Canuckle

It's interesting to see what sections you honed in on and why. How about these parts? "It is not often that the president of the UN General Assembly would accuse a member state of genocide. But when the Israeli Army bombarded the civilian population of Gaza, invoking the right of self-defense against terrorists launching missiles into civilian targets, Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann did not hesitate to describe such actions as genocide." Sound familiar? "...the internationally renowned jurist and Princeton professor of law, Richard Falk, wrote in that year that “it is especially painful for me, as an American Jew, to feel compelled to portray the ongoing and intensifying abuse of the Palestinian people by Israel through a reliance on such an inflammatory metaphor as ‘holocaust.’” Coming from a Law Professor of Jewish faith should make you pause, no? "Goldstone’s report also uses the same language for the Hamas missile attack on Israel. This seems to be more lip service than a genuine point. The imbalance of the aggressors’ power and destruction and the victims’ pathetic military response deserves different language." Yes, yes it does. "...Moreover, when one reads the thorough and brave report of Judge Goldstone, one should remember that the 1,500 killed, thousands of wounded, and tens of thousands who lost their homes do not tell the whole story. It is the decision to employ such fierce military force in a civilian space that should be discussed. This kind of firepower can only produce the kind of horrific destruction we have seen in Gaza. It was used for this purpose." I agree, Noam. Care to discuss that last section as Noam suggests? As for claims against the g word in Palestine, you need a whole lot more than reference to "population growth" to determine, let alone dismiss, charges of genocidal state policy. Secondly, this book is from 2010. I ask, what exactly has really changed here? Sadly, the answer is: not much. Israeli state doing exactly the same thing right now. Also, whataboutisms won't work with me friend. Never once have I condoned the actions of Hamas. Nevertheless, the focus here is on Zionist Israeli state policy and their subsequent actions throughout. It didnt start last month--It's been going on for decades. And yes, it boils down to genocide. But can you believe whatever you like.

My digs? Oh, my dear friend. And it's interesting you frame it that way. Speaking about genocide of any population is not an attack on those that have had previous horrors perpetrated on them. I choose my words carefully. I don't say things for no reason. Yes, Genocide has been perpetrated on Palestinians for decades and decades. And wait... I thought you were a fellow Noam Chomsky reader? You ever read his 2010 book "Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on the US-Israeli War Against the Palestinians." ? Here's an except pp. 287-291: "A GENOCIDAL POLICY? The evidence collected by Israeli-based human rights organizations, international agencies, and media (although the Israelis barred the media from entering the Strip) was perceived by many to be far more serious than just war crimes. Some referred to it as genocide. It is not often that the president of the UN General Assembly would accuse a member state of genocide. But when the Israeli Army bombarded the civilian population of Gaza, invoking the right of self-defense against terrorists launching missiles into civilian targets, Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann did not hesitate to describe such actions as genocide. As a former Roman Catholic priest and Nicaragua’s foreign minister his views carry considerable weight. Needless to say, these remarks were promptly dismissed by the Israelis as anti-Semitic, the standard reaction to such accusations. Had his voice been a lonely one in the wilderness, it would have had little resonance, but it was joined by similar expressions of outrage by other senior politicians, especially outside the Western corridors of power, who chose the term genocide as the only way to describe the tragedy visited upon the people of Gaza. D’Escoto Brockmann’s reaction came before the full-scale destruction of homes, schools, and hospitals in many parts of Gaza. A week later, the Turkish columnist and author Oktay Akbal described the Israeli actions as the “Real Genocide.” The Israeli daily Haaretz reported on December 29, 2008, that government and opposition leaders across the globe, but mainly in Southeast Asia, Africa, and South America, referred to the atrocities (even before they fully transpired) as genocide. There were strong criticisms from the West as well, but these sources were more cautious in using the term genocide. Nonetheless, the G-word frequently surfaced in the commentaries conveyed through alternative media, bloggers, and Web sites. Even before the Gaza operations in January 2009 occasional references were made to Israeli armed forces committing acts of genocide. “Some 1.4 million people, mostly children, are piled up in one of the most densely populated regions of the world, with no freedom of movement, no place to run and no space to hide,” UN relief official Jan Egeland and Swedish foreign minister Jan Eliasson noted of the Israeli forays into Gaza, writing in Le Figaro. Journalist John Pilger wrote in the New Statesman, “A genocide is engulfing the people of Gaza while silence engulfs its bystanders.” that same month repeated Israeli actions against the children in Gaza prompted similar expressions of concern from some unlikely sources: the internationally renowned jurist and Princeton professor of law, Richard Falk, wrote in that year that “it is especially painful for me, as an American Jew, to feel compelled to portray the ongoing and intensifying abuse of the Palestinian people by Israel through a reliance on such an inflammatory metaphor as ‘holocaust.’” The January 2009 events were referred to in similar terms by the pro-Western Arab media organs. One such source was the Dubai-based satellite network Al-Arabia. On December 28, 2008, when the massive Israeli killing had just begun, although already resulting in unprecedented numbers of dead children and women, the network reported the popular protests around the world against the Israeli actions. The headline was “World Stands United against ‘Genocide’ in Gaza.” It reported that “protestors from Denmark, Turkey, Pakistan, Cyprus, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iran, Sudan and even Israel all called for an end to what most demonstrators termed as ‘genocide’ in Gaza.” This was not the mainstream media’s opinion in the West, nor was it voiced in such a manner by any members of the political elite in North America or Europe. But within the balance of power between hegemonic and counterhegemonic voices, the latter included senior politicians in the rest of the world, the widest coalitions of the political left and of human rights organizations in the West, coupled with some influential voices from within the Western media. The journalist John Pilger referred to the events in Gaza as genocide in the New Statesman again on January 21, 2009. In the aftermath of the event more voices joined in. Participants in the main demonstration in London on January 19, 2009, carried placards about the “Genocide in Gaza.” Similar banners were raised in a massive demonstration in Copenhagen. Elsewhere, the Malaysian foreign minister in April 2009 described the attack on Gaza as genocide. One can understand why Judge Goldstone refrained from such language. His report as noted corroborates the evidence collected by those who described these policies as genocidal but sums them up as war crimes that require further investigation. Goldstone’s report also uses the same language for the Hamas missile attack on Israel. This seems to be more lip service than a genuine point. The imbalance of the aggressors’ power and destruction and the victims’ pathetic military response deserves different language. Moreover, when one reads the thorough and brave report of Judge Goldstone, one should remember that the 1,500 killed, thousands of wounded, and tens of thousands who lost their homes do not tell the whole story. It is the decision to employ such fierce military force in a civilian space that should be discussed. This kind of firepower can only produce the kind of horrific destruction we have seen in Gaza. It was used for this purpose. The nature of the military operations also displayed an Israeli military wish to experiment with new weapons, all intended to kill civilians as part of what the former chief of the army’s general staff, Moshe Ya’alon, termed as the need to brand in the Palestinian consciousness the fearsome might of the Israeli Army."

If population is all we're looking at to determine what does or does not constitute genocide, we're going to get an incomplete picture. We can get caught up in definitional hairsplitting, or we can look at the hard facts of state actions and the policies therein.

Reductive claims are super fun aren't they. And you can keep up fine. I have faith in you! And yes, this user can find a few sources to back up the their claims of bs rallied at this Professor and author. Also just looked up his book: Hermeneutics of Violence: A Four-Dimensional Conception https://books.google.ca/books/about/A_Hermeneutics_of_Violence.html?id=W1G_DwAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y I might actually pick this up. Lol

And this cherry picked example is evidence of what? Of course there are outliers sometimes. Like any system. But by and large, peer reviewed studies and published articles are trustworthy and backed by others that have studied the discipline. ie. Peer reviewed. PhDs have to sign off on the bloody things. If they weren't credible the whole of academia would fucking collapse. And that certainly hasn't happened. Yes, I will trust what the experts say in their given disciplines over most anyone on a given subject. And I take my medical advice from my doctor. And when it comes time to discuss coding, I will trust you there as well.

Well, if you're calling it BS you have to have some basis for that. If there's something legit out there which backs what you're saying, post it and I'll take it into consideration to inform my own views. Because so far its pretty easy to side with the guy that has written books on the matter, and an active Sociology Professor at Calgary University--- a question of credibility.

Beautiful but.... not the sharpest tool in the shed. Lol. ever listened to interviews with her? *Shudder*

Yes, you absolutely can. Just as you can kill someone with toxic chemicals over a long period of time. Just because death doesn't happen right away all at once and in the most extreme explicit ways doesn't mean it isn't happening. No different here. And no, my conclusions here are not drawn from emotion. Yes, I'm inherently critical of all states due to the political philosophy i subscribe to, but the critiques are still grounded in reason... whether you understand it or agree with it or not. And to that again I state we've been down this path many times before. Page after page, thread after thread.

Got any evidence to counter his claims? An article by Professor Ayyash: author of A Hermeneutics of Violence (UTP, 2019), and a policy analyst at Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network, and Professor of Sociology at Mount Royal University, currently writing a book on settler colonial sovereignty. How about you?

Hahahahaha. oh c'mon now.

Lol. Not the time, Bob.

And I'd say your words have proven otherwise. Yes, it is. And been genocide for decades and decades. But you can say whatever you want.

Trusting informed opinions of professionals and experts in their prospective fields? The manifesto of LOGIC, friend.

Not after a post like that we're not.