How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe

[DeadPoolX 9]

The yardstick as far as international law goes is not that you have to be successful in your attempt to commit genocide - but that you attempt it.

In order for Israel to commit genocide they would have to basically force the Palestinian people out of their territory by a combination of mass murder and forced deportation.

That isn't happening here, though it might if the situation destabilises any more.

But does that really make sense? Think about it: If someone attempts to murder someone else, then it's not homicide, but attempted homicide.

Of course it makes sense - genocide isn't a single isolated criminal act. It involves numerous crimes over a period of time that form part of a process.

By that rationale the Holocaust certainly was genocide as it involved the destruction, deportation and forced flight of the Jewish populations of Europe. The entire ethno-religious character of Europe post WW2 was irrevocably changed because of what the Nazis did.

But numerous crimes still don't constitute the eradication of an entire group. The word "crimes" in of itself is vague. As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference between attempting genocide and actually accomplishing it. And yes, that goes for the Holocaust, as well.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The yardstick as far as international law goes is not that you have to be successful in your attempt to commit genocide - but that you attempt it.

In order for Israel to commit genocide they would have to basically force the Palestinian people out of their territory by a combination of mass murder and forced deportation.

That isn't happening here, though it might if the situation destabilises any more.

But does that really make sense? Think about it: If someone attempts to murder someone else, then it's not homicide, but attempted homicide.

Of course it makes sense - genocide isn't a single isolated criminal act. It involves numerous crimes over a period of time that form part of a process.

By that rationale the Holocaust certainly was genocide as it involved the destruction, deportation and forced flight of the Jewish populations of Europe. The entire ethno-religious character of Europe post WW2 was irrevocably changed because of what the Nazis did.

But numerous crimes still don't constitute the eradication of an entire group. The word "crimes" in of itself is vague. As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference between attempting genocide and actually accomplishing it. And yes, that goes for the Holocaust, as well.

As far as you're concerned maybe - but that isn't how international law views it.

Genocide is not simply about murder, in case you missed that. It certainly involves it - and is synonymous with it. Mass murder is simply one part of a broad, large-scale process that involves, as I said, forced deportations, the systematic destruction of cultural heritage (and the outlawing of cultural and religious practices), also the raping of women to destroy to "breed out" genetic heritage.

So yes - Genocide is a vague term. Because it has to be.

[DeadPoolX 9]

The yardstick as far as international law goes is not that you have to be successful in your attempt to commit genocide - but that you attempt it.

In order for Israel to commit genocide they would have to basically force the Palestinian people out of their territory by a combination of mass murder and forced deportation.

That isn't happening here, though it might if the situation destabilises any more.

But does that really make sense? Think about it: If someone attempts to murder someone else, then it's not homicide, but attempted homicide.

Of course it makes sense - genocide isn't a single isolated criminal act. It involves numerous crimes over a period of time that form part of a process.

By that rationale the Holocaust certainly was genocide as it involved the destruction, deportation and forced flight of the Jewish populations of Europe. The entire ethno-religious character of Europe post WW2 was irrevocably changed because of what the Nazis did.

But numerous crimes still don't constitute the eradication of an entire group. The word "crimes" in of itself is vague. As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference between attempting genocide and actually accomplishing it. And yes, that goes for the Holocaust, as well.

As far as you're concerned maybe - but that isn't how international law views it.

Genocide is not simply about murder, in case you missed that. It certainly involves it - and is synonymous with it. Mass murder is simply one part of a broad, large-scale process that involves, as I said, forced deportations, the systematic destruction of cultural heritage (and the outlawing of cultural and religious practices), also the raping of women to destroy to "breed out" genetic heritage.

So yes - Genocide is a vague term. Because it has to be.

So under that definition, wouldn't the attempt by the U.S. on minorities and illegals constitute genocide?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The yardstick as far as international law goes is not that you have to be successful in your attempt to commit genocide - but that you attempt it.

In order for Israel to commit genocide they would have to basically force the Palestinian people out of their territory by a combination of mass murder and forced deportation.

That isn't happening here, though it might if the situation destabilises any more.

But does that really make sense? Think about it: If someone attempts to murder someone else, then it's not homicide, but attempted homicide.

Of course it makes sense - genocide isn't a single isolated criminal act. It involves numerous crimes over a period of time that form part of a process.

By that rationale the Holocaust certainly was genocide as it involved the destruction, deportation and forced flight of the Jewish populations of Europe. The entire ethno-religious character of Europe post WW2 was irrevocably changed because of what the Nazis did.

But numerous crimes still don't constitute the eradication of an entire group. The word "crimes" in of itself is vague. As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference between attempting genocide and actually accomplishing it. And yes, that goes for the Holocaust, as well.

As far as you're concerned maybe - but that isn't how international law views it.

Genocide is not simply about murder, in case you missed that. It certainly involves it - and is synonymous with it. Mass murder is simply one part of a broad, large-scale process that involves, as I said, forced deportations, the systematic destruction of cultural heritage (and the outlawing of cultural and religious practices), also the raping of women to destroy to "breed out" genetic heritage.

So yes - Genocide is a vague term. Because it has to be.

So under that definition, wouldn't the attempt by the U.S. on minorities and illegals constitute genocide?

No.

That's a frankly stupid interpretation of what I said.

[DeadPoolX 9]

The yardstick as far as international law goes is not that you have to be successful in your attempt to commit genocide - but that you attempt it.

In order for Israel to commit genocide they would have to basically force the Palestinian people out of their territory by a combination of mass murder and forced deportation.

That isn't happening here, though it might if the situation destabilises any more.

But does that really make sense? Think about it: If someone attempts to murder someone else, then it's not homicide, but attempted homicide.

Of course it makes sense - genocide isn't a single isolated criminal act. It involves numerous crimes over a period of time that form part of a process.

By that rationale the Holocaust certainly was genocide as it involved the destruction, deportation and forced flight of the Jewish populations of Europe. The entire ethno-religious character of Europe post WW2 was irrevocably changed because of what the Nazis did.

But numerous crimes still don't constitute the eradication of an entire group. The word "crimes" in of itself is vague. As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference between attempting genocide and actually accomplishing it. And yes, that goes for the Holocaust, as well.

As far as you're concerned maybe - but that isn't how international law views it.

Genocide is not simply about murder, in case you missed that. It certainly involves it - and is synonymous with it. Mass murder is simply one part of a broad, large-scale process that involves, as I said, forced deportations, the systematic destruction of cultural heritage (and the outlawing of cultural and religious practices), also the raping of women to destroy to "breed out" genetic heritage.

So yes - Genocide is a vague term. Because it has to be.

So under that definition, wouldn't the attempt by the U.S. on minorities and illegals constitute genocide?

No.

That's a frankly stupid interpretation of what I said.

I don't think so.

The U.S., by and large, is attempting to force out illegals (which they probably should), but is being met with fierce resistance from citizens. The U.S. also promotes "becoming an American and surrendering your past cultural heritage" to a large degree. While this isn't the "systematic destruction" you mention, it heavily influences many new to the country to forget any of their past ties. The people also have strong feelings against culture that is unlike their own and will sometimes even forcibly demonstrate that.

I don't think the U.S. is committing genocide; however, the definition of genocide (as you wrote it) could, in some way, fit American practices. Knowing this, I believe the definition of genocide is far too vague and up to personal (and national) interpretation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The yardstick as far as international law goes is not that you have to be successful in your attempt to commit genocide - but that you attempt it.

In order for Israel to commit genocide they would have to basically force the Palestinian people out of their territory by a combination of mass murder and forced deportation.

That isn't happening here, though it might if the situation destabilises any more.

But does that really make sense? Think about it: If someone attempts to murder someone else, then it's not homicide, but attempted homicide.

Of course it makes sense - genocide isn't a single isolated criminal act. It involves numerous crimes over a period of time that form part of a process.

By that rationale the Holocaust certainly was genocide as it involved the destruction, deportation and forced flight of the Jewish populations of Europe. The entire ethno-religious character of Europe post WW2 was irrevocably changed because of what the Nazis did.

But numerous crimes still don't constitute the eradication of an entire group. The word "crimes" in of itself is vague. As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference between attempting genocide and actually accomplishing it. And yes, that goes for the Holocaust, as well.

As far as you're concerned maybe - but that isn't how international law views it.

Genocide is not simply about murder, in case you missed that. It certainly involves it - and is synonymous with it. Mass murder is simply one part of a broad, large-scale process that involves, as I said, forced deportations, the systematic destruction of cultural heritage (and the outlawing of cultural and religious practices), also the raping of women to destroy to "breed out" genetic heritage.

So yes - Genocide is a vague term. Because it has to be.

So under that definition, wouldn't the attempt by the U.S. on minorities and illegals constitute genocide?

No.

That's a frankly stupid interpretation of what I said.

I don't think so.

The U.S., by and large, is attempting to force out illegals (which they probably should), but is being met with fierce resistance from citizens. The U.S. also promotes "becoming an American and surrendering your past cultural heritage" to a large degree. While this isn't the "systematic destruction" you mention, it heavily influences many new to the country to forget any of their past ties. The people also have strong feelings against culture that is unlike their own and will sometimes even forcibly demonstrate that.

I don't think the U.S. is committing genocide; however, the definition of genocide (as you wrote it) could, in some way, fit American practices. Knowing this, I believe the definition of genocide is far too vague and up to personal (and national) interpretation.

It isn't up to "personal and national" interpretation though - that's why we have international law and generally agreed terminology (via the United Nations) as to what constitutes genocide for the purpose of prosecuting war criminals.

The US deporting illegals has ####### all to do with genocide - that's not only ridiculous but insane to boot. The US authorities do deport illegal immigrants, but they aren't going around burning down hispanic cultural centers, bulldozing neighbourhoods and putting the illegals in extermination/hard labour camps. Genocide it obviously isn't.

If you're going to quote me - at least keep in mind the context. Everything I've written here is in clear context of the UN definition I posted on the other page. Specifically.

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

Note the words "in whole or in part".

You seem to be of the view that if it isn't "in whole" then it isn't genocide. That just isn't the case.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[alienlovechild 75]

In order for Israel to commit genocide they would have to basically force the Palestinian people out of their territory by a combination of mass murder and forced deportation.

That isn't happening here, though it might if the situation destabilises any more.

The Israelis pulled their people out of Gaza in 2005 so Israel doesn't want one of the poorest places on Earth.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In order for Israel to commit genocide they would have to basically force the Palestinian people out of their territory by a combination of mass murder and forced deportation.

That isn't happening here, though it might if the situation destabilises any more.

The Israelis pulled their people out of Gaza in 2005 so Israel doesn't want one of the poorest places on Earth.

If you remove the population - then it won't be "one of the poorest places on earth". It will be prime real estate.

[alienlovechild 75]

In order for Israel to commit genocide they would have to basically force the Palestinian people out of their territory by a combination of mass murder and forced deportation.

That isn't happening here, though it might if the situation destabilises any more.

The Israelis pulled their people out of Gaza in 2005 so Israel doesn't want one of the poorest places on Earth.

If you remove the population - then it won't be "one of the poorest places on earth". It will be prime real estate.

There's nothing of value there. Per capita income is $1,100. Care to share with us all the resources and assets that the Gazans themselves don't know about?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...r/2004rank.html

Reminds me of the guy who told me Afghanistan was a country with lots of valuable natural resourcs. He must have been referring to the opium.

Lastly, Israel left the entire Sinai in 1982 (?) which actually had some oil so your theory holds as much logic as the sands of the Sinai holds water.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In order for Israel to commit genocide they would have to basically force the Palestinian people out of their territory by a combination of mass murder and forced deportation.

That isn't happening here, though it might if the situation destabilises any more.

The Israelis pulled their people out of Gaza in 2005 so Israel doesn't want one of the poorest places on Earth.

If you remove the population - then it won't be "one of the poorest places on earth". It will be prime real estate.

There's nothing of value there. Per capita income is $1,100. Care to share with us all the resources and assets that the Gazans themselves don't know about?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...r/2004rank.html

Reminds me of the guy who told me Afghanistan was a country with lots of valuable natural resourcs. He must have been referring to the opium.

Lastly, Israel left the entire Sinai in 1982 (?) which actually had some oil so your theory holds as much logic as the sands of the Sinai holds water.

OK - lets nip this silly tangent in the bud shall we. I mean... what point are you trying to make?

All I said was that for Israel to commit genocide against the Palestinians they would have to kill and otherwise force the Palestinian population off their land. I also said that if the situation really destablised over there I could see that happening (it would be the natural evolution of what's happening right now).

Perhaps I'm wrong - I may well be - I'm not exactly hiding the fact that I'm speculating.

[alienlovechild 75]

OK - lets nip this silly tangent in the bud shall we. I mean... what point are you trying to make?

All I said was that for Israel to commit genocide against the Palestinians they would have to kill and otherwise force the Palestinian population off their land. I also said that if the situation really destablised over there I could see that happening (it would be the natural evolution of what's happening right now).

Perhaps I'm wrong - I may well be - I'm not exactly hiding the fact that I'm speculating.

I broke off your tangential point by having you try to give me a reason why Gaza may be so valuable would be worth the effort of mass deportations. The mere idea that a natural extension of the conflict might lead to mass explusions is equally unlikely. Remember usually any defensive position is weakened when exterior lines go further out- more troops to maintain a longer border. Although. pushing all Palestinians in Gaza into Egypt would be easier to defend, it would piss off Egypt and a lot more people would die in the desert without some infrastructure. The same could be said for the West Bank, too but the Israelis just haven't pushed them out to more defensible positions. Why? Just a guess, but the Palestinians aren't a big enough military threat to destroy Israel but they can be annoying enough on the perimeter to warrant sporadic retaliation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess it depends on how desperate the situation gets, and if the UN has nother things on its hands to deal with (like another World War).

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Great Post PD! Thx for the read! Alot of what he mentioned I am aware of and most of it I agree with. I am always weary to touch on the issue of the Zionist Propaganda Machine such as he has and I am thoroughly impressed with this mans records and perspective of where he comes from being able to address this issue with more authority. Certainly gives one something to chew on with the gravity of the situation. I don't agree with the others that this is genocide. This is something else all together. This is no Cambodia 1975 and Pol Pot or even Nazi concentration camps where they catalog the people and bury them without names sorting out their belongs. While it may seems like that because of the nature of the situation being an open aired prison I'd have to go with this war being on the ratio of a grey area. The number tetters just above 1,000 battle deaths in total civilian casualties but that has not been separated from military battle deaths and I suspect that is because the nature of urban warfare. This is not a severe war in regards to all wars but it is significant to the victims. I really was impressed the fact this man brought up the victims being seen as the oppressors. He bases his claims on one critical piece of information that differs from everything else that is out there that I've been reading up on and that is that he says the Israelis broke the cease fire with a raid while they have spin doctors saying it was Hamas with rockets. That is probably the most interesting fact that I have taken from this entire piece and how he expands on the behind the scenes Israel war machine. At least we agree that it is territorial but we came to that conclusion seperately with different facts.

[HAL 9000 96]

Does anyone else get the feeling that not only does history repeats itself...the more we "move forward" the more behind we have fallen.

The U.N. was bombed in Gaza and the food rations there were annihilated.

People there are terrified and squeezed into a sliver of land....no water and no shelter.

Is this not genocide??

Why do Israel and the U.S. (in other situations, of course) not follow international rule/laws?

I wouldn't call it genocide. I'd call it near-indiscriminate insanity.

[DeadPoolX 9]

The yardstick as far as international law goes is not that you have to be successful in your attempt to commit genocide - but that you attempt it.

In order for Israel to commit genocide they would have to basically force the Palestinian people out of their territory by a combination of mass murder and forced deportation.

That isn't happening here, though it might if the situation destabilises any more.

But does that really make sense? Think about it: If someone attempts to murder someone else, then it's not homicide, but attempted homicide.

Of course it makes sense - genocide isn't a single isolated criminal act. It involves numerous crimes over a period of time that form part of a process.

By that rationale the Holocaust certainly was genocide as it involved the destruction, deportation and forced flight of the Jewish populations of Europe. The entire ethno-religious character of Europe post WW2 was irrevocably changed because of what the Nazis did.

But numerous crimes still don't constitute the eradication of an entire group. The word "crimes" in of itself is vague. As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference between attempting genocide and actually accomplishing it. And yes, that goes for the Holocaust, as well.

As far as you're concerned maybe - but that isn't how international law views it.

Genocide is not simply about murder, in case you missed that. It certainly involves it - and is synonymous with it. Mass murder is simply one part of a broad, large-scale process that involves, as I said, forced deportations, the systematic destruction of cultural heritage (and the outlawing of cultural and religious practices), also the raping of women to destroy to "breed out" genetic heritage.

So yes - Genocide is a vague term. Because it has to be.

So under that definition, wouldn't the attempt by the U.S. on minorities and illegals constitute genocide?

No.

That's a frankly stupid interpretation of what I said.

I don't think so.

The U.S., by and large, is attempting to force out illegals (which they probably should), but is being met with fierce resistance from citizens. The U.S. also promotes "becoming an American and surrendering your past cultural heritage" to a large degree. While this isn't the "systematic destruction" you mention, it heavily influences many new to the country to forget any of their past ties. The people also have strong feelings against culture that is unlike their own and will sometimes even forcibly demonstrate that.

I don't think the U.S. is committing genocide; however, the definition of genocide (as you wrote it) could, in some way, fit American practices. Knowing this, I believe the definition of genocide is far too vague and up to personal (and national) interpretation.

It isn't up to "personal and national" interpretation though - that's why we have international law and generally agreed terminology (via the United Nations) as to what constitutes genocide for the purpose of prosecuting war criminals.

The US deporting illegals has ####### all to do with genocide - that's not only ridiculous but insane to boot. The US authorities do deport illegal immigrants, but they aren't going around burning down hispanic cultural centers, bulldozing neighbourhoods and putting the illegals in extermination/hard labour camps. Genocide it obviously isn't.

If you're going to quote me - at least keep in mind the context. Everything I've written here is in clear context of the UN definition I posted on the other page. Specifically.

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

Note the words "in whole or in part".

You seem to be of the view that if it isn't "in whole" then it isn't genocide. That just isn't the case.

Hmmm... I get the distinct impression that you believe the UN trumps U.S. law or any nation's own laws. That's simply not the case. Do you honestly think that the U.S. would listen to the UN or so-called "international law" if it came into disagreement with national American policies? If you do, then I pity the dream world you live in.

The UN is an impotent organization that lacks the ability to enforce its edicts. The idea behind "international law" is a pretty one, but ultimately non-existent. Whatever one country decides to do is up to them; not some tinpot dictators in a nation far away.