Cabby,
“It is this statement that is absurd.”
I agree, what you are saying is in fact absurd.
“Until the UNSC or the ICC determines that Israel is breaking the law, they have a right to continue the blockade, which by the way they’ve eased. “
For sure, keep on rapin’ bro a judge hasn’t said that you are breaking the law yet!
“Some US policy makers speculated out loud as to whether or not the sanctions would cause an uprising or some kind of regime change inside Iraq. This seems to be collective punishment for political purposes.”
Yes, the U.S. is also disgusting, thank you Captain Obvious. And sorry, but no level of existential threat excuses war crimes, if you think differently you are literally an atrocity apologist. also lol maybe if Israel would stop bombing and colonizing the Palestinians and generally pissing in the faces of all their neighbors they wouldn’t be facing an “existential threat” anymore, also lmao what existential threat name me one credible threat they face (I dare you to say Iran, I double dare you motherfucker, I will make you look so fucking stupid)
“You also never addressed the issue of Jean-Louis Bruguière, a leading French investigating magistrate, who is the most often quoted source for the claim that IHH has had terrorist ties in the recent past.”
Did you actually read his testimony? He says the IHH both “thwarted” and “facilitated” the Mujahadeen. This statement contradicts itself. Next he said that the IHH was “implicated or involved” in weapons trafficking; which is it and to what degree? Hardly convincing testimony. Finally, he says that the IHH and the Montreal cell were “closely related”, but all his testimony is all circumstantial, and none of it shows that the IHH knowingly aided terrorists. They could have just as easily been aiding who they thought were human rights activists. This is why Israel had to take that shit about the IHH down; it’s long on bullshit speculation and short on facts. really the most damning thing about Brugiere’s testimony is that it is cited extensively in that hack Kohlmann’s report lol
every time I destroyed one of your sources I linked to my source
“The burden of proof is on you since you made the original allegations.”
except I already did in my original allegations, you can’t disprove something that has already been proven sorry bro, and kenster did an ipse dixit at least twice in “rebutting” me
“The other absurdity is your implicit claim to have arrived at an exact figure for the number of Palestinians killed required to be considered a genocide.”
first of all your reading comprehension is absolutely terrible, second answer the fucking question you coward
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 29, 2010 at 1:36 AM
kenster42,
“Seems to fit pretty well, Muriello.”
you’re so fucking dumb, every single time without fail that I use a pejorative I prove you to embody that pejorative through your stupid arguments or abhorrent morals, that is not an ad hominem you fucking idiot
“After roll call, the prisoners would walk to their place of work, five abreast, wearing striped camp fatigues, no underwear, and wooden shoes without socks, most of the time ill-fitting, which caused great pain.”
maybe after long enough with the terrorist contraband known as “clothing” blockaded this would be come true for Gazans hrmmmm
“The working day lasted 12 hours during the summer, and a little less in the winter. No rest periods were allowed.”
i hear the workdays are long when you are trying to rebuild all the infrastructure that Israel repeatedly destroys???
“After roll call, there were individual and collective punishments, depending on what had happened during the day,”
gosh sounds similar to Gaza
“A common punishment for escape attempts was death by starvation”
Israel is much more humane, they just kill the Palestinians outright
“the families of successful escapees were sometimes arrested and interned in Auschwitz”
Palestinians were (are?) randomly arrested and tortured
“If someone did manage to escape, the SS would pick 10 random people from the prisoner’s block and starve them to death.”
if Israel feels like the Palestinians are getting too uppity they just go ahead and murder 1300 of them, you’re right Israel is much worse than the Nazis!
“An allegation that there is any resemblance between the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews and the Israelis’ treatment of the Palestinians is patently false and greatly disrespects the memories of those killed by the Jews killed by the Nazis. “
sorry but nobody disrespects the memory of the victims of the Nazi atrocities more than Israel
“Israelis did not dispossess Palestine”
hahahahahahaha history literally doesn’t exist to you, there is no such thing as “past events that happen”
“The entire world agreed to give an ancestral homeland back to the Jews.”
haha except the Palestinians, the only people in Palestine whose opinion mattered on the subject, stop posting it is truly embarrassing for you
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 29, 2010 at 1:49 AM
“Zia,
Provide evidence please. Israelis did not dispossess Palestine. The entire world agreed to give an ancestral homeland back to the Jews. Palestine still got to keep a significant portion of the land they had been occupying.
But please refute my argument, don’t change the subject. How does controlling a border “smack of Auschwitz?” Please provide specific examples of Israeli treatment of Palestinians and how that treatment specificlaly compares to the treatment of the Jews in Auschwitz.
Let’s get past this comparison so we can talk about resolution.”
this whole post is a concentrated block of a-historical idiocy. First of all, you aren’t one of those Zionist shitheads that thinks Palestine was empty when the Zionists got there do you? I mean you realize that stupidity has been thoroughly debunked by even Israeli historians, right? Probably not since nearly everything you have posted as been poorly informed rubbish.
The vast scholarly consensus is that there were A) Palestinians in Palestine well before the Zionists got there and B) that those Palestinians were ethnically cleansed periodically from 1948 till 1967. And because it is obvious that a person needs shelter, and that often that shelter takes the form of a house, and that the Palestinians are people (well, this is obvious to anyone that isn’t a Zionist), and that part of ethnic cleansing is forcibly moving people off their lands, and since homes tend to be stationary on land, then it stands to reason that the Palestinians, being a people who lived in homes and were ethnically cleansed, lost their homes during the ethnic cleansing and were therefore dispossessed. This is obvious to anyone who isn’t a fucking moron.
The entire world didn’t decide to create a Jewish homeland; the British and later the UN did, without consulting the rightful owners of Palestine, the Palestinians. Neither you nor Cabby have addressed this during the entire conversation and I doubt either of you will now.
Gaza is like Auchwitz because the Palestinians are confined to an area and routinely subjected to deprivation, humiliation, physical abuse, mental abuse, and death, and through both Israel’s use of disproportionate violence and refusal to accept the terms of peace that the entire rest of the world supports one can reasonably say that what Israel wants is no less than the complete displacement of Palestinians from Palestine, if not their outright annihilation. It is in this manner that Israel is acting like the Nazis. Note that my characterization of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is all found within human rights reports.
and lol like we can reasonably talk about resolution with a myopic shit-for-brains like you who doesn’t even understand what “dispossession” or “genocide” means, you also call 20% of something “significant”, yeah it’s significantly low, get the fuck out of here
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 29, 2010 at 2:10 AM
Kenster42
I am sorry I don’t mean to be personal - but you question historical facts. It would sound demeaning to suggest you get your facts straight. For it is precisely this misinformation that Americans have swallowed about this tragedy that makes an honorable resolution so intractable. What evidence did you want when you have millions of Palestinians languishing in refugee camps? These are irrefutable historical facts. The point of fact is, it is Zionism that has manipulated Jewish sufferings at the hands of Nazi Germany to create an exclusive entity through displacement of Palestinians from their ancestral homes. Or, are you like Golda Meir who didn’t acknowledge the existence of Palestinians. And pray what crime did the Palestinians commit to have to redeem for Nazi barbarity? To go into denial of these facts is the worst stance you could possibly have.
So, here we have a whole nation now herded into enclaves in Gaza and in the West Bank, or summarily exiled. I don’t particularly care whether you consider the incarceration in Gaza as akin to Auschwitz: the intent is the same. There are enough internal refugees in Gaza to prove my point. Or, perhaps, you prefer to see this as a manifestation of apartheid. If so, have it your way. But, get the facts right first.
Today, the Palestinians have bent backwards in accepting the reality of Israel and to the creation of their own sovereign state in the territory Israel occupied in 1967. It is for the Israelis to declare an acceptance of UN resolution 242 that requires them to comply with international opinion. This alone can bring in peace to the region. The alternative is to maintain the apartheid regime that Israel is today.
Posted by Zia_Ahad on Jun 29, 2010 at 3:02 AM
Muriello,
You are an obnoxious, vulgar, ignorant, low cognitive little piggy but I will try to answer you incessant, stupid, dogmatic whining anyhow.
As a matter of fact, it is a jury that determines guilt or innocence, not a judge. But just so that we’re clear in national legal systems as in international law, a given party is not guilty by popular opinion or determinations by experts but by the findings of legally authorized jurists or their equivalent after legitimate due process. This hasn’t occurred in the case of the Gaza blockade unlike the ICC’s determination that Omar al- Bashir of the Sudan is a war criminal and is guilty of crimes against humanity which is a subject on which you have doubtless remained silent. In the case of Rwanda, another real genocide, The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is an international court established in November 1994 by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 955 in order to judge people responsible for the Rwandan Genocide and other serious violations of the international law in Rwanda, or by Rwandan citizens in nearby states, between 1 January and 31 December 1994. So far, the Tribunal has finished 50 trials and convicted 29 accused persons. This is an example of the legal establishment of culpability in a genocide. It was based on legal proceedings, not expert opinion or popular political perceptions. Until the UNSC declares the blockade illegal, Israel has the right to inspect ships bound for Gaza. And as I’ve pointed out, Israel has already lifted the embargo on all but military items so the collective punishment issue is now moot.
”...also lol maybe if Israel would stop bombing and colonizing the Palestinians and generally pissing in the faces of all their neighbors they wouldn’t be facing an “existential threat” anymore, also lmao what existential threat name me one credible threat they face (I dare you to say Iran…”
Now look who’s contradicting himself!! First you say that Israel provoked the existential threat through their own actions, then you deny that such a threat even exists. You can’t have it both ways. Suicide bombings and rocket attacks are both war crimes. By the way, Hamas only targets civilians. Over 90% of their victims are innocent men, women and children. They have repeatedly stated that all Jews anywhere in the world are legitimate targets. And this is the organization you continually defend and insists has a right to recognized political legitimacy to control Gaza and rule the people living there.. You are crazy to say the least. And while we’re on the topic of Iran, I do believe they are a threat. I don’t believe they should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons because they would use them. Israel has had nukes since the early 1950s. The French built their Dimona reactor back then. They could have used tactical nuclear weapons many times, particularly in 1973 when they were attacked without warning and were out manned and out gunned six to one. Many people at first thought, including Henry Kissinger, that Israel could well lose the conflict. Israel persisted with conventional warfare and never once even threatened the use of nuclear weapons, even as a scare tactic to gain advantage in a dire situation. This is the real difference between Israel and Iran.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 29, 2010 at 2:12 PM
On the issue of the credibility of Jean-Louis Bruguière, his credibility is not damaged by the fact that he has been cited by some whose opinions and expertise you don’t respect. This is not a reflection on Bruguiere himself nor is it something over which he exercises any control. I would also like you to provide proof of your debunking of the credibility of certain cited experts by providing links as I have done to make my points. You repeatedly fail to do this.
Also, the Gaza/Auschwitz comparison is ludicrous. In any case, Gaza is often more aptly compared to the Warsaw Ghetto, not Auschwitz which was a notorious extermination camp. It is true that Palestinians are confined to an area and often subjected to deprivation, humiliation, physical abuse, mental abuse. Deaths have occurred in the process of war, not a deliberate genocide. There is no genocide, planned or otherwise. I have denounced this many times as have others. But it is a matter of emphasis and degree. The Palestinians aren’t slated for extermination or even mass expulsion. Israel has tried repeatedly to relinquish control of the Gaza Strip but experienced security threats in the form of rocket attacks and suicide bombings. This situation can’t be compared to either the Warsaw Ghetto or Auschwitz.
Your obnoxious demand that I provide some arbitrary number which you claim is the exact number of dead Palestinians required to determine a genocide is proof once and for all of your insanity, ignorance and pathetic intellectual underdevelopment. You once claimed to know the number so why keep it a secret. I suspect there is no number.The particular content of your ad hominem attacks increasingly reveals the nature of your mental problems, emotional instability, insecurities and cognitive deficit.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 29, 2010 at 2:13 PM
Cabby,
“You are an obnoxious, vulgar, ignorant, low cognitive little piggy but I will try to answer you incessant, stupid, dogmatic whining anyhow.”
says the idiot who has had every single one of his arguments and sources destroyed
“But just so that we’re clear in national legal systems as in international law, a given party is not guilty by popular opinion or determinations by experts but by the findings of legally authorized jurists or their equivalent after legitimate due process.”
yes; your argument is the blockade isn’t illegal until it has been weighed and considered by a judge and jury. i’m here to tell you that is fucking stupid and you are fucking stupid for saying it because it means literally everything is legal until it has been subjected to due process, including rape. stop saying this dumb thing.
“This hasn’t occurred in the case of the Gaza blockade unlike the ICC’s determination that Omar al- Bashir of the Sudan is a war criminal and is guilty of crimes against humanity which is a subject on which you have doubtless remained silent.”
this isn’t about Bashir this is about Israel, don’t change the subject
“In the case of Rwanda, another real genocide”
lol why is this a real genocide
“Now look who’s contradicting himself!! First you say that Israel provoked the existential threat through their own actions, then you deny that such a threat even exists. You can’t have it both ways”
if you didn’t have the reading comprehension of a drooling retard you would have noticed that the first time I mentioned existential threat I put it in quotes, indicating sarcasm. so no, I never suggested that Israel is facing an existential threat, once again you embarrass yourself with your stupidity
“By the way, Hamas only targets civilians.”
haha this is total bullshit, I can’t wait for you to substantiate this with a source so I can embarrass you again
“And while we’re on the topic of Iran, I do believe they are a threat. I don’t believe they should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons because they would use them.”
tehehehehe what makes you think they have nukes and why do you think they would use them hehehe I can’t wait for your reply
“This is the real difference between Israel and Iran. “
no the real difference is Israel is a marauding vandal state and Iran has every right to be terrified of them
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 29, 2010 at 5:42 PM
“On the issue of the credibility of Jean-Louis Bruguière, his credibility is not damaged by the fact that he has been cited by some whose opinions and expertise you don’t respect. This is not a reflection on Bruguiere himself nor is it something over which he exercises any control.”
the fact remains that Kohlmann didn’t bother to mention the cross exam in the trial that testimony was for, plus as I proved before none of Kohlmann’s work has been peer reviewed so I have no reason to trust anything found in anything he’s written. regardless, Bruguiere still didn’t say anything substantive or provide evidence for any of his assertions which is why Israel had to take that shit about the IHH down off their website sorry bro
“I would also like you to provide proof of your debunking of the credibility of certain cited experts by providing links as I have done to make my points. You repeatedly fail to do this.”
once again every time I destroyed one of your sources I posted the link where I got the info from, put your thinking cap on, click the back button on your browser and R E A D
“Also, the Gaza/Auschwitz comparison is ludicrous.”
ipse dixit
“Gaza is often more aptly compared to the Warsaw Ghetto, not Auschwitz which was a notorious extermination camp.”
cool so you agree Israel is acting like the Nazis
“Deaths have occurred in the process of war, not a deliberate genocide.”
COPY/PASTE INCOMING:
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
“I have denounced this many times as have others.”
denounced is not the same as disprove! you would know this if you weren’t profoundly retarded
“The Palestinians aren’t slated for extermination or even mass expulsion.”
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
Also they were subject to mass expulsion back in 1948 and 1967, and a few times in the 80’s 90’s and 2000’s.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 29, 2010 at 5:43 PM
“Israel has tried repeatedly to relinquish control of the Gaza Strip but experienced security threats in the form of rocket attacks and suicide bombings. This situation can’t be compared to either the Warsaw Ghetto or Auschwitz.”
“gosh, we’ve tried so many times to relinquish control of the Gaza strip but that darn Hamas keeps doing things like demanding we turn over our illegal settlements as a condition of peace (which by the way the entire rest of the world supports except for the U.S.) and demanding we lift our illegal blockade! also we can’t seem to honor a cease fire for the life of us!” - Israel. also lol for singling Hamas out for targeting civilians without even a little bit of irony, lol at your intellectual dishonesty
also ipse dixit on the Warsaw/Auschwitz thing
also I never said Hamas was some kind of saint in this conflict, the only thing I do when I talk about Hamas is correct the lies you and kenster have repeatedly told about them in an attempt to demonize them and make them look like the aggressor, it’s low, it’s filthy and you and he should be ashamed of yourselves
“Your obnoxious demand that I provide some arbitrary number which you claim is the exact number of dead Palestinians required to determine a genocide is proof once and for all of your insanity, ignorance and pathetic intellectual underdevelopment. You once claimed to know the number so why keep it a secret. I suspect there is no number.The particular content of your ad hominem attacks increasingly reveals the nature of your mental problems, emotional instability, insecurities and cognitive deficit. “
this post right here is a great example of your idiocy; I never claimed to know a number of dead necessary to call something a genocide. it is you who constantly asserts that the Palestinian genocide is not a “real” genocide, yet you haven’t provided a definition of genocide which you use to substantiate that claim. you can’t be working from the UN definition because I have repeatedly proved that the Israeli atrocities fit the UN definition. look I can do it again:
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
i’ll note that the last time you addressed this you basically posted a wordy “NU-UH!” and I told you that if you did it again I would just copy/paste. your next assignment is to either disprove the above paragraph (note that you won’t be able to do this) or provide your own definition of genocide that I can expose as stupid. you got some work to do junior!
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 29, 2010 at 5:43 PM
actually feel free not to pursue the Iran thing any further, I have this debate weekly and it’s getting quite tiresome
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 29, 2010 at 5:51 PM
I’ll also note that the only part of my initial argument against Bruguiere’s testimony that you actually addressed was the part about how it was in Kohlmann’s paper, you flatly ignored the rest of it, bravo nice intellectual dishonesty once again
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 29, 2010 at 5:53 PM
Muriello - the hits keep coming, huh?
“By the way, Hamas only targets civilians.”
haha this is total bullshit, I can’t wait for you to substantiate this with a source so I can embarrass you again
Well, maybe 90% civilians?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks
Wow, sure are a lot of buses and restaurants filled wtih Israeli men, women and child civilians with Hamas in the box to the right taking responsibility.
Muriello, how does it feel to defend terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah? You try (emphasis on the word “try” - your lunatic ravings have gone beyond the pale, and your non-replies now are hilarious - ipse dixit? Wow, that takes a lot of effort, doesn’t it? - and with each post you devolve further, with more epithets, more anger, less coherence - you’re like a computer program or a radioactive isotope in the predictability of the decay of your online sanity - you’re the atomic clock of becoming unhinged) to crucify Cabbie and me because we dare defend the Israelis but you conveniently leave out the heinous acts of Hamas and the fact that they actively target civilians for their attacks.
Both Cabby and I have admitted when we agree with some of your arguments, but like many in the Hamas / Hezbollah booster club, there’s no room for nuance on your side, is there? It’s all Israeli evil, all the time. Pay no attention to those Hamas suicide bomber nails in those dead children. Move along - look at those Palestinians being denied concrete, don’t look at that Israeli mother with no arms in the Sbarro’s!
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 29, 2010 at 7:48 PM
kenster42,
nowhere in the wiki article did it say “90% of Hamas’ targets are civilians’ you shit-for-brains, just like Cabby all you do to substantiate claims is find something that looks like it supports your argument and post it without caring whether or not it actually supports your argument. both of you are a disgrace.
“Muriello, how does it feel to defend terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah?”
feels pretty good since I say nothing but true things about Hamas (I haven’t mentioned Hezbollah at all, why are you bringing them up? oh, because you are a nitwit). note that I don’t defend Hamas, I only refute the lies people tell about them in order to demonize them and make Israel look like the good guy in a conflict where they clearly are not. and lol Israel is a bigger terrorist than either Hamas or Hezbollah, Israel kills way more civilians yearly
also I only appear to be getting less coherent (what do you even mean by this?) because I find myself having to make the same argument over and over without getting a substantial rebuttal in return, you can see this in my last post where I literally copy/paste a paragraph from an earlier post 3 times because in all 3 cases it constitutes a substantive reply to what Cabby is saying. it’s beyond irritating to have to read your wordy pseudo-intellectual posts and find that all you’ve really said in response to some point I’ve made is “NU-UH!”
“Both Cabby and I have admitted when we agree with some of your arguments, but like many in the Hamas / Hezbollah booster club, there’s no room for nuance on your side, is there? It’s all Israeli evil, all the time. Pay no attention to those Hamas suicide bomber nails in those dead children. Move along - look at those Palestinians being denied concrete, don’t look at that Israeli mother with no arms in the Sbarro’s!”
Hamas has said they would agree to a two-state solution; Israel rejects it without fail every time the issue comes up in the UN. There’s your fucking nuance.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 29, 2010 at 9:13 PM
It’s pretty obvious that Hamas kills mostly Israeli civilians. They kill very few soldiers and almost never attack military targets unless you consider checkpoints military targets which they also seldom attack. Hamas much prefers urban civilian targets, city buses, cafes, public buildings, open air markets, places like that. Hope you’re proud of ‘em Muriello.
”...the only thing I do when I talk about Hamas is correct the lies you and kenster have repeatedly told about them in an attempt to demonize them and make them look like the aggressor, it’s low, it’s filthy and you and he should be ashamed of yourselves.”
Sure, Muriello. We’re both really ashamed of our unfair, low down and dirty attitudes toward Hamas’ brutal targeting of Israeli civilians, including children. Criticizing such actions and the groups that commit them is a sure sign of moral turpitude and a lack of civility. Every moron that can read a news story or watch CNN knows Hamas’ modus operandi. I don’t think it bears repeating.
“In the case of Rwanda, another real genocide”
lol why is this a real genocide
Let’s see, Over 800,000 Rwandans dead in a few months vs. less that 6,000 dead Palestinians (and over 1,000 Israelis) killed since late 2000. Doesn’t take a Ph.D in international juris prudence to figure out which is more aptly called a genocide. The UN and the ICC sure figured it out. By the way, I don’t believe that the Goldstone Report actually mentions the word “genocide” much less does it accuse Israel of committing one. This brings me to the most obnoxious aspect of your dogmatic, silly gotcha style of argument. The key and most operative phrase in the UN definition of genocide which is contained in the international genocide convention is “with an intent to destroy…” This doesn’t mean an intent to destroy one or several or even a thousand persons (a point which still remains controversial with regard to Cast Lead; even Goldstone never accused Israel of deliberately killing all the civilians that were killed) but all or most of the targeted group. The term destroy is used in the sense of deliberately killing enough people and destroying enough of the society’s cultural and physical infrastructure so as to make it unrecognizable as the kind of society it was before, irreparably damaged and physically unsustainable without massive reconstruction. If this sounds like Gaza to you then your hallucinating.
When the definition was agreed upon, it was assumed that genocide meant significantly large numbers of people murdered as a share of total population. Obviously, no quantitative specificity is possible. But certainly less that 1/10th of 1% of a population is too small to be considered a genocide regardless of the circumstances of the deaths. In the 1948 War, a full one percent of the Jewish population was killed. Did this count as a genocide as well. Certainly, there was a clear “intent to destroy” on the part of the Arab invaders, and believe me, had they succeeded in destroying Israel, they’d have killed as many Jewish civilians as possible. I have no doubt of this because the Palestinian rioters killed nearly 700 unarmed, defenseless Jews during the British Mandate period.
Your assertion that Hamas has accepted a two-state solution is laughable. Perhaps you’ve confused them with Fatah. Hamas has never made such a statement or even implied it. In fact, they continue to call for the complete destruction of Israel through armed violence and its replacement with a Islamic theocracy in all of Palestine. Most Palestinians are comparatively secular so it stands to reason why Hamas is losing popularity by the day. Most Israelis support a two-state solution but Hamas violence has popularized the Israeli far right which has done their part to destroy the peace process. It is clear that this was the intention of both Hamas and their Iranian paymasters.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jun 30, 2010 at 5:03 PM
Cabby has made the crucial link, Muriello.
MOST ISRAELIS SUPPORT A TWO-STATE SOLUTION BUT HAMAS VIOLENCE HAS POPULARIZED THE ISRAELI FAR RIGHT WHICH HAS DONE THEIR PART TO DESTROY THE PEACE PROCESS.
Truer words were never spoken, Muriello. You expect saint-like behavior from Israel, but seem to give Hamas a complete pass, I guess because Hamas is in the underdog position? Sorry, that doesn’t work.
One key fact that drives Israel’s attitude toward Palestine - the Gaza Strip border is 44 miles from Tel Aviv. The West Bank border is 37 miles from Tel Aviv. It’s difficult for me to get too upset about the Palestinians when they vote in an entity that vows to destroy Israel through armed violence and, in November 2009, successfully test fired a rocket that has a 40 mile range. Hmm, a 40 mile range. Why would that be?
Israel is not stupid. If Palestinians, who have shown in both Intifatahs that they have no problem firing rockets at whoever they can hit in Israel (hint, hint - it’s not military folks) and now show they can fire rockets that can reach the most populous city in Israel.
Yeah, the Israelis ain’t gonna let that happen.
Posted by kenster42 on Jun 30, 2010 at 5:34 PM
Cabby,
“It’s pretty obvious that Hamas kills mostly Israeli civilians.”
maybe, but this is a clear backpedal from your earlier position that Hamas targets “only” civilians.
“Hope you’re proud of ‘em Muriello. “
when have I ever said this, or engaged in apologetics for the atrocities they commit? the answer is never, unlike you and kenster with regard to Israel’s atrocities
“Sure, Muriello. We’re both really ashamed of our unfair, low down and dirty attitudes toward Hamas’ brutal targeting of Israeli civilians, including children.”
my problem with you is that you slam Hamas for targeting civilians at every turn, yet you engage in apologetics for Israel who has killed about four or five times more civilians than Hamas. you trip over yourself trying to explain how Israel’s right to defend itself allows it to legally commit war crimes, yet don’t give Hamas the same pass. also, both you and kenster have repeatedly tried to depict Hamas as some brutal oppressive regime when in reality they were elected precisely because they, unlike Fatah, provided social services to Palestinians and weren’t laughably corrupt. yes, criticize Hamas for targeting civilians, it is inexcusable; but do NOT try to ignore the fact that Israel does the exact same thing and is much more effective at it, and do NOT blatantly LIE about them to try to make Israel look better in comparison. it’s disgusting, and you’re disgusting for doing it.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 30, 2010 at 9:40 PM
“This brings me to the most obnoxious aspect of your dogmatic, silly gotcha style of argument. The key and most operative phrase in the UN definition of genocide which is contained in the international genocide convention is “with an intent to destroy…” This doesn’t mean an intent to destroy one or several or even a thousand persons (a point which still remains controversial with regard to Cast Lead; even Goldstone never accused Israel of deliberately killing all the civilians that were killed) but all or most of the targeted group.”
”...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:”
“intent to destroy, in whole or in part”
“in whole or in part”
note that the definition doesn’t specify how big a part has to be destroyed to constitute genocide, and for a good reason. you probably aren’t smart enough to realize what this reason is, sorry about your dumb brain
“The term destroy is used in the sense of deliberately killing enough people and destroying enough of the society’s cultural and physical infrastructure so as to make it unrecognizable as the kind of society it was before, irreparably damaged and physically unsustainable without massive reconstruction. If this sounds like Gaza to you then your hallucinating.”
there is no such language in the definition, this is just your idiotic misinterpretation sorry again
“When the definition was agreed upon, it was assumed that genocide meant significantly large numbers of people murdered as a share of total population.”
gosh if that’s what they agreed upon maybe they should have included it in the definition! how careless of them to leave that out! actually that was never agreed upon it’s just you once again idiotically misinterpreting a very plainly stated definition OOPSIE
“But certainly less that 1/10th of 1% of a population is too small to be considered a genocide regardless of the circumstances of the deaths.”
maybe you could answer the fucking question I’ve asked your stupid ass three times now and give me a percentage of population that must be killed in order to call something a genocide. i’m waiting, shitlord.
“Your assertion that Hamas has accepted a two-state solution is laughable.”
Hamas accepts a two-state solution. When asked by Newsweek-Washington Post correspondent Lally Weymouth on 26 February 2006 what agreements Hamas was prepared to honor, the new Hamas Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh answered, “the ones that will guarantee the establishment of a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital with 1967 borders.” Weymouth went on, “Will you recognize Israel?” to which Haniyeh responded, “If Israel declares that it will give the Palestinian people a state and give them back all their rights then we are ready to recognize them.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein06122006.html
you’ll find that their position hasn’t changed one iota in the last 4 years. you are the one that is laughable, stop your incessant lying you piece of shit.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 30, 2010 at 9:41 PM
kenster42,
“MOST ISRAELIS SUPPORT A TWO-STATE SOLUTION BUT HAMAS VIOLENCE HAS POPULARIZED THE ISRAELI FAR RIGHT WHICH HAS DONE THEIR PART TO DESTROY THE PEACE PROCESS.”
lol
“but seem to give Hamas a complete pass”
if by “give Hamas a complete pass” you mean “call you and Cabby out when you lie about them”, then yes, I give them a complete pass
“One key fact that drives Israel’s attitude toward Palestine is BLAH BLAH BLAH I’M A DROOLING RETARD”
yes; therefore, Israel is well within its rights to murder Palestinian civilians. wait no, you’re a monster.
“Israel is not stupid.”
ummmm
“If Palestinians, who have shown in both Intifatahs that they have no problem firing rockets at whoever they can hit in Israel (hint, hint - it’s not military folks) and now show they can fire rockets that can reach the most populous city in Israel.
Yeah, the Israelis ain’t gonna let that happen.”
yes; therefore, Israel is well within its rights to murder Palestinian civilians. wait no, you’re a monster.
Posted by PMuriello on Jun 30, 2010 at 9:52 PM
Muriello,
I told no lies about Hamas. Everything I said was true. They’re terrorists, they target and mostly kill civilians, frequently women and children and they don’t currently support a two-state solution no matter what you claim they said four years ago. They call for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews not only in Israel but anywhere in the world. If they weren’t on record as saying these things no one would accuse them of it. As they say, you can’t make this stuff up!
I’m frankly unimpressed with Hamas’ supposed “humanitarian work.” Even Al Capone brought groceries to poor Italian families on the west side of Chicago during the Depression. Did this exonerate him from his criminal activities? Does being a Patrone make you altruistic? Though different, the two cases bear many similarities. Both Capone and Hamas are ruthless and exercise patronage for advantage having ulterior motives.
The UN Genocide Convention never intended the definition of genocide to have only qualitative and not quantitative criteria. Indeed, it is conceivable, though not likely, that one could satisfy all the qualitative criteria for genocide without inflicting death at all. This would be a strange genocide indeed. You seem to think that because no quantitative limits were set they are irrelevant.
Indeed, the operative phrase in the definition, “with an intent to destroy,” does not mean with an intent to destroy a few people or less than one tenth of one percent, even if they were killed deliberately or at least with incredibly careless disregard for their lives. It means a clear intent to destroy the entire group which generally results in wiping out a significant share of the population so that they cannot regain their former numbers to any meaningful extent. This has clearly not happened. Israel has no desire to destroy the Palestinians in genocidal fashion nor has Israel demonstrated any such desire. Clearly, those who drafted the genocide convention would be appalled at your dogmatic gotchaism and petty punctilious bickering. You obviously missed the point of the Genocide Declaration. The drafters of the Declaration assumed mass physical destruction of human beings and gave qualitative criteria only so as to distinguish mass death from war from mass death due to a deliberate intent to murder a group per se.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jul 2, 2010 at 2:43 PM
Cabby,
“I told no lies about Hamas.”
Off the top of my head, here are some lies you have told about Hamas so far:
1. Hamas broke the cease-fire which led to Cast Lead
2. Hamas uses all or even most of its budget for military purposes
3. Hamas would not agree to a two-state solution
4. Hamas would not recognize Israel’s right to exist
5. Hamas instigated the violence that led to them ousting Fatah from Gaza and being ousted from the West Bank
“I’m frankly unimpressed with Hamas’ supposed “humanitarian work.”
that’s because you are an Israel apologist and cannot reconcile your worldview with a Hamas that isn’t totally and completely evil.
“The UN Genocide Convention never intended the definition of genocide to have only qualitative and not quantitative criteria.”
prove it
“Indeed, it is conceivable, though not likely, that one could satisfy all the qualitative criteria for genocide without inflicting death at all.”
no it isn’t you fucking idiot, the first criteria is literally “Killing members of the group.”
“You seem to think that because no quantitative limits were set they are irrelevant.”
no, I think quantitative criteria are morally irrelevant because they are morally irrelevant
“Indeed, the operative phrase in the definition, “with an intent to destroy,” does not mean with an intent to destroy a few people or less than one tenth of one percent, even if they were killed deliberately or at least with incredibly careless disregard for their lives.”
PROVE IT
“It means a clear intent to destroy the entire group which generally results in wiping out a significant share of the population so that they cannot regain their former numbers to any meaningful extent.”
COPY/PASTE INCOMING:
”...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:”
“intent to destroy, in whole or in part”
“in whole or in part”
“This has clearly not happened. Israel has no desire to destroy the Palestinians in genocidal fashion nor has Israel demonstrated any such desire.”
COPY/PASTE INCOMING:
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
“The drafters of the Declaration assumed mass physical destruction of human beings and gave qualitative criteria only so as to distinguish mass death from war from mass death due to a deliberate intent to murder a group per se. “
no you fucking moron, they assumed the destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. note that physical harm, although useful, is not necessary in bringing the destruction of any of these groups.
also I’m waiting for an answer to the question I asked you, coward; what percentage of Palestinians have to die before I can call it a genocide?
Posted by PMuriello on Jul 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM
In the first place, all those five things you said were lies are truths about Hamas. They don’t recognize Israel; they openly call for Israel’s destruction; they target civilians and spend at least a large share of their resources on military operations (no one knows for sure how much they have or how they apportion their resources since Hamas has no equivalent of a CBO or an OMB or a GAO that publishes accurate data on these matters). Hamas broke the ceasefire by tunneling into Israel from the northern end of the Gaza Strip. This is beyond dispute. Certainly, the Israelis were not going to wait on the other side of the border for them to poke their heads up and say we’re baaaaaack!!
The most ridiculous thing you assert is that Fatah started the trouble in June 2007 when clearly Hamas violently seized power. Hamas won an election to the PLC in January 2006. They got 55% of the vote and won 76 seats in the 132 member Council. I’ve already posted links on this thread to a British Parliamentary website attesting to this information. It is one of the best reports on the 2006 election and the immediate political consequences. It includes much Palestinian scholarship as well.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-017.pdf
Clearly Hamas violently took power in Gaza and expelled Fatah. Stop spreading Hamas lies.
The actually number of Palestinians dead is not relevant. Clearly, it is not necessary to establish such a number because quantitative specificity for the purposes of defining genocide is impossible and unnecessary. The point is that it is clear from the very low numbers of dead and even lower numbers of deliberately targeted dead, that there is no clear intent to destroy the Palestinians in whole or in part. This is beyond dispute. And though it is impossible to quantify genocidal killing with a specific ratio, genocide obviously does imply a significant number of people killed. Given this fact, I found it amazing that you consider Gaza to be a genocide but not Darfur or Rwanda; two instances in which leaders have been indicted and convicted of crimes against humanity by the ICC. Those were real genocides. The genocide definition doesn’t fit the Gazan case.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jul 3, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Muriello,
Just published today, my friend:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/opinion/04kristof.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
“Visiting Gaza persuaded me, to my surprise, that Israel is correct when it denies that there is any full-fledged humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The tunnels have so undermined the Israeli blockade that shops are filled and daily life is considerably easier than when I last visited here two years ago.”
ISRAEL IS CORRECT WHEN IT DENIES THAT THERE IS ANY FULL-FLEDGED HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN GAZA.
Posted by kenster42 on Jul 4, 2010 at 9:24 PM
Muriello,
Also for you and in defense of Cabby, who took this position:
“Sari Bashi, the executive director of Gisha, an Israeli human rights organization that monitors Gaza, says that the siege has probably strengthened Hamas. Partly that’s because Hamas taxes goods smuggled in tunnels and partly because it has become a more important source of jobs and welfare with the collapse of private businesses.”
HAMAS MAKES MONEY BY SMUGGLING.
Posted by kenster42 on Jul 4, 2010 at 9:25 PM
Cabby,
“they openly call for Israel’s destruction;”
COPY/PASTE INCOMING:
Hamas accepts a two-state solution. When asked by Newsweek-Washington Post correspondent Lally Weymouth on 26 February 2006 what agreements Hamas was prepared to honor, the new Hamas Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh answered, “the ones that will guarantee the establishment of a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital with 1967 borders.” Weymouth went on, “Will you recognize Israel?” to which Haniyeh responded, “If Israel declares that it will give the Palestinian people a state and give them back all their rights then we are ready to recognize them.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein06122006.html
“they target civilians”
you said they target “only civilians”, also stop with your fucking strawmen that wasn’t on the list of five
“spend at least a large share of their resources on military operations”
i’ve already addressed this you fucking clown:
Using Israeli estimates, he [Matthew Levitt] reckons Hamas probably has an annual budget of between $70m and $90m, 80 to 85 per cent of which it spends on its political work and its extensive networks of schools, clinics and welfare organisations, while 15 to 20 per cent goes on military operations.
http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2007/05/hamas-palestinian-israel
you think 15 to 20% is a large share lol Israel spends way more on military operations and has the second highest military expenditure per capita, behind, of course, the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures_per_capita
“Hamas broke the ceasefire by tunneling into Israel from the northern end of the Gaza Strip. This is beyond dispute.”
a condition of the cease-fire was that Israel had to lift the blockade, Israel did not lift the blockade, therefore Hamas was under no obligation to stop tunneling, your arguments once again are fucking retarded
“Clearly Hamas violently took power in Gaza and expelled Fatah. Stop spreading Hamas lies.”
lmao I was about to post a huge rebuttal to this but then on a whim I read the paper you linked to support this claim and saw that there is nothing in there about Hamas ousting Fatah, haha you didn’t even read your own link you are a fucking clown stop trying to argue with me you are just embarrassing yourself
also I already posted this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah–Hamas_conflict , wherein you can read that Fatah clearly instigated the violence:
On December 15, 2006, fighting broke out in the West Bank after Palestinian security forces fired on a Hamas rally in Ramallah. At least 20 people were wounded in the clashes which came shortly after Hamas accused Fatah of attempting to assassinate Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian prime minister.[14]
and who was behind this Fatah-instigated violence? welp:
With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, the author reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.
lol
Posted by PMuriello on Jul 4, 2010 at 10:34 PM
“The point is that it is clear from the very low numbers of dead and even lower numbers of deliberately targeted dead, that there is no clear intent to destroy the Palestinians in whole or in part. This is beyond dispute.”
COPY/PASTE INCOMING:
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
fyi you need to prove things are what you say they are, simply saying “MY STUPID OPINION is beyond dispute” doesn’t make your stupid opinion beyond dispute
“And though it is impossible to quantify genocidal killing with a specific ratio, genocide obviously does imply a significant number of people killed.”
please point out where the definition confirms this assertion (note that you will not be able to do this because the definition does not, in fact, confirm your assertion, also because you are a drooling idiot)
“Given this fact, I found it amazing that you consider Gaza to be a genocide but not Darfur or Rwanda”
i never said this you idiot, I simply asked why you considered Darfur and Rwanda to be a real genocide, once again you prove that either your reading comprehension is shit or you have no problem with lying in order to win an argument
“The genocide definition doesn’t fit the Gazan case.”
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
i will continue to copy/paste this until you substantively reply to it
Posted by PMuriello on Jul 4, 2010 at 10:34 PM
I mean haha seriously even that paper you linked to try to prove Hamas is a boogeyman paints Hamas as a fairly reasonable government entity and eminently preferable to the corrupt and incompetent Fatah, to anyone who cares about the well being of the Palestinians at least. fuck you are dumb as shit and it is so much fun making you look stupid over and over
Posted by PMuriello on Jul 4, 2010 at 10:39 PM
kenster42,
“ISRAEL IS CORRECT WHEN IT DENIES THAT THERE IS ANY FULL-FLEDGED HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN GAZA. “
haha saying dumb things in all caps just makes you look dumber. one NY times op-ed does not refute years of studies conducted by human rights organizations that actually know what the fuck they are talking about
“HAMAS MAKES MONEY BY SMUGGLING.”
lol you think this is a substantive point, of course they make money by smuggling, 80-85% of which is, by Israel’s own reckoning, used for social services. also, why do they have to smuggle? A-BUH-BUH-BUH maybe because there is an illegal fucking blockade in effect that is, by the author of that article’s own admission, choking off legitimate businesses and making the Hamas tunnel smuggling necessary?????
lol keep up your intellectual flailing you mental midget, it is so darn cute!
Posted by PMuriello on Jul 4, 2010 at 10:47 PM
Cabby no matter how many times you argue that a large ratio of people must be killed to constitute genocide you will never find such a stipulation in the definition, ad nauseam has not and will never be a valid method of argumentation, sorry that you have shit for brains
Posted by PMuriello on Jul 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM
REMINDER: Cabby and kenster both lied about Hamas not being willing to accept a two state solution or recognize Israel lol
Posted by PMuriello on Jul 4, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Muriello,
You’re one feisty little moron aren’t you? The operative definition of genocide is the murder of a people. It’s in the very root of the word. Those who made a qualitative definition of genocide assumed that large numbers of people killed is a prerequisite for the definition to hold. Even intentionally killing a few people doesn’t qualify as an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the group. Secondly, you should understand that when you ask things like “what makes you think Rwanda was a real genocide?” it will reasonably taken as you questioning the assertion that this was actually a real genocide. The fact that you seem to fail to get this shows you are either mentally ill or just fuckin’ stupid. I’m going with the latter.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jul 6, 2010 at 3:07 PM
Cabby,
“Even intentionally killing a few people doesn’t qualify as an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the group.”
actually it quite literally does qualify, and this is exactly what I meant when I said your conception of genocide is contextualized in the Holocaust. you ignore the literal definition in favor of some nebulous undefined criteria of “duuuuuuurrrrrrr a lot of people have to die!” without bothering to define what constitutes “a lot” of people, which makes YOUR definition of genocide totally arbitrary. either quantify “a lot” or concede the fucking argument. in fact just concede, even if you try to quantify it I’m going to run your stupid ass argument all the way down the slippery slope into moral irrelevance.
also:
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
“Secondly, you should understand that when you ask things like “what makes you think Rwanda was a real genocide?” it will reasonably taken as you questioning the assertion that this was actually a real genocide.”
except that the context of the question was you denying that the Palestinian genocide is actually a genocide so no, fuck you, it was not a reasonable interpretation that I was denying that Rwanda was a genocide, the problem once again is your intellectual dishonesty/stupidity
Posted by PMuriello on Jul 6, 2010 at 4:35 PM
at least you avoided lying this time, that’s improvement!
Posted by PMuriello on Jul 6, 2010 at 4:36 PM
and haha this:
“You’re one feisty little moron aren’t you?”
you literally linked a paper in support of your claim that Hamas violently took power that didn’t contain any info about the Hamas-Fatah fighting and instead portrays Hamas as a former extremist group changing its policies in order to cope with its newfound legitimacy, making it look quite reasonable in the process, yet I’M the moron
haha I mean fuck you would be better off linking some raving pro-Israel source that, despite the bias, would at least back up your claim (although it would just end up a repeat of the thorough beating I gave you the last time you tried to link a bunch of sources) . this is actually a common problem for Israel apologists; unbiased sources that support their arguments are nearly non-existent
Posted by PMuriello on Jul 6, 2010 at 4:44 PM
hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Posted by hugysa on Jul 7, 2010 at 12:34 AM
another pair of blithering israel apologists are sent packing by a combination of critical thinking and withering public humiliation, my work here is done
Posted by PMuriello on Jul 11, 2010 at 8:28 PM
Muriello,
You never proved anything. Everyone knows that Hamas attacked Fatah in the summer of 2007. Lying won’t change history.
Also, you never use common sense. Genocide means “with an intent to destroy in whole or in part.” That is the UN definition. Israel never acted in a way to destroy the Palestinian people and everyone knows it. You are quite a fool.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jul 18, 2010 at 3:54 PM
Cabby,
Everyone knows that Hamas attacked Fatah in the summer of 2007.
my only objection to this sentence is “attacked” should be changed to “defended themselves from”, an objection supported by Rose’s Vanity Fair article
Also, you never use common sense. Genocide means “with an intent to destroy in whole or in part.” That is the UN definition. Israel never acted in a way to destroy the Palestinian people and everyone knows it. You are quite a fool.
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
Also, common sense is often cited by simpering know-nothings to support their counter-factual claims you stupid piece of shit. Moreover, a common sense approach to the question “is Israel committing genocide” yields an answer of “yes” when adhering to the actual definition of genocide and not some arbitrary Holocaust-inspired conception that has little to do with actual morality.
feel free to embarrass yourself further by replying to this
Posted by PMuriello on Jul 19, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Fatah was attacked by Hamas. Yes, there had been violent clashes between Hamas and Fatah, but a violent coup against a recognized government is not a form a self defense. It is an act of aggression and an abrogation of the democratic process since Abbas was elected president and Hamas only was elected to 55% of the seats in the PLC. Most Palestinians now hate Hamas and had by the time they took over Gaza in June 2007. Here is from the militant Sabbah Report website;
”...the Palestinians say “Hamas, Dahlan, and the PA should go to hell, all of them should disappear from Palestine”. The International community should stand up to its responsibility toward the Palestinians according to the International laws, and not according to the Israelis demands.”
Here is the solution they demand to end the partisan fighting;
“The Palestinians are seeking that International Military Forces be stationed in Gaza and the West Bank, replacing the corrupt PA, Hamas militants and the Israeli occupation.”
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2007/06/15/abbas-hamas-dahlan-and-the-pa-should-go-to-hell/
The Goldstone Report did determine that the IDF targeted civilian sites. But the Report never said this amounted to genocide nor did they ever even use that term. Assuming that the IDF’s real intention was to actually kill civilians, which they deny saying they only fired in the direction of whereever they received gunfire or mortar fire, a genocide could not be said to have taken place. Genocide has a quantitative not just a qualitative aspect. The term “with intent to destroy” used in the UN Genocide Convention definition obviously assumes a certain level of destruction. An exact number cannot be specified but it must be sufficient so as to be undeniably clear that those committing the genocide had an obvious intent to destroy all or most of the target group. The reason that no one with any sense believes that the IDF intended to destroy civilians in the way that the Janjeweed intended to kill civilians in Darfur, is because of the low number of casualties and by comparison and also by what the IDF soldiers reported to the Goldstone investigation. None of them ever said that their actual mission was purposely to kill civilians. This is absurd. I read parts of the Report (the abridged version is nearly 600 pages long) and what the soldiers said was that they should shoot any time they feel threatened and not be concerned about civilian life if they themselves are in danger or receiving fire. This is probably a violation of the rules of engagement and not civilized behavior by any means but it is nothing like a genocide. The comparatively low level of casualties relative to those from real genocides, such as those occurring in Africa in recent times, bears this out.
I don’t really understand what you mean by a “holocaust inspired” definition of genocide but you seem to imply that such a definition would thereby be unacceptable. Muriello, you have shown yourself to be nothing but common anti-semite with ignorant, fanatical views and mindlessly dogmatic. You are nothing more than a pathetic shill for Hamas; a gang of terrorist murderers who don’t deserve poltical recognition and as such don’t have it from such respectible powers as The US, Canada, the EU, Japan and any other civilized nation. If you want to ally yourself with scum like Hamas it’s your business. But don’t expect anyone to take you seriously or respect your obnoxious views.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jul 29, 2010 at 4:59 PM
Israel is a state, Palistine is an area not a state. There are no Palastinians they are Arabs. They dont have a right to anything unless its in Egypt. Israel as far as I know does not attack people who leave her alone. Hamas and the PLO has sworn the destruction of Israel. The PLO and Hamas shoot rockets into israel so what do you expect Israel to do? When ever there is fighting some western power or whoever goes to the middle east the sues for peace. Israel complys and the PLO or Hamas breaks the peace. Over and Over again. Israel backs off and lest things cool down. All Hamas does is use the time to gather more weapons. So wouldnt you try to stop rockets guns and ammunition from intering the area? its not hard to figure out. Leave Israel alone and there will be peace….....oh yeah thats not what Hamas and the PLO want and the news media carefully ignores that. The news media has its agenda also just like Hamas and PLO.
Now you have Iran swearing the destruction of Israel so what do you think is going to happen? Do you think Israel will just sit there and wait for the rockets? Do you think Iran and Hamas are just sitting around watching the goats grow?. The closer Iran gets to having a bomb you will see Israel defend herself. Like stopping ships on the high seas. Looking for weapons. Israel is not the problem…....
Posted by s2harry on Aug 5, 2010 at 11:28 AM
Americans love “pseudo legalistic jargon” to justify their commiting or approving of despicable actions against human beings all over the world. They have looked the other way while Latin American armies (trained by the CIA) overthrew perfectly legally elected governments, and have been supporting Israel’s foul practices against Palestinians as if they were merely naughty kids’ activities.
They have lost our respect and we can’t trus their good judgement any longer.
Posted by Maria on Sep 24, 2010 at 6:26 PM
For those who were truly waiting for the “facts to fall where they may, regardless of the consequences,” here is a press release from the UNHRC, which includes a link to its 56-page report on the Gaza Flotilla attack. Among its findings:
“The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence.”
“It betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality. Such conduct cannot be justified or condoned on security or any other grounds. It constituted grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law.”
The three-member mission said there is clear evidence to support prosecutions of crimes such as wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, and wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
The full link is here:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=36086&Cr=flotilla&Cr1;=
Expect the usual Zionist apologetics to follow. Like their treatment of the Goldstone Report, note carefully that most if not all of the apologetics will involve ad hominem abuse, as opposed to any substantive engagement of the actual contents of the report.
Posted by Imran on Sep 28, 2010 at 9:34 AM
Cabby,
This is probably a wasted effort as you have proven time and time again that you have little to no capacity for reading and comprehending words but here goes:
1. The Sabbah Report is a blog. You cannot use a fucking blog as some kind of authoritative source. If you really need me to explain why this is you are stupid.
2. There is no quantitative criteria in the UN definition of genocide. None. Zero. It is not in there. You are only saying that because you feel that it is silly to call the deaths of maybe a few hundred a genocide; this is because your conception of genocide, how you learned about genocide, is rooted in learning about the holocaust. If you can find a quantitative criteria in the definition feel free to cite it and I will concede the point.
3. You’ve accused me of being an antisemite before; please quote me saying something, anything, antisemitic. You will not be able to do this because I have not said anything antisemitic, this is merely another ad hominem you are trying to use to deflect attention away from the fact that you are an imbecile with horrible opinions about the world.
Posted by PMuriello on Sep 28, 2010 at 10:12 AM
“The report of the fact-finding mission of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla released last week shows conclusively, for the first time, that US citizen Furkan Dogan and five Turkish citizens were murdered execution-style by Israeli commandos.
The report reveals that Dogan, the 19-year-old US citizen of Turkish descent, was filming with a small video camera on the top deck of the Mavi Marmara when he was shot twice in the head, once in the back and in the left leg and foot and that he was shot in the face at point blank range while lying on the ground…
Another passenger whom forensic evidence shows was killed execution-style, according to the OHCHR report, is Ibrahim Bilgen, a 60-year-old Turkish citizen. Bilgen is believed by forensics experts to have been shot initially from the helicopter above the Mavi Marmara and then shot in the side of the head while lying seriously wounded…
The report notes that the Israeli military never communicated a request by radio to inspect the cargo on board any of the ships, apparently contradicting the official justification given by the Israeli government for the military attack on the Mavi Marmara and other ships of preventing any military contraband from reaching Gaza…
The report confirms that, from the beginning of the operation, passengers were fired on by helicopters flying above the Mavi Marmara to drop commandos on the deck…
Contrary to Israeli claims that one or more Israeli troops were wounded by firearms, the report says no medical evidence of a gunshot wound to an Israeli soldier was found…”
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/un-factfinding-mission-sa_n_743873.html
For all those posters above, who claimed to be “waiting for the facts” (and even those who initially bought into and advocated Israeli claims now exposed as false) it should now be beyond doubt that international criminal prosecution and coordinated BDS efforts are the only meaningful ways to reign in such Israeli beastiality.
It should be noted that supporting accountability for Israeli misdeeds will actually make Israel safer in the long run, and that blindly/reflexively providing cover for such atrocities, as history has shown, will only encourage future misbehavior.
Posted by Imran on Oct 1, 2010 at 9:23 AM
The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide specifically states in article 2, “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such…” Clearly the killing of less than one tenth of one percent of the Gazan population cannot be construed as the Israeli government or the IDF as having a policy of destroying the Palestinian People “in whole or in part.” By this definition, any deliberate murder by a government force of members of a group inside or outside its territory would be considered a genocide. But clearly, that is not the case. Genocide involves a clear, systematic ongoing effort to deliberately extinguish a people in whole or in part through the means mentioned in Article 2 of the 1948 Convention. The case of the IDF incursion into Gaza in 2008-09, though brutal and justly condemned, doesn’t fit the definition. Despite The Goldstone Report’s indications that some intentional killing of civilians may have occured randomly during the 2008-90 invasion of Gaza by the IDF, there was obviously no systematic effort to massacre large numbers of civilians deliberately as a matter of policy in an effort to eliminate them. In essence, there was no “intent to destroy, in whole or in part” the people of Gaza. A small number of civilian deaths, no matter how utterly brutal and reprehensible, does not amount to a genocide.
As far as anti-semitism is concerned, the entire tone of your bombasts are hateful and prejudiced as is your obvious support for the terrorist Hamas and their murder of many hundreds of Jewish Civilians. By the way, Hamas only attacks civilians, never IDF troops. Does this mean by your definition that Hamas is conducting a genocide as well. In my opinion, both claims are absurd but you seem to think, in your rigid manner, that such ridiculous hyperbole makes sense.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Nov 2, 2010 at 6:05 PM
With regard to our earlier discussion about Zionists demanding that Palestinians recognize Israel’s (whatever that means) “right to exist” (whatever that means), I am glad that someone has finally called them out on this canard.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/10/13-5
“We officially demand that the US administration and the Israeli government provide a map of the borders of the state of Israel which they want us to recognise,” senior Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo told AFP…
“We want to know whether this (Israeli) state includes our lands and houses in the West Bank and east Jerusalem,” Abed Rabbo said, referring to Palestinian lands occupied during the 1967 Six Day War.
“If this map is based on the 1967 borders and provides for the end of the Israeli occupation over all Palestinian lands ... then we recognise Israel by whatever name it applies to itself in accordance with international law,” he said, without elaborating.
“We are awaiting a response from Tel Aviv and Washington,” he added.
When asked about Abed Rabbo’s comments, senior Israeli cabinet minister Silvan Shalom said it was “unacceptable to return to the lines of June 1967.”
“There is a very large consensus in Israel on this point,” Shalom told public radio.
Wow.
While Palestinians have always recognized this “right to exist” demand as nothing more than a cover to engage in further aggression, it is a testament to the power of the Zionist narrative that even the well-intentioned have failed to see the tenuousness of this seemingly rational demand, or the obstacle it poses to achieving a just and lasting peace.
Posted by Imran on Nov 4, 2010 at 11:05 AM
While it has been some time since the last post, the following article by MJ Rosenberg addressing yet another IDF disinformation campaign, this one following the recent murder of Abu Rahmah, is worth reading.
“I first heard that the Israeli authorities had launched a disinformation campaign about Abu Rahmah’s death on Monday, three days after her death (and the worldwide media attention that accompanied it).
“A friend called me to say that, at that very moment, IDF officials were conducting a conference call with right-wing bloggers close to the Netanyahu government and AIPAC to give them ‘hasbara’ (talking points) to use to combat the facts about Abu Rahmah’s death. We both agreed that given the existence of video and eyewitness testimony depicting the killing, it would be impossible to manufacture any sort of a credible rebuttal.
“Nonetheless, on Tuesday, the New York Times reported on the manufactured controversy. Under the headline, ‘Israeli Military Officials Challenge Account of Palestinian Woman’s Death,’ reporter Isabel Kershner directly alluded to the attempted whitewash, although she was cautious about choosing sides between the actual version of events and the one made up by the IDF.
“This, in itself, was a victory for the authorities and their mouthpieces in Israel and the United States who believe that simply planting doubts by flooding the media with fairy tales will ultimately bury the facts. (See this from Commentary, which is a typical, albeit restrained, version of the disinformation spread by the IDF’s blogger brigade).
“Of course, intentional disinformation worked with the Turkish flotilla and even with the 2008-09 Gaza war. In the latter case, the documented fact that the Israelis broke the cease-fire with Hamas in order to initiate a massive war was lost when the Israeli government and AIPAC succeeded in convincing the media and the US government to focus not on who broke a working cease-fire but on Hamas’s violent response to Israel’s attack.”
But things do appear to be changing. Some (like Mr. Robert Mackey mentioned in the article) appear now to be bravely willing to challenge the prevailing narrative in order to seek the truth. Only time will tell how things turn out for both Mr. Mackey and the truth here in the US MSM. Nevertheless,
“The bottom line is that the whitewash failed. Other than in Israel, where the right-wing media is calling the truth about Bil’in ‘a blood libel’ (a weird and anachronistic term which right-wingers mistakenly think has resonance outside of Israel), the truth about the killing of Jawaher Abu Rahmah is now out. She is dead because she was tear-gassed. End of story.
“Except it isn’t. The killing goes on.
For the full article, see:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/
israels-latest-attempt-to_b_805901.html
Posted by Imran on Jan 7, 2011 at 4:32 PM
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Cabby,
“It is this statement that is absurd.”
I agree, what you are saying is in fact absurd.
“Until the UNSC or the ICC determines that Israel is breaking the law, they have a right to continue the blockade, which by the way they’ve eased. “
For sure, keep on rapin’ bro a judge hasn’t said that you are breaking the law yet!
“Some US policy makers speculated out loud as to whether or not the sanctions would cause an uprising or some kind of regime change inside Iraq. This seems to be collective punishment for political purposes.”
Yes, the U.S. is also disgusting, thank you Captain Obvious. And sorry, but no level of existential threat excuses war crimes, if you think differently you are literally an atrocity apologist. also lol maybe if Israel would stop bombing and colonizing the Palestinians and generally pissing in the faces of all their neighbors they wouldn’t be facing an “existential threat” anymore, also lmao what existential threat name me one credible threat they face (I dare you to say Iran, I double dare you motherfucker, I will make you look so fucking stupid)
“You also never addressed the issue of Jean-Louis Bruguière, a leading French investigating magistrate, who is the most often quoted source for the claim that IHH has had terrorist ties in the recent past.”
Did you actually read his testimony? He says the IHH both “thwarted” and “facilitated” the Mujahadeen. This statement contradicts itself. Next he said that the IHH was “implicated or involved” in weapons trafficking; which is it and to what degree? Hardly convincing testimony. Finally, he says that the IHH and the Montreal cell were “closely related”, but all his testimony is all circumstantial, and none of it shows that the IHH knowingly aided terrorists. They could have just as easily been aiding who they thought were human rights activists. This is why Israel had to take that shit about the IHH down; it’s long on bullshit speculation and short on facts. really the most damning thing about Brugiere’s testimony is that it is cited extensively in that hack Kohlmann’s report lol
every time I destroyed one of your sources I linked to my source
“The burden of proof is on you since you made the original allegations.”
except I already did in my original allegations, you can’t disprove something that has already been proven sorry bro, and kenster did an ipse dixit at least twice in “rebutting” me
“The other absurdity is your implicit claim to have arrived at an exact figure for the number of Palestinians killed required to be considered a genocide.”
first of all your reading comprehension is absolutely terrible, second answer the fucking question you coward
kenster42,
“Seems to fit pretty well, Muriello.”
you’re so fucking dumb, every single time without fail that I use a pejorative I prove you to embody that pejorative through your stupid arguments or abhorrent morals, that is not an ad hominem you fucking idiot
“After roll call, the prisoners would walk to their place of work, five abreast, wearing striped camp fatigues, no underwear, and wooden shoes without socks, most of the time ill-fitting, which caused great pain.”
maybe after long enough with the terrorist contraband known as “clothing” blockaded this would be come true for Gazans hrmmmm
“The working day lasted 12 hours during the summer, and a little less in the winter. No rest periods were allowed.”
i hear the workdays are long when you are trying to rebuild all the infrastructure that Israel repeatedly destroys???
“After roll call, there were individual and collective punishments, depending on what had happened during the day,”
gosh sounds similar to Gaza
“A common punishment for escape attempts was death by starvation”
Israel is much more humane, they just kill the Palestinians outright
“the families of successful escapees were sometimes arrested and interned in Auschwitz”
Palestinians were (are?) randomly arrested and tortured
“If someone did manage to escape, the SS would pick 10 random people from the prisoner’s block and starve them to death.”
if Israel feels like the Palestinians are getting too uppity they just go ahead and murder 1300 of them, you’re right Israel is much worse than the Nazis!
“An allegation that there is any resemblance between the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews and the Israelis’ treatment of the Palestinians is patently false and greatly disrespects the memories of those killed by the Jews killed by the Nazis. “
sorry but nobody disrespects the memory of the victims of the Nazi atrocities more than Israel
“Israelis did not dispossess Palestine”
hahahahahahaha history literally doesn’t exist to you, there is no such thing as “past events that happen”
“The entire world agreed to give an ancestral homeland back to the Jews.”
haha except the Palestinians, the only people in Palestine whose opinion mattered on the subject, stop posting it is truly embarrassing for you
“Zia,
Provide evidence please. Israelis did not dispossess Palestine. The entire world agreed to give an ancestral homeland back to the Jews. Palestine still got to keep a significant portion of the land they had been occupying.
But please refute my argument, don’t change the subject. How does controlling a border “smack of Auschwitz?” Please provide specific examples of Israeli treatment of Palestinians and how that treatment specificlaly compares to the treatment of the Jews in Auschwitz.
Let’s get past this comparison so we can talk about resolution.”
this whole post is a concentrated block of a-historical idiocy. First of all, you aren’t one of those Zionist shitheads that thinks Palestine was empty when the Zionists got there do you? I mean you realize that stupidity has been thoroughly debunked by even Israeli historians, right? Probably not since nearly everything you have posted as been poorly informed rubbish.
The vast scholarly consensus is that there were A) Palestinians in Palestine well before the Zionists got there and B) that those Palestinians were ethnically cleansed periodically from 1948 till 1967. And because it is obvious that a person needs shelter, and that often that shelter takes the form of a house, and that the Palestinians are people (well, this is obvious to anyone that isn’t a Zionist), and that part of ethnic cleansing is forcibly moving people off their lands, and since homes tend to be stationary on land, then it stands to reason that the Palestinians, being a people who lived in homes and were ethnically cleansed, lost their homes during the ethnic cleansing and were therefore dispossessed. This is obvious to anyone who isn’t a fucking moron.
The entire world didn’t decide to create a Jewish homeland; the British and later the UN did, without consulting the rightful owners of Palestine, the Palestinians. Neither you nor Cabby have addressed this during the entire conversation and I doubt either of you will now.
Gaza is like Auchwitz because the Palestinians are confined to an area and routinely subjected to deprivation, humiliation, physical abuse, mental abuse, and death, and through both Israel’s use of disproportionate violence and refusal to accept the terms of peace that the entire rest of the world supports one can reasonably say that what Israel wants is no less than the complete displacement of Palestinians from Palestine, if not their outright annihilation. It is in this manner that Israel is acting like the Nazis. Note that my characterization of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is all found within human rights reports.
and lol like we can reasonably talk about resolution with a myopic shit-for-brains like you who doesn’t even understand what “dispossession” or “genocide” means, you also call 20% of something “significant”, yeah it’s significantly low, get the fuck out of here
Kenster42
I am sorry I don’t mean to be personal - but you question historical facts. It would sound demeaning to suggest you get your facts straight. For it is precisely this misinformation that Americans have swallowed about this tragedy that makes an honorable resolution so intractable. What evidence did you want when you have millions of Palestinians languishing in refugee camps? These are irrefutable historical facts. The point of fact is, it is Zionism that has manipulated Jewish sufferings at the hands of Nazi Germany to create an exclusive entity through displacement of Palestinians from their ancestral homes. Or, are you like Golda Meir who didn’t acknowledge the existence of Palestinians. And pray what crime did the Palestinians commit to have to redeem for Nazi barbarity? To go into denial of these facts is the worst stance you could possibly have.
So, here we have a whole nation now herded into enclaves in Gaza and in the West Bank, or summarily exiled. I don’t particularly care whether you consider the incarceration in Gaza as akin to Auschwitz: the intent is the same. There are enough internal refugees in Gaza to prove my point. Or, perhaps, you prefer to see this as a manifestation of apartheid. If so, have it your way. But, get the facts right first.
Today, the Palestinians have bent backwards in accepting the reality of Israel and to the creation of their own sovereign state in the territory Israel occupied in 1967. It is for the Israelis to declare an acceptance of UN resolution 242 that requires them to comply with international opinion. This alone can bring in peace to the region. The alternative is to maintain the apartheid regime that Israel is today.
Muriello,
You are an obnoxious, vulgar, ignorant, low cognitive little piggy but I will try to answer you incessant, stupid, dogmatic whining anyhow.
As a matter of fact, it is a jury that determines guilt or innocence, not a judge. But just so that we’re clear in national legal systems as in international law, a given party is not guilty by popular opinion or determinations by experts but by the findings of legally authorized jurists or their equivalent after legitimate due process. This hasn’t occurred in the case of the Gaza blockade unlike the ICC’s determination that Omar al- Bashir of the Sudan is a war criminal and is guilty of crimes against humanity which is a subject on which you have doubtless remained silent. In the case of Rwanda, another real genocide, The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda is an international court established in November 1994 by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 955 in order to judge people responsible for the Rwandan Genocide and other serious violations of the international law in Rwanda, or by Rwandan citizens in nearby states, between 1 January and 31 December 1994. So far, the Tribunal has finished 50 trials and convicted 29 accused persons. This is an example of the legal establishment of culpability in a genocide. It was based on legal proceedings, not expert opinion or popular political perceptions. Until the UNSC declares the blockade illegal, Israel has the right to inspect ships bound for Gaza. And as I’ve pointed out, Israel has already lifted the embargo on all but military items so the collective punishment issue is now moot.
”...also lol maybe if Israel would stop bombing and colonizing the Palestinians and generally pissing in the faces of all their neighbors they wouldn’t be facing an “existential threat” anymore, also lmao what existential threat name me one credible threat they face (I dare you to say Iran…”
Now look who’s contradicting himself!! First you say that Israel provoked the existential threat through their own actions, then you deny that such a threat even exists. You can’t have it both ways. Suicide bombings and rocket attacks are both war crimes. By the way, Hamas only targets civilians. Over 90% of their victims are innocent men, women and children. They have repeatedly stated that all Jews anywhere in the world are legitimate targets. And this is the organization you continually defend and insists has a right to recognized political legitimacy to control Gaza and rule the people living there.. You are crazy to say the least. And while we’re on the topic of Iran, I do believe they are a threat. I don’t believe they should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons because they would use them. Israel has had nukes since the early 1950s. The French built their Dimona reactor back then. They could have used tactical nuclear weapons many times, particularly in 1973 when they were attacked without warning and were out manned and out gunned six to one. Many people at first thought, including Henry Kissinger, that Israel could well lose the conflict. Israel persisted with conventional warfare and never once even threatened the use of nuclear weapons, even as a scare tactic to gain advantage in a dire situation. This is the real difference between Israel and Iran.
On the issue of the credibility of Jean-Louis Bruguière, his credibility is not damaged by the fact that he has been cited by some whose opinions and expertise you don’t respect. This is not a reflection on Bruguiere himself nor is it something over which he exercises any control. I would also like you to provide proof of your debunking of the credibility of certain cited experts by providing links as I have done to make my points. You repeatedly fail to do this.
Also, the Gaza/Auschwitz comparison is ludicrous. In any case, Gaza is often more aptly compared to the Warsaw Ghetto, not Auschwitz which was a notorious extermination camp. It is true that Palestinians are confined to an area and often subjected to deprivation, humiliation, physical abuse, mental abuse. Deaths have occurred in the process of war, not a deliberate genocide. There is no genocide, planned or otherwise. I have denounced this many times as have others. But it is a matter of emphasis and degree. The Palestinians aren’t slated for extermination or even mass expulsion. Israel has tried repeatedly to relinquish control of the Gaza Strip but experienced security threats in the form of rocket attacks and suicide bombings. This situation can’t be compared to either the Warsaw Ghetto or Auschwitz.
Your obnoxious demand that I provide some arbitrary number which you claim is the exact number of dead Palestinians required to determine a genocide is proof once and for all of your insanity, ignorance and pathetic intellectual underdevelopment. You once claimed to know the number so why keep it a secret. I suspect there is no number.The particular content of your ad hominem attacks increasingly reveals the nature of your mental problems, emotional instability, insecurities and cognitive deficit.
Cabby,
“You are an obnoxious, vulgar, ignorant, low cognitive little piggy but I will try to answer you incessant, stupid, dogmatic whining anyhow.”
says the idiot who has had every single one of his arguments and sources destroyed
“But just so that we’re clear in national legal systems as in international law, a given party is not guilty by popular opinion or determinations by experts but by the findings of legally authorized jurists or their equivalent after legitimate due process.”
yes; your argument is the blockade isn’t illegal until it has been weighed and considered by a judge and jury. i’m here to tell you that is fucking stupid and you are fucking stupid for saying it because it means literally everything is legal until it has been subjected to due process, including rape. stop saying this dumb thing.
“This hasn’t occurred in the case of the Gaza blockade unlike the ICC’s determination that Omar al- Bashir of the Sudan is a war criminal and is guilty of crimes against humanity which is a subject on which you have doubtless remained silent.”
this isn’t about Bashir this is about Israel, don’t change the subject
“In the case of Rwanda, another real genocide”
lol why is this a real genocide
“Now look who’s contradicting himself!! First you say that Israel provoked the existential threat through their own actions, then you deny that such a threat even exists. You can’t have it both ways”
if you didn’t have the reading comprehension of a drooling retard you would have noticed that the first time I mentioned existential threat I put it in quotes, indicating sarcasm. so no, I never suggested that Israel is facing an existential threat, once again you embarrass yourself with your stupidity
“By the way, Hamas only targets civilians.”
haha this is total bullshit, I can’t wait for you to substantiate this with a source so I can embarrass you again
“And while we’re on the topic of Iran, I do believe they are a threat. I don’t believe they should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons because they would use them.”
tehehehehe what makes you think they have nukes and why do you think they would use them hehehe I can’t wait for your reply
“This is the real difference between Israel and Iran. “
no the real difference is Israel is a marauding vandal state and Iran has every right to be terrified of them
“On the issue of the credibility of Jean-Louis Bruguière, his credibility is not damaged by the fact that he has been cited by some whose opinions and expertise you don’t respect. This is not a reflection on Bruguiere himself nor is it something over which he exercises any control.”
the fact remains that Kohlmann didn’t bother to mention the cross exam in the trial that testimony was for, plus as I proved before none of Kohlmann’s work has been peer reviewed so I have no reason to trust anything found in anything he’s written. regardless, Bruguiere still didn’t say anything substantive or provide evidence for any of his assertions which is why Israel had to take that shit about the IHH down off their website sorry bro
“I would also like you to provide proof of your debunking of the credibility of certain cited experts by providing links as I have done to make my points. You repeatedly fail to do this.”
once again every time I destroyed one of your sources I posted the link where I got the info from, put your thinking cap on, click the back button on your browser and R E A D
“Also, the Gaza/Auschwitz comparison is ludicrous.”
ipse dixit
“Gaza is often more aptly compared to the Warsaw Ghetto, not Auschwitz which was a notorious extermination camp.”
cool so you agree Israel is acting like the Nazis
“Deaths have occurred in the process of war, not a deliberate genocide.”
COPY/PASTE INCOMING:
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
“I have denounced this many times as have others.”
denounced is not the same as disprove! you would know this if you weren’t profoundly retarded
“The Palestinians aren’t slated for extermination or even mass expulsion.”
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
Also they were subject to mass expulsion back in 1948 and 1967, and a few times in the 80’s 90’s and 2000’s.
“Israel has tried repeatedly to relinquish control of the Gaza Strip but experienced security threats in the form of rocket attacks and suicide bombings. This situation can’t be compared to either the Warsaw Ghetto or Auschwitz.”
“gosh, we’ve tried so many times to relinquish control of the Gaza strip but that darn Hamas keeps doing things like demanding we turn over our illegal settlements as a condition of peace (which by the way the entire rest of the world supports except for the U.S.) and demanding we lift our illegal blockade! also we can’t seem to honor a cease fire for the life of us!” - Israel. also lol for singling Hamas out for targeting civilians without even a little bit of irony, lol at your intellectual dishonesty
also ipse dixit on the Warsaw/Auschwitz thing
also I never said Hamas was some kind of saint in this conflict, the only thing I do when I talk about Hamas is correct the lies you and kenster have repeatedly told about them in an attempt to demonize them and make them look like the aggressor, it’s low, it’s filthy and you and he should be ashamed of yourselves
“Your obnoxious demand that I provide some arbitrary number which you claim is the exact number of dead Palestinians required to determine a genocide is proof once and for all of your insanity, ignorance and pathetic intellectual underdevelopment. You once claimed to know the number so why keep it a secret. I suspect there is no number.The particular content of your ad hominem attacks increasingly reveals the nature of your mental problems, emotional instability, insecurities and cognitive deficit. “
this post right here is a great example of your idiocy; I never claimed to know a number of dead necessary to call something a genocide. it is you who constantly asserts that the Palestinian genocide is not a “real” genocide, yet you haven’t provided a definition of genocide which you use to substantiate that claim. you can’t be working from the UN definition because I have repeatedly proved that the Israeli atrocities fit the UN definition. look I can do it again:
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
i’ll note that the last time you addressed this you basically posted a wordy “NU-UH!” and I told you that if you did it again I would just copy/paste. your next assignment is to either disprove the above paragraph (note that you won’t be able to do this) or provide your own definition of genocide that I can expose as stupid. you got some work to do junior!
actually feel free not to pursue the Iran thing any further, I have this debate weekly and it’s getting quite tiresome
I’ll also note that the only part of my initial argument against Bruguiere’s testimony that you actually addressed was the part about how it was in Kohlmann’s paper, you flatly ignored the rest of it, bravo nice intellectual dishonesty once again
Muriello - the hits keep coming, huh?
“By the way, Hamas only targets civilians.”
haha this is total bullshit, I can’t wait for you to substantiate this with a source so I can embarrass you again
Well, maybe 90% civilians?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks
Wow, sure are a lot of buses and restaurants filled wtih Israeli men, women and child civilians with Hamas in the box to the right taking responsibility.
Muriello, how does it feel to defend terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah? You try (emphasis on the word “try” - your lunatic ravings have gone beyond the pale, and your non-replies now are hilarious - ipse dixit? Wow, that takes a lot of effort, doesn’t it? - and with each post you devolve further, with more epithets, more anger, less coherence - you’re like a computer program or a radioactive isotope in the predictability of the decay of your online sanity - you’re the atomic clock of becoming unhinged) to crucify Cabbie and me because we dare defend the Israelis but you conveniently leave out the heinous acts of Hamas and the fact that they actively target civilians for their attacks.
Both Cabby and I have admitted when we agree with some of your arguments, but like many in the Hamas / Hezbollah booster club, there’s no room for nuance on your side, is there? It’s all Israeli evil, all the time. Pay no attention to those Hamas suicide bomber nails in those dead children. Move along - look at those Palestinians being denied concrete, don’t look at that Israeli mother with no arms in the Sbarro’s!
kenster42,
nowhere in the wiki article did it say “90% of Hamas’ targets are civilians’ you shit-for-brains, just like Cabby all you do to substantiate claims is find something that looks like it supports your argument and post it without caring whether or not it actually supports your argument. both of you are a disgrace.
“Muriello, how does it feel to defend terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah?”
feels pretty good since I say nothing but true things about Hamas (I haven’t mentioned Hezbollah at all, why are you bringing them up? oh, because you are a nitwit). note that I don’t defend Hamas, I only refute the lies people tell about them in order to demonize them and make Israel look like the good guy in a conflict where they clearly are not. and lol Israel is a bigger terrorist than either Hamas or Hezbollah, Israel kills way more civilians yearly
also I only appear to be getting less coherent (what do you even mean by this?) because I find myself having to make the same argument over and over without getting a substantial rebuttal in return, you can see this in my last post where I literally copy/paste a paragraph from an earlier post 3 times because in all 3 cases it constitutes a substantive reply to what Cabby is saying. it’s beyond irritating to have to read your wordy pseudo-intellectual posts and find that all you’ve really said in response to some point I’ve made is “NU-UH!”
“Both Cabby and I have admitted when we agree with some of your arguments, but like many in the Hamas / Hezbollah booster club, there’s no room for nuance on your side, is there? It’s all Israeli evil, all the time. Pay no attention to those Hamas suicide bomber nails in those dead children. Move along - look at those Palestinians being denied concrete, don’t look at that Israeli mother with no arms in the Sbarro’s!”
Hamas has said they would agree to a two-state solution; Israel rejects it without fail every time the issue comes up in the UN. There’s your fucking nuance.
It’s pretty obvious that Hamas kills mostly Israeli civilians. They kill very few soldiers and almost never attack military targets unless you consider checkpoints military targets which they also seldom attack. Hamas much prefers urban civilian targets, city buses, cafes, public buildings, open air markets, places like that. Hope you’re proud of ‘em Muriello.
”...the only thing I do when I talk about Hamas is correct the lies you and kenster have repeatedly told about them in an attempt to demonize them and make them look like the aggressor, it’s low, it’s filthy and you and he should be ashamed of yourselves.”
Sure, Muriello. We’re both really ashamed of our unfair, low down and dirty attitudes toward Hamas’ brutal targeting of Israeli civilians, including children. Criticizing such actions and the groups that commit them is a sure sign of moral turpitude and a lack of civility. Every moron that can read a news story or watch CNN knows Hamas’ modus operandi. I don’t think it bears repeating.
“In the case of Rwanda, another real genocide”
lol why is this a real genocide
Let’s see, Over 800,000 Rwandans dead in a few months vs. less that 6,000 dead Palestinians (and over 1,000 Israelis) killed since late 2000. Doesn’t take a Ph.D in international juris prudence to figure out which is more aptly called a genocide. The UN and the ICC sure figured it out. By the way, I don’t believe that the Goldstone Report actually mentions the word “genocide” much less does it accuse Israel of committing one. This brings me to the most obnoxious aspect of your dogmatic, silly gotcha style of argument. The key and most operative phrase in the UN definition of genocide which is contained in the international genocide convention is “with an intent to destroy…” This doesn’t mean an intent to destroy one or several or even a thousand persons (a point which still remains controversial with regard to Cast Lead; even Goldstone never accused Israel of deliberately killing all the civilians that were killed) but all or most of the targeted group. The term destroy is used in the sense of deliberately killing enough people and destroying enough of the society’s cultural and physical infrastructure so as to make it unrecognizable as the kind of society it was before, irreparably damaged and physically unsustainable without massive reconstruction. If this sounds like Gaza to you then your hallucinating.
When the definition was agreed upon, it was assumed that genocide meant significantly large numbers of people murdered as a share of total population. Obviously, no quantitative specificity is possible. But certainly less that 1/10th of 1% of a population is too small to be considered a genocide regardless of the circumstances of the deaths. In the 1948 War, a full one percent of the Jewish population was killed. Did this count as a genocide as well. Certainly, there was a clear “intent to destroy” on the part of the Arab invaders, and believe me, had they succeeded in destroying Israel, they’d have killed as many Jewish civilians as possible. I have no doubt of this because the Palestinian rioters killed nearly 700 unarmed, defenseless Jews during the British Mandate period.
Your assertion that Hamas has accepted a two-state solution is laughable. Perhaps you’ve confused them with Fatah. Hamas has never made such a statement or even implied it. In fact, they continue to call for the complete destruction of Israel through armed violence and its replacement with a Islamic theocracy in all of Palestine. Most Palestinians are comparatively secular so it stands to reason why Hamas is losing popularity by the day. Most Israelis support a two-state solution but Hamas violence has popularized the Israeli far right which has done their part to destroy the peace process. It is clear that this was the intention of both Hamas and their Iranian paymasters.
Cabby has made the crucial link, Muriello.
MOST ISRAELIS SUPPORT A TWO-STATE SOLUTION BUT HAMAS VIOLENCE HAS POPULARIZED THE ISRAELI FAR RIGHT WHICH HAS DONE THEIR PART TO DESTROY THE PEACE PROCESS.
Truer words were never spoken, Muriello. You expect saint-like behavior from Israel, but seem to give Hamas a complete pass, I guess because Hamas is in the underdog position? Sorry, that doesn’t work.
One key fact that drives Israel’s attitude toward Palestine - the Gaza Strip border is 44 miles from Tel Aviv. The West Bank border is 37 miles from Tel Aviv. It’s difficult for me to get too upset about the Palestinians when they vote in an entity that vows to destroy Israel through armed violence and, in November 2009, successfully test fired a rocket that has a 40 mile range. Hmm, a 40 mile range. Why would that be?
Israel is not stupid. If Palestinians, who have shown in both Intifatahs that they have no problem firing rockets at whoever they can hit in Israel (hint, hint - it’s not military folks) and now show they can fire rockets that can reach the most populous city in Israel.
Yeah, the Israelis ain’t gonna let that happen.
Cabby,
“It’s pretty obvious that Hamas kills mostly Israeli civilians.”
maybe, but this is a clear backpedal from your earlier position that Hamas targets “only” civilians.
“Hope you’re proud of ‘em Muriello. “
when have I ever said this, or engaged in apologetics for the atrocities they commit? the answer is never, unlike you and kenster with regard to Israel’s atrocities
“Sure, Muriello. We’re both really ashamed of our unfair, low down and dirty attitudes toward Hamas’ brutal targeting of Israeli civilians, including children.”
my problem with you is that you slam Hamas for targeting civilians at every turn, yet you engage in apologetics for Israel who has killed about four or five times more civilians than Hamas. you trip over yourself trying to explain how Israel’s right to defend itself allows it to legally commit war crimes, yet don’t give Hamas the same pass. also, both you and kenster have repeatedly tried to depict Hamas as some brutal oppressive regime when in reality they were elected precisely because they, unlike Fatah, provided social services to Palestinians and weren’t laughably corrupt. yes, criticize Hamas for targeting civilians, it is inexcusable; but do NOT try to ignore the fact that Israel does the exact same thing and is much more effective at it, and do NOT blatantly LIE about them to try to make Israel look better in comparison. it’s disgusting, and you’re disgusting for doing it.
“This brings me to the most obnoxious aspect of your dogmatic, silly gotcha style of argument. The key and most operative phrase in the UN definition of genocide which is contained in the international genocide convention is “with an intent to destroy…” This doesn’t mean an intent to destroy one or several or even a thousand persons (a point which still remains controversial with regard to Cast Lead; even Goldstone never accused Israel of deliberately killing all the civilians that were killed) but all or most of the targeted group.”
”...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:”
“intent to destroy, in whole or in part”
“in whole or in part”
note that the definition doesn’t specify how big a part has to be destroyed to constitute genocide, and for a good reason. you probably aren’t smart enough to realize what this reason is, sorry about your dumb brain
“The term destroy is used in the sense of deliberately killing enough people and destroying enough of the society’s cultural and physical infrastructure so as to make it unrecognizable as the kind of society it was before, irreparably damaged and physically unsustainable without massive reconstruction. If this sounds like Gaza to you then your hallucinating.”
there is no such language in the definition, this is just your idiotic misinterpretation sorry again
“When the definition was agreed upon, it was assumed that genocide meant significantly large numbers of people murdered as a share of total population.”
gosh if that’s what they agreed upon maybe they should have included it in the definition! how careless of them to leave that out! actually that was never agreed upon it’s just you once again idiotically misinterpreting a very plainly stated definition OOPSIE
“But certainly less that 1/10th of 1% of a population is too small to be considered a genocide regardless of the circumstances of the deaths.”
maybe you could answer the fucking question I’ve asked your stupid ass three times now and give me a percentage of population that must be killed in order to call something a genocide. i’m waiting, shitlord.
“Your assertion that Hamas has accepted a two-state solution is laughable.”
Hamas accepts a two-state solution. When asked by Newsweek-Washington Post correspondent Lally Weymouth on 26 February 2006 what agreements Hamas was prepared to honor, the new Hamas Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh answered, “the ones that will guarantee the establishment of a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital with 1967 borders.” Weymouth went on, “Will you recognize Israel?” to which Haniyeh responded, “If Israel declares that it will give the Palestinian people a state and give them back all their rights then we are ready to recognize them.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein06122006.html
you’ll find that their position hasn’t changed one iota in the last 4 years. you are the one that is laughable, stop your incessant lying you piece of shit.
kenster42,
“MOST ISRAELIS SUPPORT A TWO-STATE SOLUTION BUT HAMAS VIOLENCE HAS POPULARIZED THE ISRAELI FAR RIGHT WHICH HAS DONE THEIR PART TO DESTROY THE PEACE PROCESS.”
lol
“but seem to give Hamas a complete pass”
if by “give Hamas a complete pass” you mean “call you and Cabby out when you lie about them”, then yes, I give them a complete pass
“One key fact that drives Israel’s attitude toward Palestine is BLAH BLAH BLAH I’M A DROOLING RETARD”
yes; therefore, Israel is well within its rights to murder Palestinian civilians. wait no, you’re a monster.
“Israel is not stupid.”
ummmm
“If Palestinians, who have shown in both Intifatahs that they have no problem firing rockets at whoever they can hit in Israel (hint, hint - it’s not military folks) and now show they can fire rockets that can reach the most populous city in Israel.
Yeah, the Israelis ain’t gonna let that happen.”
yes; therefore, Israel is well within its rights to murder Palestinian civilians. wait no, you’re a monster.
Muriello,
I told no lies about Hamas. Everything I said was true. They’re terrorists, they target and mostly kill civilians, frequently women and children and they don’t currently support a two-state solution no matter what you claim they said four years ago. They call for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews not only in Israel but anywhere in the world. If they weren’t on record as saying these things no one would accuse them of it. As they say, you can’t make this stuff up!
I’m frankly unimpressed with Hamas’ supposed “humanitarian work.” Even Al Capone brought groceries to poor Italian families on the west side of Chicago during the Depression. Did this exonerate him from his criminal activities? Does being a Patrone make you altruistic? Though different, the two cases bear many similarities. Both Capone and Hamas are ruthless and exercise patronage for advantage having ulterior motives.
The UN Genocide Convention never intended the definition of genocide to have only qualitative and not quantitative criteria. Indeed, it is conceivable, though not likely, that one could satisfy all the qualitative criteria for genocide without inflicting death at all. This would be a strange genocide indeed. You seem to think that because no quantitative limits were set they are irrelevant.
Indeed, the operative phrase in the definition, “with an intent to destroy,” does not mean with an intent to destroy a few people or less than one tenth of one percent, even if they were killed deliberately or at least with incredibly careless disregard for their lives. It means a clear intent to destroy the entire group which generally results in wiping out a significant share of the population so that they cannot regain their former numbers to any meaningful extent. This has clearly not happened. Israel has no desire to destroy the Palestinians in genocidal fashion nor has Israel demonstrated any such desire. Clearly, those who drafted the genocide convention would be appalled at your dogmatic gotchaism and petty punctilious bickering. You obviously missed the point of the Genocide Declaration. The drafters of the Declaration assumed mass physical destruction of human beings and gave qualitative criteria only so as to distinguish mass death from war from mass death due to a deliberate intent to murder a group per se.
Cabby,
“I told no lies about Hamas.”
Off the top of my head, here are some lies you have told about Hamas so far:
1. Hamas broke the cease-fire which led to Cast Lead
2. Hamas uses all or even most of its budget for military purposes
3. Hamas would not agree to a two-state solution
4. Hamas would not recognize Israel’s right to exist
5. Hamas instigated the violence that led to them ousting Fatah from Gaza and being ousted from the West Bank
“I’m frankly unimpressed with Hamas’ supposed “humanitarian work.”
that’s because you are an Israel apologist and cannot reconcile your worldview with a Hamas that isn’t totally and completely evil.
“The UN Genocide Convention never intended the definition of genocide to have only qualitative and not quantitative criteria.”
prove it
“Indeed, it is conceivable, though not likely, that one could satisfy all the qualitative criteria for genocide without inflicting death at all.”
no it isn’t you fucking idiot, the first criteria is literally “Killing members of the group.”
“You seem to think that because no quantitative limits were set they are irrelevant.”
no, I think quantitative criteria are morally irrelevant because they are morally irrelevant
“Indeed, the operative phrase in the definition, “with an intent to destroy,” does not mean with an intent to destroy a few people or less than one tenth of one percent, even if they were killed deliberately or at least with incredibly careless disregard for their lives.”
PROVE IT
“It means a clear intent to destroy the entire group which generally results in wiping out a significant share of the population so that they cannot regain their former numbers to any meaningful extent.”
COPY/PASTE INCOMING:
”...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:”
“intent to destroy, in whole or in part”
“in whole or in part”
“This has clearly not happened. Israel has no desire to destroy the Palestinians in genocidal fashion nor has Israel demonstrated any such desire.”
COPY/PASTE INCOMING:
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
“The drafters of the Declaration assumed mass physical destruction of human beings and gave qualitative criteria only so as to distinguish mass death from war from mass death due to a deliberate intent to murder a group per se. “
no you fucking moron, they assumed the destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. note that physical harm, although useful, is not necessary in bringing the destruction of any of these groups.
also I’m waiting for an answer to the question I asked you, coward; what percentage of Palestinians have to die before I can call it a genocide?
In the first place, all those five things you said were lies are truths about Hamas. They don’t recognize Israel; they openly call for Israel’s destruction; they target civilians and spend at least a large share of their resources on military operations (no one knows for sure how much they have or how they apportion their resources since Hamas has no equivalent of a CBO or an OMB or a GAO that publishes accurate data on these matters). Hamas broke the ceasefire by tunneling into Israel from the northern end of the Gaza Strip. This is beyond dispute. Certainly, the Israelis were not going to wait on the other side of the border for them to poke their heads up and say we’re baaaaaack!!
The most ridiculous thing you assert is that Fatah started the trouble in June 2007 when clearly Hamas violently seized power. Hamas won an election to the PLC in January 2006. They got 55% of the vote and won 76 seats in the 132 member Council. I’ve already posted links on this thread to a British Parliamentary website attesting to this information. It is one of the best reports on the 2006 election and the immediate political consequences. It includes much Palestinian scholarship as well.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-017.pdf
Clearly Hamas violently took power in Gaza and expelled Fatah. Stop spreading Hamas lies.
The actually number of Palestinians dead is not relevant. Clearly, it is not necessary to establish such a number because quantitative specificity for the purposes of defining genocide is impossible and unnecessary. The point is that it is clear from the very low numbers of dead and even lower numbers of deliberately targeted dead, that there is no clear intent to destroy the Palestinians in whole or in part. This is beyond dispute. And though it is impossible to quantify genocidal killing with a specific ratio, genocide obviously does imply a significant number of people killed. Given this fact, I found it amazing that you consider Gaza to be a genocide but not Darfur or Rwanda; two instances in which leaders have been indicted and convicted of crimes against humanity by the ICC. Those were real genocides. The genocide definition doesn’t fit the Gazan case.
Muriello,
Just published today, my friend:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/opinion/04kristof.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
“Visiting Gaza persuaded me, to my surprise, that Israel is correct when it denies that there is any full-fledged humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The tunnels have so undermined the Israeli blockade that shops are filled and daily life is considerably easier than when I last visited here two years ago.”
ISRAEL IS CORRECT WHEN IT DENIES THAT THERE IS ANY FULL-FLEDGED HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN GAZA.
Muriello,
Also for you and in defense of Cabby, who took this position:
“Sari Bashi, the executive director of Gisha, an Israeli human rights organization that monitors Gaza, says that the siege has probably strengthened Hamas. Partly that’s because Hamas taxes goods smuggled in tunnels and partly because it has become a more important source of jobs and welfare with the collapse of private businesses.”
HAMAS MAKES MONEY BY SMUGGLING.
Cabby,
“they openly call for Israel’s destruction;”
COPY/PASTE INCOMING:
Hamas accepts a two-state solution. When asked by Newsweek-Washington Post correspondent Lally Weymouth on 26 February 2006 what agreements Hamas was prepared to honor, the new Hamas Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh answered, “the ones that will guarantee the establishment of a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital with 1967 borders.” Weymouth went on, “Will you recognize Israel?” to which Haniyeh responded, “If Israel declares that it will give the Palestinian people a state and give them back all their rights then we are ready to recognize them.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein06122006.html
“they target civilians”
you said they target “only civilians”, also stop with your fucking strawmen that wasn’t on the list of five
“spend at least a large share of their resources on military operations”
i’ve already addressed this you fucking clown:
Using Israeli estimates, he [Matthew Levitt] reckons Hamas probably has an annual budget of between $70m and $90m, 80 to 85 per cent of which it spends on its political work and its extensive networks of schools, clinics and welfare organisations, while 15 to 20 per cent goes on military operations.
http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2007/05/hamas-palestinian-israel
you think 15 to 20% is a large share lol Israel spends way more on military operations and has the second highest military expenditure per capita, behind, of course, the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures_per_capita
“Hamas broke the ceasefire by tunneling into Israel from the northern end of the Gaza Strip. This is beyond dispute.”
a condition of the cease-fire was that Israel had to lift the blockade, Israel did not lift the blockade, therefore Hamas was under no obligation to stop tunneling, your arguments once again are fucking retarded
“Clearly Hamas violently took power in Gaza and expelled Fatah. Stop spreading Hamas lies.”
lmao I was about to post a huge rebuttal to this but then on a whim I read the paper you linked to support this claim and saw that there is nothing in there about Hamas ousting Fatah, haha you didn’t even read your own link you are a fucking clown stop trying to argue with me you are just embarrassing yourself
also I already posted this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah–Hamas_conflict , wherein you can read that Fatah clearly instigated the violence:
On December 15, 2006, fighting broke out in the West Bank after Palestinian security forces fired on a Hamas rally in Ramallah. At least 20 people were wounded in the clashes which came shortly after Hamas accused Fatah of attempting to assassinate Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian prime minister.[14]
and who was behind this Fatah-instigated violence? welp:
With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, the author reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.
lol
“The point is that it is clear from the very low numbers of dead and even lower numbers of deliberately targeted dead, that there is no clear intent to destroy the Palestinians in whole or in part. This is beyond dispute.”
COPY/PASTE INCOMING:
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
fyi you need to prove things are what you say they are, simply saying “MY STUPID OPINION is beyond dispute” doesn’t make your stupid opinion beyond dispute
“And though it is impossible to quantify genocidal killing with a specific ratio, genocide obviously does imply a significant number of people killed.”
please point out where the definition confirms this assertion (note that you will not be able to do this because the definition does not, in fact, confirm your assertion, also because you are a drooling idiot)
“Given this fact, I found it amazing that you consider Gaza to be a genocide but not Darfur or Rwanda”
i never said this you idiot, I simply asked why you considered Darfur and Rwanda to be a real genocide, once again you prove that either your reading comprehension is shit or you have no problem with lying in order to win an argument
“The genocide definition doesn’t fit the Gazan case.”
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
i will continue to copy/paste this until you substantively reply to it
I mean haha seriously even that paper you linked to try to prove Hamas is a boogeyman paints Hamas as a fairly reasonable government entity and eminently preferable to the corrupt and incompetent Fatah, to anyone who cares about the well being of the Palestinians at least. fuck you are dumb as shit and it is so much fun making you look stupid over and over
kenster42,
“ISRAEL IS CORRECT WHEN IT DENIES THAT THERE IS ANY FULL-FLEDGED HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN GAZA. “
haha saying dumb things in all caps just makes you look dumber. one NY times op-ed does not refute years of studies conducted by human rights organizations that actually know what the fuck they are talking about
“HAMAS MAKES MONEY BY SMUGGLING.”
lol you think this is a substantive point, of course they make money by smuggling, 80-85% of which is, by Israel’s own reckoning, used for social services. also, why do they have to smuggle? A-BUH-BUH-BUH maybe because there is an illegal fucking blockade in effect that is, by the author of that article’s own admission, choking off legitimate businesses and making the Hamas tunnel smuggling necessary?????
lol keep up your intellectual flailing you mental midget, it is so darn cute!
Cabby no matter how many times you argue that a large ratio of people must be killed to constitute genocide you will never find such a stipulation in the definition, ad nauseam has not and will never be a valid method of argumentation, sorry that you have shit for brains
REMINDER: Cabby and kenster both lied about Hamas not being willing to accept a two state solution or recognize Israel lol
Muriello,
You’re one feisty little moron aren’t you? The operative definition of genocide is the murder of a people. It’s in the very root of the word. Those who made a qualitative definition of genocide assumed that large numbers of people killed is a prerequisite for the definition to hold. Even intentionally killing a few people doesn’t qualify as an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the group. Secondly, you should understand that when you ask things like “what makes you think Rwanda was a real genocide?” it will reasonably taken as you questioning the assertion that this was actually a real genocide. The fact that you seem to fail to get this shows you are either mentally ill or just fuckin’ stupid. I’m going with the latter.
Cabby,
“Even intentionally killing a few people doesn’t qualify as an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the group.”
actually it quite literally does qualify, and this is exactly what I meant when I said your conception of genocide is contextualized in the Holocaust. you ignore the literal definition in favor of some nebulous undefined criteria of “duuuuuuurrrrrrr a lot of people have to die!” without bothering to define what constitutes “a lot” of people, which makes YOUR definition of genocide totally arbitrary. either quantify “a lot” or concede the fucking argument. in fact just concede, even if you try to quantify it I’m going to run your stupid ass argument all the way down the slippery slope into moral irrelevance.
also:
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
“Secondly, you should understand that when you ask things like “what makes you think Rwanda was a real genocide?” it will reasonably taken as you questioning the assertion that this was actually a real genocide.”
except that the context of the question was you denying that the Palestinian genocide is actually a genocide so no, fuck you, it was not a reasonable interpretation that I was denying that Rwanda was a genocide, the problem once again is your intellectual dishonesty/stupidity
at least you avoided lying this time, that’s improvement!
and haha this:
“You’re one feisty little moron aren’t you?”
you literally linked a paper in support of your claim that Hamas violently took power that didn’t contain any info about the Hamas-Fatah fighting and instead portrays Hamas as a former extremist group changing its policies in order to cope with its newfound legitimacy, making it look quite reasonable in the process, yet I’M the moron
haha I mean fuck you would be better off linking some raving pro-Israel source that, despite the bias, would at least back up your claim (although it would just end up a repeat of the thorough beating I gave you the last time you tried to link a bunch of sources) . this is actually a common problem for Israel apologists; unbiased sources that support their arguments are nearly non-existent
hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
another pair of blithering israel apologists are sent packing by a combination of critical thinking and withering public humiliation, my work here is done
Muriello,
You never proved anything. Everyone knows that Hamas attacked Fatah in the summer of 2007. Lying won’t change history.
Also, you never use common sense. Genocide means “with an intent to destroy in whole or in part.” That is the UN definition. Israel never acted in a way to destroy the Palestinian people and everyone knows it. You are quite a fool.
Cabby,
Everyone knows that Hamas attacked Fatah in the summer of 2007.
my only objection to this sentence is “attacked” should be changed to “defended themselves from”, an objection supported by Rose’s Vanity Fair article
Also, you never use common sense. Genocide means “with an intent to destroy in whole or in part.” That is the UN definition. Israel never acted in a way to destroy the Palestinian people and everyone knows it. You are quite a fool.
As I have said countless times, the Goldstone report found that civilian sites were intentionally targeted during Operation Cast Lead. Not only does targeting civilian sites inevitably lead to civilians being harmed by military actions (as clearly evidenced by the over 1,000 civilians killed during Cast Lead), but it destroys the infrastructure of Gazan society (as illustrated by the meat and egg shortages after this chicken farms were intentionally destroyed). So it seems plain that if you count only Cast Lead alone you have satisfied criteria (a), (b), and (c). Even if you argue that Israel never explicitly stated its intention was to destroy Palestinians with violence (which is nonsense as I have demonstrated twice now with my Holocaust analogy), the explicitly stated purpose of the blockade was to erode Gazan society, which satisfies criteria (c). I have provided cases of (d) occurring in pregnant Palestinian women miscarrying because they were not allowed past IDF checkpoints.
Also, common sense is often cited by simpering know-nothings to support their counter-factual claims you stupid piece of shit. Moreover, a common sense approach to the question “is Israel committing genocide” yields an answer of “yes” when adhering to the actual definition of genocide and not some arbitrary Holocaust-inspired conception that has little to do with actual morality.
feel free to embarrass yourself further by replying to this
Fatah was attacked by Hamas. Yes, there had been violent clashes between Hamas and Fatah, but a violent coup against a recognized government is not a form a self defense. It is an act of aggression and an abrogation of the democratic process since Abbas was elected president and Hamas only was elected to 55% of the seats in the PLC. Most Palestinians now hate Hamas and had by the time they took over Gaza in June 2007. Here is from the militant Sabbah Report website;
”...the Palestinians say “Hamas, Dahlan, and the PA should go to hell, all of them should disappear from Palestine”. The International community should stand up to its responsibility toward the Palestinians according to the International laws, and not according to the Israelis demands.”
Here is the solution they demand to end the partisan fighting;
“The Palestinians are seeking that International Military Forces be stationed in Gaza and the West Bank, replacing the corrupt PA, Hamas militants and the Israeli occupation.”
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2007/06/15/abbas-hamas-dahlan-and-the-pa-should-go-to-hell/
The Goldstone Report did determine that the IDF targeted civilian sites. But the Report never said this amounted to genocide nor did they ever even use that term. Assuming that the IDF’s real intention was to actually kill civilians, which they deny saying they only fired in the direction of whereever they received gunfire or mortar fire, a genocide could not be said to have taken place. Genocide has a quantitative not just a qualitative aspect. The term “with intent to destroy” used in the UN Genocide Convention definition obviously assumes a certain level of destruction. An exact number cannot be specified but it must be sufficient so as to be undeniably clear that those committing the genocide had an obvious intent to destroy all or most of the target group. The reason that no one with any sense believes that the IDF intended to destroy civilians in the way that the Janjeweed intended to kill civilians in Darfur, is because of the low number of casualties and by comparison and also by what the IDF soldiers reported to the Goldstone investigation. None of them ever said that their actual mission was purposely to kill civilians. This is absurd. I read parts of the Report (the abridged version is nearly 600 pages long) and what the soldiers said was that they should shoot any time they feel threatened and not be concerned about civilian life if they themselves are in danger or receiving fire. This is probably a violation of the rules of engagement and not civilized behavior by any means but it is nothing like a genocide. The comparatively low level of casualties relative to those from real genocides, such as those occurring in Africa in recent times, bears this out.
I don’t really understand what you mean by a “holocaust inspired” definition of genocide but you seem to imply that such a definition would thereby be unacceptable. Muriello, you have shown yourself to be nothing but common anti-semite with ignorant, fanatical views and mindlessly dogmatic. You are nothing more than a pathetic shill for Hamas; a gang of terrorist murderers who don’t deserve poltical recognition and as such don’t have it from such respectible powers as The US, Canada, the EU, Japan and any other civilized nation. If you want to ally yourself with scum like Hamas it’s your business. But don’t expect anyone to take you seriously or respect your obnoxious views.
Israel is a state, Palistine is an area not a state. There are no Palastinians they are Arabs. They dont have a right to anything unless its in Egypt. Israel as far as I know does not attack people who leave her alone. Hamas and the PLO has sworn the destruction of Israel. The PLO and Hamas shoot rockets into israel so what do you expect Israel to do? When ever there is fighting some western power or whoever goes to the middle east the sues for peace. Israel complys and the PLO or Hamas breaks the peace. Over and Over again. Israel backs off and lest things cool down. All Hamas does is use the time to gather more weapons. So wouldnt you try to stop rockets guns and ammunition from intering the area? its not hard to figure out. Leave Israel alone and there will be peace….....oh yeah thats not what Hamas and the PLO want and the news media carefully ignores that. The news media has its agenda also just like Hamas and PLO.
Now you have Iran swearing the destruction of Israel so what do you think is going to happen? Do you think Israel will just sit there and wait for the rockets? Do you think Iran and Hamas are just sitting around watching the goats grow?. The closer Iran gets to having a bomb you will see Israel defend herself. Like stopping ships on the high seas. Looking for weapons. Israel is not the problem…....
Americans love “pseudo legalistic jargon” to justify their commiting or approving of despicable actions against human beings all over the world. They have looked the other way while Latin American armies (trained by the CIA) overthrew perfectly legally elected governments, and have been supporting Israel’s foul practices against Palestinians as if they were merely naughty kids’ activities.
They have lost our respect and we can’t trus their good judgement any longer.
For those who were truly waiting for the “facts to fall where they may, regardless of the consequences,” here is a press release from the UNHRC, which includes a link to its 56-page report on the Gaza Flotilla attack. Among its findings:
“The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence.”
“It betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality. Such conduct cannot be justified or condoned on security or any other grounds. It constituted grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law.”
The three-member mission said there is clear evidence to support prosecutions of crimes such as wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, and wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.
The full link is here:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=36086&Cr=flotilla&Cr1;=
Expect the usual Zionist apologetics to follow. Like their treatment of the Goldstone Report, note carefully that most if not all of the apologetics will involve ad hominem abuse, as opposed to any substantive engagement of the actual contents of the report.
Cabby,
This is probably a wasted effort as you have proven time and time again that you have little to no capacity for reading and comprehending words but here goes:
1. The Sabbah Report is a blog. You cannot use a fucking blog as some kind of authoritative source. If you really need me to explain why this is you are stupid.
2. There is no quantitative criteria in the UN definition of genocide. None. Zero. It is not in there. You are only saying that because you feel that it is silly to call the deaths of maybe a few hundred a genocide; this is because your conception of genocide, how you learned about genocide, is rooted in learning about the holocaust. If you can find a quantitative criteria in the definition feel free to cite it and I will concede the point.
3. You’ve accused me of being an antisemite before; please quote me saying something, anything, antisemitic. You will not be able to do this because I have not said anything antisemitic, this is merely another ad hominem you are trying to use to deflect attention away from the fact that you are an imbecile with horrible opinions about the world.
“The report of the fact-finding mission of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla released last week shows conclusively, for the first time, that US citizen Furkan Dogan and five Turkish citizens were murdered execution-style by Israeli commandos.
The report reveals that Dogan, the 19-year-old US citizen of Turkish descent, was filming with a small video camera on the top deck of the Mavi Marmara when he was shot twice in the head, once in the back and in the left leg and foot and that he was shot in the face at point blank range while lying on the ground…
Another passenger whom forensic evidence shows was killed execution-style, according to the OHCHR report, is Ibrahim Bilgen, a 60-year-old Turkish citizen. Bilgen is believed by forensics experts to have been shot initially from the helicopter above the Mavi Marmara and then shot in the side of the head while lying seriously wounded…
The report notes that the Israeli military never communicated a request by radio to inspect the cargo on board any of the ships, apparently contradicting the official justification given by the Israeli government for the military attack on the Mavi Marmara and other ships of preventing any military contraband from reaching Gaza…
The report confirms that, from the beginning of the operation, passengers were fired on by helicopters flying above the Mavi Marmara to drop commandos on the deck…
Contrary to Israeli claims that one or more Israeli troops were wounded by firearms, the report says no medical evidence of a gunshot wound to an Israeli soldier was found…”
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/un-factfinding-mission-sa_n_743873.html
For all those posters above, who claimed to be “waiting for the facts” (and even those who initially bought into and advocated Israeli claims now exposed as false) it should now be beyond doubt that international criminal prosecution and coordinated BDS efforts are the only meaningful ways to reign in such Israeli beastiality.
It should be noted that supporting accountability for Israeli misdeeds will actually make Israel safer in the long run, and that blindly/reflexively providing cover for such atrocities, as history has shown, will only encourage future misbehavior.
The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide specifically states in article 2, “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such…” Clearly the killing of less than one tenth of one percent of the Gazan population cannot be construed as the Israeli government or the IDF as having a policy of destroying the Palestinian People “in whole or in part.” By this definition, any deliberate murder by a government force of members of a group inside or outside its territory would be considered a genocide. But clearly, that is not the case. Genocide involves a clear, systematic ongoing effort to deliberately extinguish a people in whole or in part through the means mentioned in Article 2 of the 1948 Convention. The case of the IDF incursion into Gaza in 2008-09, though brutal and justly condemned, doesn’t fit the definition. Despite The Goldstone Report’s indications that some intentional killing of civilians may have occured randomly during the 2008-90 invasion of Gaza by the IDF, there was obviously no systematic effort to massacre large numbers of civilians deliberately as a matter of policy in an effort to eliminate them. In essence, there was no “intent to destroy, in whole or in part” the people of Gaza. A small number of civilian deaths, no matter how utterly brutal and reprehensible, does not amount to a genocide.
As far as anti-semitism is concerned, the entire tone of your bombasts are hateful and prejudiced as is your obvious support for the terrorist Hamas and their murder of many hundreds of Jewish Civilians. By the way, Hamas only attacks civilians, never IDF troops. Does this mean by your definition that Hamas is conducting a genocide as well. In my opinion, both claims are absurd but you seem to think, in your rigid manner, that such ridiculous hyperbole makes sense.
With regard to our earlier discussion about Zionists demanding that Palestinians recognize Israel’s (whatever that means) “right to exist” (whatever that means), I am glad that someone has finally called them out on this canard.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/10/13-5
“We officially demand that the US administration and the Israeli government provide a map of the borders of the state of Israel which they want us to recognise,” senior Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo told AFP…
“We want to know whether this (Israeli) state includes our lands and houses in the West Bank and east Jerusalem,” Abed Rabbo said, referring to Palestinian lands occupied during the 1967 Six Day War.
“If this map is based on the 1967 borders and provides for the end of the Israeli occupation over all Palestinian lands ... then we recognise Israel by whatever name it applies to itself in accordance with international law,” he said, without elaborating.
“We are awaiting a response from Tel Aviv and Washington,” he added.
When asked about Abed Rabbo’s comments, senior Israeli cabinet minister Silvan Shalom said it was “unacceptable to return to the lines of June 1967.”
“There is a very large consensus in Israel on this point,” Shalom told public radio.
Wow.
While Palestinians have always recognized this “right to exist” demand as nothing more than a cover to engage in further aggression, it is a testament to the power of the Zionist narrative that even the well-intentioned have failed to see the tenuousness of this seemingly rational demand, or the obstacle it poses to achieving a just and lasting peace.
While it has been some time since the last post, the following article by MJ Rosenberg addressing yet another IDF disinformation campaign, this one following the recent murder of Abu Rahmah, is worth reading.
“I first heard that the Israeli authorities had launched a disinformation campaign about Abu Rahmah’s death on Monday, three days after her death (and the worldwide media attention that accompanied it).
“A friend called me to say that, at that very moment, IDF officials were conducting a conference call with right-wing bloggers close to the Netanyahu government and AIPAC to give them ‘hasbara’ (talking points) to use to combat the facts about Abu Rahmah’s death. We both agreed that given the existence of video and eyewitness testimony depicting the killing, it would be impossible to manufacture any sort of a credible rebuttal.
“Nonetheless, on Tuesday, the New York Times reported on the manufactured controversy. Under the headline, ‘Israeli Military Officials Challenge Account of Palestinian Woman’s Death,’ reporter Isabel Kershner directly alluded to the attempted whitewash, although she was cautious about choosing sides between the actual version of events and the one made up by the IDF.
“This, in itself, was a victory for the authorities and their mouthpieces in Israel and the United States who believe that simply planting doubts by flooding the media with fairy tales will ultimately bury the facts. (See this from Commentary, which is a typical, albeit restrained, version of the disinformation spread by the IDF’s blogger brigade).
“Of course, intentional disinformation worked with the Turkish flotilla and even with the 2008-09 Gaza war. In the latter case, the documented fact that the Israelis broke the cease-fire with Hamas in order to initiate a massive war was lost when the Israeli government and AIPAC succeeded in convincing the media and the US government to focus not on who broke a working cease-fire but on Hamas’s violent response to Israel’s attack.”
But things do appear to be changing. Some (like Mr. Robert Mackey mentioned in the article) appear now to be bravely willing to challenge the prevailing narrative in order to seek the truth. Only time will tell how things turn out for both Mr. Mackey and the truth here in the US MSM. Nevertheless,
“The bottom line is that the whitewash failed. Other than in Israel, where the right-wing media is calling the truth about Bil’in ‘a blood libel’ (a weird and anachronistic term which right-wingers mistakenly think has resonance outside of Israel), the truth about the killing of Jawaher Abu Rahmah is now out. She is dead because she was tear-gassed. End of story.
“Except it isn’t. The killing goes on.
For the full article, see:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/
israels-latest-attempt-to_b_805901.html
Posting Security