Gaza's on-going Palestinian civilians Killing

[Chairman Bill]

that's a good solution... granting a citizenship to arab population of gaza and west bank shall actually solve the problem pronto :-).

That's the One State solution. The One State solution effectively existed under the British mandate prior to WW2, but there were Zionists involved in killing Arabs & British troops & police, in an attempt to establish a totalitarian Jewish state. There are different interpretations of how a One State solution might work, but the Israeli take on it is for a Jewish state in which Arabs can live. There are of course many problematic issues for Israeli Arabs, including in issues of education, employment, cultural rights, community funding, and so on. Whilst Jews have a 'right of return', even where they have never lived in Israel, Palestinian refugees have no such right. Even Palestinian spouse of Israelis are barred from entry into the country.

A Two-State solution would properly require the Israelis to give back the Occupied Territories, which would require the removal of illegal Jewish settlements there. There seems to be little interest in doing so, with the Palestinians corralled into two zones - the West Bank & Gaza. And we know how well that's going.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... There are different interpretations of how a One State solution might work, but the Israeli take on it is for a Jewish state in which Arabs can live...

One State solution can never work for Israel, for the same reason it can never be a democratic state: it would be soon overrun by Arabs. Not militarily, mind you, but by the sheer difference in natality.

[Manoli]

I don't want to insult you, Bernard ...

Nor should you.

... but I won't be responding to your misinformation ...

Just for the record:

• You have difficulty in distinguishing the difference between an opinion and a fact.
  
• You cite as facts, versions of events that are blatantly incorrect (as in the case of Lt Goldin) and pepper your version of events with hyperbole.
  
• You cite the WWII bombing of Dresden and the bombing of London as examples of the Allies and Germans ignoring the Geneva convention – ignorant of the fact that (a) the Convention didn't exist at the time and (b) as a justification for ignoring the 'rules' – to suit.
  
• You ignore any reference to what is referred to as 'jus in bello'  (limits to acceptable wartime conduct) , stating unequivocally " If I were in Israel's situation I'd fight, and civilians be damned. "
  
• You claim that ' Israeli attacks are directed at specific military objectives' blithely ignorant of the fact that yesterday was the seventh direct attack on a UN protected refuge – and that today's second Gaza ceasefire collapsed in just six minutes this morning after an Israeli F16 jet destroyed a house in a beach-side refugee camp, killing an 8-year-old girl and wounding dozens more.
  
• You ignore the fact that so far in excess of 1,800 palestinians and 60 Israelis are dead and of the 1,800 – the UN estimates that over 80% are civilians and of that 80 % , 3-in-5 are women and children.
  
• And last but not least, you pepper your arguments with ad hominem attacks, in a futile attempt to disguise your own foot-in-mouth moments.
  

You're missing the point :

[Manoli]

Since then the only people I can think of who've violated the protocol are Hamas and other jihadist fanatics who've randomly attacked Israel's civilian population.

You're conveniently forgetting a few not-so-minor incidents, such as 'Abu Ghraib' and 'My Lai', to name but two.

[Vladimirovich]

That's the One State solution. The One State solution effectively existed under the British mandate prior to WW2

I am sorry - were those people citizens of UK ? no, they were not... One State solution only existed in Russian Empire... unlike UK or France or Germany or USA (Filippines for example) - those bloody Czars really were giving citizenship to acquired colonies :-)...

[Vladimirovich]

One State solution can never work for Israel, for the same reason it can never be a democratic state: it would be soon overrun by Arabs. Not militarily, mind you, but by the sheer difference in natality.

and that's where the catch 22 lies - too greedy to give up the land, too scared to give the citizenship... so West had to invent a special form of democracy just for one state in the world, with a "jewish" nature of that... I mean, Serbia tried "serbian" nature and oops... was bombed into giving up Kosovo  ...

[Vladimirovich]

There are different interpretations of how a One State solution might work

in terms of suppression an armed insurgency - look @ xUSSR... that is how One State solution worked, now the economic model was not sustainable but national insurgencies were eliminated till the state itself existed... once the state collapsed, they reappeared naturally - but Israel has the right economic model, hasn't it ? so it is not going to collapse... so they can use the same model - which says grant citizenship to all and then kill your own citizens if they dare to continue an armed struggle.

[PeterAit]

Here's a small quiz. Put these questions in a worksheet, with columns for "Israelis" and "Palestinians." Fill it out. Of course, no one can know precise numbers, but you can get some idea with only modest attention to legitimate news sources. Look at the results, and then I dare you to tell me, with anything resembling a straight face, that Israel has the high moral ground in the current conflict.

Number of people forced off their ancestral lands by violence or threat of violence.
Number of people denied water, land, economic, and travel rights.
Number of acres of other peoples’ land that has been illegally taken over for settlement.
Number of children killed.
Number of other civilians killed.
Number of hospitals, schools, libraries, markets, and homes destroyed.
Number of years a blockade or other restrictions has inhibited economic development.
Number of times the United Nations has been ignored.

[RSL]

I'm outta here. Way too many tin ears and prejudices to deal with.

[PeterAit]

I'm outta here. Way too many tin ears and prejudices to deal with.

Unlike you, of course.

[Chairman Bill]

I am sorry - were those people citizens of UK ? no, they were not... One State solution only existed in Russian Empire... unlike UK or France or Germany or USA (Filippines for example) - those bloody Czars really were giving citizenship to acquired colonies :-)...

After clearing the Turks from the region in WW1, Palestine became a British protectorate - i.e. the British took responsibility for the area's security. It wasn't part of the Empire

[Chairman Bill]

I'm outta here. Way too many tin ears and prejudices to deal with.

Pot, meet kettle

[Vladimirovich]

After clearing the Turks from the region in WW1, Palestine became a British protectorate - i.e. the British took responsibility for the area's security. It wasn't part of the Empire

yes, and that's the point - they were not citizens of any state... that's different from first making them citizens and then dealing with their own citizens.

[Vladimirovich]

I'm outta here. Way too many tin ears and prejudices to deal with.

going to demonstration calling to free mr Pollard  ?

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard, when you posted the Jul 26th 2014 Jon Snow news report, you chose to characterize it as a report of "genocide".

Nowhere in that news report does Jon Snow suggest this should be described as "genocide".

Isaac,

You leave me no choice but to come out of my self imposed silence.

Looking at the various definitions proposed here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions

I agree with you that the word genocide is probably too strong relative to the spirit of the majority of the proposed definitions, although it does in fact fit the 1948 UN definition in a minimal way: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy... in part... a religious group... [by] killing members of the group... [and]... deliberately inflicting on the group condition of life, calculated to bring down its physical destruction... in part".

"Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (Article 2 CPPCG)"

So I present my apologies and withdraw this word. I propose to replace genocide by "killing of Palestinian civilians". I have modified the name of the thread accordingly.

But please understand that criticizing the current actions of Israel does not pre-requisite any pre-existing negative feeling against Jews or Israel. I would hate to be accused of that because it is absolutely not how I feel.

Please also avoid to over simplify my points. I am fully aware that Hamas is guilty of various wrong doings too.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Let's look at the words you didn't quote, from your source (my emphasis) -- "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..."

I hope it's normal to react with confusion and horror to the realization that people could be possessed by such intentions, but we have seen genocide in our lifetimes so I don't understand how you could be confused about what genocide is

I guess you didn't understand my acknowledgment of the correction I did just above (I added the part about intent since my intention was not to do a partial quotation)? Or is it plain unthinkable that someone may be critical of the actions of Israel while attempting to have an objective view of the situation? Anybody critical of these actions must be an enemy of Israel?

As far as the word genocide having been misused, could it have to do with how close what is currently happening is to the definition quoted above to the extend that judgement on "intent" becomes the key part?

Hamas is guilty as well, nobody is denying that. At least I don't think I ever did. But the death toll speaks for itdelf. Both parties are very clearly not equally guilty on this one. This is nowhere near a draw.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I have no sympathy  for, and in fact serious derision towards folks who whimper on and on about the deaths of  children in Gaza. It's the only positive press Hamas is generating and they know it.  Who has children in a war zone that they themselves prolong year after year?  I would not have a dog, let alone children under the circumstances in Gaza.  Children are a choice....

Speaking about genocide... If there isn't one now, there will be if they listen to our friend Dennis' advice: stop having children. In due time, that would guarantee disappearance of whatever you want to call Palestinians, race, nation, people, tribe.

I think Sun Tzu (of the Art of War fame) would be so impressed as to ask for a revised edition, adding a chapter on children. You first scare your opponent shitless, either by just displaying an overwhelming power or actually using it initially. That freezes the blood in the opponents veins, and apparently sperm as well. Then you just have to wait it out.

[BernardLanguillier]

So don't - replace it.

I had already done that before you ordered me to Isaac.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

I've been reluctant to get involved in this discussion because of the inevitable distortion of the meaning of key words used, that tends to occur when people argue from a purely emotional perspective.

The sad fact is that all wars result in a significant number of casualties of innocent civilians, including women and children. That's what makes war so terribly tragic. Circumstances are such that armies are not able to limit their activities to fighting only each other, as in some sort of blood sport.

Now, I notice that Bernard has backed down to some extent when Isaac pointed out that his use of the word 'genocide' to describe the Israeli actions, was not appropriate.
But what about the term, 'targeting civilians', which crops up frequently in this thread? Does anyone really believe that Israel is targeting Palestinian civilians when it retaliates against the Hamas aggression?
The population of the Gaza strip is around 1.6 million. After 4 weeks of fighting and literally thousands of rockets fired and/or air strikes from both sides, the Palestinian death toll is around 1800, most of whom are probably civilians.

The exact percentage of civilians killed is not known. Some claims are 80%, which would make the civilian death toll currently 1440. However, if Israel was really targeting civilians in its airstrikes, then to achieve a death toll of only 1440 in such a densely populated area without bomb shelters, and after about 4,200 airstrikes, would make it the most incompetent army in the history of mankind. Surely it must be blindingly obvious that Israel is not targeting civilians. The civilian deaths are a tragic, but unavoidable consequence of collateral damage.

Furthermore, after seeing on TV the huge areas of devasted houses and buildings in Gaza, and areas turned into complete rubble, the Israeli claims that they try to warn the civilian population to leave, before they bomb an area, seem credible to me. One would expect the death toll to be much higher without such warnings.

The following report seems to provide a reasonably balanced view of the current situation.
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/16/5904691/hamas-israel-gaza-11-things

[Schewe]

The exact percentage of civilians killed is not known. Some claims are 80%, which would make the civilian death toll currently 1440. However, if Israel was really targeting civilians in its airstrikes, then to achieve a death toll of only 1440 in such a densely populated area without bomb shelters, and after about 4,200 airstrikes, would make it the most incompetent army in the history of mankind. Surely it must be blindingly obvious that Israel is not targeting civilians. The civilian deaths are a tragic, but unavoidable consequence of collateral damage.

The sad aspect to all this is that the civilians in the Gaza are at the mercy of both the Israeli strikes as well as Hamas. The Palestinian civilians are not heavily armed...which leaves them exposed to the better armed Hamas. Who's gonna keep a bunch of armed thugs from coming into their house and set up mortars and rocket launchers? The Israeli military are tracking attacks from Gaza as they are launched...and the retaliatory strikes are expected by Hamas who slithers away leaving the civilians at risk.

And Hamas is "surprised" by these strikes? No, they are counting on them. The Palestinian political structure in Gaza has completely broken down. Hamas is fighting both the Israelis as well as other rival factions in Gaza...this why the whole thing sucks...Israel enforced the blockade to keep weapons from the Gaza...but that hasn't been very successful. The weapons still get in. Who's sending those weapons? Egypt? Wealthy Saudis? Syrians? I doubt it's Iran-Irainians don't much care for Hamas.

The whole thing is a disaster...centuries in the making. I just hope the ceasefire holds up long enough to get aid to the civilians. Now that Israel's stated goal on eradicating the tunnels system, hopefully they can back off...if more rockets don't fly.