Skip to main content

View Diary: White House Condemns Attack on UN Shelter in Gaza (145 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Okay, Israel is not conducting genocide... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paytheline, cotterperson

    Given the history of the Jewish People, who experienced real genocide, be careful about throwing that term around.  

    As Jon Stewart said of the overuse of calling someone Hitler, it trivializes HITLER!  Overuse of genocide, trivilizes genocide.  If you want to know what it really is, look at Rwanda in the 90's.  That was genocide.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:28:33 AM PDT

    •  how about "Shooting fish in a barrel?" then, (23+ / 0-)

      especially when the fish are kids?

      Is that better?

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:29:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  whether or not it is genocide (20+ / 0-)

      seems to be semantics at this point.

      It is murder on a massive and disproportionate scale.

    •  That term is why I'm not recommending. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilJD, need pr, Catte Nappe

      I understand and share in the outrage of what IDF and the right-wing Israeli government is doing in Gaza, but I have seen no credible evidence so far that this is genocide. Murder, callous disregard for human life, against the Geneva Conventions (IIRC the Fourth?), but not fitting that definition. Yet.

      I hope I don't.

      •  Disagree, but no time to show that now. (9+ / 0-)

        As I've said a few times, I think the Israel actions in Gaza do indeed squarely meet most if not all definitions of genocide.

        It's a new kind of genocide, but it's genocide.

        Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.--Lu Xun, quoted in NYT

        by Timaeus on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:36:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Feel free to make your argument. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Timaeus, polecat

          I may end up agreeing with you. At the moment, I do not. That could change. :)

          •  let us just agree on this point -- (8+ / 0-)

            The reckless and wonton destruction of Gaza and her people must end. Period.

            Doesn't matter what label you attach to Israel's behavior, as long as you know that it is absolutely WRONG!

            •  WANTON is what I meant. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              allergywoman, YucatanMan

              and my phone recognized it as WONTON, the food.

            •  Hey, I have usually avoided the I/P diaries until (7+ / 0-)

              the past few days, but if you want to check my comments, you'll see I'm anti-violence on all sides there.

              Slaughtering thousands of people and saying it's because a few rockets have hit your desert is completely insane. I oppose the extremist Israeli right-wingers in full force.

              Not that it's causing any of them to lose any sleep, I'll be bound.

              •  the problem (11+ / 0-)

                with a bright line number of people killed before one can call it a genocide, means that any response to the beginning of a genocide is delayed.

                The Rwandan Genocide was notable for its swiftness, it was largely accomplished in 100 days and took out 70% of the targeted population.  But other genocides have taken years.

                Israel has killed less than 1/10 of 1% of the population, mostly in three weeks.   But with infrastructure largely destroyed now, the power plant virtually inoperable, water and sanitation will get worse and we can expect an increase in the mortality rate.  The Israeli government has said to expect a prolonged 'war'.  How many people will be dead in a year?  Will the number of dead in a year be sufficient to look back and say, opps, it was a genocide.  Maybe we should have done something sooner, but not enough people had died.

                1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[4]
                Seems to me that shelling Gaza every day, hitting identified shelters after telling people to evacuate to shelters, destroying the hospitals, power plant, etc., is deliberate action to cause serious bodily harm and mental harm to members of the group and inflicting group conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction of the group in whole or in part.

                But if you like waiting on a sufficient body count because 1000 people, a majority of whom are civilians,  of 1.82 million people trapped on a tiny strip of land with no place to flee in three weeks of military operations isn't enough, then I am afraid of what your definition of genocide is.

                •  Thanks! You've basically just written my next (7+ / 0-)

                  diary for me.  Or maybe you can publish that in a diary.

                  Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.--Lu Xun, quoted in NYT

                  by Timaeus on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:09:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I haven't said anything about numbers. (0+ / 0-)

                  Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone else. I don't know.

                  •  no credible evidence (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Timaeus, YucatanMan, CenPhx

                    of a genocide, merely mass murder.  If  scale, the numbers dead, isn't the difference what is?

                    This is clearly aimed at a particular ethnic group, it to me fits the definition of the UN Convention, which I quoted.

                    •  Here's where editing responses would help: (0+ / 0-)

                      substituting the word "certainly" or "clearly" for the word "merely" would have gone a long way toward inflaming debate.

                      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                      —Spike Milligan

                      by polecat on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:35:29 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  As I said to polecat also in this thread, (0+ / 0-)

                      I have no evidence on the RW Netanyahu government's and the IDF's intentions, so I don't see it as fitting the definition of genocide. Reckless disregard for human life? Yes. Murder? Possibly.

                      We both condemn the actions being taken. I disagree with the terminology of genocide. You don't.

                      •  Intent. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        allergywoman

                        Thank you.  Now I know.

                        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                        —Spike Milligan

                        by polecat on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:38:29 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  murder as a crime requires (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Timaeus, CenPhx, Hark

                        intent, if you find it to be murder, you believed there was intent to unlawfully deprive another of life.

                        Reckless disregard is less culpable in the sense that you don't have intent to kill, merely are indifferent to the high probability your actions will cause the death of another.    I think that the Israeli actions have gone past 'reckless disregard' into intentional actions.  

                        And the UN convention prohibits and punishes actions, not intent.  So acting to kill all or part of an ethnic group or depriving them of ordinary life conditions likely to kill all or part of the group is what fits the definition.  Laws also presume the usual and ordinary consequences of actions are part of intent.  An excuse of "I aimed at and shot him through the heart but I didn't mean to kill him" doesn't negate intent to murder.   An excuse of "We targeted infrastructure such as the power plant and hospitals, and destroyed them, but we didn't mean for that to have a material affect on living conditions for 1.82 million people trapped on a tiny strip of land with few or no other sources of fresh water or sanitation while we blockaded medicines, building supplies and heavy equipment knowing it would take more than a year to effect repairs"  doesn't exactly hold water.

                        We can disagree about the meaning of the words, but I don't accept writing in conditions that aren't in the international  description of the crime of genocide.

                •  It is incremental genocide. (7+ / 0-)

                  HoundDog wrote a good diary with a description by Michael Ratner, President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who said:

                  But what I want to emphasize today is these killings are part of a broader set of inhuman acts by Israel constituting international crimes, carried out by Israel over many years, going back to at least 1947 and 1948. They include crimes that aren't talked about that much in the media or the press, the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and apartheid. These crimes can be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court and are defined there. They include what the well-known Israeli writer Ilan Pappé called incremental genocide. Pappé says he wants to place the barbarity of what Israel is doing in its proper context.

                  I'm a lawyer. I've looked at genocide. Genocide has two elements. One element is the mental element, the intent to destroy the whole or in part a national or ethnic or racial or religious group. Palestinians are clearly a national and ethnic group. And you don't need to kill them all. You just need to have the mental intent to kill part of them. For example, it would be enough to have the mental intent to kill the leadership of the Palestinians or to kill people in one region. No doubt about that.

                  Genocide also requires that there be acts of genocide--killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, or inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction, in whole or part, of the people you're trying to destroy. There's no doubt again here this is "incremental genocide", as Ilan Pappé says. iIt's been going on for a long time, the killings, the incredibly awful conditions of life, the expulsions that have gone on for from Lydda in 1947 and '48, when 700 or more villages in Palestine were destroyed, and in the expulsions that continued from that time until today. It's correct and important to label it for what it is.

                  Here is the diary
                  •  Thanks. That's exactly right. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    CenPhx, jfromga, Brecht

                    By the way, Ratner has a very good reputation as a lawyer.

                    Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.--Lu Xun, quoted in NYT

                    by Timaeus on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 02:15:17 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think the term is very, very important (5+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      jfromga, poco, Timaeus, Enzo Valenzetti, Brecht

                      I think "incremental genocide" breaks through what I think might be a common misconception about genocide -- it does not have to be all out, fast and brutal, like Rwanda, and it does not have to be openly advocated and implemented across an entire country, like Germany.

                      I might be too emotionally tangled up after watching these news reports and videos in the last few days to be able to manage a dispassionate consideration of legal definitions, but I believe the consideration needs to be had. I believe we need to have the conversation about whether Israeli actions constitute war crimes and genocide and if so, what are we going to do about it. What can we do and what are we willing to do.

      •  I agree. I had to unrec this once I caught (4+ / 0-)

        the use of "genocide." I don't agree that the horror in Gaza has reached that point yet; I pray to the god I don't believe in it never does.

        I wish people would avoid that word and that concept; it isn't necessary in order to make the case that Israel is guilty of war crimes in Gaza. Use of "genocide" in these discussions only allows the defenders of Israel and the IDF to derail discussions into arguments about the word itself.

        Fascism in the mirror is nearer than it appears.

        by PhilJD on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:47:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good point. nt (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PhilJD, Patango
        •  Phil, I don't have time today, but I'm going to (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PhilJD, polecat, CwV, YucatanMan, CenPhx

          write a diary about why I think this is genocide, and I hope it will shift your thinking a bit.  I'm not saying this lightly.  I'm saying this very deliberately to demonstrate what I think is the gravity of the massacre in Gaza.

          Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.--Lu Xun, quoted in NYT

          by Timaeus on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:02:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I heartily disagree, Phil. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Timaeus, poco, Shotput8

          Have you looked at the UN definition of genocide? People have posted it, HoundDog posted a diary, I included it upthread.

          Genocide requires the intent to destroy the whole or in part a national or ethnic or racial or religious group. Palestinians are clearly a national and ethnic group. Intent can be proven by things other than a direct admission of intent on the part of the actor, though we have statements of intent by members of the Israeli government and military. Circumstantial evidence is also enough, and in a trial, the bombings of schools, of children on beaches, of zoos, of known refugee centers, of civilians, would be circumstantial evidence of intent to "mow the lawn", or kill the Palestinians. The not letting people evacuate from the hospitals and killing people that have evacuated.

          Genocide also requires that there be acts of genocide--killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, or inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction, in whole or part, of the people you're trying to destroy.  Is there any question that each potentiality here has been met?

          What more do you need before the definition of genocide has been met?

          The

          •  My thoughts on this are complex, and I have (3+ / 0-)

            neither the time nor the energy to properly pull them together now. Briefly then:

            I accept the UN definition of genocide, which, I note, says nothing about the numbers of dead. I mention that because some users here are arguing that really large numbers of dead are required before a massacre can be properly described as genocide. That's patently false; most American Indian tribes were not particularly numerous, but certainly America is guilty of genocide against many of them and attempted genocide against most of the rest. I also accept a subset of "cultural genocide," such as the ongoing Chinese "project" in Tibet.

            I think my recent comments have made it clear that I could hardly be more upset over Israel's horrific actions in Gaza than I am. I have no qualms at all about describing some of them as terrorism and war crimes. My objections to use of the term genocide to describe them are two fold; part factual, part "emotional." The "factual" component can be framed simply and starkly: If the goal of the IDF and the Israeli leadership is truly genocide, the power relationship between the IDF on the one hand and Hamas and other Gazan militants on the other is so grotesquely unequal that the IDF is in a position to pretty much achieve that horrific goal if that really is their intent.

            The "emotional" component is trickier to explain; I doubt I can do it justice now. The "irony" implicit in describing Jews--a group whose victimization in the Shoah is of course well-known to all but a few deniers--as engaging in similar acts ourselves when given the chance to do so, is just too pat and convenient. It's a way of--not excusing the past, exactly, but cheapening it by implying that history is just an empty litany of man's inhumanity to man; another way of saying Everyone's an asshole; get over it. I can't help but wonder why so many on DKos and elsewhere seem to find that irony rhetorically appealing. It strikes me as a way of criticizing Jews as Jews. I won't call it anti-Semitism, not all of the time anyway, but I think it goes hand-in-hand with a certain "comfort" with anti-Semitic language and tropes. What can I do but condemn that?

            One last point: there's no doubt that some Jews seem to find any discussion of "other" genocides offensive, as though only the Shoah "deserves" that appellation. That's not what I'm saying at all. I noted the genocide in America already; of course there are other examples: in Rwanda, Armenia, the list goes on. I've seen the same sort of "ironic" accusation that Rwandan forces in Congo are engaging in genocide there. I have precisely the same objection to that too-easy irony as I do to the accusation of genocide in Gaza.

            Fascism in the mirror is nearer than it appears.

            by PhilJD on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 02:35:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good points, all. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PhilJD

              Your factual and emotional points are undeniable. Your comment certainly has me thinking.

              For now, I will just say that I reached for the word genocide, because the magnitude of my horror at watching these news accounts, the tweets from people in Gaza, the videos of parents with their dead children, and then the next day learning that another refugee center has been bombed, the only word that properly seems to encompass the horror and heartbreak and outrage and anger is genocide.

              I don't reach for the word because it is a way to slap at the hearts of Jewish victims of the Shoah, but because that event is the worst possible thing in human history that I can imagine, as is Rwanda. Genocide is the only word big enough to encompass the horror. Maybe if I were a writer or poet, I would easily be able to find a word to explain how I feel without using genocide.

              I just don't know, Phil, I don't. What words should we use to describe the deaths of all these kids? I'm at a loss. I really am.

              •  I think that accusing the IDF of engaging (3+ / 0-)

                in war crimes--correctly accusing--is quite horrific enough.

                I don't believe America was guilty of genocide in Vietnam or Iraq, but my condemnation of those wars could hardly be deeper or more intense.

                As I noted earlier, I think there's a purely tactical reason to avoid the word genocide as well: it becomes all-too-easy for those inclined to excuse or "explain" Israel's atrocities in Gaza to deflect discussion onto the "safe" track of the aptness of the word itself and away from the ever-growing piles of dead or maimed kids.

                Fascism in the mirror is nearer than it appears.

                by PhilJD on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 03:29:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Phil, as you know (but others may not), (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PhilJD

                  you and I rarely agree on much, if anything.  But, on this, we are in accord.  War crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity are specific crimes under international humanitarian law.  Each has their own elements.  By their very nature, each is horrific.  Genocide is a specific intent crime.  Without the requisite intent (which must be proved, as withall elements, beyond a reasonable doubt), it matters not how many are killed, or how few.  
                  War crimes and crimes against humanity can (and do) encompass horrific crimes.  At the Special Court for Sierra Leone, we prosecuted Charles Taylor and a dozen of his senior henchmen for war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Genocide was not provable and was not charged.  Yet, the crimes charged were horrific. I won't describe them, unless you wish, but some of the specific charges which were proved showed a depravity beyond one's imagination.  

                  War crimes and crimes against humanity are, by their very definition, horrific.  One need not debase the crime of genocide by using the term when it is not applicable.  In fact, one should not do so, especially when it is done solely to create a sense of horror and not to convey a real crime.

                  Anyone arguing that there's no difference between the parties is a fucking moron who can simply go to hell. -- kos

                  by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 08:18:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Just where is that line in the sand for you? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Timaeus, allergywoman, YucatanMan

        1000?

        10e+4?

        10e+5?

        Or do numbers not matter, and it is the method by which they are murdered?

        [And before you think I'm coming after you because you're a convenient target, I follow you on dKos -- I do respect your opinions and comments.  I just would really like to know where your threshold is.]

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        —Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:05:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's actually not based on numbers. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          polecat, Patango, Catte Nappe

          I recognize my own ignorance on this issue, and I have no data indicating the RW Netanyahu government and the IDF are doing this with the requisite intent for it to be genocide.

          I believe someone else was arguing numbers earlier. It wasn't me. :)

          •  Intent is hardly ever proven by confession. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Timaeus, Hark, polecat, poco

            The perpetrator of heinous crimes does not always admit that it was in fact his goal to commit the crime. Though the statements from Israeli officials about "mowing the lawn" or killing off a requisite number of Palestinians would seem to be enough to prove that their intent was to eradicate Palestinians. But the actions of the Israeli government can be used to infer their intent. That is how it is usually done during a trial. And I would say that corralling huge numbers of civilians in a densely populated area, giving them no ability to leave, then dropping on their houses, schools, zoos, parks, hospitals, and refugees centers is pretty convincing evidence of the intent, the goal, to kill Palestinians civilians. Combine it with the blockade of medical supplies, food, and the bombing of power plants resultig in the civilians not being able to be treated for their wounds, or having potable water, and you have the perfect recipe for a huge amount of people dying slowly and miserably over the next few months.

            I think the problem is that people believe that genocide occurs if a government declares it will kill all the members of some group, but that is just not the definition. The intent to wipe out an ethnic or racial group, in whole or in part, coupled with actions taken to further that goal, whether the goal is ever admitted, constitutes genocide.

            I believe that what Israel is doing constitutes genocide. But at the very least, it is certainly appropriate to be discussing whether the definition has been met.

    •  So now you can't say something is... (7+ / 0-)

      genocide unless it meets the horrors of Rwanda?  Please make a list of unacceptable words so that we can carefully parse our outrage.

      He who denies it is a tyrant; he who does not demand it is a coward; he who is indifferent to it is a slave; he who does not desire it is dead. -- Eugene Debs

      by kharma on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:36:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's simple really (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jan4insight, poco, kharma

        anything Israel does is fine. The rest doesn't matter.

        … the NSA takes significant care to prevent any abuses and that there is a substantial oversight system in place,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), said August 23.

        by mosesfreeman on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:48:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I actually think AW is intellectually honest. (0+ / 0-)

          But I'd like to hear her reasoning and threshold.

          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
          —Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:07:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry that wasn't directed at AW (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            polecat, poco

            just a general statement.

            … the NSA takes significant care to prevent any abuses and that there is a substantial oversight system in place,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), said August 23.

            by mosesfreeman on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:15:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I appear to have commented in the wrong place. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mosesfreeman, Timaeus

              Sorry.

              That does bring up a different point -- there are intellectually honest people (some anyway!! :P ) on both sides of the debate... Those that don't go Rah Rah! or decide to split frog hairs on whether XYZ word was the right one to use vs. becoming deliberately inflamed as an excuse to not accept the intended point.

              If she (AW) can tell us where her threshold is for that word, and we can establish a common vocabulary (as incredibly insane that concept is), it may be possible to defang those that simply deny this is happening.

              I, for one, DO think this is a genocide in the making... that it has been going on for a long time (witness the population makeup in Gaza -- where ARE all of the adults?), and is only going to get worse.

              I also think that the Israeli PEOPLE are on the receiving end of some really amazingly vicious propaganda.  Their government is fully culpable.  re: the Palestinians -- they're getting screwed coming and going by those who would take advantage of them.  (IDF, UN, Hamas, PLO, fill in the blank)

              Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
              I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
              —Spike Milligan

              by polecat on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:23:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  You can say anything you want. But remember... (0+ / 0-)

        Godwin's rule.  When you use a hyperbolic term, you weaken your arguement.  Use of "Genocide" to describe the situation in Gaza is a perfect example.  It is nothing like genocide, in no way approaches genocide and trivilizes genocide.

        Using it in this instance is lazy and insensitive; not to mention self-defeating.

        Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

        by LiberalCanuck on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:52:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong, wrong, and wrong. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          polecat, mosesfreeman, CenPhx, Hark

          Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.--Lu Xun, quoted in NYT

          by Timaeus on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:00:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Still, there's a point to be made (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Timaeus, mosesfreeman, CenPhx

          regarding Israel's apparent long-term goal that, to appearances, seems to embrace the eventual disappearance of all Palestinians from whatever land they deem their own.  While that does not overtly and directly mean extermination on par with the Holocaust or Rwanda, the present Israeli indifference to Palestinian lives does invite the comparison.

          You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

          by rb608 on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:03:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Only if you accept you first premise... (0+ / 0-)

            As with all CT you must accept an unproven assertion as true, before all other assertions have any merit.  Despite not being supported by any facts, that acceptance of the first premise, invites acceptance of the unproven or even directly contradicted conclusion.

            Can it be argued with facts (not assertions) that Israel's long term goal is the eventual disappearance of all Palestinians.  I don't think it can given that you yourself used "apparent", "to appearances", "seems" in your own opening premise.

            So no, Israel's actions do not invite the comparison to genocide.  In fact, its actions from the past 50 years indicate the exact opposite of genocide and in fact the Palestinian population has grown under Israeli control, not shrunk.  

            The facts contradict your conclusion.

            Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

            by LiberalCanuck on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:13:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  If the death count was for Israel and (12+ / 0-)

        not the Palestinians, we'd be having a totally different conversation. Palestinian lives are of little to no value.
        You dare not use certain words to describe what is happening to them because.

        And if the video seen below showed Palestinians singing this vile song, then we'd be seeing it all over CNN, accompanied by words like "savages" and "terrorists".

        Maya Angelou: “There's a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure truth.”

        by JoanMar on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 12:07:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Entire families (7+ / 0-)

      20-30 people are being killed.  In a clan based society, loss of half or more of your clan is not that unlike a genocide.  

    •  Real genocide? (14+ / 0-)

      I guess the hundreds who are being bombed to kingdom come are not real people. And the kids are not really dead.
      I am so sick and tired of hearing how some suffering cannot be compared to other sufferings.
      I think it's about time to we take off the exclusivity tag.

      Maya Angelou: “There's a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure truth.”

      by JoanMar on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:45:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow! So you're saying that the massacre (6+ / 0-)

      in Gaza is "trivial"? Holy Crap man, what is wrong with you? Are you missing a gene?

      Would you prefer that we call it a pogrom?

      … the NSA takes significant care to prevent any abuses and that there is a substantial oversight system in place,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), said August 23.

      by mosesfreeman on Wed Jul 30, 2014 at 11:47:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  your right bombing HELPLESS children is more (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight, YucatanMan

      of a war crime

    •  Hitler doesn't have a monopoly on Genocide. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beltane
    •  Why not call it genocide? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus, Shotput8

      Because if we do, the USA might have to do something about it?

      Don't worried, all our chicken shit politicians are covering Israel's ass.

    •  Yes, people (0+ / 0-)

      Please think about Israeli's feelings when they're in the midst of murdering Palestinians by the hundreds. It's a tough job, and you don't want to make it harder.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (129)
  • Community (55)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (29)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Media (18)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Labor (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • GOP (16)
  • Law (16)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Racism (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site