldn't make sense that they could.

Land grabbing, assuming it is occurring, arguendo, is not genocide if they're not destroying the Palestinian people. It may be wrong, but it wouldn't be genocide.

According to Lemkin - who drafted the UN law - it is genocide:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."

[Cormac]

Regarding the increase in population - that is all very well. But if the Israeli policy of land-grabbing continues, and the constitution continues to deny Palestinians citizenship within Israel, then the ultimate scenario will be the squeezing of those Palestinians out of the territory controlled by Israel (and all Palestinian territories are under Israeli control in that access to it, and from it is at the sufference of Israel alone).

"Land grabbing" otherwise known as "conquering your enemies" and denying foreign terrorists citizenship does not equate to genocide by any sane metric.

Nonsense.

[pErvinalia]

DR. MONA EL-FARRA: Today, since the early hours of the morning, it is quiet. It is not as violent and tense as it was in the last five days. It is quiet, but airplanes are still in the sky. Drones are in the skies. We can hear intermittent shelling here and there. People are tense, are hoping for a cease fire. But, in the mean time, we don’t want a cease-fire at any cost. We want guarantees from Israel that this will not happen again. This is the situation in Gaza. The number of killed, you have mentioned it, but I’m sorry to say that the majority of the killing are amongst women and children. Some homes have been knocked down to the ground and toppled on civilians, and the Israeli Army later on said we are sorry, it was a mistake. How come it is a mistake to kill, for example, twelve civilians in their homes with women and children, and just what we hear is, sorry it was a mistake.

What is happening is not a war. What’s happening is unequal confrontation between very sophisticated fighters and [INAUDIBLE] that’s bombing Gaza Strip facility camps, schools, apartments, blocks. Everyplace has been blocked, either directly we have been affected and affected by feeling terrified, hating the bombing and the shelling and the shattered windows. I’m very concerned about civilian loss. Of course I am concerned about civilian loss from both sides. I am sorry about the three women or the three civilians on the Israeli side who were killed, but as I said, it is not equal confrontation.

The situation is much, much different than Gaza when we have terrified children in Gaza. Children who do not have enough water, don’t have enough food, no medication; the medications are getting less and less in the stores and in the medical facilities. And with all that, children who have no safe place, no place safe in Gaza. Many families left their homes to other safer place in the town or in the [INAUDIBLE] camp to be bombed again in the new places. So, no place is safe. Some of my friends advised me to leave my own apartment to go to another place. I decided I am staying in my place, but I want to make sure I take my own precautions to protect myself and protect my daughter. But, I don’t know what will happen next if this madness continues.

.........

DR. MONA EL-FARRA: OK, it means that the last four days, I will describe the last four days because today is quiet. Continuous shelling every other minute, either directly in my area — the airplanes are there and they hit around me, 100 meters, sometimes, from my building. This is directly against my area. Then you can overhear from the other areas, it is very noisy as well. Very, very noisy, because it is F-16 that’s bombing with large explosions. The whole building shakes. Some of my windows have been shattered. Other families as well.

I describe it as this way, it is simple, but it means that I have to hurry up with my daughter, who is a grown-up now, she went to school ten years ago, she’s now 20 years old, we have to hurry up and to go either next to concrete wall or underneath the table and feel a little bit safe, then it continues. I try to sleep, for example, I thought it is over, then I try to sleep. I shut my eyes a few minutes and then it is again, bombing and shelling from the air raids. Raids, I mean explosions coming on top of us from the sky, carrying destruction of course, because with every air raid, I can see the fire from my window. The fire and the smoke it is very close to my neighborhood. I can hear the sighs of the ambulances carrying the casualties. It is very dark. It is air raids. But if it is by the sea it is more terrifying for me because I feel [INAUDIBLE]. My apartment is there and the gun boats are again shelling the whole area.

Yesterday, there was a shelling that landed just on the beach in front of me. It was very loud and horrifying. In the meantime, I need to work. The first day I could not leave home. Then second day I started to go to the Red Crescent Society because I have duties there as well, and we formulated a team of workers all through Gaza strip; nurses, psychologists and we opened hotlines for population. During us — bringing psychologists to comfort them and support them, because my main concern are women and children, especially children who are subjected to such horror. And children who are feeling that their parents are no comfort. The parents cannot protect their children. In the meantime, they have to be protected by us, by other emergency workers.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/11/20/ ... r_assaults

[pErvinalia]

In fact, an examination of the sequence of events over the last month shows that Israel played the decisive role in the military escalation: from its attack on a Khartoum arms factory reportedly supplying arms to Hamas and the killing of 15 Palestinian fighters in late October, to the shooting of a mentally disabled Palestinian in early November, the killing of a 13 year-old in an Israeli incursion and, crucially, the assassination of the Hamas commander Ahmed Jabari last Wednesday during negotiations over a temporary truce.

Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, had plenty of motivation to unleash a new round of bloodletting. There was the imminence of Israeli elections (military attacks on the Palestinians are par for the course before Israeli polls); the need to test Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Morsi, and pressure Hamas to bring other Palestinian guerrilla groups to heel; and the chance to destroy missile caches before any confrontation with Iran, and test Israel's new Iron Dome anti-missile system.

So after six days of sustained assault by the world's fourth largest military power on one of its most wretched and overcrowded territories, at least 130 Palestinians had been killed, an estimated half of them civilians, along with five Israelis. The goal, Israel's interior minister, Eli Yeshai, insisted, had been to "send Gaza back to the middle ages".

True, the bloodshed hasn't so far been on the scale of Operation Cast Lead in 2008-9, which left 1,400 Palestinians dead in three weeks. But the issue isn't just who started and escalated it, or even the grinding "disproportionality" of yet another Israeli military battering (even before last month's flareups, 314 Palestinians had been killed since 2009, as against 20 Israelis).

It's that to portray Israel as some kind of victim with every right to "defend itself" from attack from "outside its borders" is a grotesque inversion of reality. Israel has after all been in illegal occupation of both the West Bank and Gaza, where most of the population are the families of refugees who were driven out of what is now Israel in 1948, for the past 45 years.

Despite Israel's withdrawal of settlements and bases in 2005, the Gaza Strip remains occupied, both effectively and legally – and is recognised as such by the UN. Israel is in control of Gaza's land and sea borders, territorial waters and natural resources, airspace, power supply and telecommunications. It has blockaded the strip since Hamas took over in 2006-7, preventing the movement of people, materials, and food supplies in and out of the territory – even calculating the 2,279 calories per person that would keep Gazans on an exemplary "diet". And it continues to invade the strip at will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... themselves

[pErvinalia]

You've only quoted one-half of the definition in the Treaty, and it is not genocide if people "leave." Genocide is killing -- destroying a people. That hasn't happened. There are more Palestinians today than there were 5, 10, 15, 20,25, 30, 35, and 40 years ago. There are way more Arabs, both inside and outside Israel, than there were in the past too.

Where is the genocide?

I quoted the entire definition.

Looking at the expansion of Israel's territory, and the wall, and the blockade, and so on and so on, it appears to me to have the hallmarks of a genocide.

We are free to disagree with each other. I agree with you on lots of matters - just not this one my friend. I hope we don't fall out just because we have a difference of opinion.

No falling out due to differences of opinion on my part. I just don't see how you can claim genocide when the population of the group that is supposedly being destroyed increasing in population exponentially. It seems like a piss-poor genocide.

It probably is. I don't have a properly informed opinion on whether it is genocide or not, but your claim that it can't be because the Palestinian population is growing is simply wrong. There's been a really good discussion on ratskep debunking this fallacious line of reasoning. It's in one of AndyX's threads on the conflict.

[pErvinalia]

Regarding the increase in population - that is all very well. But if the Israeli policy of land-grabbing continues, and the constitution continues to deny Palestinians citizenship within Israel, then the ultimate scenario will be the squeezing of those Palestinians out of the territory controlled by Israel (and all Palestinian territories are under Israeli control in that access to it, and from it is at the sufference of Israel alone).

"Land grabbing" otherwise known as "conquering your enemies" and denying foreign terrorists citizenship does not equate to genocide by any sane metric.

Nonsense.

Pretty much everything he writes on this subject (and any subject where there is a gross power imbalance), is nonsense. Just ignore him.

[pErvinalia]

Among the local and international media whose offices were damaged by Israeli missiles were Sky News Arabia, the German TV station ARD, the Arab TV stations MBC and Abu Dhabi TV, Al-Arabiya, Reuters, Russia Today and the Ma’an news agency.

Information was also one of the victims of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead against the Gaza Strip in December 2008 and January 2009 (read the RWB report). At the time, Reporters Without Borders condemned Israel’s decision to declare the Gaza Strip a “closed military zone” and deny access to journalists working for international media. The IDF also targeted pro-Hamas media during Operation Cast Lead.

http://en.rsf.org/palestinian-terr-rwb- ... 43690.html