The children of Gaza: Weaned on fear and trauma

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

By Samah A. Habeeb
Online Journal Guest Writer

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3914.sh...

---snip---

GAZA STRIP, Palestine -- Severe terror and traumas are de facto storms for children in the occupied territories, especially those who exist in the Gaza Strip.

The ongoing Israeli military operations and violent retaliation induce psychological maladies and wretched conditions. The recent ceasefire in Gaza allows a temporary rest but not the cure for their fears and nightmares.

The summer of 2007 was a start of a mayhem for the poor Bedouin family of Sahar. Sahar Owaidat, 6, remains in state of shock or perhaps is exhibiting symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder ever since Israeli soldiers stormed her home and brutally beat her father and siblings while she and the rest of the family members helplessly observed.

In all cultures, the father of the family represents safety and security to the family. The Israeli soldiers routinely rob Palestinian fathers of their role . . . .

[pelsar]

1. time to update your terror watch....

hamas has been terrorizing the gazans (especially those who belong to fatah) for over a year....i would assume you concern also includes them as well......and will be eagerly awaiting your next post with such articles...and of course your condemnation....


pretty interesting isnt it..you actually had to find an article that goes back over a year to find some way of bashing israel......kinda hard to blame the Palestinians for terrorizing Palestinians?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. Yeah, it's those pesky Palestinians causing all kinds of trouble again.

Thanks for your enlightening input, Pelsar.

[LeftishBrit]

3. It's 'pesky Palestinians' *and* pesky Israelis *and* pesky Arab states

Plenty of blame to go round.

What's perhaps more important than who is to blame (who isn't by now?) is what can be done to change things, and prevent even more suffering in the future.

I think it's important to support organizations working for peace in the region.

www.allmep.org

This may not succeed. But certainly nothing else will.

[pelsar]

4. is it human rights regardless or is human rights*

*if the Palestinians via hamas are violently taking "care of business"....then its considered an internal matter and shouldnt be "touched"...if its the israelis then its news..even if its a year old.-did i get that right?

i know its getting really hard to blame the israelis for gazas troubles......but isnt going back a year to find something to blame israel on getting a bit obvious?

I'm sure you can do better than that.....i got one, after a kassam landed in israel, israel closed the borders for a couple of days (of course that means they were open since hamas stopped trying to kill israels.....damn...theres that "cause and affect again"..stop trying to kill israelis and the IDF stop trying to kill back, and life improves.....

i guess your right...stick with events that happend years ago..the present situation in gaza as bleak as it is, is a Hamas/ Palestinian responsibility...and you really dont want to go there....

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. The truth of the U.S. sponsored genocide called the Israeli -Palestinian conflict...

...which I find no less offensive than referring to the Holocaust as the Nazi-Jewish conflict, is that Israel, with the 4th largest military in the world and state of the art weaponry, is engaged in a massive theft of the land and resources of their essentially defenseless neighbor, Palestine. Israel has gone about this for decades now in a most brutal and often murderous way and ALWAYS falsely claims self defense and national security as justification.

The truth, of course, is something you will never acknowledge and probably can't even see given the intensive State propaganda you've been subjected to from early childhood, but that will never change the truth of the matter -- it is U.S. sponsored genocide.

[henank]

6. Ah yes, that infamous genocide of the Palestinians

Not very efficient at genocide, those dastardly Israelis, are they? Or their American sponsors (LOL!)

Palestinian population up by 30% in a decade

Palestinian growth rate 2.985% (2007 est.)

And ah yes, that dastardly Israel yet again, stealing land without EVER having a justifiable reason. After all, self defense is simply imaginary. Not.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. Interesting how the genocide deniers are so careful...

...in crafting their rhetoric as to always avoid the internationally accepted definition of genocide (Gosh, why do you suppose that is, Henank?):

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.
Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)

"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 III: The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide. "

It is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts, and to aid or abet genocide: Criminal acts include conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.

Punishable Acts The following are genocidal acts when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence:

Killing members of the group includes direct killing and actions causing death.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation.

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.

Prevention of births includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent procreation.

Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force or by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 18 years.

Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence.

The law protects four groups - national, ethnical, racial or religious groups.

A national group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by a common country of nationality or national origin.

An ethnical group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common cultural traditions, language or heritage.

A racial group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by physical characteristics.

A religious group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common religious creeds, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals.

Key Terms

The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.

Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.

Source: http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.ht...

[LeftishBrit]

8. The Palestinians have not been destroyed as a group, so it isn't genocide.

In fact they've increased in numbers.

They have been, and are, oppressed (by the Israelis and by others) - but if all oppression is to be called genocide, then the list of genocides will be very long indeed.

My problem with this is that it trivializes the term, and leaves no adequate term available for, e.g., what is currently happening in Darfur.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

9. So would you argue that...

native Americans who inhabited what is now the U.S. were also not the victims of genocide alleging that they too were not even partially "destroyed as a group?"

From the definition of genocide (post #7):

Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.

[LeftishBrit]

10. But they WERE to a large degree destroyed as a group; so I don't see your point

Do you consider all war to be genocide?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

12. Shall I take that as a "no"...

...meaning that you do consider what was done to American natives to have amounted to genocide?

[LeftishBrit]

26. I consider that what was done to American natives was genocide

Because they were massacred, and their numbers greatly reduced.

ETA: I'm guessing that the point you may be making is something like:

The Native Americans lost their land; the Native Americans suffered genocide; therefore having your land taken from you (like the Palestinians) is genocide.

But that is not true. It is terrible to have your land taken from you, or to be expelled from your land, but it isn't genocide. Expulsions of Jews from their countries were evil but they were not genocide - the Holocaust was genocide. Taking land from the Native Americans was evil, but it was not in itself genocide. The *way* it was done, which involved killing large numbers, was genocide.

Or is your argument something else?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

37. So are you working from some definition of genocide...

...different from the accepted international definition (see post #7)? Because that's what it sounds like.

[LeftishBrit]

43. I am following the usual definition...

(Genocide must include)

1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.
Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)

"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.'

There has been no 'intent to destroy' the Palestinians. There has been an intent on the part of many, though not all, Israelis to defeat them; to prevent them from gaining power; to prevent them from getting a state. But that isn't 'destruction' of a group.

I suppose under very special interpretations of the definition, one might say that all war is genocide, as it always involves elements of (a) and (b) from Article 2. However, the term 'genocide' is generally not used unless war is carried out with the intent not only to defeat the enemy, but to exterminate them or a large number of them.

Question: *Do* you consider all war to be genocide?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

46. Are you saying...

...that Israel has not satisfied so many as one of the items/acts, (a) through (e)?

Or are you suggesting that there is not a longstanding coordinated pattern of commission of one or more of these items/acts sufficient to convince you that they have been "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group . . . "

As to your question, do I consider "all war genocide." All I can say is the question of whether the requirements for genocide are satisfied in any conflict is something to be decided on a case by case bases, not collectively.

[Vegasaurus]

53. Usually a genocide successfully reduces a population

by murder etc.

The Palestinians's population has grown 30% just in the last ten years.

The Israelis are doing a bad job getting rid of Palestinians.

This old "genocide" argument is so tired and old.

[cali]

54. Don't bother.

it really isn't worth introducing reason to those who are so dominated by emotion that they can completely ignore reality.

[Shaktimaan]

11. OK, so then,

what acts did the Israelis commit that were INTENDED to destroy the Palestinians, either in part or entirely? I can't think of a single one.

I can think of acts that the Palestinians committed that were INTENDED to destroy whole or part of the nascent Jewish state... not that I've ever thought that the Palestinians could be accused of genocide against the Israelis. That seems to be your argument, if we are to apply your conditions equally, that is.

Yet, even using the term in such a way that it includes "Palestinian genocide against Israelis" there just doesn't seem to be any standing for believing that the Israelis have committed genocide against anybody at all. That sets them apart from nearly every other state on the planet, who have, according to this definition at least, committed genocide many times over.

Drawn to its logical conclusion, your argument seems to highlight Israel as being among the most ethical of all nations. This may not have been your original intent, I'm sure. But that only serves to make it more interesting, don't you agree?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

13. .

"what acts did the Israelis commit that were INTENDED to destroy the Palestinians, either in part or entirely?"

You're joking, right?

[Shaktimaan]

14. not at all.

I am fairly well versed in the basic history of this conflict and I'm unaware of a single instance where the Israeli's intent could be considered the extermination of the Palestinian people.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

15. A SINGLE instance is not how the case for genocide would be constructed.

Did you even bother to read the international definition (see post #7)?

"...But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts."

This would not be a difficult case to make at all -- the last half century of Israel's brutal and illegal occupation serves as prima facie.

[Shaktimaan]

16. sorry...

but an occupation is not the same thing as a genocide. (In fact, I would say that the fact that 20% of Israel's population is Palestinian serves as prima facie against your charge of genocide.)

Perhaps you have some examples of these "coordinated acts" that formed a "systematic pattern" leading up to genocide? Merely being under occupation is not nearly sufficient to prove an intent to destroy the people under occupation, especially since those people were never actually destroyed, in whole or part, at all.

Now, if you're going to assert that a systematic pattern exists then I would expect that you would have several examples of events that meet the standard you set... that standard being that the events occurred within the framework of an "intent to destroy (in whole or part) the Palestinian people."

If it's not a difficult case to make at all, as you say, then I'm sure you won't have any difficulty in providing some specific examples.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

17. That's a straw man and you know it...

...nobody's saying the fact of occupation, in and of itself, constitutes genocide.

Here is an excerpt from an interview Democracy Now did with Noam Chomsky:

"As always things have precedence, and you have to decide which was the inciting event in the present case, are those that I mentioned -- the constant intense repression; plenty of abductions, plenty of atrocities in Gaza; the steady takeover of the West Bank, which, in effect, if it continues, is just the murder of a nation, the end of Palestine..."

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKq38COoTG8

[Shaktimaan]

18. the murder of a nation?

nice try. But there's a huge difference between arguing that Israel prevented Palestine from being formed (and I think that's still a stretch) and arguing that doing so is the equivalent of genocide. (Not to mention, if any states are responsible for preventing Palestine's formation, they would be Egypt and Jordan, who actively did so during the time that Palestine should have been partitioned.)

Now, here's why it is not a straw man. Give me an example of any legitimate genocide that's occurred throughout history and I will give you examples of some of the exact events "which formed a systematic pattern" of genocide. In any case of genocide that I can think of there is a clear and deliberate pattern which demonstrates a genocidal intent beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not so with Israel.

I think it is funny that you consider it unfair that I asked you to provide clear examples of how the IP conflict meets the standards that YOU yourself posted.

You: This is genocide!
Me: Exactly how so?
You: That's a straw man attack!

Look, genocide is never vague. If Israel was committing it, then there would be scores of examples that you could point to.

edit: by the way, was Noam Chomsky insinuating that Israel was committing genocide at all? If not, then what exactly was that quote intended to demonstrate?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

19. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with straw man argument.

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

To suggest that I took the position that an occupation, in and of itself, constitutes genocide is definitely a straw man, and I think you're being disingenuous to pretend you don't know that.


As to vagueness, the international definition for genocide is not vague either -- and Israel's longstanding, oppressive, illegal, and often murderous occupation of Palestine EASILY satisfies its requirements.

There are numerous well documented accounts of this brutality over a period of decades now which, when taken together, clearly point to genocide.

It still sounds like you haven't bothered to read the definition.

[Shaktimaan]

20. it sounds like

you keep on insisting that there are well documented accounts of events that easily fulfill the definition of genocide, yet you seem incapable of finding a single one of them... let alone enough of them to demonstrate any kind of deliberate pattern.

So far you have said that an occupation, in and of itself isn't the equivalent of genocide. But then you say that Israel's is. So what are these documented accounts of brutality that come anywhere close to proving the charge of genocide?

It still sounds like you haven't bothered to read the definition.

Hahaha. It sounds like you haven't read the history.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

22. You've got to be kidding.

How many posts from this year alone, in just this lonely little out-of-the-way DU forum, have documented specific cases of Israeli oppression and brutality?

How completely divorced from reality can you be?

Here's only a very small sampling of such posts to this forum spanning a 10 day period from February 22nd to March 3rd of this year:

THE farmers of Beit Ula spent two years preparing their new groves of fruit, nut and olive trees, clearing rocks, building stone terraces and digging deep cisterns to catch the scarce rain.

The Israeli army destroyed it all in less than a day.

"We heard they were here at 6.30 in the morning, when it was still dark," said Sami al-Adam, one of eight farmers whose terraces were bulldozed on January 15.

"There must have been dozens of soldiers with jeep and bulldozers, and they brought a lot of Filipino workers, or maybe they were Thai, who pulled up the trees and cut them and buried them so we wouldn't be able to plant them again." . . . .


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shooting Palestinian bystanders; illegally commandeering cars and going on joyrides; torturing a youth by pressing a heater to his face and beating cuffed prisoners on their way to custody. These are only some of the reported cases of abuse for which Israel Defense Forces soldiers serving in the West Bank are currently on trial.

"We've been hit by a tsunami," said the commander of the Kfir Brigade, members of which were recently implicated in a rampage through a West Bank town that left two Palestinians wounded, one of them seriously. Kfir is the largest IDF unit in the West Bank. "I suppose every brigade goes through low and high periods, and right now we're in a low one." . . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2 October 2000, as the Israeli army was beginning its ruthless crackdown on the second intifada in the occupied territories, 17-year-old Aseel Asleh joined tens of thousands of other Palestinian citizens across Israel in taking to the streets in protest and in a show of solidarity with their kin across the Green Line.

A firm believer in nonviolence, Asleh wore a T-shirt emblazoned with the logo of a prominent Jewish and Arab coexistence group, Seeds of Peace, as he marched alongside family, friends and neighbors through his town of Arrabeh in northern Israel.

Within hours Asleh was dead, face down in an olive grove. A bullet, fired from a police gun at point-blank range, had severed an artery near the back of his neck in what looked suspiciously like an execution. Earlier he had been seen fleeing through the grove, chased by a police squad breaking up the demonstration . . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recent data provided to Meretz MK Chaim Oron, by the Ministry of Defense, in response to a query he placed, reflected that within the territories under full Israeli control, it is almost impossible for Palestinians to receive permission to construct; details show that over 94% of building requests are denied.

Those Palestinians that do build without any permission face a rate of demolition (on structures that demolition orders have been issued) of 33%, as opposed to the percentage of demolition orders that are carried out against Israeli settlements, which stands at 7% (The data regarding the demolitions in the settlements is based on Peace Now's report from December 2007) . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even as I write this, however, there is news that in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military, in separate attacks, has killed a 6 month old baby and three Palestinian children age 10, 12 and 14. No names yet. In the case of the three children, the Israeli army claims that it was aiming at militants, and a spokesperson said it was “strange” that there should be children around the alleged vicinity of rocket launchers.

But it is not the first ‘strange’ occurrence recently in Gaza. On Saturday, three Palestinians in their early 20s, Mohammad Talal al-Za’anin, Ibrahim Ahmad Abu Jarad, and Mohammad Hasan Hussein, were killed as they prepared a picnic in a field near Beit Hanoun. The Israeli missile hit their hut, 1.2km from the border fence, killing and dismembering them instantly.

‘Strangely’, the Israeli army claimed it had targeted militants firing rockets. Then on Tuesday, Palestinian farmer Hassan Abu Sabatt was tilling his land near Qarara village, when Israeli soldiers shot him dead. Once again, the IDF said it had killed an armed militant – a spokeswoman said he’d been spotted planting a bomb.

These drastically contrasting versions of what happened become less mysterious when we remember that the IDF has a long track record of lying, backtracking and deceiving when it comes to the killing of Palestinian civilians. Of course, Western media outlets either unquestioningly reprint official IDF press releases, or ‘balance’ the two contradictory accounts . . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JERUSALEM/GAZA, 28 February (IRIN) - A main office of the Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS) was severely damaged in an Israeli air strike late on 27 February. A five-month-old baby was killed, and a mobile clinic unit and other medical supplies were destroyed in the attack.

The Israeli military said the air strike targeted a Hamas headquarters in the western part of the Gaza Strip.

In Israel a 47-year-old man was killed in the late afternoon by Palestinian rockets fired by Hamas. In total over 70 rockets were fired in the afternoon and evening.

The latest escalation in violence, which residents say is the most serious in recent weeks, began in the early morning of 27 February when Israeli air strikes killed six Palestinian militants, Gaza sources said. By afternoon, the rockets, seen as a retaliatory move by Hamas, rained down in southern Israel, mostly on Sderot but also on Ashkelon, a city north of Gaza . . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"IDF pounds Gaza targets: At least four Palestinians were killed in IDF strikes in the Gaza Strip Thursday night, Palestinian sources reported. The latest attacks brought the number of Palestinians killed in the Strip Thursday to 13.

Around 11:10 pm, the Palestinians reported that many civilians were hurt in an attack on the Palestinian Workers' Union in the northern Strip. According to the report, a 2-month-old baby was critically hurt.

Earlier, two Palestinians were killed in a strike on a truck traveling next to the Shifa hospital in the Strip, the Palestinians said. The sources said the truck was transporting soft drinks, but the identity of those killed is unknown at this time. Several other people were wounded in the attack. The IDF later said it attacked a vehicle packed with explosives . . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four boys playing football have been killed in Gaza by Israeli air strikes, according to Palestinian officials, as Israel responded to the death of a man from a barrage of rocket attacks with a bloody escalation of violence.

At least 16 Palestinians – including the four children – were killed yesterday as Israel responded to the deadly attacks the previous day.

While the Israeli military said it had been targeting militants and rocket-launching squads, the officials said the boys were playing football close to their homes in Jabalya, northern Gaza . . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, has condemned Israel for using "excessive" force in the Gaza Strip and demanded a halt to its offensive after troops killed at least 100 people over five days - more than 60 on Saturday alone.

At least a third of those killed have been children, according to medical sources in Gaza.

Addressing an emergency session of the security council in New York on Sunday, Ban also called on Palestinian fighters to stop firing rockets into Israel.

Ban said: "While recognising Israel's right to defend itself, I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed and injured so many civilians, including children ... I call on Israel to cease such attacks." . . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GAZA (Reuters) - Israel killed 46 Palestinians on Saturday in its deadliest and deepest incursion into the Gaza Strip since pulling out in 2005, stoking fears of a broader conflict that could derail renewed U.S.-backed peace talks.

Two Israeli soldiers were also killed and seven wounded, the army said -- its first casualties in four days of fighting.

At least 81 Palestinians have been killed since Wednesday in intense Israeli air strikes and ground raids in the tiny Hamas-controlled territory, home to 1.5 million people, bordering Israel, Egypt and the Mediterranean . . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Israeli tanks and infantry moved out of Gaza before dawn today after a five day operation to kill militants that left more than 110 Palestinians dead, including 22 children.

Hopes that the incursion had ended the barrage of Palestinian rockets raining down from Gaza on Israeli border towns proved in vain, however, when three missiles hit the resort town of Ashkelon this morning, damaging an apartment building. No-one was hurt . . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And these are examples taken from only a very small time interval early in the year -- imagine what we'd see if we were to go back over all of the last several decades.

I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge seeing the clear pattern, Shaktimaan, but I think the ICC would recognize it.

The case for genocide is a slam dunk.

[pelsar]

40. the case of the slam dunk for genocide...and why it clarifies things...

though i have yet to see any concentration camps, Palestinians lined up against the wall and massacred....i admit when i'm being accused of genocide there is a certain feeling of "unity" that i usually dont have with my 'brothers on the right. They're always claiming that the world is against us, the world is anti semetic etc. Claims i tend to dismiss as nothing more than BS...except that that there is always a small voice wondering if they are correct or not...and then the genocide accusations appear, the conference at Durbin, the accusations about gaza.......and i realize that in fact there is something to it, to their beliefs.

those pathetic accusations of genocide, the concentration camp of gaza, the targeting of children etc.it does nothing more than strengthen my own resolve to be less flexible when it comes to the Palestinians....

its always the extremists and the fanatics that ruin it for the rest of us....and your one of them

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

45. "Yet to see any concetration camps?"

Um, Gaza is widely regarded as the world's largest and most inhumane prison -- or weren't you aware of that?

Whether massacring Palestinians by aerial bombardment and sniper fire, or lining them up against the wall for execution, the result is still the same.

I'm an extremist fanatic? And me and my kind are ruining it for you? Poor Pelsar.

I guess genocide just isn't quite as fun when people keep calling attention to it.

Would you call former Israeli Air Force Captain, Yonatan Shapira an extremist fanatic? He's just one more of many who don't seem to believe in what you're doing either -- is he a fanatic too? Pry open your mind and drink this video in, Pelsar, you need it badly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDSXG0oGj8o

What is it they say about name calling? The refuge of those with no argument who can't stand having truth thrown in their face? Is that you, Pelsar?

I think so.

[pelsar]

49. out of date again.....

so when was the last time there was an arial bombardment of gaza...sniper fire from israel.....

so perhaps you can explain how israel is perpetrating genocide when in fact its the Palestinians killing Palestinians in gaza and not israel (this should be good....)

and the gaza prison camp...guess you forgot to call on Egyptian for being the prison guards...or if arabs are involved, does that mean it 'doesnt count"....


and your example of the israeli pilot....i cant seem to recall he used the word genocide..perhaps you have that in a different quote?..and dont feel bad for me, my decisions are based on what i myself have seen, done, listened to...and i cant recall much about genocide....just what i read about from those who have never been or seen what actually happens, but have active imaginations or other reasons....

[Shaktimaan]

51. I'd like to comment on this.

First of all thank you for that youtube link to the air force captain, I enjoyed listening to what he had to say and think that he is a great example of someone who is able to talk about this conflict in a reasonable way; he understands the conflict and what's at stake and has taken a moral stand against Israeli policies that he believes to be unethical. I respect this man and support him standing up for his beliefs.

Now I'd like to point out some differences between how he describes the conflict and how you do.

I think Yonatan illustrates that it is possible to criticize Israeli policies without completely denouncing the state, comparing it to Nazi Germany, condemning Zionism or accusing it of genocide. Listen to the reasons that he opposes the targeted assassinations... he thinks that they "are totally against the values of his country and his army...against the values THEY were raised with." Now remember that this man served in the army for many years. When you talk about the IDF, you are including this man and many other people similar to him. (even though he is now refusing to serve in the reserves, he DID serve his term.) He calls it "his" army.

This man is clearly not a fanatic. He disagrees with some Israeli policies, but he also still believes in his country and its right to exist. He believes that his country is fundamentally ethical and it is those ethics that are now guiding him to take a stand. He feels that targeted assassinations are not just wrong, but un-Israeli.

I don't think that pelsar is the one who should pry open his mind and try to drink the video in. Pelsar already knows all about this stuff. I think it is YOU who needs to spend some more time with it. Do you honestly believe that this man would agree with what you wrote to pelsar earlier... that Israelis have basically been brainwashed by state propaganda... that this conflict resembles the holocaust... that Israel's actions are NOT based on the need for self-defense... that Palestinians do not pose any threat to Israelis?

...which I find no less offensive than referring to the Holocaust as the Nazi-Jewish conflict, is that Israel, with the 4th largest military in the world and state of the art weaponry, is engaged in a massive theft of the land and resources of their essentially defenseless neighbor, Palestine. Israel has gone about this for decades now in a most brutal and often murderous way and ALWAYS falsely claims self defense and national security as justification.

The truth, of course, is something you will never acknowledge and probably can't even see given the intensive State propaganda you've been subjected to from early childhood, but that will never change the truth of the matter -- it is U.S. sponsored genocide.

If you do then I suggest you watch the clip again. Better yet, watch the whole thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lUDACBj9P0&feature=rela...

[Shaktimaan]

47. OK, here's the problem with your analysis.

First I'd like to reiterate exactly what you need to demonstrate in order to prove genocide. You need to prove that the intent exists, on the part of the Israelis, to wipe out the Palestinians, or at least destroy a substantial segment of their total population.

You have listed a number of instances where Palestinians were killed, primarily during the course of a low-level war that exists between Hamas and Israel. Now in the course of any war there are examples of collateral damage, massacres and even atrocities. This war is no different. If anything, the number of innocent people killed in this war is extremely low compared with just about any other modern conflict. And while a huge technological disparity exists between Israel and Hamas the number of people killed on either side is comparatively close; it is something like 5 Palestinians to every 1 Israeli. Compare that to US forces vs. Iraqis for a baseline.

---

Here are the problems with using your examples as evidence of a systematic pattern intended to destroy the Palestinian people.

Nearly all of the examples you gave are instances where Israel was attempting to kill militants; who we know hide amongst the civilian population which greatly increases innocent casualties.

We know that Israel does not target civilians as a matter of policy, the most you could charge them with is being reckless. No policy exists to systematically target non-militants. In fact, Israeli policy forbids it and any Israeli can confirm this for you. In fact, Palestinian strategy relies on it many times.

The numbers of people who have been killed are far too low to infer a systematic attempt at wiping out a significant portion of the millions of Palestinians the world over. To qualify as genocide you must prove that Israel attempted to wipe out a significant part of the Palestinian people. What essential part has Israel been trying to exterminate?

These individual incidents in no way suggest that they are connected as part of an overarching plan. You've offered no evidence beyond your own assertion that they must be. But they don't appear to be anything other than individual events, (and fairly commonplace ones at that) in a long simmering conflict.

Nothing you've posted points to an intent to exterminate the Palestinians. You have to prove INTENT. Merely proving that they are fighting is not intent. Proving that there have been civilian casualties does not prove intent. Fighting is common. Civilian casualties are a side effect of every single conflict throughout history. And this conflict has had far, far fewer than most.

If Israel did want to commit genocide then why wouldn't they just use artillery and bombs to begin wiping out the Palestinians? Why would they use techniques like targeted assassinations to limit casualties? Why would they ever send in IDF in jeeps to conduct sweeps when they could just use missiles? Why would they send in humanitarian aid or allow Palestinians into Israel to work?

Lastly, if you truly think that these examples prove genocide then wouldn't that also mean that every other conflict in the world also qualifies as genocide? Is the US committing genocide against Iraqis? (They have killed far, far more civilians.) Did Jordan commit genocide against the Palestinians in the 70's? How about Iraq and Iran? The US in Afghanistan? Or the Palestinians against the Israelis in 1948? (A war where Israel lost fully 1% of its population and found its civilians consistently targeted. A war where a policy to destroy them DID exist and was proudly proclaimed.)

[pelsar]

50. i think you can add..

a simple murder of a black person by a white person in the US...and that will fit his definition of Genocide

[Shaktimaan]

52. Maybe, maybe not.

The sad fact is that when anyone gets most of their information from a place like online journal, which publishes articles written by any Nazi sympathizer, anti-semite or Israel-hater, they are going to be resistant to the voices of reality. (Thus his belief that Dershowitz, an esteemed Harvard Law prof. and famous civil liberties trial lawyer, is less well respected than Finkelstein, who wasn't even able to gain tenure at Podunk Academy.)

I find it interesting though that he figures you for a victim of propaganda, but himself thinks that these articles from that hate-filled site are truthful and appropriate for posting on DU.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

23. The Killing Zone.

Here's a documentary that shows what it's like to live under Israeli occupation in Gaza:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=586320418874402...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

24. Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust

by Richard Falk

http://www.transnational.org/Area_MiddleEast/2007/Falk_...

---snip---

On June 25, 2007 leaders from Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority met in Sharm El Sheik on the Red Sea to move ahead with their anti-Hamas diplomacy. Israel proposes to release 250 Fatah prisoners (of 9,000 Palestinians currently held) and to hand over Palestinian revenues to Abbas on an installment basis, provided none of the funds is used in Gaza, where a humanitarian catastrophe unfolds day by day. These leaders agreed to cooperate in this effort to break Hamas and to impose a Fatah-led Palestinian Authority on an unwilling Palestine population. Remember that Hamas prevailed in the 2006 elections, not only in Gaza, but in the West Bank as well. To deny Palestinian their right of self-determination is almost certain to backfire in a manner similar to similar efforts, producing a radicalized version of what is being opposed. As some commentators have expressed, getting rid of Hamas means establishing al Qaeda!

Israel is currently stiffening the boycott on economic relations that has brought the people of Gaza to the brink of collective starvation. This set of policies, carried on for more than four decades, has imposed a sub-human existence on a people that have been repeatedly and systematically made the target of a variety of severe forms of collective punishment. The entire population of Gaza is treated as the ‘enemy’ of Israel, and little pretext is made in Tel Aviv of acknowledging the innocence of this long victimized civilian society.

To persist with such an approach under present circumstances is indeed genocidal, and risks destroying an entire Palestinian community that is an integral part of an ethnic whole. It is this prospect that makes appropriate the warning of a Palestinian holocaust in the making, and should remind the world of the famous post-Nazi pledge of ‘never again.’

[Vegasaurus]

34. The Palestinian terror groups are responsible

for the misery of their citizens.

Without terror, the Palestninans could have been living in peace and prosperity for 60 years already.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

36. Thanks for clearing that one up for us, Vegasaurus...

...I was wondering when someone would finally summon the courage to step forward and blame the Palestinians for the genocide that is Gaza -- well done, sir.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

25. If Americans Only Knew...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Hlg7dKEoU

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

27. Palestine Should Sue Israel for Genocide

by Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law

http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/Palestina/palestina416.htm

---snip---

I would like to propose publicly here in Gaza, Palestine--where the Intifadah began ten years ago at this time--that the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine and its President institute legal proceedings against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague (the so-called World Court) for violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

I am sure we can all agree that Israel has indeed perpetrated the international crime of genocide against the Palestinian People. The purpose of this lawsuit would be to demonstrate that undeniable fact to the entire world. These World Court legal proceedings will prove to the entire world and to all of history that what the Nazis did to the Jews a generation ago is legally similar to what the Israelis are currently doing to the Palestinian People today: genocide.

There are three steps that should be taken for Palestine to sue Israel before the International Court of Justice for genocide. First, the President of the State of Palestine must deposit an Instrument of Accession to the 1948 Genocide Convention with the U.N. Secretary General, the depositary for the Convention. This Accession would become effective in ninety days.

Second, the President of the State of Palestine should deposit a Declaration with the International Court of Justice accepting the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and with the terms and subject to the conditions of the Statute and Rules of the Court, and undertaking to comply in good faith with the decisions of the Court and to accept all the obligations of a Member State of the United Nations under Article 94 of the United Nations Charter. Article 35(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice gives the Security Council the power to determine the conditions under which the World Court shall be open to states such as Palestine that are not yet Parties to the ICJ Statute . . . .

[oberliner]

28. Richard Falk and Francis Boyle have both compared Israel to Nazi Germany

I would not think that their views would be welcome here.

In any case, if one relied on sources like these, one would certainly be inclined to see things along those lines.

Same would go for people who relied on Daniel Pipes or Alan Dershowitz as their sources. They would tend to view things through a very specific prism.

I would encourage the consultation of different sources, in both cases.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

29. Suppose we were to get permission from the mods to separately post...

...both Mr. Falk and Mr. Boyle's (both respected legal scholars in international law) essays in GD and/or GD/P along with a poll asking respondents to read the essay(s) and then choose between options:

1) I believe such views/writing from people like this should be welcome here at DU.

or

2) I believe such views/writing from people like this should be unwelcome here at DU.

We know how you'd vote, Oberliner, but what about the rest of DU? How do you suppose they'd vote?

If we could get permission we could certainly put your theory of unwelcome rhetoric to the test.

Or maybe you weren't referring to the DU community at large with your theory -- maybe you were talking about a much smaller but considerably more influential subset.

Is that the case, Oberliner? Just who is it you're talking about? You, Pelsar, and Shaktimaan? The mods? The Admins? Who is it you think would actually agree with you that these essays should be unwelcome here?

[oberliner]

30. Thank you for your response

First, you claim that Mr. Falk and Mr. Boyle are respected legal scholars. Would you also agree that Mr. Dershowitz is a respected legal scholar? He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Would you also agree that Mr. Pipes is a highly respected expert on the history of the Middle East? He has also taught extensively at several prestigious universities.

I would say that each of those four individuals is very knowledgeable about his fields of study, however they each hold views that are, to say the least, controversial, and in some cases, not widely held by their colleagues.

Regarding your poll, it is my understanding that DU does not permit comparisons of Israel to the Nazis. I reached that understanding based on this excerpt from the guidelines for discussion in I/P:

"Do not compare Middle East regional leaders and parties to Hitler or the Nazis"

It is certainly possible that this rule would prove to be unpopular at DU if put to a vote, however, I do not believe that to be relevant to its implementation.

I make no claim that the comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany would be popular or unpopular among the readership of this site, just that it would be unwelcome by the administration in that it violates one of the discussion guidelines.

So, to answer your last series of questions, the mods/admins are who I believe have made the determination that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is unwelcome at this site.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

31. No, I don't generally find known plagiarists who make a career...

...out of smearing people like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein to be at all respectable. The more applicable word for Mr. Dershowitz would be reprehensible.

[oberliner]

32. Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion

However, your finding him reprehensible does not mean that he isn't widely respected.

Similarly, I would not claim that the authors you cited were not widely respected just because I found some of their statements to be reprehensible as well.

My point is that if you rely on Finkelstein, Falk, and Boyle, you are going to get a particular perspective that is, at the very least, controversial. (The same would go for someone who relied on Dershowitz)

Would you agree with me on that much?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

33. The underlying suggestion of your question seems to be...

...that on subject matter related to Israel and U.S. policy in the Middle East, there is a valid comparison to be made between the credibility of people like Finkelstein, Falk, and Boyle, and people like Dershowitz -- and if this is what you're suggesting, I simply disagree.

I do not believe Mr. Dershowitz is widely perceived to be at all credible in this area relative to people like Finkelstein, Falk, and Boyle. On the contrary, I think he is generally perceived to be non-credible and intellectually dishonest where Israel and U.S. policy is concerned.

But yes, I suppose you could certainly say you'll get diverging perspectives -- just as you could say that Dick Cheney and Dennis Kucinich would have differing perspectives on what our legitimate role and foreign policy should be in the Middle East.

[oberliner]

35. And I would argue that the Democratic party position is much closer to Dershowitz than Finkelstein

If you were to look at the remarks of Barack Obama regarding the conflict, you would find that his views match pretty closely with those of Dershowitz - an Obama supporter whose endorsement is promoted by the campaign.

I believe that I can state with confidence that anyone making comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany would not be someone whom Obama would want to have anything to do with.

Thus, I would argue, that your claim that Dershowitz is "not credible" while Falk and Boyle are is a position that is in opposition to Obama's and to that of the Democratic party.

Again, you are free to agree with those who compare Israel to Nazi Germany, however, this not a perspective shared by any prominent Democrat, including Dennis Kucinich.

I would encourage anyone who holds views that are so out of step with the perspective of the Democratic party to seek some other sources to get a fuller understanding of the situation.

If someone opposed the creation of an independent Palestinian state living side by side at peace with Israel, I would similarly encourage them to seek more information on the subject.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

38. And I would argue that Dershowitz is much closer to Cheney...

...than Kucinich -- so what?

[oberliner]

39. My claim is that the Israel-Nazi Germany comparison is not appropriate, accurate, or fair

I believe that the leadership at DU as well as every Representative, Senator, and presidential candidate from the Democratic party would agree.

Thus, I would think that one would at least be dubious of any sources that would encourage making such comparisons.

That was the intention behind my initial response to your post.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

42. It's how those parallels are drawn and the manner in...

...they're used that should serve as the basis on which to judge their validity -- is it being done to inflame or inform?

I think it's obviously the latter in both essays, and I understand that you do not agree.

[shira]

41. so not one example of genocide.....you struck out sir

On numbers alone, the USA has killed probably 10X more Iraqis just in the past 5 years than Israel has killed Arabs (in all wars combined) in the past 60 years. You'd have a better argument for the USA's genocidal campaign (and we may as well throw in the Brits as well) than having the same argument against Israel.

Oh yeah, but it's a very slooooow genocide, right?

About 40 years ago, the French slaughtered more Algerians in a short period of time than Israel has killed Arabs in 60 years. You'd have a stronger case of THAT being genocide than anything Israel is doing.

Maybe it's all genocide and Israel just isn't as good at it as the USA, Britain, or France - but it's real fun to pretend Israel is the worst, right?

If you're familiar with the situation in Sudan (which until recently was not being called genocide for political reasons) do you honestly believe Israel is doing THAT to Palestinians? And if so, is it any wonder your views aren't taken seriously by serious people?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

44. To suggest that genocide is demonstrated/proven...

...by any one isolated case of brutality/oppression is to evince your ignorance of the word and its international definition (see post #7).

[Shaktimaan]

48. This benefits my argument.

You managed to find a single example of someone who agrees with your genocide accusation and has gone on record supporting it. Unfortunately, this article demonstrates that he supports the charge being brought against Israel because he feels that it will benefit the Palestinians politically. When it comes to giving evidence of the claim, he merely reiterates his belief that Israel meets the standards. He offers no evidence whatsoever beyond his own opinion.

This article is also over ten years old. If there existed a credible case for genocide then why hasn't any actually been brought against Israel? Where is the movement to charge Israel with genocide? Why hasn't the ICC reviewed the case against it? Where are all the credible public figures, international trial lawyers and human rights groups who are also leveling this charge against it?

If there was one country on the planet which has been under unparalleled scrutiny since its creation by a largely hostile world it is Israel. If genocide were happening there then the outcry against it would be deafening. As it is, multitudes of groups like the UNHRC exist in order to constantly try and pin crimes on Israel. Why aren't we constantly hearing from the rest of the world about this Israeli genocide?

Maybe cause none exists.

[Shaktimaan]

21. one more thing...

before you answer I'd like to comment on the meaning of the phrase "in part" lest you misunderstand it.

The phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law.<13> The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Trial Chamber I - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001)<14> that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004)<15> paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 addressed the issue of in part and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." The Appeals Chamber goes into details of other cases and the opinions of respected commentators on the Genocide Convention to explain how they came to this conclusion.

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

There's more there, but you get the gist of it I hope. Essentially, unless the part of the group that's been targeted for genocide is in some way substantial relative to the whole group, then you don't have a genocide. It may be a massacre or some other horrible event, but the term "genocide" is special in that it implies an attempt at exterminating an entire race or ethnicity, etc., of people.

I also noticed that all of this was described in your link on genocide, yet for some reason it was the only paragraph that you left off when reposting it here. Weird, huh?

Back to Israel... So far, out of several million Palestinians, less than 5,000 have been killed by Israel in the past 8 years. This despite the fact that Israel has both the means and opportunity to conduct a genuine genocide on a large scale. Therefore it seems extremely unlikely that you could possibly demonstrate a way that Israel fulfills the definition as you posted, and as I amended, it.

Oh, and one more thing. You also mentioned that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is illegal. Yeah, you're wrong about that too. It's not.
But if you feel like getting smacked down again please feel free to attempt arguing it. Cheers!