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.
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).
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.
