Israel is not attempting to commit genocide against the people of Lebanon

[oberliner]

Too many Israelis and Jews have racist attitudes towards Arabs and Muslims and do not value their lives in the same way they do the lives of members of their own communities.

Too many Arabs and Muslims have racist attitudes towards Israelis and Jews and do not value their lives in the same way they do the lives of members of their own communities.

Supporters of Israel will sometimes use the charge of anti-Semitism in order to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli policies.

Critics of Israel will sometimes include anti-Semitic characterizations and remarks in their criticism of Israeli policies.

The presence of Hezbollah fighters in a location does not excuse the wholesale bombing of a town and the resulting deaths of innocent civilians.

Hezbollah fighters have fired at Israeli forces from locations in civilian areas demonstrating a lack of concern for the inevitable innocent civilian deaths resulting from ensuing Israeli attacks.

That so many children have been killed by Israeli forces in this conflict is beyond a travesty and may constitute a war crime.

Israel is not attempting to commit genocide against the people of Lebanon.

[Scurrilous]

1. I have no problem...

..with any of that. :thumbsup:

[Rufus T. Firefly]

2. So if someone has a hostage,

The cops should just open up on them - it's not THEIR fault if the innocent people are killed, right? Same logic.

I understand what Israel is doing, and I support it as far as it doesn't look like what we did in Iraq - "collateral damage" being no big deal.

[Taxloss]

3. Good job.

It's worth reminding ourselves that there are fundamentals on which we can agree.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Yes, I'd agree with all of those.

It's nice to see a post on the subject that isn't an attempt to be confrontational from one side or the other (not that I'm not as guilty of that myself as many).

I'd add the following.

It is quite likely that attacks on Israel would continue to some extent even if it were to meet all of the demands the Palestinians put forward at Camp David (withdrawal to the Green Line, parts of Jerusalem, etc); hereafter to be referred to as "Israeli withdrawal", for short. They probably would, however, reduce in frequency and severity to some extent. How substantially is debateable.

There is little chance of the attacks on Israel ending or reducing substantially without Israeli withdrawal, no matter how much force Israel uses.

Some of the Arabs will not lay down arms while Israel continues to exist

Some of the Arabs would be happy to trade peace for Israeli withdrawal.

There is no chance of Israeli withdrawal while a Republican is in the White House; there is not much chance even if a Democrat were to be.

The situation in the Middle East is unlikely to improve for a very long time, and is quite likely to get worse.

The whole thing is probably irremediably fucked.

[Mandate My Ass]

5. They're not attempting it

they're accomplishing it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. You need to look up what genocide means.

Israel has killed 500-odd civilians. That's certainly mass murder, it's arguably a war crime, it's clearly not genocide.

[Mandate My Ass]

9. you need to look up what Israel has done over decades

to the West Bank and Gaza and Lebanon and beyond with the help of the US. Israel is only a partner to the crime the US has perpetrated on the region.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. I *know * what Israel has done.

What it *hasn't* done is either attempted to wipe out an entire ethnic group, or done so, which is what genocide is.

[madeline_con]

59. Let's dispense with the word "genocide"

if that makes everyone feel better.

Israel is at least guilty of war crimes throughout her 60 year history.

[Erika]

11. Killing of women and the children is genocide n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. What?

Tell me, what do you think the word "genocide" means?

[Erika]

16. When you kill child bearing age women

and kill their innocent off spring, that is genocide. Regardless of side.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. Ah.

No, that's not what the word "genocide" means.

It's often misused to simply mean "killing" or "mass killing", especially here on DU, but that's simply an incorrect usage, not even a debateable one.

"Genocide" means "deliberately attempting to kill off an entire ethnic group".

It's got nothing whatsoever to do with killing child-bearing age women or their offspring (although that's an inevitable part of it): all genocide involves killing of women and children, but nearly all killing of women and children is not genocide.

There have only ever been a relatively small number of attempts at genocide: the Turkish massacres of the Armenians, the Holocaust, the Rwandan massacres of the 1990s and a few others.

[Harper_is_Bush]

25. Don't be willfully stupid.

[tocqueville]

24. 600, maybe 1000 are still under the rubble

no it's not genocide. But it's ethnic cleansing. Olmert was member of the Betar, the youth organisation of Harut.
Harut is a revisionist zionist organisation with a national messianic message. They fight for Eretz Israel, that is to say an Israel on both sides of the Jordan and with maximal boundaries to the north and south. This includes deporting "Arabs" because they are considered not "belonging there".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. "Ethnic cleansing" has a better case, but I'm still dubious.

Israel is clearly trying to drive everyone out of South Lebanon in the short term, but I don't have any reason to believe that it will try and prevent their return, and I think it unlikely.

[movonne]

35. But look what they return to, polluted water,polluted earth, polluted

air and no home or work to go to.

[oberliner]

38. say what you will about betar

But they and Olmert are certainly not on the same page these days politically.

Their home page says "Let's Trade Olmert for Peace".

[tocqueville]

52. OK let see what Kadima stands for

The Underlying Premise:
• The Jewish people have a national and historic right to the Land of Israel in its entirety.
• The overall objective – a sovereign Jewish and democratic state that is a secure national home for the Jewish people – is the maintenance of a solid Jewish majority within the State of Israel.
• The balance between allowing Jews to fulfill their historic right to live anywhere in the Land of Israel and maintaining the continued existence of Israel as the national Jewish home necessitates a choice that requires territorial compromise.
• Conceding parts of the Land of Israel is not an ideological concession but a realization of the ideology guaranteeing the existence of the Jewish and democratic state in the Land of Israel.
• Determination of the State of Israel’s permanent borders within a peace agreement will ensure the country’s national and security interests.

• Determination of Israel’s future borders will be part of a final status agreement and will be based upon the following principles:
1. Israel will retain areas that are crucial for its security.
2. Israel will retain Jewish holy places that are of central religious and symbolic national importance, in particular a unified Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
3. Israel will retain the large Jewish settlement blocs.

besides the description of the "two nations state" is nothing else that having a satellite "Palestine" with no sovereign rights like Army etc... In other words it sounds that their goal is to keep at least the current borders and allow "autonomy" to the Palestinians.

It will never work. "The national and historic right to the Land of Israel" is a complete historical fallacy that has suited the western powers for geopolitical reasons. Israel has the right to exist through its "de facto" existence, nothing else. And the legal boundaries according to international right are the ones of 1967, which means a complete retreat from the West Bank.

BTW Olmert's son is a member of the Betar

[oberliner]

60. Kadima platform

To be fair, the first two points of Kadima's platform are:

1. The Israeli nation has a national and historic right to the whole of Israel. However, in order to maintain a Jewish majority, part of the Land of Israel must be given up to maintain a Jewish and democratic state.

2. Israel shall remain a Jewish state and homeland. Jewish majority in Israel will be preserved by territorial concessions to Palestinians.

Whatever you may think of the party, they do not call for what you identified as Betar's desire for "an Israel on both sides of the Jordan and with maximal boundaries to the north and south. This includes deporting "Arabs" because they are considered not "belonging there"."

BTW Olmert's daughter is a peace activist.

[tocqueville]

62. it depends where you put Israel boundaries

what's "the whole of Israel" ? What is the point "with a Jewish majority" ?

what I read of the program, the land concessions are only formal. I understand that Kadima would grant "autonomy" to Palestinians within certain boundaries. There is no plan for withdrawal from the west bank, areas "necessary for security" can be kept, settlements can be kept, Israeli can move at will in Palestinian territory etc...

I can agree that the program doesn't talk about the other side of the Jordan. But deportations are done "de facto" to areas where Palestinians can be "parked" like Gaza or within a smaller West Bank. The outer boundaries would still be Israel, or else I don't understand "one nation, two states".

What I mean is that the "Harut" roots are there. Probably Olmert et al have become pragmatic with time and understand that the dream of Eretz Israel isn't realistic. But the dream is till there. And I think that what's make peace impossible. Those people think they have the right to a country that ceased to exist about 2000 years ago. Those who have been living there in the meantime (and many of them are the descendents of the same people but have a different religion), think otherwise. If they don't share the cake, they'll fight over it. And so far Israel has been wanting to eat the cake and have it all at the same time.

Israel could arise at all and have been existing those last 40 years because the big Western powers wanted it for their own geopolitical reasons. If the West loses its interest (probably after peak oil) Israel is going to be in serious trouble. That's why they should settle with their competitors as soon as possible. Their Lebanon war is a waste of time.

[Critters2]

57. Maybe they're just getting started

These things take time.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Interesting how the "truth" can be like an optical illusion..changing

depending on where you are standing.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. No, it isn't.

True is true and false is false. If a question *has* objectively right and wrong answers (like "how many beans make five") then that answer is right and all others are wrong, no matter where you stand. If it doesn't, like "which of these is more beautiful", then it doesn't, no matter where you stand. If I prefer this and you prefer that, then it's not the case that one is "true for me" and the other "true for you"; that's just postmodern waffle; and doesn't actually *mean anything*. Neither is objectively true for anyone.

What is the relevance of this to the OP, out of curiosity?

[qanda]

8. "Israel is not attempting to commit genocide against the people of Lebanon

They appear to be failing miserably in their non-attempt.

[IChing]

31. Yes, but they are slowly fulfilling the neo-cons wet dreams

of war with Syria and Iran. Which is called "clean break" by the American Enterprise Institute, which trashes all the accords and treaties done since Carter.
We are being played as discussed last year in Colorado, remember Cheney being there?
Who went with Rice this week to the Middle East? No other than Elliott Abrams, pardon by Bush Sr

Abrams article
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/969

Clean break articles
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00252.htm

http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/07/uk-govt-sources-confirm-war-with-iran.html

[oberliner]

14. Glad to be able to find some common ground a lot of folks

with whom I may sometimes disagree on other points connected to this crisis.

Dismayed that there are others with whom I doubt I will be able to find any such common ground.

[mom cat]

15. Just a note, The UN observor in Qana said that there were no Hezbolla

fighters near the bomb shelter so it is clear that Israel was not returning fire.

[CTyankee]

20. Then what do you think the Israelis were doing?

Do they just want to kill Lebanese people or are they trying to root out terrorists?

If you answer the former, I would ask you why the Israelis would bother to do that (as evil as you think they are)? Don't they just want to protect their very small Jewish homeland? And what is wrong with that? Don't they have some claim to it?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. I think the Israelis want to kill Lebanese civilians

To reduce support for Hezbollah.

I think that they reason that they can teach the people of Lebanon that having Hezbollah around leads to things like this, and hence persuade them to get rid of Hezbollah themselves.

I think they are wrong to think this.

[CTyankee]

34. Israel has pretty much liked Lebanon, in my understanding

so I don'tknow why they would want to up and kill them, except for Hezbollah. Don't you think the terrorist faction of Hezbollah has changed the equation? And why? Perhaps because Hezbollah is a radical Islam faction that is dedicated to wiping out Israel.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Hezbollah has been placing their rockets in civilian areas. Why is that? Is it because it does not fit with your thesis?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

63. Maybe Israel likes Lebanon too much.

[mom cat]

58. You are making assumptions about me that are not true.

And please do not try to portray Israel as helpless and pathetic. They have the fourth largest military in the world.
Do you think their vastly disproportional response to the capture of two soldiers is justified? Do you think that the us of heavy bombardment in civilian areas is justified? Do you think that collective punishment is justified?

[CTyankee]

70. Well, Israel has to be armed because of its small size

and the number and size of their persecutors. Look at the map.

No, I hate the situation of what you call "disproportionate response." If it is that, then the fault is largely with the Bush Administration for allowing this to get out of hand. Bill Clinton faced a similar challenge in the mid 1990s and the crisis was brought under control.

[mom cat]

74. I agree that Bush has let this get out of hand. I think that he is

using the conflict for his own purposes.

[oberliner]

22. there were no UN personnel nearby at the time of the attack

What is your source?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. Sources

The wikipedia article is carefully non-committal, and wikipedia isn't a terribly reliable source (although I think it's better than its press suggests).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Qana_airstrike

The Guardian article has no mention of any source either supporting or denying the Israeli claim that there were Hezbollah militants firing from Qana a few hours beforehand.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1833884,00.html

Nor does the Telegraph article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=FJJGHAPA0AJ3NQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/07/30/ulebanon.xml

I guess it's too early to be sure, but even if everything the Israeli's say is true (which is certainly not something it's safe to assume) then they had no excuse whatsoever to be shelling it.

[oberliner]

41. Here is the source for my assertion of no UN personel in the area

Relevant quote:

"As you know, during the night, the Israeli air force bombed the village of Qana, in southern Lebanon. This village is no longer in UNIFIL’s area of operations. Therefore, we had no UN personnel nearby at the time of the attack -- though Chinese engineers and two medical teams have now managed to reach the area. They are helping to clear the rubble and giving treatment to survivors."

-UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/sgsm10580.doc.htm

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. That looks more convincing.

All mine came out relatively early this morning, and haven't changed since.

[mom cat]

76. Check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1786876

[EFerrari]

17. I've been seeing how concerned you've been and how careful

in all your posts on this topic.

And, I'm sorry, oberliner, there is no excusing that bombing. Don't call it genocide. Does that make it better?

From the little bit that I've read you, I don't think so.

[Harper_is_Bush]

18. Who said they were? What they are doing is destroying the country.

Sure, everyone can leave if they are able to get around the bombed out roads.

Genocide? No. Wanton destruction? Yes.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Actually, some people further up the thread have.

I hadn't seen anyone calling it genocide before that, though, I agree.
And the fact that it isn't isn't a mitigating factor.

[Harper_is_Bush]

26. This is a flame thread, so it's expected. People are understandably

angry at Israel.

It's stupid to call it genocide, and it's unneccessary to post a topic pointing out that it's not happening.

I mean, what's next....."USA is not committing genocide in Iraq".

What's the point?

[EFerrari]

28. Because we are and they are and if you choose not to know that

more power to you.

History will disagree.

/typo

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. Sigh.

"Genocide" means "the deliberate attempt to kill every member of an ethnic group."

America is not trying to kill every member of any ethnic group in Iraq

Israel is not trying to kill every member of any ethnic group in Israel.

Ergo, no genocide.

Get a dictionary.

[Karmakaze]

56. Hmm I was doubtful...

then I actually got a dictionary:

genocide
One entry found for genocide.
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide

You could argue that Israel actually is attempting to commit genocide against Hizbullah, because they are not only targetting Hizbullah fighters, but also civillian supporters such as political operatives.

Still I personally wouldn't go that far - ethnic cleansing is what I would call this attack on Lebanaon, and pretty much everything they have done since before Israel was even formed.

[Harper_is_Bush]

33. Accusing "genocide" makes you appear like a wacko who

will say anything to score points.

There is no genocide happening. It's not my "choice" not to "know" that, it's the simple reality of what's happening and the definition of genocide.

People who want to claim genocide is happening on this or other democratic websites should be given some careful examination. The claim is disruptive and damaging to the forums reputation.

It is an obvious godsend for our enemies to point out that there are wackos at DU claiming genocide

[EFerrari]

37. Yes. The problem here is how people think of me.

I don't even know what to make of that mindset.

Maybe my best bet is to just let you stay responsible for it.

/begin countdown

[Harper_is_Bush]

55. No, the problem is you make an obviously false claim

and my calling you on it is part of the solution.

Claiming that Israel is committing genocide is like claiming that Martians impregnated your dog.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. Actually, I was impressed by how un-flamey the OP was

Especially by the standards of I/P threads.

I'm "anti-Israel", in the sense that I disapprove of a great deal of what it's doing and thing that the onus to make peace lies largely on it, and I agreed with everything in it.

And "USA is not committing genocide in Iraq" is something I've seen hotly contested on DU, by people who clearly either don't know what genocide is or don't care about what they use the word to mean, sadly.

On edit: and, indeed, one popped up replying to your post while I was posting this...

[oberliner]

44. I agree with you

The title of the thread was unhelpful. I just tried to change it to "Some Thoughts on the Middle East" but the edit period had expired. I originally posted it with a title like that and then changed it to the current one and I regret doing so.

The post itself was not intended to be flamebait, but to try to find some common ground even though there are stark disagreements.

I think if we keep the discussion within a few parameters, such as not throwing the word genocide around unnecessarily as I have seen done on other threads, then we can actually have a civil discussion on this topic.

[bigtree]

32. genocide is a word. I'll leave the semantics for someone else

Word playing around the killing of these civilians is a waste of time for anyone actually concerned with them. The problem I have with the killings would not be resolved by attaching some label to them or their assailants.

The deaths in Lebanon represent a massive slaughter with uncertain consequenses for the region and for the apparent goals of Israel in their defense.

Hundreds slaughtered by Israeli missile strikes.

They continued even after it was apparent that they were killing innocent civilians in large numbers.

That's should be enough for scorn.

Besides, the genocide question seems like too much of a diversion raised by some to draw the scorn away from the massacre. That's right, massacre. Indiscriminate, wanton killing. So, they're not exterminators, they're just indifferent to the deaths they've caused.

I heard the Israeli ambassador claim that there's some difference between how his country views the Lebanese dead and the way Hizbollah regards the victims of their violence. It doesn't matter how they are viewed or characterized as long as the descriptions allow them to continue.

If using the word 'genocide' would stop them from their deadly airstrikes into populated areas of Lebanon then it would serve a useful purpose. As it stands, however, use of the word in this instance is just another way to inflame passions without leading to any resolution.

[Minstrel Boy]

36. I'd just like to say

I appreciate the nuance and empathy of your recent posts. Good qualities always, but especially at times like these.

[EFerrari]

43. I can't even read this thread.

I hope cooler, more humane heads prevail.

:cry:

[Double T]

39. Who gives a damn what you call it???????

The mass killing of INNOCENT men, women and children is an atrocity anywhere, any place and anytime. I think SOMEBODY better do some soul searching and look in the mirror!!!!!

[rockymountaindem]

46. It is very important

because if something is called "genocide" the UN and world consensus states that the global community is compelled to act and stop the genocide. If something is not genocide, then nobody *has* to do anything.

[Double T]

50. semantics don't cut it, it is what it is...........

the offspring of the victims have now become the perpetrators of these atrocious killings of innocent men, women and children who WERE ORIGINALLY not even part of the conflict. Apparently NO ONE ever learns from the 'heinous mistakes' of the past.

[rockymountaindem]

54. That has nothing to do with whether this is genocide or not

Feelings are just feelings but terms have specific definitions.

[cali]

48. I'd suggest

that somebody should be you. The OP was a reasonable, measured piece, attempting to find common ground. Your response on the other hand.....

[Loge23]

45. Really? They're doing a good job of it.

Is pool little Israel just defending itself from the big, bad wolf?
Is killing innocent civilians justified under some "we are more righteous than them" belief?
Genocide is a capital crime - under any standard. Theirs or ours.

[oberliner]

47. did you even read the post itself?

The presence of Hezbollah fighters in a location does not excuse the wholesale bombing of a town and the resulting deaths of innocent civilians.

There is no justification of killing innocent civilians asserted anywhere.

[JerseygirlCT]

49. A voice of reason... thanks. nt

[A-Schwarzenegger]

51. Whew!

Thanks for clearing that up.
I feel a lot better now.

[Mr_Spock]

71. lol

I think that's about all I got from this as well.

[Ms. Clio]

53. no, it's not genocide, but it may be ethnic cleansing

it remains to be seen what will happen to the 500,000 Lebanese dispossessed of their homes.

[Lilith Velkor]

61. It is mass murder.

That's bad enough.

[Benfea]

64. Mass murder = genocide

The meaning of the word genocide has been diluted with overuse. Look it up in the dictionary, and you'll see that ethnic-based mass murder is one of the definitions.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

67. Any dictionary that says that is wrong.

Genocide is, very specifically, the attempt to wipe out an entire ethnic or cultural group. Nothing else is genocide.

Killing a number of people which is large in absolute terms but small as a fraction of the ethnic group is not genocide, even though it is mass murder.

[Benfea]

75. From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/genocide?view=uk

[Ms. Clio]

65. yes, I agree n/t

[Bridget Burke]

69. I agree that "ethnic cleansing" is a better description....

But there's no excuse for Israel's behavior--no matter what word is used.

[Ms. Clio]

73. no, there isn't any excuse

and according to Juan Cole, it's part of the plan:

"The Israeli government announced a 48-eight-hour cessation of its air raids on Lebanon while it investigated itself for the killing of large numbers of innocent civilians, especially children, at Qana. During this time, it is also allowing a 24-hour window for Lebanese in the south to leave the area safely without fear of being bombed by the Israeli air force and they flee (a fate that befell some Lebanese refugees in the past few days). Since emptying south Lebanon of people is part of the Israeli war plan, it wasn't actually altruistic of them to allow people to leave."

[Pale Blue Dot]

66. Define it whatever way you want, but most importantly,

whatever they're doing, IT DOESN'T WORK.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1769555&mesg_id=1769555

[eridani]

68. No, they just want the water n/t

[radwriter0555]

72. Right, they're just slaughtering and killing them.

Just like they're doing with the palestinians.

It's just mass murder is all. No need to put fancy words on it.