OK, now we're getting into a very touchy issue over semantics. The Israeli actions in Gaza can easily be described as abhorrent, disproportionate, perhaps even war crimes. But it is NOT 'genocide'. This is a term that is reserved for the specific intent to completely destroy a particular group.
I can agree with with your objections to Israel's actions, but elevating it to such an extreme, inaccurate rhetorical level simply diminishes actual cases of genocide.

It is unquestionably ethnic cleansing. While that may not technically be a genocide, it's a mighty fine hair to split.

I think 'ethnic cleansing' is a fair term for the original displacement of the Palestinians, and even the ongoing Israeli settlement of the West Bank. But it really isn't a fine hair at all. Civilian deaths in war, no matter how brazen, is not the same thing as systematic extermination. If genocide was truly Israel's intention, the Palestinians would be dealt with much more efficiently. A cursory look at actual historical genocide gives plenty of insight.

Not when civilian deaths are the intention. Israel is killing as many as it thinks the international community will allow it to get away with. Furthermore, there's no legitimate military action to take; Israel already occupies the area, ergo it cannot have a military and thus there are no legitimate military targets.

That's all a matter of interpretation. First of all, Israel doesn't technically occupy Gaza, thought they do impose a blockade- 'siege' is probably a more accurate term. As for whether civilian deaths are intentional, I would challenge you to provide some evidence to that effect. Civilian deaths in Gaza provide no benefit whatsoever to Israel, they draw condemnation and isolation from the rest of the world and ultimately strengthen the hand of Hamas. As for legitimate military targets, I would remind you that Hamas is firing rockets into Israel- creating a military presence and military targets. The problem is that those targets are often indistinguishable from civilian targets, and Israel's biggest crime is failing to differentiate. As the greater power Israel does have the greater responsibility to minimize civilian casualties (which the seem to be failing miserably at), but Hamas does also bear responsibility for the conflict and the civilian losses.

Those targets are indistinguishable from civilian targets because they are civilian targets.

Israel does occupy Gaza. It exerts sovereignty over it, controls it's borders and enforces laws upon it. If they want to go in and arrest people (and give free, fair, and open trials with a presumption of innocence) they believe are firing rockets, so be it, but they have an obligation to do it without any harm to uninvolved bystanders.

Yes, that would result in a lot of Israeli officers going home in body bags. Ruling a population that does not consent to your governance is supposed to cost you dearly.

You sound naive. Failure to differentiate between civilian and military targets in a densely populated area? I'll remind you that the IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv is smack in the middle of a residential area, so blaming Hamas for using what little territory they have to operate is a double standard.

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/does-the-presence-of-the-idf-s-hq-in-tel-aviv-endanger-the-city-s-population.premium-1.435042

Franco and Hitler, as well as Mao and Stalin (and many after them) used the military tactic of murdering and terrorizing civilians in order to break the will of the people. Israel doesn't give a shit about bottle rockets that really don't have an effect other than give them the excuse to kill and destroy their enemy. It is also used to justify a moral equivalency in the public opinion. You bomb me, I bomb you. Too bad if my bombs are bigger.

They are targeting a specific group - Palestinians - to murder in order to appeal to the more moderate groups and populace so that they scream Enough!! and overtake Hamas and the other more extremist groups fighting for Palestine. 'Succumb and be safe or rebel and die' seems to be what Israel's offering. Or at least until the global community makes them stop. That isn't happening anytime soon while Obama says they have a right to defend themselves and should. Oh yeah, and can you please not kill civilian children?

Except for the little detail that killing Palestinian civilians has the opposite effect- potentially further radicalizing the Gazan population and spurring the rest of the world to scream 'enough'. If it's a deliberate strategy it's a stupid, counterproductive one, but of course I wouldn't rule out such idiotic short-sightedness from the likes of Netanyahu and his cronies.

If screaming is all the rest of the world does, why should Israel care?
If radicalizing a group you hate into making a token attempt at offensive action so you can stomp them into a bloody smear lets you stomp them into a bloody smear, where's the down side?

Because Israel is not North Korea. They do actually care what the rest of the world thinks of them. Otherwise, why bother trying to explain themselves or show any restraint whatsoever?

The Israeli people may care, but they consistently elect people who don't care.
Kind of like Kansans.

Yeah, that's wrong. By ensuring that the Gazans cannot conduct any foreign affairs or international trade the Israelis continue to act as an occupying power, with all of the responsibilities and restrictions an occupier has. One of which is that you can't wage warfare against occupied territory, you cannot conduct mass reprisals against occupied territories, and you have a positive obligation to ensure that basic needs, such as water and sanitation, are met. There's no way to even begin accounting for the myriad ways that Israel has failed in this.

There were very few restrictions before the second intifada, and as well, before Hamas came to power.

I hear there are trade restrictions on Russia, and they haven't even fired one rocket at us.

I hear we're not surrounding all of Russia, controlling their basic utilities, etc., either.

Same exact setup, right?

Yes, Israel has far more justification.

It'd help if we knew what color that hair was.

They're doing an awful job of not destroying a particular group.

Land is not people. See my response to foobar re. the difference between 'ethnic cleansing' and 'genocide'.
Just to be clear- I am in no way defending Israeli policy or actions. I can accept terms like 'apartheid' and even 'ethnic cleansing'. But tossing around accusations of 'genocide' is a type of hyperbole that I have a particular distaste for.

Maybe it's just really slow genocide? The intention seems clear, it's just the rate that seems to be different here.

Is the intention really clear? What is Israel gaining out of this ongoing process? If anything the big problem is a total lack of intention or long-term strategy.

The land they claim god gave them.

Hitler would have been quite happy to merely expel the Jews, had anyone been willing to accept them.

First, Israel is not interested in claiming Gaza. There isn't even a biblical basis for it.
They actually forcibly removed their own settlers from there in 2005.

Second, WTF? I think a little more elaboration is required on what seems to be a fairly outrageous statement.

It seems rather obvious that Israel has no intention of allowing a functioning Palestinian state to form, in Gaza or anywhere near it.

Israel withdrew from Gaza and the people there shortly thereafter elected a government whose stated aim is to destroy Israel and kill all of the Jews. If the people of Gaza wanted to be serious about forming a state electing a bunch of homicidal, suicidal religious lunatics to be their government wasn't a very good plan. The Israelis are stronger than Hamas. They have more and better weapons, and a bigger economic base with which to fund them. The people of Gaza were perfectly free to send Israel a big ole' "fuck you" in their elections if they wanted to, but expecting the Israelis to draw anything but grim conclusions from those elections is not reasonable.

whose stated aim is to destroy Israel and kill all of the Jews.

In March 2006, Hamas released its official legislative program. The document clearly signaled that Hamas could refer the issue of recognizing Israel to a national referendum. Under the heading "Recognition of Israel," it stated simply (AFP, 3/11/06): "The question of recognizing Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people." This was a major shift away from their 1988 charter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Goals

Well that is a load of double talk bullshit. They certainly didn't need a referendum when the wrote the mandate for genocide. They certainly don't need a national referendum to change a party charter.

Consider 18 years had passed, those involved changing drastically, old members evolving but mostly new members coming in. The overall organization restructured from one of resistance fighters to one of political party.

Surely you are able to recognize this, and humanize these people?

Totally irrelevant. Why does a political party need a national referendum? They don't, if anything all that would be required is a referendum of its membership.

This is simply a dodge to avoid removing a cherished policy plank from their platform.

By the way, Hamas started as a political party, they morphed into a terrorist organization, not the other way round.

Adam: Israel withdrew from Gaza and the people there shortly thereafter elected a government whose stated aim is to destroy Israel and kill all of the Jews who recently released its official legislative program clearly stating that the recognition of "Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people" which was a major shift away from their 1988 charter.

I was referring to the people of Gaza and Adam's framing them as having elected a bunch of homicidal, suicidal religious lunatics. Hamas did not run an election promoting a homicidal, suicidal religious lunatic government. The people of Gaza did not have much as for options, and never do, and still don't.

Yet, having said that, their charter still has the stated aim of destroying israel. Like I said, it is a dodge. They have o intention of removing it, and if it did come to a national referendum, they would promote the charter.

Alright the Hitler comment is a pretty good indication that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

So what? How does this have any relevancy to the current situation?

'Had anyone been willing to accept them'

- implying... What?

Bubonic plague, poisoned wells, and the blood of your children being used to make bread are poor tradeoffs for a small bag of gold and a smaller, decoy bag of gold. Not to mention pissing off the seven bankers that control all the world's money.

I probably missed a few, but you get the idea.

Jewish refugees were turned back by most (all?) of the Allies.

Nazi policy to the Jews up to 1941 was more restrained than the current Israeli policy towards Palestinians. A kristallnacht in Gaza would be a welcome toning down of the violence.

Sorry pal but you are straying down a very wrong path.
You really want to compare Israel to the Nazis?
I assume you are aware of their policy toward the Jews from 1941 onward, That policy didn't just spring up out of thin air because the Allies often turned away refugees.

How do you think those Japanese internment camps would have turned out if the war went badly for the US?

You're suggesting another Holocaust-like scenario? I seriously doubt it.

I don't. Mid-twentieth century Germans were not some special evil. It very well could happen elsewhere.

Oh, come on, it's not like we didn't immediately learn the error of our ways after the japanese internment camps. what are you some kind of commie or something? Is that it? Are you a dirty commie? HEY EVERYBODY, THIS GUYS A FUCKING COMMIE! GET HIM!

On a more serious note, some would say it happens pretty regularly, often with help from the CIA.

Some would also say the CIA invented AIDS and Ebola. I don't know how serious a note that would be though.

To target a gay and mr. black man, right?

Yeah, I havent seen proof of that in any history books yet. Though to be fair, I wouldnt put it past them. But we know the cia has a history weapon smuggling, drug smuggling, overthrowing socialist governments, and I heard one time, at band camp, an agent stuck a flute up his pussy. Don't ask me how that works. By the way in the fbi targets peaceful organizations and the nsa is just fucking spying on everyone. I just saved you at least 10 hours of reading history books.

You were at band camp, or the agent was at band camp?

The agent was at band camp, but personally, I think the flute was inside of him all along. He just needed to believe in himself.

Also, apologies for typos. On my phone.

And it wasn't a real flute, just a midget in a flute costume.

I think the CIA encourages conspiracy theories because they make them look more competent than they really are. If the CIA did create AIDS and Ebola, it was probably the result of a botched plot to turn Castro's beard pink.

Well we wouldn't want the public to come under the mistaken impression that the CIA is basically just a government run terrorist organization. That would be embarrassing. ;)

You're saying if we call this a genocide we're being anti semantic?

No, just inaccurate and hyperbolic.

Dude, the very article you link to points out that genocide is A]ny of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole OR IN PART, blah blah blah.

Where do you get the "completely" thing?

This guy makes some rational points

There are probably 3 million or more refugees in Jordan that wouldn't agree with the sentiment that what happened a generation ago is no longer relevant. People are still alive that had their land and homes stolen.

Makes a big difference whether shit happened generations ago to us or them. Plenty of Scots and Irish are still majorly pissed at the English. People nourish their grievances and pass them down like a legacy.

If anyone out there wants to support the IDF's campaign by putting sexy photos of themselves with relevant graffiti on themselves, here's a Facebook page for you to do so.

They're having fun with this - that's pretty fucking callous.

Callous would be an understatement. It's something else entirely that permeates a culture that fosters this kind of behavior.

There's a tit for every tat in this mess:

More generally, all types of Palestinian rockets fired into southern Israel, for example the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Al Quds rockets, are called Qassams by the Israeli media, and often by foreign media.[4] The Qassam gained notoriety as the best-known type of rocket deployed by Palestinian militants mainly against Israeli civilians, but also some military targets during the Second Intifada of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[5][6] Since 2000, Palestinian rockets, which include the Qassam, alongside others such as the Grad rocket, have been used to kill 22 Israeli citizens and one Thai national (as of January 9, 2009).[7][8] These rockets cannot be fired precisely to target specific military objectives in or near civilian areas. Human Rights Watch issued an analysis, stating, that "such weapons are therefore indiscriminate when used against targets in population centers. The absence of Israeli military forces in the areas where rockets hit, as well as statements by leaders of Palestinian armed groups that population centers were being targeted, indicate that the armed groups deliberately attacked Israeli civilians and civilian objects."[9] The international community considers indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian structures that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets as illegal under international law.[9][10

Hamas has the short end of the stick in a military engagement but it is far from an innocent organization; and, UN or not, it too is a violator of international law, for what that's worth.

I used to support the cause of independence for Northern Ireland. Having gotten to know a number of individuals involved in those efforts I came to the conclusion that there is a lot of money and power involved in maintaining the conflict. Indeed, raising money for Palestinians is a favored activity among republicans in Northern Ireland. My point is that all Hamas has to gain with their position is perpetuation of the current conflict, and that that is the end in itself.

Nobody's innocent, it's just business.

Funny that Northern Ireland should be such a big revenue stream for the Palestinians. You'd think their well-monied brethren the Saudis or the UAE would be willing to chip in.

Whatever crimes Hamas may or may not be guilty of is wholly irrelevant. If Israel wants to arrest them, let them go in with a police force and do it.

Really? Takes two tango. Hamas, like Israel, is also accused of possible war crimes by the same international authorities.

When the Haganah, or Jewish freedom fighters filled ambulances full of explosives and sent it into Palestinian territory killing both civilians and soldiers in 1948 to gain a foothold in the middle east, it was considered a war of independence. When Hamas sends whatever rockets they have into their former land and occupiers it's considered terrorism.

Its a matter of interpretation.

All I'm saying is that indiscriminately targeting civilians is considered a war crime by organizations like Human Rights Watch, whether it's done by the IDF or Hamas. If they had been around when the Haganah was active they probably would have agreed. I don't think they'd be interested in the justification.

That does not justify Israel bombing uninvolved Palestinians.

I never said it did. Quite the contrary. Neither side is justified in targeting civilians.

It seemed you were implying that Hamas' actions justified Israel bombing Gaza.

Nope. Just that the crimes of Hamas are not irrelevant.

"Go in with a police force" - like, say an Army, and then you need to set up continuous presence to prevent additional crime... sounds like an occupation to me.

Which is what they're doing anyway, but police forces are generally discouraged from shooting random citizens, let alone bombing hospitals.

An interesting article if the claim is true.

I never thought it made sense for Hamas to be behind the kidnapping and murder of the Israeli teens.
But even if Hamas is cleared of the crime (somehow I doubt they will be) I doubt it would have much effect on Netanyahu's policies or standing.

I also was not paying much attention until someone else highlighted this to me, but of course, all the media seems to state as defacto that "this latest calamity in Gaza started with the kidnapping and death of three Israelis"

And yet, one could also argue that those deaths were also retaliation for deaths of some teens in the West Bank.

In reality, the efforts in Gaza have nothing to do with the deaths of some teens in the West Bank, and everything to do with Hamas firing rockets out of Gaza. If there were rockets coming from West Bank, then maybe they might be related.

Of course, it may not have anything to do with Hamas. It's not as though all of the Islamic factions are aligned. And it might not be to Israel's advantage to acknowledge that schism when it comes to the Palestinians. One of the most moderate of the Hamas leadership and chief peace negotiator (al Jabari) was killed by an Israeli missile attack on his car hours after he had received a draught agreement for a permanent ceasefire.

Before Hamas, it was PLO. The PLO officially recognised Israel. Arafat and Rabin were both given the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts towards a lasting peace. It was suspected that Arafat had been assassinated on Israeli orders. The Swiss lab that conducted a forensic necropsy on Arafat's body claimed that he may have been poisoned with polonium. In spite of numerous calls for a thorough investigation, Israel claimed that they hadn't done it and the whole matter was dropped and nothing more was said.

Nobody's hands are clean in this but Israel is playing the victim card a bit too often and far too forcefully.

Man, I did not enjoy downmodding this, but Onix man, that headlines a bit much.

I find what Israel is doing appalling. "Roof knocking" (shooting a low impact round on a house/building 6 minutes before you blow it up as a warning) to be a horrible violation of the Geneva Conventions, and most certainly a warcrime. I think that Israel supporting illegal settlers in Palestinian land is criminal, it makes a two state solution impossible, and crowds Palestinians into smaller and smaller areas... and that I would call ethnic cleansing, on slow but depressing timescale.

But it's not genocide. Israel isn't launching wars to kill every Palestinian they can find. The difference isn't academic, and it's important to make. Hitler committed genocide because he launched attacks into parts of Poland and Russia with the clear orders to eliminate every Jew, or Communist they could find.

Israel isn't doing that, they are however supporting a program of ethnic cleansing by making the two state option impossible and settling land with the intention to drive out Arabs (and if you think that is hyperbole, I welcome you to talk to the whack-jobs that make up the settlers.)

Genocide is a far more active and frightening thing, and ethnic cleansing does bleed into genocide very often, until you have news of Israel giving orders to the IDF to shoot and kill every Palestinian they find.... ratchet down the hyperbole a bit.

Okay, I am willing to settle for Ethnic cleasing. Still, killing a bunch of people in a process of sustemating eliminating a group of people seems pretty awful.

Yes it is.

That said, if you want to talk about genocide, let's discuss Hamas. They lack the power to back up their rhetoric, but unlike Israel they officially have a stance of genocide enshrined in their charter. While Israel can be accused of warcrimes, due to policies like roof knocking, Hamas is FAR MORE GUILTY of such. They blindly fire rockets at civilian targets.

I understand the unequal nature of this war, Palestinians can't really afford modern guided weapons... but the truth is there. We can't pick on Israel because they are more modern, and thus somehow more responsible for their own actions. Neither party is innocent, and when it comes to genocidal intent, Hamas takes the cake.

When it comes to actually being effective in your intents, Israel does. Though they are not intent on genocide, what they appear to be intent on is hardly much better.

Have you actually had people want to hang you or call you a nazi, or do you just assume that's what would happen to you?

It was a parabole. I have been acussed of being antisemitic on other places, both on the internet and a couple of times in my face.

One problem is the schizophrenic nature of US policy. One one hand, you have Kerry pushing for a ceasefire. On the other, you have the US ambassador to Israel calling this report a "travesty" and demanding that the Palestinians surrender all of their weapons "just like Syria and the chemical weapons" in exchange for "loosening some travel restrictions."

Welcome to the wonderful world of international diplomacy. What you hear is most definitely not what you get.

Israel has a right to defend itself!
the Palestinians keep starting these problems.
Israel has had enough.

Can I have your house? God says it's my land, because I'm chosen. You really can't argue with that, so if you'll just leave the key and deed under the mat, that'd be cool.

Technically, nobody owns this land as this has been fought over for many years and switched "owners" numerous times. Then Europeans negotiated with the Arabs in the area and took control of it (British Mandate of Palestine).

Usually taking control of land or a country was done through wars like in the past. The European Jews/Zionists used their "buy the homeland" fund and BOUGHT Israel from the then British Mandated Palestine. Of course, the locals never wanted that. They were being evicted.

Then the British Mandate of Palestine dissolved and it was back to fighting over this tiny peace of land that everyone calls home. This was the only time they had to use force and drive away all the attackers from the land they bought from the British, who negotiated from the Arabs in the area.

It's a big cluster fuck of pointing fingers where you can't find straight facts without bias written into it.

Tell you what: How about we refer to land being "owned" in the individual sense rather than the country sense? Canada could take over the United States tomorrow and I could still "own" my property, assuming us conquered folks became Canadian citizens under the new regime.

People who own land are being pushed off of it in Israel and the occupied territories, and Israelis are taking it under the aegis that they're chosen by God, their ancestors held the land over a thousand years ago, so they get it back now. I can't think of any Western country that would see that as being in any way just, fair, or correct unless their religion tells them otherwise and they let that override how they view law.

Someone can buy the ruins of Detroit, but that doesn't let them take away someone's deed to their land within the confines of that city, at least without compensation, and even that is contestable.

Unless you're one of the Native American leaders in the reservations throughout the US, you wouldn't be paying taxes for your "own" land. Nobody "owns" land here in the US. We're all renting it.

That's basically what happened. It was a business transaction. Yes it's fucked up.

If you want to get that pedantic, you're technically renting everything, since you're going to die someday.

Of only these issues were as simple as you are.

With 3 million Jews.

... too soon?

6 million.

Don't forget the 10.5 million Slavs.

I think the important issue here is: how does this affect my choice of dips and spreads?

FYI... Tribe was originally called "Tribe of Two Sheiks" and their labels had duplicate images of an Arab guy riding a camel, as seen here in their 1995 trademark application. That was until 9/11 2001. After that they started a weird evolution of the packaging, updating it like every couple of weeks: they slapped a banner screaming "AMERICA'S FAVORITE HUMMUS" over the heads of the Arabs (or maybe that was on the side, but they put something over the heads), made the "of Two Sheiks" smaller and smaller relative to the "Tribe", put a big American flag on the side, and at one point erased the Arabs so there was just two camels. Eventually they rebranded as just "Tribe" and redesigned everything from scratch. It was a bit depressing to watch.

Homemade is better anyway.

It's a heck of a lot cheaper, too. It's one of my family's staples. Even starting with canned garbanzos, it's less than half the cost, And if you start with dry beans, it's getting close to one quarter.

Same goes for guacamole.

Self-correcting post to "I know nothing"

The major financial supporters of Hamas are sympathetic Sunnis from Qatar and Turkey.
el-Sisi closed tunnels from Egypt to Gaza (The map I checked didn’t show that Gaza touched Egypt).

Gaza’s economy is poor with 40% unemployment.
This could explain dissatisfaction with the Hamas government but it is only Hamas who stands up to Israel, and its attempts sustain support.

Up to this conflict Hamas was lucky to capture one Israeli soldier but killing 36 soldiers this time, is like Luxemburg winning a medal in the Olympics.

The reporter who said Israel’s aim in invading Gaza is to destroy the rocket arsenals is not credible. Israel’s dominating force affects far too many civilians and is cutting off water and impeding food supplies, hardly destroying rocket arsenals.

Hamas has few allies. They’ve launched 2,000 rockets with no target control. In the 1940’s the German’s built better rockets. If Hamas had internet access they would be able to find those German plans or even better Russian designs. The Russian equipment in eastern Ukraine has performed well. If Hamas had friends, they wouldn’t waste 2,000 rockets. You only need one good shot to level the playing field.

If Hamas gave a shit about babies, they wouldn't pull the tiger's tail. They would violate their own ceasefires.

Anyway, I think the Israelis have decided to eliminate Hamas, which would be the joy of all concerned.

Israel uses ceasefires to more safely hunt for tunnels, scout in preparation. When Israeli soldiers get too close and are fired on, Israel can then retaliate more effectively knowing where to strike fully and immediately, while claiming the moral high ground of Hamas breaking the ceasefire.

Your point?

A ceasefire is a ceasefire. There are only two parameters, no firing (d'oh) Positions must be maintained.

I have read nothing about the IDF making advances while the ceasefires were in effect.

Happy birthday, because you must have been born yesterday.

How do I spell genocide?

'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will

obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'

'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and

kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the

rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind

me, come and kill him.'

-Hamas Charter

I wonder how many of the total palestinians killed were killed by friendly fire?

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/07/16/idf-says-at-least-100-hamas-rockets-hit-within-gaza/