Thanks for reading and replying. It's been clear for months that what Israel is engaged in is genocide, but still people want to play word games in order to keep us debating amongst ourselves as to what it is we're seeing.
The use of euphemism keeps us spinning in circles and running in place. We need to move on to halting what Israel is doing, because they are truly out of control. This weekend, Israel fired on UN peacekeepers in Lebanon; they pulled back from committing heinous atrocities at al-Shifa Hospital, which they utterly destroyed; and just today they bombed the Iranian embassy in Damascus, where diplomats have been killed. This must be stopped. They won't stop themselves.
Much of what was in that article was previously known, particularly that the problem is that Biden has choked off dissenting viewpoints and has surrounded himself with people who will not check him. Thus the groupthink that the author pointed out. It's exactly what Biden himself should have sought to avoid. The theorist who advanced the groupthink model used the example of JFK, contrasting his deliberations from the Bay of Pigs failure to the Cuban missile crisis; the difference was that in the interim JFK discarded groupthinking and let his team create systems whereby dissenting voices could be heard. Were it not for this, the Cuban missile crisis may have turned out very differently.
I can't speak to Jill Biden and I mean not to involve her in this whole thing. There's very little she could do. Joe Biden, though--this is all on him. History will record this.
Again - you are lost. Genocide is when you kill people simply because you do not believe they have a right to exist. In the middle of military attacks and security threats it is virtually impossible to establish genocide. I understand that these Quip answers given by Humanitarian Idealists seem so clever but they are meaningless. In the midst of a security threat conflict unless you have statements from top Israeli leaders articulating that security is established and is no longer an issue AND they desire to wipe out the rest of the Palestinians for Good Fun - You have No GENOCIDE!
"unless you have statements from top Israeli leaders articulating that security is established and is no longer an issue AND they desire to wipe out the rest of the Palestinians for Good Fun"
By the way, you're just making things up. That's not the definition of genocide. I thought you said you were a lawyer...?
I gave you the statutory language in previous comments! Now I'm pointing out how the statutory elements could be met in the current circumstances. But you are running these articles off of emotion and an extremely imprecise use of language. You so want it to be a Genocide you are running around cherry-picking bits and pieces of ideas that match your desired conclusion. I thought you were educated?
I have the language. Article II of the Genocide Convention mentions killing persons in one out of five provisions. As Karčić notes in Torture, Humiliate, Kill--not a "humanitarian idealist" as you've caricatured him but a scholar of genocide studies--80% of the provisions under the Convention have nothing to do with killing the persons of the target group. Your definition of what constitutes genocide is not just nonviable, it's crap.
You didn't read or watch any of the sources I gave you, did you? It shows. I say that because we're not talking the same language. I'm utilizing the words of genocide scholars, experts in their field. You're not speaking to any of those points but maintain a denialist perspective. I daresay you're here to defend your belief system or worldview, not to actually discuss the fine points of the Geneva Convention on genocide.
I mentioned your background because a lawyer should be able to stick to the legal language and expound on it. You've done no such thing but instead created your own fanciful and non-existent definition. That shows a lack of intellectual integrity. If you don't want to get called out on that, then don't do such things.
The statements from the top Israeli leaders have been extensively documented in South Africa's application to the ICJ. Francesca Albanese has also referenced them in her report that she released last week. I will not repeat them. They are in the public record, and I expect people can read them for themselves. I have documented some elsewhere, but that was months back, and of course many more statements have been stated by many more people in the meantime. If that is your best refutation of what I have presented here and elsewhere, you are woefully behind.
You need to read Dirk Moses regarding "permanent security" and how states, when they go genocidal, cite the need to permanently establish a form of security against a foe in order to maintain order. This is the same thing as genocide. Moses advocates for the term 'genocide' to be jettisoned mainly because it introduces a hierarchy of atrocity crime, where crimes against humanity and war crimes seem to pale in comparison (very much in the vein of what I've written here). But make no mistake: he equates "permanent security" with the concept of genocide. He wants to expand our definition.
Moses says in "The Problems of Genocide: Permanent Security and the Language of Transgression" (Center of Armenian Studies, YouTube, April 28, 2021, approx. 33:15),
“Now, however, there’s a difference between the legitimate rights of the State to their security, to deal with a particular emergency, and what I’ve now called permanent security, which is illegitimate; which is when you decide, ‘Okay, we’ve got a particular situation here.’ Rather than say, ‘Deal with the particular insurgents,’ ‘We’re going to deport or imprison or murder the entire population from which they come, so that we will never have an insurgency in the future.’ In other words, ‘We’ll have a kind of final solution of the Armenian problem, or of the Rohingya problem, or of the Uighur problem.’
“So never again will they have to deal—and, now, that’s what I mean by permanent security. Because then your security is permanent, it’s absolute: you have absolute safety.
“Now, when states start moving in this direction, then there are going to be excesses against civilians. There’s going to be ethnic cleansing; there’s going to be genocide; there are going to be crimes against humanity and war crimes.
“So what I’m arguing is that the logic that subtends all these particular international crimes—genocide, crimes against humanity, and so forth, which are known as atrocity crimes now—is permanent security."
A massively disproportionate response and collective punishment including murder, starvation and lack of medical care are all serious war crimes. There is no battle. Hamas is not fighting back. Many in the Israeli government have stated that they want to remove the Palestinians. Stolen real estate from the West Bank is up for sale in NY.
Hamas isn't fighting now because they are under constant attack while they shelter and hide amongst the civilian population. A government's primary job is to provide security for its population. You don't incite a conflict without planning for the protection of citizens. Except for elected government of the Palestinians. Their elected government uses them as human meat shields and lambs to the slaughter so they can turn global sentiment against Israel. The Palestinian government started this conflict. The Palestinian government intentionally placed women and children in this position. Why is this the fault of Israel? It definitely is not Israel it is the ugly realities of war begun by the Palestinian government which has stated plainly their goal is the eradication of all Jews in Palestine. How do you combat a military aggressor set on a Jewish Genocide? However Hamas has fooled you all into believing this is an Israel issue.
You are not debating any of the points raised in the diary but rather have decided to rehash talking points.
If you are not actually interested in having a level and respectful conversation, I suggest that you read in lurk mode or find other people to harass, because at this point I see that that's what you mean to do.
For example, the Palestinians are also part of the population for which Israel is responsible, as it is the occupying power in the region. By Article 51 of the UN Charter, as I understand it, occupying powers cannot declare war on regions which are under their control. Thus this entire operation is illegal. Yes, states must maintain their security. But, as I posted above and as you dodged, there is a difference between legitimate security and illegitimate security. Israel has chosen the latter.
At this point in the conflict, who "started it" (and we can go back to when things may or may not have started) has nothing to do with how Israel has chosen to conduct itself in combat. Those decisions are Israel's alone and fall under jus in bello. Israel has broken many aspects of international humanitarian law, the fault of which cannot be outsourced to any opponent. Israel is responsible for the tactics and strategies it chooses.
Francesca Albanese commented on the "human shields" issue, if you would do her the favor of reading her report.
As for "turn[ing] global sentiment against Israel," Israel is doing a fine job of this itself, with its very conduct. It shocks the conscience what Israel is doing.
Thank you for this important and clarifying post. It's genocide.
Thanks for reading and replying. It's been clear for months that what Israel is engaged in is genocide, but still people want to play word games in order to keep us debating amongst ourselves as to what it is we're seeing.
The use of euphemism keeps us spinning in circles and running in place. We need to move on to halting what Israel is doing, because they are truly out of control. This weekend, Israel fired on UN peacekeepers in Lebanon; they pulled back from committing heinous atrocities at al-Shifa Hospital, which they utterly destroyed; and just today they bombed the Iranian embassy in Damascus, where diplomats have been killed. This must be stopped. They won't stop themselves.
Novapsyche, As with all extreme cruelty, I find it hard to comprehend. I see pictures of Jill and Joe and I wonder, is Jill really on board for this? This article may explain Biden, but not his cohorts in his admin: https://prospect.org/world/2024-03-28-how-biden-boxed-himself-in-on-gaza/
Thanks for the link, Lisa.
Much of what was in that article was previously known, particularly that the problem is that Biden has choked off dissenting viewpoints and has surrounded himself with people who will not check him. Thus the groupthink that the author pointed out. It's exactly what Biden himself should have sought to avoid. The theorist who advanced the groupthink model used the example of JFK, contrasting his deliberations from the Bay of Pigs failure to the Cuban missile crisis; the difference was that in the interim JFK discarded groupthinking and let his team create systems whereby dissenting voices could be heard. Were it not for this, the Cuban missile crisis may have turned out very differently.
I can't speak to Jill Biden and I mean not to involve her in this whole thing. There's very little she could do. Joe Biden, though--this is all on him. History will record this.
Excellent point. Biden doesn't want to be talked out of supporting Israel no matter what, and he's surrounded himself with like-minded people.
Again - you are lost. Genocide is when you kill people simply because you do not believe they have a right to exist. In the middle of military attacks and security threats it is virtually impossible to establish genocide. I understand that these Quip answers given by Humanitarian Idealists seem so clever but they are meaningless. In the midst of a security threat conflict unless you have statements from top Israeli leaders articulating that security is established and is no longer an issue AND they desire to wipe out the rest of the Palestinians for Good Fun - You have No GENOCIDE!
"unless you have statements from top Israeli leaders articulating that security is established and is no longer an issue AND they desire to wipe out the rest of the Palestinians for Good Fun"
By the way, you're just making things up. That's not the definition of genocide. I thought you said you were a lawyer...?
Novapsyche- Just out of curiosity - are you still in High school?
Your below-the-belt comments are amusing.
If you can't debate the points, I can't help you.
I gave you the statutory language in previous comments! Now I'm pointing out how the statutory elements could be met in the current circumstances. But you are running these articles off of emotion and an extremely imprecise use of language. You so want it to be a Genocide you are running around cherry-picking bits and pieces of ideas that match your desired conclusion. I thought you were educated?
I have the language. Article II of the Genocide Convention mentions killing persons in one out of five provisions. As Karčić notes in Torture, Humiliate, Kill--not a "humanitarian idealist" as you've caricatured him but a scholar of genocide studies--80% of the provisions under the Convention have nothing to do with killing the persons of the target group. Your definition of what constitutes genocide is not just nonviable, it's crap.
You didn't read or watch any of the sources I gave you, did you? It shows. I say that because we're not talking the same language. I'm utilizing the words of genocide scholars, experts in their field. You're not speaking to any of those points but maintain a denialist perspective. I daresay you're here to defend your belief system or worldview, not to actually discuss the fine points of the Geneva Convention on genocide.
I mentioned your background because a lawyer should be able to stick to the legal language and expound on it. You've done no such thing but instead created your own fanciful and non-existent definition. That shows a lack of intellectual integrity. If you don't want to get called out on that, then don't do such things.
I was waiting for you to show up. Hello.
The statements from the top Israeli leaders have been extensively documented in South Africa's application to the ICJ. Francesca Albanese has also referenced them in her report that she released last week. I will not repeat them. They are in the public record, and I expect people can read them for themselves. I have documented some elsewhere, but that was months back, and of course many more statements have been stated by many more people in the meantime. If that is your best refutation of what I have presented here and elsewhere, you are woefully behind.
You need to read Dirk Moses regarding "permanent security" and how states, when they go genocidal, cite the need to permanently establish a form of security against a foe in order to maintain order. This is the same thing as genocide. Moses advocates for the term 'genocide' to be jettisoned mainly because it introduces a hierarchy of atrocity crime, where crimes against humanity and war crimes seem to pale in comparison (very much in the vein of what I've written here). But make no mistake: he equates "permanent security" with the concept of genocide. He wants to expand our definition.
Moses says in "The Problems of Genocide: Permanent Security and the Language of Transgression" (Center of Armenian Studies, YouTube, April 28, 2021, approx. 33:15),
“Now, however, there’s a difference between the legitimate rights of the State to their security, to deal with a particular emergency, and what I’ve now called permanent security, which is illegitimate; which is when you decide, ‘Okay, we’ve got a particular situation here.’ Rather than say, ‘Deal with the particular insurgents,’ ‘We’re going to deport or imprison or murder the entire population from which they come, so that we will never have an insurgency in the future.’ In other words, ‘We’ll have a kind of final solution of the Armenian problem, or of the Rohingya problem, or of the Uighur problem.’
“So never again will they have to deal—and, now, that’s what I mean by permanent security. Because then your security is permanent, it’s absolute: you have absolute safety.
“Now, when states start moving in this direction, then there are going to be excesses against civilians. There’s going to be ethnic cleansing; there’s going to be genocide; there are going to be crimes against humanity and war crimes.
“So what I’m arguing is that the logic that subtends all these particular international crimes—genocide, crimes against humanity, and so forth, which are known as atrocity crimes now—is permanent security."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H0k9UA0S7A
Beyond that, as I've stated before, genocide often takes place in the context of war. So the pablum that "it's war, not genocide" doesn't wash.
You need to go back to your drawing board. Better yet, join the rest of the civilized world and realize how beyond the pale Israel has gone.
A massively disproportionate response and collective punishment including murder, starvation and lack of medical care are all serious war crimes. There is no battle. Hamas is not fighting back. Many in the Israeli government have stated that they want to remove the Palestinians. Stolen real estate from the West Bank is up for sale in NY.
Hamas isn't fighting now because they are under constant attack while they shelter and hide amongst the civilian population. A government's primary job is to provide security for its population. You don't incite a conflict without planning for the protection of citizens. Except for elected government of the Palestinians. Their elected government uses them as human meat shields and lambs to the slaughter so they can turn global sentiment against Israel. The Palestinian government started this conflict. The Palestinian government intentionally placed women and children in this position. Why is this the fault of Israel? It definitely is not Israel it is the ugly realities of war begun by the Palestinian government which has stated plainly their goal is the eradication of all Jews in Palestine. How do you combat a military aggressor set on a Jewish Genocide? However Hamas has fooled you all into believing this is an Israel issue.
You are not debating any of the points raised in the diary but rather have decided to rehash talking points.
If you are not actually interested in having a level and respectful conversation, I suggest that you read in lurk mode or find other people to harass, because at this point I see that that's what you mean to do.
For example, the Palestinians are also part of the population for which Israel is responsible, as it is the occupying power in the region. By Article 51 of the UN Charter, as I understand it, occupying powers cannot declare war on regions which are under their control. Thus this entire operation is illegal. Yes, states must maintain their security. But, as I posted above and as you dodged, there is a difference between legitimate security and illegitimate security. Israel has chosen the latter.
At this point in the conflict, who "started it" (and we can go back to when things may or may not have started) has nothing to do with how Israel has chosen to conduct itself in combat. Those decisions are Israel's alone and fall under jus in bello. Israel has broken many aspects of international humanitarian law, the fault of which cannot be outsourced to any opponent. Israel is responsible for the tactics and strategies it chooses.
Francesca Albanese commented on the "human shields" issue, if you would do her the favor of reading her report.
As for "turn[ing] global sentiment against Israel," Israel is doing a fine job of this itself, with its very conduct. It shocks the conscience what Israel is doing.