How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's all very nice and all (disagreement for disagreements sake) but it has little to do with defining genocide.

[HAL 9000 96]

That's all very nice and all (disagreement for disagreements sake) but it has little to do with defining genocide.

And even less to do when we supposedly realize the 'edicts' pronounced are based ironically on principles of civil and human rights and laws that are interned within the laws and principles of equality and democracy- such as in the USA. Otherwise we wouldn't have had such a large stake in helping found the UN in the first place. Which points to more commonsensical approaches at looking at reality:

Like I said- I wouldn't label Israel's actions as genocide itself... but they are certainly practicing insanity. Now genocidal acts can be considered completely insane too.

[DeadPoolX 9]

That's all very nice and all (disagreement for disagreements sake) but it has little to do with defining genocide.

It has a lot to do with defining genocide. The UN has defined it and said, "according to international law, this is what genocide is."

Okay, that's all well and good, but how is that enforced? It's not. The UN can make all the pretty speeches and resolutions it wishes, but the final decision to follow or not is up to independent nations. If a country doesn't agree or follow it, there's not a whole lot that can be done.

The UN is a nice idea in theory, but when put into practice, it fails miserably. No nation will agree to terms -- in any capacity -- that somehow conflict with what the leaders of a country feels is in the best interests of their nation. Why would they? It's ludicrous to even assume that anyone would put themselves at a disadvantage.

As far as the U.S. is concerned, we mainly house the UN in New York to keep a closer eye on it. How often has the U.S. followed the UN's edicts or so-called "international law?" We tend to vote against resolutions that may not coincide with our own agenda (imagine that!) and therefore, further reduce the UN's imaginary power.

The really funny part is that UN expects the U.S. to mostly fund their operations through the use of manpower and money. If another country wants something done, they should pay for it. The U.S. is not every country's "rich uncle." We can't afford to pay for every global operation that goes on. The money, time and effort would be far better spent on the U.S. itself. It's not like we don't have our own share of problems.

I will say this for the UN, however. It does a good job when it comes to humanitarian aid, but that's about it.

Edited January 17, 2009 by DeadPoolX

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

International law is a consensus standard that isn't consistently applied, but genocide isn't subject to that kind of flexibility of interpretation. Countries that engage in genocides - like Sudan or the former Yugoslavia don't redefine genocide as much as ignore it completely.

Whether or not its enforced isn't really relevant - its a consensus view. In that respect you won't find any country outside of Iran that denies that the holocaust was genocide.

[Tahoma 2,292]

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.

The GDP per capita of Gaza is irrelevant. There is plenty of value in Gaza, and the Israelis who settled there knew it. They appropriated the land and turned it into settlements and farms. They raised crops and livestock. On a macro level, history shows us that populating a land with your own is a way that nations build a claim to that land.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Paul...

Thank you for posting Avi Shlaim's words. With the propaganda machine turned up to maximum volume, it is helpful to hear an articulate voice of balance and reason penetrate through the noise machine. This article provides the context and historical perspective to help understand the tragic situation that exists in Gaza today.

I don't care what anyone chooses to label it...genocide, near-genocide, attempted-genocide, insanity, or whatever. I am appalled by Israel's land grabbing, it's dehumanizing treatment of the Palestinians, and it's belief in a military solution.

[HAL 9000 96]

Paul...

Thank you for posting Avi Shlaim's words. With the propaganda machine turned up to maximum volume, it is helpful to hear an articulate voice of balance and reason penetrate through the noise machine. This article provides the context and historical perspective to help understand the tragic situation that exists in Gaza today.

I don't care what anyone chooses to label it...genocide, near-genocide, attempted-genocide, insanity, or whatever. I am appalled by Israel's land grabbing, it's dehumanizing treatment of the Palestinians, and it's belief in a military solution.

It is completely appalling isn't it? Perhaps that's why the entire international community has chimed in quite specifically about that.

[SpiritAlight 1]

That's all very nice and all (disagreement for disagreements sake) but it has little to do with defining genocide.

It has a lot to do with defining genocide. The UN has defined it and said, "according to international law, this is what genocide is."

Okay, that's all well and good, but how is that enforced? It's not. The UN can make all the pretty speeches and resolutions it wishes, but the final decision to follow or not is up to independent nations. If a country doesn't agree or follow it, there's not a whole lot that can be done.

The UN is a nice idea in theory, but when put into practice, it fails miserably. No nation will agree to terms -- in any capacity -- that somehow conflict with what the leaders of a country feels is in the best interests of their nation. Why would they? It's ludicrous to even assume that anyone would put themselves at a disadvantage.

As far as the U.S. is concerned, we mainly house the UN in New York to keep a closer eye on it. How often has the U.S. followed the UN's edicts or so-called "international law?" We tend to vote against resolutions that may not coincide with our own agenda (imagine that!) and therefore, further reduce the UN's imaginary power.

The really funny part is that UN expects the U.S. to mostly fund their operations through the use of manpower and money. If another country wants something done, they should pay for it. The U.S. is not every country's "rich uncle." We can't afford to pay for every global operation that goes on. The money, time and effort would be far better spent on the U.S. itself. It's not like we don't have our own share of problems.

I will say this for the UN, however. It does a good job when it comes to humanitarian aid, but that's about it.

And sometimes, there is no "vote", just a simple blatant disregard of international law, rules and human decency.

sigh

And as for your second to last paragraph, I have been saying this for years.

We are in complete agreement.

Can we continue on this tack?

Bah!

We may drown trying.

And Hal9000: insanity is the right word. Yes!