Slowly strangled

[subsuelo]

Today, Gaza is being subjected to a slow, purposeful killing, cloaked in state-sanctioned legitimacy and 'security concerns'

At the end of the day, as catastrophic as it is, the blockade of Gaza is a distraction from the underlying issue. The reality is, Israel has subjected Gaza to a siege in varying forms for well over a decade - one which only intensified after its purported "disengagement" from Gaza - a disengagement that left Israel in control of all access into or out of Gaza; a disengagement that left Israel, according to the United Nations, as Gaza's occupying power.

Today, Gaza is being subjected to a slow, purposeful killing; a mass strangulation.

"We are living in dark and desperate times," my cousin Zuhair, a Gaza City lawyer and father of four, said solemnly on the phone to us from Gaza Sunday morning. His description was both figurative and literal. Israel continues to enforce court-sanctioned power cuts on Gaza's civilian population. This has meant living without reliable refrigeration for Gaza's residents. No power for pharmacies, restaurants, hospitals, hotels, morgues, dialysis and neonatal units. And with diesel-run pumps unable to function with fuel reserves almost at zero, many Gazans are without access to fresh drinking water.

Minutes before we spoke with Zuhair, F-16 fighter jets leveled at his neighbour's home, burying the entire family beneath the rubble. With continuous closures, even cement has run out, leaving no building materials to erect gravestones for the dead.

John Dugard, the United Nations' special rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories recently said: "Gaza is a prison and Israel seems to have thrown away the key." But even in a prison, inmates have certain rights; and the wardens have certain obligations they must fulfill towards them. They receive water, food, electricity.

In Gaza, Palestinians are guaranteed none of these things. And Israel, though obligated by international law to provide for the welfare of the population it is occupying, has declared the territory "hostile" in an attempt to evade its legal responsibilities.

Yet a recent poll in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz found that a majority of Israelis are in favour of their government engaging, rather than isolating, Hamas. They are calling for direct talks with the Islamic movement rather than punishing the entire population of Gaza because many of them voted Hamas into office. It is high time Israel and the United States began to listen. The consequences of not doing so are too high for both peoples.

Laila El-Haddad

[Looking4Light]

1. Good grief

This article is worthless.

It focuses entirely on Israel's actions, without any of the context (missiles and suicide bombers aimed at Israeli civilians) for them, and ignores the fact that Egypt controls part of the Gaza border, as well as the fact that there's no problem to get food into Gaza.

The article also repeats the tired "genocide" lie, an anti-Semitic lie with the word Jews replaced with Israelis.

Next...

[subsuelo]

2. Good grief, indeed

1) Just because you disagree with the use of the word 'genocide' doesn't make it either anti-Semitic or a lie.

2) Perhaps the focus is on Israel's actions to counter the daily news propaganda which holds Israel blameless for committing war crimes.

[Looking4Light]

3. It's an antisemitic lie because

it's not true, and because it is an attempt to force Israel, the state of the Jews, to abandon her legitimate self-defense by making a phony connection with a tragedy that really befell the Jewish people.

[subsuelo]

25. There is nothing inherently anti-semitic about criticizing Israel.

[pelsar]

5. did i read this correctly?

just because you disagree with the use of the word 'genocide' doesn't make it either anti-Semitic or a lie.

so you agree that israel is committing genocide in gaza?

[subsuelo]

13. Although I think the writer of the article has a reasonable case, I disagree.

I do not believe genocide is the correct term.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Well...

'1) Just because you disagree with the use of the word 'genocide' doesn't make it either anti-Semitic or a lie.'

It may not be anti-semitic, but it's certainly a lie - unless *all* war is considered as genocide. The Palestinians are not being exterminated. And using the term for every act of violence/war makes it difficult to use it for the situations that REALLY justify the term: e.g. Darfur.

Of course, all acts of violence and war are tragic and bad; but genocide refers to something far more extreme and specific.



2) Perhaps the focus is on Israel's actions to counter the daily news propaganda which holds Israel blameless for committing war crimes.

What propaganda is this? Yes, there is some propaganda that claims that 'Israel can do no wrong' and some that claims that 'Israel can do no right'. I've certainly come across both! As I've said before, I think that both the Israelis and Palestinians come in for a LOT of flak in (mostly different) media sources; and if there IS a group that tends to escape criticism over the I/P issue, it is the Arab governments. Though less nowadays than in the past.

The best antidote for uncritical propaganda for one side is not uncritical propaganda for the other side, but careful analysis that points out both sides.

[subsuelo]

14. There is no "lie" to it whatsoever

It's an argument being put forward. An opinion. I happen to disagree, but that does not make it a "lie".

[LeftishBrit]

28. Well, it's false.

Perhaps the people who say it believe it, and are therefore not 'lying'; but they are wrong. Unless one extends the definition of genocide to all kinds of things that it does not currently cover.

[Dick Dastardly]

31. If I am not mistaken

I think you have called it genocide in the past. Correct me if I am wrong

[Vegasaurus]

4. Maybe if they stopped their "resistance"

stopped shooting daily rockets, stopped blowing things up, smuggling in weapons, stopped with general ongoing terrorism, life would improve for the Gazans.

There's a strategy they haven't tried. Maybe it is time.

[azurnoir]

6. And then what?

You keep saying stop the resistance, but then what? No resistance at all, or do you mean stop violent resistance? What would acceptable to you?

[Vegasaurus]

7. If you had actually read my post (#4)

you would see that I am very clearly describing violent resistance.

Violent resistance, and constant threats of terrorism, has done nothing but made Palestinians lives more miserable.

It seems that those who are interested in seeing the lives of Palestinians improve (which I assume we all are) would be in favor of their eliminating violent resistance.

[azurnoir]

9. ok but you still did not answer the question n/t

[Vegasaurus]

18. No? Try reading it again. nt

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

10. Geneva Convention's definition of "Genocide"

While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2 of this defines genocide as "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; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."<1>

Using this as a guideline, I think Israel's actions could legally be defined as acts of genocide.

[Looking4Light]

11. Ridiculous

Using this as a guideline, I think Israel's actions could legally be defined as acts of genocide.

Only if you can't understand the plain meaning of plain words.

with intent to destroy

Do you have any proof of this intent? No, of course you dont.
What's More:
Israel *hasn't* destroyed any significant part of the Palestininan population.


Tell you what, PM. If Israel ever kills 10% of the Palestinian population, bring this up again and we'll talk about it seriously.

Or 5%.

Or 1%.

In the meantime, run along.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. Like it or not, there is scolarly disagreement about whether

Israel's ongoing military occupation with the murder, land theft, mass arrests, closures and apartheid laws could be considered genocide.

It's not an "anti-semitic lie."

It's a matter of debate.

[Looking4Light]

15. Bullshit

The definition you yourself cited talks about "destruction", not land theft, arrest, closures, apartheid, vandalism, or parking tickets.

Again, come back when the crime has been committed, or even started.

Until then you're just bs'ing for points, at the expense of genuine morality, which considers genocide to be a serious crime, and your own moral integrity.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. Curse all you want. Your emotional hissy-fit disproves no fact. nt

[Looking4Light]

21. Curse or not...

You didn't establish a single fact, other than your own moral turpitude.

[subsuelo]

26. you are aware that Israel recently massacred about 130 Gazans rightt?

[Vegasaurus]

29. It is regretable, but is that a genocide?

War sucks, particularly for the losers.

Shall we compare numbers to "real" genocides?

[subsuelo]

39. "Regretable" and "war sucks"...

Suppose someone wrote that it's regrettable that those Israeli seminary students were killed, but that "war sucks". Would that be an acceptable response to that attack? There is a truth to it of course, but it also comes across as a justification, which I would think you might have a problem with. No?

[Dick Dastardly]

30. So you consider the militants who are the larger part of that 130 as being massacred

I take it you dont think the militants/terrorists should have been killed or targeted since you say they were massacred.

[MaryCeleste]

36. It was not a massacre

- Some were combatants
- It was not a single attack or event (it was over several days)
- Its not clear that all of the dead were killed by the IDF

The IDF will point out Hamas using human shields and hiding in hospitals and ambulances. And that they have checked fire due to the presence of civilians. Hamas will point to demolished homes, bomb craters and fresh graves. In the fog of war, neither side is perfect. The crux of the issue is intent, which is hard to reconstruct, especially when neither side has in interest in doing so. However, its clear that the Quassams and Grads are targeted at civilians.

Lots of people try to blame gun manufacturers for gun violence. Yet they don't say a thing about the nations who arm Gaza, knowing in the end the people of Gaza (fighters and civilians) will be bleeding in the streets due to those weapons being used.

[Dick Dastardly]

38. That goes against the rules in dealing with The racist apartheid zionist entity

If The racist apartheid zionist entity does it it is always a massacre

Militants are always counted as innocents being slaughtered in a massacre because they fight The racist apartheid zionist entity . Militants are never to blame for hiding behind civilians and causing their deaths, The racist apartheid zionist entity is to blame. Militants are never to blame when their rockets accidentally hit their own, The racist apartheid zionist entity is to blame. Militants are never to blame when a bomb/rocket factory blows up and kills civilians, The racist apartheid zionist entity is to blame whether they hit it or it blew up by accident. The racist apartheid zionist entity should not defend itself and is to blame for all deaths and injuries for having the audacity to defend itself.

The basic rules are
The racist apartheid zionist entity is always to blame almost everything.
When The racist apartheid zionist entity is not to blame, America is to blame but The racist apartheid zionist entity is still to blame because it controls America.
:sarcasm:


I love saying "The racist apartheid zionist entity"it has such a nice ring and rolls off the tongue like poetry :applause: }( :evilfrown:

[Vegasaurus]

17. Considering that the Palestinian birthrate has increased 30%

in ten years, I'd say that genocide is going pretty badly.

Now there are REAL genocides in the world today. Why don't you pick on one of those?

[pelsar]

19. your kidding right?

calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

so increased population, lowest infant mortality rate in the arab world, removing settlements and letting the Palestenains self govern.. all point toward israeli genocide? ..

so which parts of your quote are you actually referring to?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. Your own scholars use the word "genocide." nt

[pelsar]

32. israeli scholars?...so

if you want some really juicy quotes of israeli scholars...http://www.officialprussianblue.net/showthread.php?p=47639
The Shas spiritual leader claims he can now forecast the arrival of the Messiah according to the frequency and veracity of his bowel movements.

__________



there is a definition of genocide..i believe its what you quoted.....and i also see that you cant really apply it to the I/P situation.....unless you want to claim the Palestinians are committing genocide....(your interpretation is so vagues it goes both ways).

on more serious level......the real facts of Palestinians population growth, life expectancy, infant mortality rate, self govt all show that not only is there no genocide, but its quite the opposite.

on a side note: this whole concept of exaggeration (jenin jenin massacres, lame rockets, targeting children), perhaps works for getting sympathy from the "useful idiots" but from the israeli point of view?...it just shows how nothing has change for over 2,000 years. They are just new versions of the classic blood libels. It does nothing more than further entrench the view of "everyone is against us'. who knows maybe its actually true.

so....do you really think the exaggerations have any value?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

34. I have no dog in this semantic fight.

I don't care what label you put on it.

I believe strongly that Israel is clearly attempting to suppress Palestinian culture, stifle Palestinian nation building, crush any attempt to grow an economy independent of Israel, impoverish Palestinian society. It murders civilians, steals land, illegally witholds tax monies, murders political leaders and throws people in jail without trial or charge. (It also bold-faced lies and prevaricates about all those activities.)

The net result is a clear attempt to destroy a culture and society. Call it what you will: it's evil.

[pegleg]

35. The Palestinians are largely doing this to themselves

by the constant rocket bombardments and the refusal to see israel as existing and Jews as human.

[subsuelo]

40. The Israelis are largely causing the terrorist attacks against them

by the constant killings of Palestinians and the continued occupation and theft of land and the refusal to see Muslims as human.

No, I don't believe this, just showing your reflection in the mirror.

So how do you like the way you look?

[Shaktimaan]

20. Using this definition though,

one could just as easily say the same about the Palestinians. Both against the Israelis and against other Palestinians. Also guilty of genocide against the Palestinians and Israelis would be the Lebanese, Iraqis, Syrians and Jordanians, among many others.

If everyone is committing genocide then no one is. The word loses all meaning.

[Looking4Light]

22. Exactly

The anti-Semitic "Israel is committing genocide" crowd is perfectly willing to destroy both language and morality in order to use them to score points against Israel.

They are no different than the 19th century "blood libel" crowd.

[subsuelo]

27. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it anti-semitic

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. I'm saying that there is disagreement within scholarly communities

as to whether the word is applicable. It's not "an anti-semitic lie."

[Violet_Crumble]

33. You guys are replying to a tombstone...

Retreads are so annoying, especially ones that have gone and posted in another thread that Palestinians are committing genocide...

Anyway, seeing as how I don't think genocide is something that's happening to either Palestinians or Israelis in the I/P conflict, and I have done genocide studies and seen some of the disagreement amongst scholars about genocide and what the term covers, I just wanted to say that there's nothing antisemitic about saying that Israel is committing genocide. It's not even 'anti-Israel' to do so, unless I'm 'anti-Australian' for believing that my country committed genocide right up to the 1960's against our indigenous population (and whether or not it was genocide is hotly contested in some circles here). I just strongly disagree with any claims that either side in the I/P conflict is committing genocide. I kind of suspect some people are mistaking ethnic cleansing (which the Nakba was) with genocide...

[MaryCeleste]

37. tombstone?

[subsuelo]

42. thanks

that sums up my position pretty well too

[number6]

43. can I say ......

slow motion ethnic cleansing

"I just wanted to say that there's nothing antisemitic about saying that Israel is committing genocide." yea it may be inaccurate

its what u would call transfer, but if the people don't want to be transferred
then what exterminate em.

[Vegasaurus]

44. 12,000 people in 60 years is not exactly "extermination"

particularly when the Palestinian population is growing at the rate of 30% in the past decade alone.

So cut the bullshit.

[hifalutin]

45. I saw on the

news last week a reporter interviewing a Palestinian man in Gaza who said he was having a hard time feeding his TEN children.
Ten children, a lot of folks would have a hard time feeding that many!
Is that an abnormally large size family or is it typical?