Israel's Crazy Doctrine for Justifying Deaths of Over 1,000 Gazans

[newflesh]

http://www.alternet.org/israels-crazy-doctrine-justifying-deaths-over-1000-gazans

Alex Kane

 

Israel is waging war on civilians in Gaza. Ordinary Palestinians, television stations, schools, hospitals, power plants and water facilities are all targets in the eyes of the Israeli army, one of the most powerful militaries in the world.

On Monday night, in what is being described as the most intense Israeli bombardment since the assault began three weeks ago, the air force bombed Gaza’s sole power plant, and killed over 100 people.

It is a violation of international law to destroy civilian infrastructure and lives if there is no concrete military advantage in doing so.  “Israel is repeatedly and flagrantly violating the law of armed conflict,” a group of international legal scholars said in a statement released this week. “Most of the recent heavy bombings in Gaza lack an acceptable military justification and, instead, appear to be designed to terrorize the civilian population.”

But Israel, shielded from accountability by the U.S., continues to violate the laws of war. In fact, it is following a specific military doctrine developed by Israeli military officials that calls for punishing the civilian population in the territory where resistance to Israeli actions emanates from. Its purpose is to restore Israeli deterrence; to make Israel’s armed enemies think twice before resisting, a goal Israel attempts to meet by wantonly destroying civilian infrastructure. Another goal is to turn the civilian population against the authorities that rule them. In this war, it’s Hamas Israel wants to weaken.

The Dahiyeh doctrine, as it is known, was first used in 2006. In the summer of that year, Israel went to war in Lebanon to battle the militant group Hezbollah, which was created in the late 1980s for the express purpose of resisting Israel’s occupation of Lebanon. Sparked by an attack on Israeli soldiers and the subsequent capturing of two soldiers to press for the release of Hezbollah prisoners in Israel, the 2006 assault on Lebanon inflicted enormous damage on the country. Over 1,000 Lebanese, the majority of them civilians, were killed.

The neighborhood of Dahiyeh was particularly hit hard. Dahiyeh is a Lebanese neighborhood in the south of the country, populated by low-income Shi’a Muslims. While not all of them are Hezbollah supporters, Shia Muslims are the constituency the Islamist party serves, and so Israel sought to punish them all, with no regard to who was a civilian and who was a combatant.

The doctrine was summed up by Israeli north command chief Gadi Eisenkot. “We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction,” he said in 2008, two years after the doctrine was put into place. “This isn’t a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorized.”

The residents of Dahiyeh didn’t need Eisenkot to tell them that. They lived through the doctrine. Israeli warplanes carpet-bombed the neighborhood in actions that were “certainly both indiscriminate and disproportionate,” a Human Rights Watch report on the war in Lebanon concluded.

Eisenkot's explanation of the military doctrine was made in the run-up to the 2008-'09 Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip, which killed an estimated 1,400 Palestinians, the vast majority of them civilians. In addition to widespread civilian death, Israel perpetrated massive destruction targeting all areas of civilian life in Gaza.  According to an Amnesty International report on the 2008-'09 Israeli “Operation Cast Lead,”the military targeted medical and humanitarian vehicles, United Nations schools, government buildings, civilian homes and more. A UN Human Rights Council document, known as the Goldstone Report,stated that “Israeli military armed forces…[used] the Dahiyeh doctrine...involving the application of disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to civilian populations.”


Widespread destruction in Gaza in line with the Dahiyeh doctrine’s precepts is unfolding before the world’s eyes during this latest attack. Various hospitals and health facilities have been bombed.  The power plant that was hit by tank shells in Gaza is the only one serving the coastal strip, though Gaza also is forced to depend on electricity from Israel. The deputy director of energy in Gaza said it could take a year to repair.

Israel’s air strikes have damaged water and wastewater infrastructure. “Main water supply and wastewater infrastructure has been hit and as a result the water supply or sewage services to 1.2 million (two-thirds of the total population in Gaza) have been cut or severely disrupted,” according to the organization Emergency Water Sanitation and Hygiene (EWASH).

Israel has also hit United Nations Relief Works Agency-run schools in Gaza, which are sheltering thousands of displaced Palestinians. An estimated 5,000 homes in Gaza have been completely destroyed, with another 26,000 damaged.

The bombardment in Shujaiyah, a neighborhood in Gaza where Hamas militants are particularly strong, also exposed the indiscriminate force Israel is using. After a number of elite Israeli soldiers were killed by militants operating from the neighborhood, the Israeli army decided to launch “a wave of shelling,” according to the Jerusalem Post. The result was what many Palestinians called a “massacre,” with dozens dead, some left to rot in the streets, until Palestinians could come back and collect the bodies.

[1715187418]

1715187418

[1715187418]

1715187418

[1715187418]

1715187418

[1715187418]

1715187418

[1715187418]

1715187418

[kuroman]

1364 declared deaths as we speak; dozens of thousands of wounded, probably will pass the 1400 mark before the end of the day, but again there people that will still defend this genocide.

[u9y42]

1364 declared deaths as we speak; dozens of thousands of wounded, probably will pass the 1400 mark before the end of the day, but again there people that will still defend this genocide.

Sure, while they aren't on the receiving end, they have no problems with it.

[...]
Israel has also hit United Nations Relief Works Agency-run schools in Gaza, which are sheltering thousands of displaced Palestinians. An estimated 5,000 homes in Gaza have been completely destroyed, with another 26,000 damaged.
[...]

RT put out a video comparing a few satellite photos, from before and after the invasion started, of areas hit by Israeli attacks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90wFV9AqOI4 (it seems to be age restricted now, as it had other more explicit scenes mixed in). Anyway, suffice to say that not much is left but rubble, on the areas hit - so, even if they don't get killed, many won't have a home to return to (or food/water/electricity/etc. at this rate).

[stevegreer]

I think Israel's crazy doctrine for justifying the deaths of over 1,000 Gazans probably has a lot to do with the fact that Hamas continues to spit in the face of the cease-fires by launching attacks instead of respecting the cease-fire. How long did the 72 hour cease-fire last today before the Palestinians kidnapped an Israeli soldier and killed two others in an attack? 90 minutes? What are the Israelis supposed to do? Just sit back and take it? Let the Palestinians continue to kill Israelis and not fight back? What kind of warped logic is that? Everyone is so quick to paint Israel as the bad guys, but not so quick to denounce the shellings and suicide bombings coming from Gaza.

[solid12345]

1364 declared deaths as we speak; dozens of thousands of wounded, probably will pass the 1400 mark before the end of the day, but again there people that will still defend this genocide.

800 people have died from the Ebola outbreak. Is that a genocide?

[u9y42]

I think Israel's crazy doctrine for justifying the deaths of over 1,000 Gazans probably has a lot to do with the fact that Hamas continues to spit in the face of the cease-fires by launching attacks instead of respecting the cease-fire. How long did the 72 hour cease-fire last today before the Palestinians kidnapped an Israeli soldier and killed two others in an attack? 90 minutes? What are the Israelis supposed to do? Just sit back and take it? Let the Palestinians continue to kill Israelis and not fight back? What kind of warped logic is that? Everyone is so quick to paint Israel as the bad guys, but not so quick to denounce the shellings and suicide bombings coming from Gaza.

Don't you think it's a completely disproportionate response though? Some Israelis get killed, and in retaliation they kill over 1400 Palestinians (80% civilians, 30% children), wound many thousands, and destroy a good chunk of Gaza, including infrastructure they depend on to live. Does this seem like the right response to you?

[solid12345]

Don't you think it's a completely disproportionate response though? Some Israelis get killed, and in retaliation they kill over 1400 Palestinians (80% civilians, 30% children), wound many thousands, and destroy a good chunk of Gaza, including infrastructure they depend on to live. Does this seem like the right response to you?

Wasn't it disproportionate in 1948 when to settle a quarrel between Jews and Palestinians on who gets a piece of the pie of the UN partition plan, the ENTIRE Arab world gathers their armies and moves in to Palestine to try and finish the job Hitler started?

Or when they tried to do it AGAIN in 1967 and lost both times?

The Palestinians problem is largely the fault of the Arab world, because in Israel's mind their occupation of Gaza and West Bank was not to protect themselves against Palestinians but to defend themselves from an entire region that wanted to wipe them out. Ironically though now these same Arab states are on Israel's side now because they recognize the fanaticism of Hamas and Iran taking over the middle east is worse than their hatred for Israel.

[u9y42]

Don't you think it's a completely disproportionate response though? Some Israelis get killed, and in retaliation they kill over 1400 Palestinians (80% civilians, 30% children), wound many thousands, and destroy a good chunk of Gaza, including infrastructure they depend on to live. Does this seem like the right response to you?

Wasn't it disproportionate in 1948 when to settle a quarrel between Jews and Palestinians on who gets a piece of the pie of the UN partition plan, the ENTIRE Arab world gathers their armies and moves in to Palestine to try and finish the job Hitler started?

Or when they tried to do it AGAIN in 1967 and lost both times?

The Palestinians problem is largely the fault of the Arab world, because in Israel's mind their occupation of Gaza and West Bank was not to protect themselves against Palestinians but to defend themselves from an entire region that wanted to wipe them out. Ironically though now these same Arab states are on Israel's side now because they recognize the fanaticism of Hamas and Iran taking over the middle east is worse than their hatred for Israel.

How exactly does bringing up the wars of 1948 or 1967 help solve the conflict that is going on now? Are you trying to justify the killing of 1400 people and the survival of the rest being jeopardized, based on what happened over half a century ago?

[solid12345]

How exactly does bringing up the wars of 1948 or 1967 help solve the conflict that is going on now? Are you trying to justify the killing of 1400 people and the survival of the rest being jeopardized, based on what happened over half a century ago?

Well Palestinians still fight based on the belief a 1,300 year-old mosque that Muhammed supposedly ascended to heaven at entitles them to the land. It's all a centuries-old conflict and both sides don't forget the past.

Anyway I don't justify the deaths of civilians but it is not in Israel's interest to purposely kill civilians. The tragedy is they fall for Hamas's trap because it is easy for Hamas to throw up a random photo of any dead child on twitter, send it out, pass it off as a victim of Israeli bombing and people get emotional about it. It doesn't matter if the kid died in Syria, Iraq or Gaza, people like to believe what they want to believe to confirm their own personal biases.

War is a tragedy but I challenge anyone to find a war where innocent people don't get caught in the cross fire. What matters is which side does more to protect their own people from being collateral damage and there has never been any evidence Hamas does anything to protect their people. If they did they'd be building bomb bunkers instead of smuggling tunnels. Meanwhile Israel has built the Iron Dome AND a network of bomb shelters for their people, yet people ask why it is no Israelis get killed in the rocket fire...

[kuroman]

1364 declared deaths as we speak; dozens of thousands of wounded, probably will pass the 1400 mark before the end of the day, but again there people that will still defend this genocide.

800 people have died from the Ebola outbreak. Is that a genocide?

Ebola isn't an army killing civilians. by your same broken logic, Jew Holocaust is not a genocide because Plague or Cholera killed more than what Hitler did.

[solid12345]

Ebola isn't an army killing civilians. by your same broken logic, Jew Holocaust is not a genocide because Plague or Cholera killed more than what Hitler did.

And i'm saying even 1,400 people doesn't constitute the definition of genocide. At least 120k have been killed in Syria in this current civil war. 415 people were murdered in Chicago last year. How is 1,400 out of a population of millions considered genocide?

The Palestinian population has a whole has been RISING the last few decades, how is that genocide?

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/files/1-israeli-palestinian-images/west-bank-and-gaza-strip-arab-population-1948-to-2005.gif



It's these silly use of buzz words that complicate the debate.

[u9y42]

How exactly does bringing up the wars of 1948 or 1967 help solve the conflict that is going on now? Are you trying to justify the killing of 1400 people and the survival of the rest being jeopardized, based on what happened over half a century ago?

Well Palestinians still fight based on the belief a 1,300 year-old mosque that Muhammed supposedly ascended to heaven at entitles them to the land. It's all a centuries-old conflict and both sides don't forget the past.

Regardless of their beliefs, what about the people that actually live there? Don't they have a right to the land they've lived on for, who knows how long?

Anyway I don't justify the deaths of civilians but it is not in Israel's interest to purposely kill civilians. The tragedy is they fall for Hamas's trap because it is easy for Hamas to throw up a random photo of any dead child on twitter, send it out, pass it off as a victim of Israeli bombing and people get emotional about it. It doesn't matter if the kid died in Syria, Iraq or Gaza, people like to believe what they want to believe to confirm their own personal biases.

Whatever photos Hamas might have put up online, there are international observers in Gaza - it's where the 80% civilian casualties figure comes from, as well as the 30% children casualties figure. It might not be in Israel's best interest to purposefully kill civilians, but that doesn't stop the 1400 dead so far (and rising quickly).

War is a tragedy but I challenge anyone to find a war where innocent people don't get caught in the cross fire. What matters is which side does more to protect their own people from being collateral damage and there has never been any evidence Hamas does anything to protect their people. If they did they'd be building bomb bunkers instead of smuggling tunnels. Meanwhile Israel has built the Iron Dome AND a network of bomb shelters for their people, yet people ask why it is no Israelis get killed in the rocket fire...

This doesn't seem like a war to me - it seems like a slaughter. You're equating the two sides as if they are on equal terms, which is far from true. I mean, the best one side is capable of, is launching a bunch of small, unguided rockets at the other side's civilian population, killing 3, last I checked; the other side is attacking them with artillery, warships, and airstrikes, devastating a densely populated area, and killing over 1400 people.

So I ask again, don't you think there are better ways to deal with this? Is this the right approach to solve the conflict?

[solid12345]

This doesn't seem like a war to me - it seems like a slaughter. You're equating the two sides as if they are on equal terms, which is far from true. I mean, the best one side is capable of, is launching a bunch of small, unguided rockets at the other side's civilian population, killing 3, last I checked; the other side is attacking them with artillery, warships, and airstrikes, devastating a densely populated area, and killing over 1400 people.

So I ask again, don't you think there are better ways to deal with this? Is this the right approach to solve the conflict?

So here we get to the root of everything. Obviously we know Israel has a big, bad army they've built up over the last 40 years...so why does Hamas continue to lob rockets when they know most Israelis are hiding underground and know Israel will respond with massive retaliation? Isn't this irresponsible and reckless?

Or is it because they do it knowing Israel will accidentally kill civilians shooting back and it becomes a great PR move for Hamas. I honestly don't know why Israel falls for it personally. I think they should just build their walls higher, strengthen the iron dome's capabilities, hide behind it and laugh.

[u9y42]

This doesn't seem like a war to me - it seems like a slaughter. You're equating the two sides as if they are on equal terms, which is far from true. I mean, the best one side is capable of, is launching a bunch of small, unguided rockets at the other side's civilian population, killing 3, last I checked; the other side is attacking them with artillery, warships, and airstrikes, devastating a densely populated area, and killing over 1400 people.

So I ask again, don't you think there are better ways to deal with this? Is this the right approach to solve the conflict?

So here we get to the root of everything. Obviously we know Israel has a big, bad army they've built up over the last 40 years...so why does Hamas continue to lob rockets when they know most Israelis are hiding underground and know Israel will respond with massive retaliation? Isn't this irresponsible and reckless?

Or is it because they do it knowing Israel will accidentally kill civilians shooting back and it becomes a great PR move for Hamas. I honestly don't know why Israel falls for it personally. I think they should just build their walls higher, strengthen the iron dome's capabilities, hide behind it and laugh.

I don't think PR moves are first and foremost in their minds to be honest - they, and many others, have on several occasions justified their continued aggression on account of the blockade Israel is imposing on them, which has left them on the verge of an humanitarian crisis (and as we know from leaked documents, purposefully so). Another issue is the occupation of the West Bank, the continual grab for land and resources there, and the treatment of the native population.

Now, I also agree that Israel shouldn't retaliate this way, but instead look to other ways to solve the conflict; but you can't ignore these other issues - they also need to be addressed, if any lasting peace is to be found.

[Starscream]

I don't think PR moves are first and foremost in their minds to be honest - they, and many others, have on several occasions justified their continued aggression on account of the blockade Israel is imposing on them, which has left them on the verge of an humanitarian crisis (and as we know from leaked documents, purposefully so). Another issue is the occupation of the West Bank, the continual grab for land and resources there, and the treatment of the native population.

Now, I also agree that Israel shouldn't retaliate this way, but instead look to other ways to solve the conflict; but you can't ignore these other issues - they also need to be addressed, if any lasting peace is to be found.

Do you know why there's a blockade to begin with?

[kuroman]

Ebola isn't an army killing civilians. by your same broken logic, Jew Holocaust is not a genocide because Plague or Cholera killed more than what Hitler did.

And i'm saying even 1,400 people doesn't constitute the definition of genocide. At least 120k have been killed in Syria in this current civil war. 415 people were murdered in Chicago last year. How is 1,400 out of a population of millions considered genocide?

The Palestinian population has a whole has been RISING the last few decades, how is that genocide?

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/files/1-israeli-palestinian-images/west-bank-and-gaza-strip-arab-population-1948-to-2005.gif



It's these silly use of buzz words that complicate the debate.

This is, once again, a false argument, Recognized genocides by the UN doesn't apply to such rule you are mentioning, the rise of  population has nothing to do with the consideration of a genocide, and recent recognized genocides by the UN are exactly similar in terms of numbers and events chronology to what's happening right now in Gaza.

Systematically killing and targeting civilians is what's makes this genocide.
 

[u9y42]

I don't think PR moves are first and foremost in their minds to be honest - they, and many others, have on several occasions justified their continued aggression on account of the blockade Israel is imposing on them, which has left them on the verge of an humanitarian crisis (and as we know from leaked documents, purposefully so). Another issue is the occupation of the West Bank, the continual grab for land and resources there, and the treatment of the native population.

Now, I also agree that Israel shouldn't retaliate this way, but instead look to other ways to solve the conflict; but you can't ignore these other issues - they also need to be addressed, if any lasting peace is to be found.

Do you know why there's a blockade to begin with?

Israeli official motives for the most recent blockade (there were others, in other forms) are security related - it helps limit attacks by Palestinian forces, and prevents them from acquiring weapons; so far so good. But how does this then turn into a "let's leave the Palestinian population there in a state close to a humanitarian crisis" due to the actual conditions imposed? Isn't this just a way to ensure the further radicalization of the population, instead of helping to solve the conflict?

[kuroman]

I don't think PR moves are first and foremost in their minds to be honest - they, and many others, have on several occasions justified their continued aggression on account of the blockade Israel is imposing on them, which has left them on the verge of an humanitarian crisis (and as we know from leaked documents, purposefully so). Another issue is the occupation of the West Bank, the continual grab for land and resources there, and the treatment of the native population.

Now, I also agree that Israel shouldn't retaliate this way, but instead look to other ways to solve the conflict; but you can't ignore these other issues - they also need to be addressed, if any lasting peace is to be found.

Do you know why there's a blockade to begin with?

Israeli official motives for the most recent blockade (there were others, in other forms) are security related - it helps limit attacks by Palestinian forces, and prevents them from acquiring weapons; so far so good. But how does this then turn into a "let's leave the Palestinian population there in a state close to a humanitarian crisis" due to the actual conditions imposed? Isn't this just a way to ensure the further radicalization of the population, instead of helping to solve the conflict?

I don't buy the fact that the blockade would prevent Hamas from acquiring weapons, let's assume there was no blockade, Gaza is in the middle of nowhere surrounded from everywhere by land controlled by Israel, and the only why I could see them getting weapons would be by air but that again is very doubtful. Also with the blockade, it was proven that Hamas can built tunnel to by pass it, So at the end it's pretty much the civilians population that is suffering the most and they are not in the verge of an humanitarian crisis, they are in a crisis, when you don't have access to electricity, water and even swage sevices when morgues are full and hospital are fulls and when you have hundred of thousands of refugees .........it's hard not to qualify this as a humanitarian crisis...

[cryptogoku]

~~new form of terrorism..  sad truth... and the world is watching. ??~~hmm?!
don't understand why nobody cares. its also a problem for us.
they want to kill all palestinians.!~~!oh!~
and then they will try to kill more and neighbor countries. and then they will try to kill all.
3rd war will come. i hope this planet is not destroyed from
the idiots with the finger on the red button... ~~~bilderberger
and roths... .. anyway. take care~~

[u9y42]

Israeli official motives for the most recent blockade (there were others, in other forms) are security related - it helps limit attacks by Palestinian forces, and prevents them from acquiring weapons; so far so good. But how does this then turn into a "let's leave the Palestinian population there in a state close to a humanitarian crisis" due to the actual conditions imposed? Isn't this just a way to ensure the further radicalization of the population, instead of helping to solve the conflict?

I don't buy the fact that the blockade would prevent Hamas from acquiring weapons, let's assume there was no blockade, Gaza is in the middle of nowhere surrounded from everywhere by land controlled by Israel, and the only why I could see them getting weapons would be by air but that again is very doubtful. Also with the blockade, it was proven that Hamas can built tunnel to by pass it, So at the end it's pretty much the civilians population that is suffering the most and they are not in the verge of an humanitarian crisis, they are in a crisis, when you don't have access to electricity, water and even swage sevices when morgues are full and hospital are fulls and when you have hundred of thousands of refugees .........it's hard not to qualify this as a humanitarian crisis...

Yes, the officially stated reasons for the blockade are for the most part a poor excuse, as I stated. And unfortunately you're right: thanks to the escalation of the conflict and Israel's attacks on vital infrastructure, they are now deep into an humanitarian crisis, where besides the shortages you mentioned, many people also find themselves without refuge, and if things continue, soon without food as well.

[DodoB]

Ebola isn't an army killing civilians. by your same broken logic, Jew Holocaust is not a genocide because Plague or Cholera killed more than what Hitler did.

And i'm saying even 1,400 people doesn't constitute the definition of genocide. At least 120k have been killed in Syria in this current civil war. 415 people were murdered in Chicago last year. How is 1,400 out of a population of millions considered genocide?

The Palestinian population has a whole has been RISING the last few decades, how is that genocide?

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/files/1-israeli-palestinian-images/west-bank-and-gaza-strip-arab-population-1948-to-2005.gif



It's these silly use of buzz words that complicate the debate.

This is, once again, a false argument, Recognized genocides by the UN doesn't apply to such rule you are mentioning, the rise of  population has nothing to do with the consideration of a genocide, and recent recognized genocides by the UN are exactly similar in terms of numbers and events chronology to what's happening right now in Gaza.

Systematically killing and targeting civilians is what's makes this genocide.
 

The population of Gaza is 1.816 million people. According to estimates 1600 Palestinians have been killed in a month of fighting. So in order for Israel to ethnic cleanse Gaza at that rate it would take 94.5 years assuming the population in Gaza stays static which isn't true, it's actually growing.

[u9y42]

This is, once again, a false argument, Recognized genocides by the UN doesn't apply to such rule you are mentioning, the rise of  population has nothing to do with the consideration of a genocide, and recent recognized genocides by the UN are exactly similar in terms of numbers and events chronology to what's happening right now in Gaza.

Systematically killing and targeting civilians is what's makes this genocide.
 

The population of Gaza is 1.816 million people. According to estimates 1600 Palestinians have been killed in a month of fighting. So in order for Israel to ethnic cleanse Gaza at that rate it would take 94.5 years assuming the population in Gaza stays static which isn't true, it's actually growing.

You didn't understand his point: you don't classify it as genocide only if the entire population is killed off - look up the definition. Then, take a look at this interview with Michael Ratner on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE_IIoIdZGA (it's about 8 minutes long).

[Starscream]

This is, once again, a false argument, Recognized genocides by the UN doesn't apply to such rule you are mentioning, the rise of  population has nothing to do with the consideration of a genocide, and recent recognized genocides by the UN are exactly similar in terms of numbers and events chronology to what's happening right now in Gaza.

Systematically killing and targeting civilians is what's makes this genocide.
 

The population of Gaza is 1.816 million people. According to estimates 1600 Palestinians have been killed in a month of fighting. So in order for Israel to ethnic cleanse Gaza at that rate it would take 94.5 years assuming the population in Gaza stays static which isn't true, it's actually growing.

You didn't understand his point: you don't classify it as genocide only if the entire population is killed off - look up the definition. Then, take a look at this interview with Michael Ratner on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE_IIoIdZGA (it's about 8 minutes long).

1 sided biased coverage. He talks about Israel bombing schools and houses, what he doesn't say, conveniently enough, is that from those places rockets were fired towards Israeli population with intent to kill civilians.
This was only in first 3 minutes.

Than he throws terms like Apartheid and Genocide and he completely twists them: "when you target only a small portion of an ethnic group it will constitute as genocide" - and for that he used hamas (their leadership), which is a terrorist group who seeks to destroy Israel and has since its foundation killed numerous Israelis (I guess that constitute as genocide by his definition as well, since they targeted a portion - the civilians).
That premise is wrong. Killing the leadership does not constitute as genocide of said ethnic group, same goes for small portion and of course he hadn't mentioned intent at all, which is an important part.

Genocide - the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. Genocide entails also the Conspiracy to commit genocide
Note the deliberate word.

Israel doesn't have as it's agenda the killing of palestinians, despite all they've done.

hamas on the other hand, has, and from the 2nd phrase, they have committed genocide.
http://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm (the covenant of hamas)

2nd crime he didn't even try to backup his claim, he just stated it is.

Than he talks about Apartheid and gets it all wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy
And this is what R.J.Goldstone wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander.html?_r=1&

tl;dr:
Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.
But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court.

Throughout that interview he uses the word "there's no doubt" a lot, as if it's true. Bullshit.

You could seriously do a lot better than this nutjob.

[kuroman]

Ebola isn't an army killing civilians. by your same broken logic, Jew Holocaust is not a genocide because Plague or Cholera killed more than what Hitler did.

And i'm saying even 1,400 people doesn't constitute the definition of genocide. At least 120k have been killed in Syria in this current civil war. 415 people were murdered in Chicago last year. How is 1,400 out of a population of millions considered genocide?

The Palestinian population has a whole has been RISING the last few decades, how is that genocide?

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/files/1-israeli-palestinian-images/west-bank-and-gaza-strip-arab-population-1948-to-2005.gif



It's these silly use of buzz words that complicate the debate.

This is, once again, a false argument, Recognized genocides by the UN doesn't apply to such rule you are mentioning, the rise of  population has nothing to do with the consideration of a genocide, and recent recognized genocides by the UN are exactly similar in terms of numbers and events chronology to what's happening right now in Gaza.

Systematically killing and targeting civilians is what's makes this genocide.
 

The population of Gaza is 1.816 million people. According to estimates 1600 Palestinians have been killed in a month of fighting. So in order for Israel to ethnic cleanse Gaza at that rate it would take 94.5 years assuming the population in Gaza stays static which isn't true, it's actually growing.

I said genocide, a genocide =/= ethnic cleansing if you didn't know. And this is definitely a genocide.
also we've reached 1900 and more to come.

[u9y42]

You didn't understand his point: you don't classify it as genocide only if the entire population is killed off - look up the definition. Then, take a look at this interview with Michael Ratner on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE_IIoIdZGA (it's about 8 minutes long).

1 sided biased coverage. He talks about Israel bombing schools and houses, what he doesn't say, conveniently enough, is that from those places rockets were fired towards Israeli population with intent to kill civilians.
This was only in first 3 minutes.

Even then, what makes you believe that Israel has the right to bomb these places, often times knowing refugees have taken shelter there, or that civilians are nearby and in harm's way? Not only is Israel failing (purposefully or otherwise) to distinguish between civilian and military persons and structures, but it also responds in a completely disproportionate manner, causing a huge number of civilian casualties (some 80% of the 1800 killed), wounded (about 10000), refugees (in the hundreds of thousands) and destruction of vital civilian infrastructure, leaving the population with very limited access to water, food, shelter or medical care. So, I ask again: do you believe this is the solution to the problem, or is it just further radicalizing the population (on both sides)?

Than he throws terms like Apartheid and Genocide and he completely twists them: "when you target only a small portion of an ethnic group it will constitute as genocide" - and for that he used hamas (their leadership), which is a terrorist group who seeks to destroy Israel and has since its foundation killed numerous Israelis (I guess that constitute as genocide by his definition as well, since they targeted a portion - the civilians).
That premise is wrong. Killing the leadership does not constitute as genocide of said ethnic group, same goes for small portion and of course he hadn't mentioned intent at all, which is an important part.

Genocide - the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. Genocide entails also the Conspiracy to commit genocide
Note the deliberate word.

Israel doesn't have as it's agenda the killing of palestinians, despite all they've done.

About 80% of the Palestinian casualties are civilians - either the IDF is worryingly incompetent (so much so that it would probably be better not to allow them anywhere near a weapon, for fear they would hurt themselves), or they target/don't care about civilians and civilian infrastructure. Am I missing another possibility there? I've lost count at the amount of shelters they've hit after being repeatedly warned of the coordinates, and that there were refugees inside - at what point should people stop calling these attacks accidents and instead start calling them intentional? Because they just keep on happening, time and time again. And no, Israel doesn't automatically have the right to kill civilians because Hamas might or might not be nearby.

Are we supposed to believe this isn't just a continuation of the Dahiya doctrine? Quoting IDF Northern Command Chief Gadi Eisenkot, “What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. [...] This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved”. And quoting a Wikileaks release, "Eisenkot stated that Damascus fully understands what the Israelis did in Dahiya, and that the Israelis have the capability of doing the same to Syria. He suggested the possibility of harm to the population has been Hizballah leader Nasrallah's main constraint, and the reason for the quiet over the past two years".

Then we have the blockade imposed on Gaza, which according to official Israeli policy, is meant to keep the Palestinian population on a state just slightly above that consistent with a humanitarian crisis, and the economy there at the brink of collapse - again, we know this thanks to Wikileaks. Of course, with the recent escalation of the conflict, and the usual Israeli targeting of vital infrastructure, they are now in a humanitarian crisis.

I honestly don't think it's such a stretch to call this genocide anymore.

hamas on the other hand, has, and from the 2nd phrase, they have committed genocide.
http://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm (the covenant of hamas)

I'm unsure of who you think is defending Hamas' actions here, but allow me to repeat what I said above: as wrong as Hamas' actions are, they provide no justification for Israel to do the same, or worse.

By the way, since you brought up the charter, allow me clarify something about it, the peace process, and the recognition of Israel, while I'm at it: Hamas' officials have on several occasions (even quite recently) publicly stated that the charter is no longer relevant in the current context, and that the issue of recognizing Israel is up to the Palestinian people to decide upon, not themselves. In fact, they went even further than that when they formed the unity government earlier this year, by officially accepting the three main preconditions the Quartet had imposed on Hamas back when they were elected (they had already tacitly accepted it, but this made it official) - the Quartet recognized this (even the US!) and stated its willingness to work with the new unity government; the Israeli government however, instead of taking this as an opportunity to move towards peace, canceled the peace negotiations, and gave no valid reason for it.

2nd crime he didn't even try to backup his claim, he just stated it is.

I take it you mean his mention of crimes against humanity committed by Israel? At this point, he is talking about the period from 1947 onward until today, and mentions at least the cases of forced population transfers (yes, I know it wasn't just Israel), massacres, and apartheid (which I'll go into more detail below).

Than he talks about Apartheid and gets it all wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy
And this is what R.J.Goldstone wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander.html?_r=1&

tl;dr:
Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.
But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court.

I don't agree with the rosy image Goldstone and you present here, as it seems to me there is still substantial discrimination, and inequality in resource allocation, as I mentioned in the other thread (which reminds me, did you get to see my reply: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=697027.msg7965307#msg7965307?). Still, inside Israel, the comparison is unfair in my opinion: the conditions aren't great, but it isn't Apartheid, and the situation is improving (albeit slowly).

But, considering Israel is the occupying power, you can't ignore the situation on the occupied territories, or Israeli responsibilities there - and there, the conditions it imposes on the Palestinians are worse than Apartheid. In South Africa, the white minority at least needed the black population, so they sort of tried to ensure the situation didn't degenerate too much. In Goldstone's opinion piece you linked, he goes on to say that in the occupied territories, even when Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians, they aren't doing so for racial reasons, or to keep one group dominant over another. He further says that Israel has accepted the idea of a Palestinian state, at least in concept, and justifies Israeli oppression with the usual security reasons rhetoric. This seems to me to completely ignore the realities Palestinians are faced with: important areas, especially those with access to water and farmland, have been taken from them, leaving any eventual independent Palestinian state mostly nonviable; they regularly have their land stolen from them (typically under military pretexts, and then it's given to settlers); protesters are often beaten or killed; suspects of crimes have their homes destroyed; are subject to mass arrests, as was the case before the latest escalation, and are often put under administrative detention (which means there doesn't even have to be a reason for the arrest) even if you're a child; and this not to go into reports of possible torture, that usually aren't investigated - it should go without saying that settlers in the region are immune to all this, of course.

Now, of course Goldstone is entitled to his personal opinion, as are you or I, but here are a couple of quotes from John Dugard, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, taken from a 2007 report (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/105/44/PDF/G0710544.pdf): "Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group (Jews) over another racial group (Palestinians) and systematically oppressing them? Israel denies that this is its intention or purpose. But such an intention or purpose may be inferred from the actions described in this report". Also, "Israel’s laws and practices in the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories] certainly resemble aspects of apartheid, as shown in paragraphs 49-50 above, and probably fall within the scope of the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid". And finally, "Moreover, Israel has systematically violated peremptory norms of international law in the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories], ranging from the denial of self-determination to serious crimes against humanity".

In 2010, Richard Falk, another UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, reports the situation is progressively deteriorating (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/65/331): "Professor Dugard pointed to “features of colonialism and apartheid” that characterize Israel’s occupation, aggravating the charges of unlawfulness, and creating additional obligations and responsibilities for Israel as the occupying Power, for third States, and for the United Nations. Colonialism constitutes a repudiation of the essential legal rights of territorial integrity and self-determination, and apartheid has come to be formally treated as a crime against humanity. [...] It is the opinion of the current Special Rapporteur that the nature of the occupation as of 2010 substantiates earlier allegations of colonialism and apartheid in evidence and law to a greater extent than was the case even three years ago. The entrenching of colonialist and apartheid features of the Israeli occupation has been a cumulative process. The longer it continues, the more difficult it is to overcome and the more serious is the abridgement of fundamental Palestinian rights".

Finally, a description I found interesting in the Wikipedia page you linked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#cite_ref-172): "Israel academic David Shulman writing in the aftermath of the creation of separate bus lines in the West Bank to separate Palestinians and settlers, remarks that: 'Israelis often protest when the word "apartheid" is used to describe life in the West Bank, with its settlers-only roads and its settlers' electricity grid and its settlers' water-supply and its blatantly discriminatory courts; more and more the word seems sadly close to the mark'".

Throughout that interview he uses the word "there's no doubt" a lot, as if it's true. Bullshit.

You could seriously do a lot better than this nutjob.

Well, that "nutjob" is the attorney for Wikileaks in the US, represented Guantanamo Bay detainees, and has received considerable recognition for his work in the area of human rights. You shouldn't be so quick to resort to personal attacks and dismissal of him, just because you disagree with his views - which he had less than 8 minutes to expose.