Skip to main content

In response to a comment that queried the existence of an active genocidal project on-going in Palestine, I have decided to write this brief diary on the subject, listing the relevant statutory language from the International Criminal Court and their definitions of the terms.

This is what the international crime of genocide is, as defined by the International Criminal Court. I shall leave it up to reader to render an opinion on whether the Palestinians are suffering from it or not. Of course, this same set can also be applied to the Iraqis under American occupation as well.  So, it is directly relevant to any prosecution of the Bush Crime Family for their activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran (forthcoming).

Of course, America is not a signatory to the ICC.

Needless to say, there is no requirement that a signatory be charged with all five articles; a standard indictment may only have, say, Article 6(e) should children be transferred from one canton to another, or from one village to another, for example.

Note: the ICC begins footnoting this section with 2 and not 1; i have retained their numbering scheme.

Article 6

Genocide

Introduction

With respect to the last element listed for each crime:

–The term "in the context of" would include the initial acts in an emerging pattern;– The term "manifest" is an objective qualification;

– Notwithstanding the normal requirement for a mental element provided for in article 30, and recognizing that knowledge of the circumstances will usually be addressed in proving genocidal intent, the appropriate requirement, if any, for a mental element regarding this circumstance will need to be decided by the Court on a case-by-case basis.


Article 6 (a)
Genocide by killing

Elements

  1. The perpetrator killed[fn 2] one or more persons.
  1. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
  1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
  1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Article 6 (b)
Genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm

Elements

  1. The perpetrator caused serious bodily or mental harm to one or more persons.[fn 3]
  1. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
  1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
  1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.


Article 6 (c)
Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction

Elements

  1. The perpetrator inflicted certain conditions of life upon one or more persons.
  1. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
  1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
  1. The conditions of life were calculated to bring about the physical destruction of that group, in whole or in part.[fn 4]
  1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Article 6 (d)
Genocide by imposing measures intended to prevent births

Elements

  1. The perpetrator imposed certain measures upon one or more persons.
  1. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
  1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
  1. The measures imposed were intended to prevent births within that group.
  1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Article 6 (e)
Genocide by forcibly transferring children

Elements

  1. The perpetrator forcibly transferred one or more persons.[fn 5]
  1. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
  1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
  1. The transfer was from that group to another group.
  1. The person or persons were under the age of 18 years.
  1. The perpetrator knew, or should have known, that the person or persons were under the age of 18 years.
  1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

________________
[fn 2] The term "killed" is interchangeable with the term "caused death".

[fn 3] This conduct may include, but is not necessarily restricted to, acts of torture, rape, sexual violence or inhuman or degrading treatment.

[fn 4] The term "conditions of life" may include, but is not necessarily restricted to, deliberate deprivation of resources indispensable for survival, such as food or medical services, or systematic expulsion from homes.

[fn 5] The term "forcibly" is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.

Originally posted to james risser on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 06:16 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It all hinges at least on #3 (3+ / 0-)

    Otherwise all wars would be genocidal (one may
    argue that they are, but that's not the point here).

    So you have to prove #3 -- go ahead, please?

    •  Actually #3 and #4 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      another American, BobzCat

      There has to be genocidal intent. And the "trasfer" has to take the children outside of the Palestinina community. Not moving them from one village to another. That's not genocide. Taking the apalestinian kids and placing them with Jewish families to raise them as Jews -- that would be genocide. That's what the provision is about.

      This is the DUMBEST diary I've ever seen on the I/P issue. This is why it's so ridiculous for pro-Palestinian folks to start claiming genocide. There are thousands of reasons to complain about the occupation, and no shortage of international law being violated -- but it's NOT genocide. Not in any way.

      There has not been a single act of genocide. Move on to real arguments.

      "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

      by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:03:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no it has been a fucking party... (4+ / 2-)

        ...for the palestinians in the west bank especially.  

        and, it isn't ethnic-cleansing either.  it is what, a 'domestic disturbance' 'illegal parking' 'littering'?

        what is it????  you apologists have got to be the dullest people on the planet.  go away!

        •  No -- this is why your diary is SO dangerous (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          another American, debedb, BobzCat, jhritz

          There are many ways that you can fairly criticize the Israelis and the occupation. You instead throw up the most vile asignation fo genocide -- a complete straw man. So, I point out that your argument here is completely misleading and plain wrong which it is. No genocide! Rather than acknowledge your overreach, you brand me an "apologist."

          You don't know the first fucking thing about how how I feel about the occupation, except that I have shown the provisions of the Genocide Convention are not implicated. Because I have tried to point out your error, I become an "apologist," in your mind.  That's why this is so much bullshit. That's why I have tried to warn you in the past about calling it genocide. Now, you've done more than make a stray comment -- you've posted a big smear diary.

          You intend to divide, and you accomplish your goal Congratulations! You don't know what "side" I was on, before -- but, I promise you that I'm not on your side ever more.

          "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

          by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:02:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Respectfully (8+ / 0-)

            it looks like you misread the diary.

            As I read it, it doesn't attempt to provide evidence that Israel is guilty of genocide.  Rather, it simply lays out the law.

            Knowing the law, we can then develop arguments that Israel, or individual Israelis for that matter, is/are or is/are not guilty of the crime of genocide.  As noted in the parent comment of this thread, genocidal intent is essential to determining whether the crime has occurred.

            Are you suggesting that starting with valid legal definitions is NOT the right way to approach this discussion?

            •  I'd concur with that... (5+ / 0-)

              ...with the diary topic, I expected something much different.  To the extent that such a question ought to be asked at all, this is about as mature of a raising of this question as you could hope for.

              The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

              by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:54:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  wow... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joanneleon, Jay Elias, npbeachfun

                ...a jay elias compliment?

                the day is bright and i am smiling...  :)

                •  My philosophy, such as it is.... (5+ / 0-)

                  ...cultivate understanding and reasoned debate with those with whom you disagree.  Nothing I believe is too true to be challenged, and nothing is worth more than making yourself if not agreed with understood by those who disagree with you.

                  You and I may rarely agree, but we understand one another better.  And that's where change happens.

                  The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                  by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:06:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  With all due respect (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joanneleon, Jay Elias, debedb, jhritz

                The diarist did more than just paste the relevant sections of the Genocide Convention. He raised the specter of "transfers of children," suggesting at least by implication that somehow the Israelis had committed some act that is covered by the Convention in this regard. It is that which I was reacting to, because it is such a patently absurd suggestion. With even the quickest read of section 6(e), it should be obvious that it applies to some kinds of "transfers" that are very much unlike anything that has ever occurred in the territories. He makes a specious argument that it applies to moving from one village to another village. If they are both Palestinian villages, the provision would not be implicated.

                "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

                by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:05:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joanneleon, james risser

                  ...but that's a reason to debate and debunk the point, IMHO.  

                  But that's me serving my agenda too.  I want to build understanding where I can.  Which means I'll take the opening.  I'm not judging your opinion, merely saying that I want to approach it differently.

                  The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                  by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:08:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The diarist did indeed (5+ / 0-)

                  make that suggestion, but provided no evidence to endorse it.  Rather, he stated that his diary would provide the foundation for conducting a discussion of whether or not genocide has occurred.

                  He makes NO argument about Israel conducting genocide, but rather wants to help us understand the merits on which such an argument should be judged.

                  In my reading, you've flown off the handle.

                •  but, you don't know that... (3+ / 0-)

                  ...is the case.  i admit i don't know if you are right or if i am right on our respective interpretations on that element.

                  i know you will continue to somewhat demonize me for suggesting it may be other than you believe, but, you need to do more than say 'i am right and you're an asshole'.  well, you don't have to do anything, really.  

                  but, it never hurts to think that you might be wrong from time-to-time.

                  •  I am wrong at times. Not on this (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    another American, debedb, jhritz

                    I've got a degree in this stuff...I'm not trying to demonize you, but I keep having to make the same point, which you don't concede -- you keep saying "if I'm right." We are talking about legal interpretation of treaties. There is no great high authority to consult here -- you keep saying you'll "check" -- check what? I'm telling you what the provision means. No ifs, ands or buts.

                    Over the course of a half dozen or so posts, I've given you a very comprehensive, authoritative explanation of what would be genocide, what would be ethnic cleansing, and explained why the Genocide Convention is not applicable in the instant case.

                    If you want me to provide you with treatises discussing the Convention, I could come up with some -- if you want (not tonight, but it can be done). In the meantime, I assure you I'm providing you with a high-powered, expensive, and definitive legal opinion

                    "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

                    by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:27:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Your opinions may be high-powered (4+ / 0-)

                      and expensive, but in this case they are also emotional over-reactions.

                    •  wow! (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      anonymousredvest18, npbeachfun

                      ...elvis has left the building!

                      There is no great high authority to consult here -- you keep saying you'll "check" -- check what? I'm telling you what the provision means. No ifs, ands or buts.

                      and if that isn't arrogant enough,

                      I've given you a very comprehensive, authoritative explanation of what would be genocide, what would be ethnic cleansing, and explained why the Genocide Convention is not applicable in the instant case.

                      so let me get this straight: after spending an hour or so reading one of the most important pieces of international law, you are the highest authority, and it would be impossible that the questions you raised have answers that differ than yours???

                      and, you have been comprehensive and authorative by not citing a single piece of legislation, not a single case, not a single academic?

                      ahhhhh, i smell the arrogance of someone in their first month of law school...it gets crushed out of them in the second month and they fell mighty silly for their public comments for the next decade or two, but, i thank you.

                      i hope that somewhere out there a law student who thinks they know it all reads your comments and my replies.

                      if nothing else, maybe we can squeeze a bit of arrogance of him or her before they make a fool of his or her self.

                      good night, elvis!!!

            •  As someone downthread noted (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              another American, jhritz

              This is very Fox-News, saying it doesn't suggest
              Israel is guilty of genocide. If it doesn't,
              then why bring it up? It's like discussing, say,
              Cindy Sheehan, and then saying

              Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

              and adding "I am not suggesting she is guilty
              of treason. We can discuss it".

            •  But the diarist gives his game away with (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jhritz

              this comment, which is an unmistakable imputation of genocide.

              Al Gore should be president.

              by another American on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 07:48:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  TR for (2+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          debedb, jhritz
          Hidden by:
          james risser

          telling people who reasonably disagree to "go away," and for false imputation of genocide. (Extraordinary claims require strong evidence.)

          Al Gore should be president.

          by another American on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 07:45:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  retaliatory troll-rating... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anonymousredvest18

          ...from a person who received one from the diarist only yesterday.

          how sweet!  i hope he/she feels much better now....

  •  Interesting (6+ / 0-)

    Obvious question is, is Israel a party to the ICC?  I don't believe it is, so this definition would not be legally binding on Israel.  More interesting, though much more complex, might be trying to tease out what would be genocide under customary international law.

    •  well, that is one of the mootest... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jagger, npbeachfun, jdcondit

      ...questions ever since the americans are on the security council and i believe cases have to be referred.

      here is something from israel about the court...i haven't spent any time looking at their ratification of the treaty. since israel picks and chooses what laws to follow and which to ignore, it would be an exercise in futility. one would have to know if they ratified the treaty and what provisions/exemptions they required. the attached link that i sent to you seems to say they signed it.  it doesn't really matter.

      but, the point of the diary is not indict israel for genocide in the international criminal court; it is to simply state this is the law that the 'lesser' countries have signed on to enforce.

    •  Israel and the US (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      litho, another American, npbeachfun

      both signed and then "unsigned" due to unhappiness with the final incarnation of the treaty. Neither ratified. So they aren't parties and aren't bound by it unless they are fighting on the soil of a member state.

      The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide perhaps more accurately reflects custom:

      Article 2

      In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

      (a) Killing members of the group;
      (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
      (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
      (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
      (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

      from http://www.hrweb.org/...

      I would say freedom from genocide also is one of the fundamental human rights under "jus cogens," or things which are fundamentally against the order of the international system and which are prohibited - it is custom that is stronger than your average custom.

      But interesting to note is that there are no established enforcement mechanisms tied to this treaty and those decisions go to the Security Council.

      •  yes, i have no doubt... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        npbeachfun

        ...that the americans and israel have covered all sufficient bases so, as i have said a number of times tonight, this diary does not make a case but merely points out the law.

        in a more perfect and just world--just imagine how nice that would be--states wouldn't even come CLOSE to approaching meeting the elements of these disgusting crimes.  but, we are where we are...

    •  It's not interesting -- it's downright insulting (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      another American, debedb

      It doesn't matter whether Israel has signed on to the Genocide Convention, although I find it amusing that you even wonder whether Israel has signed on. The Convention applies to the conduct -- regardless of whether the perpetrators are parties to the convention.

      What makes this diary so insulting is that there is no genocide. It's just a nasty, anti-Semitic slur -- and I can say that because the author would not be suggesting this is genocide if the alleged perpetrators weren't Jews. It's all about shock value, and trying to turn the worm on the Jews.

      If anyone of even the slightest intelligence read the provisions, they would understand that moving children from one village to another is NOT in itself, an act of genocide. There has to be an intent to destroy the Palestinian people -- this would have to be part of an effort to eliminate the Palestinian people.

      Only the most rabid anti-Semites suggest that Israel is trying to destroy the Palestinian people. Certainly, they aren't doing a very good job of that when the IDF ends up killing a few hundred Palestinians in a year -- a fraction of the number born every day. So, then we have to wonder about transferring children. Except that only counts if it involves transferring the children outside of the Palestinian community. Otherwise, it isn't covered by the convention -- the transfer must be "from that group to another group." Article 6(e) 4.

      This diary is an obscenity -- it is obscenely misleading, obscenely stupid and obscenely insulting to the memory of those who have suffered or died during actual genocides.

      I have tried many times to tell those who support the Palestinian cause that they are making a huge mistake when they overreach and call the occupation "genocide." This diary is the supreme example of that overreaching. Anyone who might bye sympathetic to the Palestinian cause should be completely appalled at this indecent grotesquery of a legal argument. Personally, I would like to rip off a string of obscene expletives to truly describe the extent of my feelings regarding the diary -- and the diarist who published this garbage. I'll try to hold back....

      "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

      by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:33:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  my my aren't we touchy... (3+ / 0-)

        ...if it were so ridiculous, then you would not have to shout so much, no? i make no case against any country, and, i would be happier if this diary was absurd and we weren't living in times when powerful countries were destroying the lives of innocent people, but, that is exactly what is happening.

        take your outrage and write your own diary on....let's see:

        how about this for a title:

        THE CANTONIZATION OF THE WEST-BANK IS REALLY GOOD FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE

        and, i know you probably did not read past the title, but, i show you this paragraph:

        This is what the international crime of genocide is, as defined by the International Criminal Court. I shall leave it up to reader to render an opinion on whether the Palestinians are suffering from it or not. Of course, this same set can also be applied to the Iraqis under American occupation as well.  So, it is directly relevant to any prosecution of the Bush Crime Family for their activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran (forthcoming).

        •  If you can read, you can see it's NOT genocide (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          another American

          You're being too cute by half -- the whole premise of your diary -- that this might be an act of genocide -- is nothing more than a smear. It's a fucking lie. And you're a liar for writing this diary and then suggesting that you're not implying this is genocide.

          If you were intellectually honest, you would reply by admitting that I am 100% correct -- that this is not genocide -- that the Palestinian children are not being transferred out of the Palestinian community, so the Genocide Convention is not applicable.

          So, what's it gonna be? Are you going to hide behind your lie, or by honest and admit that there is no case to be made. You can say that you were mistaken -- that you didn't truly understand the provisions-- or you can say that you were being deliberately misleading -- whichever is the case. But, come clean. Or continue to lie.

          "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

          by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:53:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i will say this... (4+ / 0-)

            ...i am not making a case that israel is guilty of genocide.

            i do not wish/desire/hope to ever see any country guilty of genocide.

            if this diary shows that israel is not guilty of genocide i would be very very happy. do you think anyone who would take the time to create a diary  to let people know what the law is, hoping that a country is committing genocide?

            and, as much as i would like to admit i agree with you, i would want to find out how 'another group' was defined/intended.  to be honest with you when i read it, i read it as a 'consolidation' of one group of children into another group---not necessarily a different ethnic/religious group---but a consolidation.

            lets say the children from one shrinking canton to another canton with the intention of eliminating the former canton and consolidating into the latter.

            but, if i am wrong about that, of course i would admit it. we read it differently, and you may be correct, but, i would want to check before i gave up on my initial intuition.

            •  No, I don't think you hope they are (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              another American

              I do think you belive they are committing genocide. That is why you posted the diary. It's why you mentioned "transfers" specifically. You're being disnigenuous in suggesting that you aren't even taking a side on that question -- after all, you posted this diary.

              If you wanted to suggest that the genocide was directed at the population of the one canton -- that is to say, they were the distinct ethnic, national or religious group - and you moved them to another canton, with the intention of thereby eventually destroying their ethnic, national or religious distinctiveness -- destroying the target group -- then, yes, that would be genocide (as understood under the Convention.

              You can commit an act of genocide by the reverse process, as well. Take Tibet, for example. The Chinese move in a population of ethnic Chinese with the intention of destroying the culture of Tibet -- replacing it with Chinese culture. That's why the Dalai Lama has called it "cultural genocide." It isn't eactly genocide, but it is aimed at suppressing Tibetan culture. However, if the Chinese aimed to actually destroy the Tibetan people -- say they expected to mate Chinese with Tibetans and turn all Tibetans into ethnic Chinese -- that could be described as an actual genocidal design. Not just "cultural genocide."

              What Israel is doing is none of the above. There is no effort to integrate the two populations and eliminate the Palestinian population. Any displacement isn't aimed at destroying a defined group. Palestinians are moved off of some land, perhaps (I'm willing to concede the point, but not all Israelis are) -- but as they move, they continue to live among other Palestinians, in Palestinian villages, etc.  

              If there were a targeted campaign to displace Palestinians from certain areas, one could credibly suggest that some limited form of ethnic cleansing was going on, even if was being accomplished by concrete and mortar, by tractors and bulldozers, rather than bullets or blades. Even in that case, this limited ethnic cleansing would not be genocide. Sometimes the two crimes walk hand-in-hand, as in Darfur. However, as my example suggests, the two crimes are not synonymous. Genocide is, by definition, a form of ethnic cleansing, but the reverse is not necessarliy true.

              "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

              by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:48:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  To quote Mrs. Pelosi (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        npbeachfun, BobzCat, james risser

        "take a deep breath."

        "He will be irresistably be drawn to big cities, where he will back up sewers, reverse street signs and steal everybody's left shoe." Dr. Jumba Jookeeba

        by crose on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:12:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The relevant law... (7+ / 0-)

    ...would not be from the International Criminal Court, but from the 1948 International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, where the relevant text is:

    Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

       (a) Killing members of the group;
       (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
       (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
       (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
       (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

       (a) Genocide;
       (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
       (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
       (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
       (e) Complicity in genocide.

    The nations which are not signatories:

    Andorra
    Angola
    Benin
    Bhutan
    Botswana
    Brunei Darussalam
    Cameroon
    Cape Verde
    Central African Republic
    Chad
    Congo
    Djibouti
    Dominica
    Dominican Republic (Signed but not ratified)
    Equatorial Guinea
    Eritrea
    Grenada
    Guinea-Bissau
    Guyana
    Indonesia
    Japan
    Kenya
    Madagascar
    Malawi
    Malta
    Marshall Islands
    Mauritania
    Mauritius
    Micronesia
    Niger
    Nigeria
    Oman
    Palau
    Qatar
    Saint Lucia
    Samoa
    San Marino
    Sierra Leone
    Solomon Islands
    Somalia
    St. Kitts and Nevis
    Suriname
    Swaziland
    Tajikistan
    Thailand
    Turkmenistan
    United Arab Emirates
    Vanuatu
    Zambia

    Israel and the United States have both signed and ratified the Convention.  It has never been invoked.

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 06:26:15 PM PDT

    •  but they are codified and enforced... (4+ / 0-)

      ...by the icc.  that is why i listed the description and the elements from there.

      as the readers can note, the underlying convention lists the same five crimes. they are codified and the elements of each are from the icc.

      thank you for visiting and your note.

      •  Well... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thewhiterabbit, james risser, jhritz

        ...the Genocide Convention is codified by the United Nations, and supercedes the ICC in all cases.

        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

        by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 06:35:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the icc was/is an organ of the u.n.... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          litho, weasel, npbeachfun, jdcondit

          ...they are the court that has been set up to enforce the u.n. conventions regarding war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

          are you saying something else?

          •  Actually.... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            npbeachfun, jhritz, jdcondit

            ...y'know, I'm not sure.  I find the ICC to be such a bad idea, I haven't really looked into it much.

            I'll excuse myself.  But the Genocide Convention is something that we should all know more about, IMHO.

            The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

            by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 07:02:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yes, i hope we can ALL agree on that... (3+ / 0-)
              •  Are you all deaf, dumb and blind? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                another American

                You're discussing this as if it's a genuine argument. Just read the provisions cited in this diary!! The acts do not come under the definition of genocide. First, and foremost, there is NO intent to destroy the Palestinan people -- it's only the most rabid anti-Zionist or anti-Semite that could convince himself that the Israelis do intend to destroy the Palestinian people.

                Yet, even if one is so deluded to believe such a vile assignation, there is still no argument that this would be an acto fo genocide. The act here is not the kind of "transfer" comtemplated under the convention. It's not just moving people around -- even if it's against their will. There has to be the intent to destroy the group -- which is why the provision explicitly states that: "The transfer was from that group to another group." In other words, from the Palestinian community to an entirely different group.

                This would have to be analogous to what the Serbs intended when they raped and impregnated Bosnian Muslim women. The idea there was that the kids would not be raised as Muslims because of their parentage. The net effect would be to eliminate the genetic line -- to destroy the Bosnina Muslims. In this case, the transfer would have to remove the Palestinian kids form the Palestinian community in some way that would efectively destroy the Palestinian people -- take away the kids and the nation eventually dies out. That's not what's happening here.

                Stop treating this diary as if it makes a serious argument. It's a fucking obscene smear against the Israeli people -- and an indescribable insult to the memories of everyone who died in the real genocide -- in Nazi-controlled Europe.

                "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

                by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:46:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The diary makes a serious argument (4+ / 0-)

                  not about Israeli genocide, but about the international institutions that exist to determine and punish genocide.

                  The diary makes an unsupported suggestion that Israel might be guilty of genocide, and indicates what portion of the code Israel might be violating.  It, however, provides no evidence to support that suggestion, which clearly indicates that the diarist's intent is not to indict Israel but to establish the foundations for how such an indictment might be laid.

                  We start with the law.  Only then can we determine if the law has been violated.

                  •  We start with the law and the facts (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    james risser

                    We apply the law to the facts, as I've done in various places, clearly showing that the Convention does not apply to the acts complained of.

                    "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

                    by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:58:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  and, if you are right... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      npbeachfun, jdcondit

                      ...that is a GOOD thing.  

                      •  There is no "if," And, "good" in what sense? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        another American

                        I suppose it would be a good thing if we could all agree that Israel is not guilty of genocide, and yet the charge continues to be leveled.

                        If you're saying it's a ggod thing if Israel isn't gullty of genocide, clearly I'd agree -- I'd just add that I don't believe it's even a serious question.

                        It's an argument made for purely propaganda value. I don't believe it's made in good faith, except maybe by people who have heard it somewhere and haven't thought about it -- which is the point of making the charge in the first place: To find such people who are willing to accept the argument without thinking critically about it.

                        As I've said, Israel is guilty of lots of things, but not genocide. It would be better if we didn't have to fight over such straw men.

                        "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

                        by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:13:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The problem with Israel (4+ / 0-)

                          and the reason why this issue keeps getting raised is that it certainly looks like Israel is committing genocide.  The collective punishment actions taken against Gaza, for example, following the capture of Gilad Shalit, appear to be designed to target the Palestinian people qua people as opposed to any serious effort to win the release of the prisoner.

                          My local newspaper reported this morning that Palestinian officials have blamed Israel's economic boycott for yesterday's sewage disaster.

                          Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948 succeeded in destroying Palestinian culture in an entire geographic area -- the territory that became the state of Israel.  Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank has also succeeded in expelling Palestinians and their culture from significant portions of that territory.

                          There is no evidence that Israel seeks to exterminate Palestinian culture from the Earth.  There is a great deal of evidence that Israel seeks to extirpate Palestinian culture from the territory of Israel.  The question comes up, and it is a real one, as to whether that latter condition constitutes genocide.

                          In that sense, james's diary clearly helps us think through the issue.

                          •  very well said... (3+ / 0-)

                            ...if i may offer an opinion on the question you ask at the end, i think that the clause found in each third element in whole or in part offers either the 'earth' as you put it, OR 'the land of israel' or 'israel' or 'state A'

                          •  Unfortunately (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            npbeachfun, james risser, jdcondit

                            I don't think that clause has ever been adjudicated, and until it is we simply don't know how the courts are going to interpret it.

                          •  you got it... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            litho, anonymousredvest18, npbeachfun

                            ...but, on the bright side of it, it also means that the better argument will prevail on its interpretation!

                          •  You're confusing ethnic cleansing with genocide (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            another American, jhritz

                            As I wrote in another post, Genocide is clearly a form of ethnic cleansing -- the most horrible and extreme form. Ethnic cleansing is not, however a subset of genocide, nor is it exactly synonymous. "Destroy" means destroy. It doesn't mean move, unless such movement was intended to "destroy."

                            If we want to argue facts -- and you can't judge intent in any other way -- I would note that Israel has discussed granting national sovereignty to the Palestinians-- even offered it (though some dispute this is so, Arafat accepted the offer after it was withdrawn -- since he indicated he would accept the prior offer, I feel confident in my assertion that the offer was made). Truly, Israel is trying to assert claims over land it did not control prior to '67. Recent stories seem to prove claims that Israelis are actually displacing Arabs from their homes and land. This would be ethnic cleansing. However, there is no expectation of driving the Palestinians from all of their land, nor any intention to do so.

                            Taking someone's land isn't genocide, unless you intend more. "Cultural genocide" is a catchy phrase, for which we have the Dalai Lama to thank, to describe a truly distasteful policy. On the other hand, it isn't really genocide, if it isn't aimed at the people. Israel hopes to live in peace with the Palestinians - both inside and outside of Israel. Notwithstanding Litho's assertions to the contrary there is no evidence that Israel intends to extirpate the Palestinian culture from Israel. I don't see how anyone can say that they believe there is -- at least I can't see how anyone could look objectively and believe that. The Palestinians might not be too keen on Israel's terms for peace, but it's disingeuous to suggest Israel doesn't want to live in peace, and to let the Palestinians have theirs. The only dispute is what is "theirs."

                            So, I say again -- you can criticize, but don't call it genocide. That would be incorrect and unhelpful.

                            "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

                            by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 11:06:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  once again... (3+ / 0-)

                            ....you make a conclusion that would be great if it were true:

                            there is no evidence that Israel intends to extirpate the Palestinian culture from Israel.

                            many would disagree with your conclusion.  here is just one sample report if you would like to consider it.

                          •  litho's assertions (4+ / 0-)

                            are solidly based in the historical literature on the 1948 war.

                        •  law doeesn't work that way... (4+ / 0-)

                          ...you can't wish it one way or the other. and, you have to be fair and look at the elements and see if they apply.

                          you are all hot and bothered about 6(e) and that is but one of five, each having elements associated with them.

                          unless you have studied the law, have a greater depth of understanding about the meanings of the elements, can rely on case law where and when applicable, you can't say---just because you want it to be the case, or you really think it is the case--that none apply.

                          i haven't the depth of knowledge in the statute, but, unlike you, i am not as confident in myself knowing all about it.

                          if someone wrote a diary tomorrow on 6(c) or (e) and made a detailed analysis based on the law and the facts, i would not be surprised if the argument went one way or the other...

                          you have to think outside of your prejudices if you want to do that...and, it seems you are not willing to go through that exercise.  oh well.

                          •  I have made considerable study here (3+ / 0-)

                            I have studied the law. I have also studied international law. I have an advanced degree in that specialty -- having studied under the best legal minds at the State Department and the international office at Justice (Clinton Administration). I am quite confident in my understanding of the Genocide Convention.

                            As you note, I did focus primarily on the one article that you seemed to focus on -- and noted that it isn't applicable to the kinds of acts in question. I also noted, however, that each article contains the same element: That the "perpretrator" has to intend the destruction (in whole or in part) of the target group.

                            I do not believe that anyone can, in good faith, claim that they believe the Israelis intend to destroy the Palestinian people with any of the acts they have perpetrated during the occupation. Someone can make that claim, I suppose -- but I will not believe that is made in good faith belief, because it is patently false.

                            It's not about my prejudices -- it's about looking at what Israel has done -- and ask if those actions were intended to destroy the Palestinian people (in whole, or even in part). As I wrote elsewhere, if you want to say that Israel's settlement policies and actions have aspects of ethnic cleansing, I'd concede the point. The genocide argument is so outrageous, that if it were made in federal court, I would make a Rule 11 motion for sanctions for bad faith prosecution.

                            "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

                            by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:46:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You can make a legitimate claim (0+ / 0-)

                            that separating the people of a peasant culture from their land is an act of ethnocide -- a destruction of a culture.

                            That is precisely what happened in 1948.

                    •  You're arguing (4+ / 0-)

                      against a straw man.

                      Vociferously, and in rage, but you're fighting a straw man nonetheless.

                      •  Coincidentally, I just posted a comment on that (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        another American

                        Just above yours in the thread. Explaining why it is so that we are forced to argue against straw men -- when the same specious arguments are raised over and over again.

                        "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

                        by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:17:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  as a War Correspondent (4+ / 0-)

              I have gone before the Hague- It workers but is slow. I find it disheartening that both of my countries are not signers. When you look at the list we are not in good company IMHO

              please read comment in what is means to be a non signer

              "A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen" James Madison (-6.88, -6.26)

              by npbeachfun on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:53:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                james risser

                ...I know for a fact that the Rwanda tribunal isn't conducted under the ICC, and I'm pretty sure the Bosnian tribunal isn't either.  Meanwhile, Japan isn't even a signatory of the Genocide Convention; the ICC is a foolishly unworkable and silly treaty which I think the worst quality of is that so many nations are signatories.  And praising these tribunals seems to me to be a bad idea: there was considerable doubt that Slobodan Milosevic was going to be convicted before his death.

                Of course, I also think the United States ought to expel the UN from our territory and withdraw from it as well.  Bad international institutions are often, IMO, worse than none at all.  Here's a good question: name one international crisis which the UN has helped resolve.

                There is no question in my mind that war criminals ought to be brought to justice.  Currently, Charles Taylor is merely the latest to continue to evade international institutions.  Not one executive level war criminal has been brought to justice by an international court since Nuremberg.  Count me among the totally unpersuaded that to hold out hope that Taylor or any others will face the gallows of international law is worthwhile, or a worthy pursuit of our policy aims.

                The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:03:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  my complaint about the icc... (4+ / 0-)

                  ....is that they are terribly slow.

                  do you know they have been trying to define 'act of terrorism' since, i think 1998? the last i heard from them this past summer, it was essentially on their 'to do' list on the refrigerator.

                  what i sense from you is an interesting thought: perhaps the only real success in international war crimes was the BIGGIE and that the only time we will see a similar trial is only when we REALLY need it?  seems rather sad to think that is the case...

                  but, yes, slobo and taylor...not encouraging.

                  i would trade them for one kissinger and a rumsfeld, however.

                  •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    james risser

                    ...I would take great issue with defining the Nazi genocide as the "biggie"; I'm not sure how exactly it was bigger than that of the Armenians, the Cambodians, the Tutsis, the multiple genocides of the former Yugoslavia or of the peoples of the Darfur region.  We see it as bigger only because we fought the Nazis rather than the other genocidal perpetrators.

                    I am in favor of using means that work.  I think that the UN and by extension the ICC has demonstrated a complete inability to work, therefore, I oppose them as serious means to achieve things.  For example, I've always said that the organization that Israel needs to negotiate with as a guarantor of security is not the UN but the Arab League - for better or worse, they can get things done and can be held accountable.  As ineffective as NATO often is, every NATO peacekeeping mission has had better success than any UN peacekeeping mission.  Heck, the African Union has a better success rate.

                    Meanwhile, I ardently support organizations like the Genocide Intervention Network, which has among their goals the raising of funds to privately fund interventions in genocides.  If we wait for the UN and the ICC to get their act together, regardless of American participation, we'll die waiting.  And, sooner, the victims of genocides will die waiting too.

                    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                    by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:18:06 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I'm doing my best here (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  litho, anonymousredvest18, jdcondit

                  I have a temperature of 102 and have been sick all day-
                  I also dont have all the tools I had as a Reporter... please bear with me: do to my inbox ever piling hate mail and treats to my well being: I would prefer not to give out the exact reason I went before the Hague- thanks for your understanding on this matter.

                  U.S. Proposals to Undermine the International Criminal Court Human Rights

                  resolution ICC-ASP/2/Res.3

                  "A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen" James Madison (-6.88, -6.26)

                  by npbeachfun on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:16:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Not necessarily (4+ / 0-)

            The Genocide Convention places a duty on all signatories to take any action necessary to stop Genocide. This is the legal justification for the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo.

            The Convention also makes the crime of Genocide subject to universal jurisdiction which means any party to it could prosecute in their own courts or pass a defendant on to the ICC regardless of whether their home country is a signatory.

            The problem is that it is necessary to prove the intent  in the main body of ArtII and not just that the actions lettered later have taken place. That is the reason that the UN Secretary General's special representative declined to call Darfur "Genocide" within the meaning of the Convention.

            Kneejerk reactions do not come from knees.

            by londonbear on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 07:10:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yes... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              npbeachfun

              ....that is an essential element. they certainly do not want to just go around and yell 'GENOCIDE' without substantial evidence to support all the elements.

              the issue of 'special tribunals' versus having the icc host the trial is certainly true...

          •  ICC Versus ICJ (6+ / 0-)

            The Genocide Convention not only trumps the jurisdiction of the ICC, but has a self-executing provision that places all cases before the International Court of Justice (a/k/a the World Court):

            Article 9

            Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

            The most relevant set of decisions relating to allegations of genocide waged by one nation against another (and its people) was rendered just one month ago in Bosnia v. Serbia.  A press release from the ICJ explains the general reasoning.  The full judgment, the separate opinions and dissents of the judges can be found here (be forewarned: the principal judgment runs to 171 single-spaced pages).  Of patricular note:

                     The Respondent argued that "the Genocide Convention does not provide for the responsibility of States for acts of genocide".  After examination of all the relevant articles of the Convention, the Court finds that the obligation on States to prevent genocide under Article I of the Convention necessarily implies a prohibition against States themselves committing genocide, and that, if an organ of the State, or a person or group whose acts are attributable to the State, commits an act of genocide or a related act enumerated in Article III of the Convention, the international responsibility of the State is incurred.  The Court observes in that respect that States can be held responsible for genocide or for complicity in genocide, even if no individual has previously been convicted of the crime by a competent court.

                     Reviewing other legal requirements of the Convention, the Court observes that for  particular acts to be qualified as genocide, they must be accompanied by the intent to destroy the protected group, in whole or in part, as such.  It stresses the difference between genocide and "ethnic cleansing":  while "ethnic cleansing" can be carried out by the displacement of a group of persons from a specific area, genocide is defined by the above-mentioned specific intent to destroy the group or part of it.  The Court considers that the targeted group must be defined by particular positive characteristics - national, ethnical, racial or religious - and not by the lack of them.

            Just something to chew on.

            •  i would want to re-read the... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              The Maven, litho, npbeachfun

              ...rome statute before i go with you all the way, but, i appreciate your comment and it may be exactly correct.

              regardless of the jurisdiction, however, the crimes and the elements of the crimes are described by the icc. agree?

              wow!  that comment has made writing the diary worthwhile...thank you for stopping in and adding to it.

              •  Further Clarification (4+ / 0-)
                Even before you replied, I realized that my comment required some clarification.  As I read the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute, it becomes somewhat more apparent that as to the crime of genocide, they work in parallel.  The ICC has jurisdiction over the crime for individual defendants (which is why the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda were ad hoc courts that required specific UN Security Council resolutions for their establishment).  The World Court/ICJ has jurisdiction over nation-states (or their equivalents).

                I apologize for not emphasizing that distinction previously.  I also regret that I'm no longer in the office, where I'd have easy access to links for the relevant materials on the ICTY, ICTR and other treaties, conventions, reviews, etc.  Doing this on a handheld device is no easy feat . . .

  •  Thanks for the definitions (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    debedb, james risser

    although some of them are a little weak (for example, killing one person is genocide?), possibly reprieved by consideration of the full set of points.

    The two common requirements for any of the possible heads are:

    • Such person or persons [killed, harmed, etc] belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
    • The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.

    On Palestinians, there has been concerted actions by the Israelis (especially since suicide bombings started) which have made life hard for them, and their comfort and convenience have ranked extremely low on Israeli priorities. I firmly believe that the Israelis have had no coherent sensible plan or real idea about what they want to do with the Palestinians for many years, in fact since 1967. However I do not believe that Israel has acted as a matter of government policy in a genocidal fashion, with the intent to destroy the Palestinian cultural group.

    •  you are most welcome... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      npbeachfun, Joffan

      ...glad to do it.

      what you need to look at is that ALL the elements need to met for each crime.

      so, if the ONE person is killed, AND AND AND and AND must be present. so, it may make more sense to you if you read it as more of a 'pattern of conduct' sort of thing.

      •  A pattern of conduct would seem minimal. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        npbeachfun, victoria2dc, james risser

        But how about prolongation of the pattern and the extent to which it is pursued?

        The Palestinian situation is complicated by military occupation, which bring up confounded factors, not necessarily related to genocidal intent. Would not ethnic cleansing apply better to this situation? There is certainly evidence of that. But genocide?

        •  as i mention in the introduction... (0+ / 0-)

          ...the diary comes about because someone asked 'what genocide?' and i drew the inference that someone thought it was so far-out to call it a genocide---this shows that it is arguably so.

          if you want to talk ethnic-cleansing, yes, of course it is ethnic-cleansing.  i have a couple of diaries on that issue as well.

          again, i am not making an element by element argument for any one of the five crimes, but, i hope the reader can see how one might be created...

          •  I can't see how -- b/c elements are NOT met (0+ / 0-)

            "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

            by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:23:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, of course ethnic cleansing, but (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            james risser

            the case for genocide is really too distant to make. Sure, the Israelis have killed a lot of Palestinians during the occupation. But I don't believe there has been a systematic plan to engage the Palestinians in a way that this concept applies. Still, it should be discussed one way or the other.

            Sorry for the late reply.

        •  look at 6(e)... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          npbeachfun

          ...and think about 'transfer', for example.

          it does not have to be all five crimes (a) through (e); it can be only one, say 6(e) to count as 'genocide' as defined above.

          •  6(e) is about children (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            npbeachfun, james risser

            and specifically about transferring children out of the affected group, see point 4. It complements 6(d), which also seeks to eliminate a group by undermining its continuance through the generations.

            •  yes it is... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              npbeachfun

              ....i'm not quite sure if we are not talking past each other on this one, but, i point out 6(e) specifically because i think most closely tracks the 'transfer' of palestinians.

              6(d) is another candidate, yes.

              •  You ignore what 6(e) really means - deliberately? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joffan

                It's not just any movement -- any transfer. It has to be a transfer out the group -- out of the Palestinian community. You may be talking past Joffan, but Joffan isn't talking past you. You're just ignoring what Joffan is pointing out. No one is ripping Plaestinian children out of their parents' arms and removing them to Jeiwsh homes and families.. or sending them abroad for adoption. That's what the provision is about that's what is prohibited, because that would be genocide -- trying to detroy the Palestinian people, by removing the next generation.

                Do you understand, now?

                "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

                by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:22:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  look... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  npbeachfun, jdcondit

                  ...i am getting a bit winded chasing you around the fucking comments section answering the same question over and over again.  i just finished telling you what i thought of 6(e).  look around and find it.

                  i know you are deeply enjoying writing half the comments on here berating me in varying tones. you are beginning to be quite a bore, actually.

                  why don't you do as someone suggested below:

                  TAKE A BREATH

                  read the replies to your comments and if i keep seeing you write six comments for my one, this is the last you are getting from me.  kapish?

                  •  Breathing (0+ / 0-)

                    But, I get pretty enraged when people write about a Palestinian genocide or Palestinian holocaust. It's wrong on so many levels. Wrong on the facts, and wrong on the law. More to the point, it's immoral and unnecessarily divisive, destructive, provocative, inflammatory (pick your adjective).

                    If the goal is to achieve some reconciliation and understanding among the peoples in the conflict, it's also counter-productive. On the other hand, if the goal in making such an inappropriate and unjust metaphor/analogy is just to say the most inflammatory thing one could say to an Israeli (or just about any Jew, for that matter), and just throw them into a rage, then it would be mission accomplished.

                    "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

                    by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:56:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  It's neither genocide nor ethnic cleansing (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JNEREBEL, debedb

          I'm going to make this point in a couple of comments, because this is really quite absurd. It's said only to be provocative. If the "enemy" wasn't the Jews, who were subject to the most horrific and nearly total genocide ever, no one would even make this silly argument.

          Yes, there are a wide variety of acts that could come under the genocide convention. But, only if there is genocidal intnet. Transferring children is just transferring children without the requisite intent. THat intent:

          The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.

          It's clearly stated as an element within each article. Without that intent, there is no act of genocide, much less a concerted genocidal campaign. Israel isn't trying to destroy the Palestinian people -- not by killing them, or by any other means.

          What's especially laughable about this diary is it seems to be about transferring children. The relevant Genocide convention provision is not about moving kids, as the author contends, from

          "one canton to another, or from one village to another."

          Under the article in question, the children must belong "to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group" and "the transfer was from that group to another group."

          I'll say that again, with emphasis:

          "the transfer was from that group to another group."

          In other words, to even bring the act under this provision (not even getting into the intent requirement), the children in question would have to be transferred from Palestinian families to other groups. It's not about moving them around the countryside. It's about trying to eliminate the Palestinian people by taking away their kids -- placing them outside the Palestinian culture/identity, to destroy the Palestinian people -- to eliminate the Palestinians by taking away the entire next generation. I'm prettty sure that is not happening.

          "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

          by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 07:59:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  As I read the code (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      npbeachfun, james risser

      it seems that the clause about the killing of a single individual is in there in order to facilitate the prosecution of a single genocidal agent -- one person who killed just one other person in the context of an ongoing genocidal project.

      That is, if Bush orders me to kill a Muslim as part of a general project of killing all Muslims and even if that one Muslim is the only person I killed, I would still be subject to prosecution under that clause of the code.

      Does that make sense?

  •  As an IR graduate student (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dvo, debedb, james risser, jhritz

    I just don't see how you can make the case that Israel is guilty of genocide. I see more of one for how the Arabs destroyed their Jewish populations and stole their land and assets after Israel was established.

    •  i am not making any case... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      npbeachfun, jdcondit

      ...only showing what the crimes are and what the elements of each crime are.

      that being said, i would find the simplest crime against israel would be Art. 6(e), but, completing an indictment just for the hell of it in a dailykos diary or comment isn't going to happen.

      •  Very FoxNews of you... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        debedb, Shane Hensinger, jhritz

        "I am not making any case..."

        RIIIGGGHHHTT!

        How very FoxNews of you.  Say someone else asked a question about "active genocidal project on-going in Palestine", add some "possibly" related comments/questions and then deny you are saying something.

        Nice.  Honest.  Proud.

        •  i hate to have facts get in the... (4+ / 0-)

          ....way of your silly fairy-tale, but, here is the linkto the 'someone' date and time-stamped today.

          the israel apologists have to begin to understand that we in the rest of the world follow what is called 'international law'.  google it...

          so sorry that it displeases you to see someone actually talk about law where your country is concerned; i fully understand it does not fit into the narrative you have been telling for sixty years...  oh well.

          •  Be a man about it. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jhritz

            My point was simply be a adult about it.

            If you are making a point, do it.  If you are saying something, say it.  If you are not, then don't.

            Don't offer up your post, then deny you are saying something.  If you were asked in another diary, your response should have been there.

            Posting it as a new diary makes clear that you are making a point.  To then say that you are not really saying something is a farce.

            Don't pretend, don't duck.  If you want to stand up and be counted, do so.

            Wether I agree or disagree with your point is not relevant to how you make your point.

            I just want you to be honest.

            •  oh yes, that is the biggest complaint... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              litho, npbeachfun, Statusquomustgo

              ....about me here at dailykos: not speaking my mind about things and being cute and clever and fearing confrontation on controversial issues...

              YOU NAILED ME!

              yikes, now what do i do?

              give me a fucking break. i will continue to decide when and what i write about. this is not the first time that a diary has been prompted by a comment and it won't be the last.

              if i wanted to, and thought i could support a case of genocide against israel i would have FUCKING WRITTEN IT without your blessing! i have had no problems writing two on ehtnic-cleansing in palestine...and if you deny it, there is still an open table at the conference.

              •  Slide further into it (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                downandout, jhritz

                I said be an adult, you replied:

                ....about me here at dailykos: not speaking my mind about things and being cute and clever and fearing confrontation on controversial issues...

                YOU NAILED ME!

                yikes, now what do i do?

                Very adult.

                if i wanted to, and thought i could support a case of genocide against israel i would have FUCKING WRITTEN IT without your blessing! i have had no problems writing two on ehtnic-cleansing in palestine...and if you deny it, there is still an open table at the conference.

                So, I figured that the linked diary would bring me to a strongly though out, well argued case for describing the situation of the palestinians as one of ethnic cleansing.  

                Instead I read sarcasm, parody, and rant.

                The Palestinians are a people in need of leadership, friends, and articulate supporters.  You lack the above, even if you do have spirit.

                I personally think that once everyone can be honest and serious about the full situation of the Palestinians, they will have a chance of a future.  They are not being ethnically cleansed.  They are getting screwed.  They are getting screwed by a long list of nations, one of which is Israel but there are also many Arab nations on that list.  Some of their condition is a result of their choices, much of it is not.  

                But they will not be helped one iota by people who will not make their points honestly, in an adult fashion, and with a measure of accuracy that leaves out misused terms like genocide.

                You call me an "israel apologist" while I know others who have called me a "palestinian sympathizer" and not in a nice way.  I will wear both badges and will stand up and be clear in what I believe in.

    •  Didn't The Same Thing Happen? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Statusquomustgo, james risser

      the Arabs destroyed their Jewish populations and stole their land and assets after Israel was established

      The same thing was done by the Israelis to the Palestinians starting in the 1940s and ongoing ever since.  What do you think Israel was created from, a previously lost and uninhabited continent? Do you think the land upon which Israeli settlements are established is created from thin air? What is this 'right of return' that Palestinians crave and Israelis fear if not a return to the land that was stolen from them?

    •  And if Serbia is not found guilty of genocide (0+ / 0-)

      who would be?

      "Stay close to the candles....the staircase can be treacherous" (-8.38,-8.51)

      by JNEREBEL on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:01:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not even remotely relevant (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jhritz

        As I've argued elsewhere in this thread, the Genocide Convention clearly does not apply to the acts that Mr. Risser suggests it does. The facts -- the acts themselves are not acts of genocide. There is no intent. Also, any forced movement of Palestinians, including the children are not transfers in the meaning of the convention, because the Israelis aren't pulling the children of the Palestinians out of their parents' arms and transferring them outside of the Palestinian community. That's what the Convention forbids.

        But, if these acts were of such nature that the Convention applied, then Israel would be in violation. Serbia was found "not guilty" (that's a bit of a simplification, since the ICJ said they did fail to prevent genocide), because the COurt determined the acts were not perpetrated by Serbia -- the acts in that case did constitute genocide, it's just the Court didn't find the needed evidentiary chain to attribute the acts of Bosnian Serbs to Serbia itself. Completely different question.

        "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

        by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:11:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My point in the post was only (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jhritz

          that if Serbia fails to qualify then it is out of the question to suggest Israel would.

          I agree with your statement there was no intent by Israel.

          "Stay close to the candles....the staircase can be treacherous" (-8.38,-8.51)

          by JNEREBEL on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 09:07:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Actually -- you make a decent point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shane Hensinger, jhritz

      What was done to Arab Jews arguably would be genocide. Especially, if you define the Iraqi Jews or Syrian Jews as a unique ethnic/national/religious group

      In contrast, there is no case that Israel is committing genocide in the territories -- I've debunked the suggestion elsewhere in this diary -- though I'm more than a little amused by the diarist trying to deflect criticism by saying he isn't making a case for genocide here. Surely, he failed to make the case, because there is no case to be made. But, the impication of the diary itself is that the diarist believes there is a case to be made. His disavowal is totally disingenuous.

      "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

      by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:17:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am not sure~ (4+ / 0-)

      Under International Law ~ Israel is responsible for the  Occupied Territories: life in Gaza is Chaos and continues to Worsens....

      But I will put that aside for now-

      There is a real chance that in my life time Israel will elect someone like Lieberman: that could defiantly put Israel inside of International Courts.

      "A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen" James Madison (-6.88, -6.26)

      by npbeachfun on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:21:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's simply absurd (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      npbeachfun, james risser, jdcondit

      There's much more of a case to be made for genocide in the violent expropriations conducted by Israel during the 1948 war than there is in the harassment and forced exodus of Jews from, say, Iraq in 1951.

  •  The ICC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jhritz

    Of course, America is not a signatory to the ICC.

    For damn good reason, the ICC aside from not offering the constitutionally protected rights to Americans. Could also be used for political attacks on our country, and military.

    We have court system and our perfectly capable of using it.

    Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. -Heinlein

    by AmoralAmerican on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 07:15:29 PM PDT

    •  not according to germany... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      npbeachfun, jdcondit

      ...if you have followed the rumsfeld case.

      yes, america has the america serviceman's protection act that was drafted specifically based on similar views of international law that you have.

      •  Violates our rights (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jay Elias, debedb, jhritz
        • Absence of jury trials
        • Retrials allowed for errors of fact
        • Hearsay evidence allowed
        • No right to a speedy trial, a public trial or reasonable bail

        These are all in direct violations to the rights given to every American citizen by the constitution.

        Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. -Heinlein

        by AmoralAmerican on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 07:32:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh... (0+ / 0-)

          ...those pesky Constitutional rights.

          The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

          by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:08:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  wow, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          james risser, jdcondit

          sounds like Gitmo.....

          "A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen" James Madison (-6.88, -6.26)

          by npbeachfun on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:26:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I never understand... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            james risser

            ...the use of that notion in these circumstances.

            Are we for Gitmo?  Any of us here?

            I didn't think so.  So, by that notion, if the ICC sounds like Gitmo, why are we for that?  Why is it okay for the ICC to do what we all find nauseating in the US Government?

            The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

            by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:31:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i think he was joking... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jay Elias, npbeachfun

              ...but, i don't know if you are.

              •  I'm sure he was... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                litho, james risser

                ...but this is an often used debate trick, and it is worth pointing out that it is wrong, even if the poster who used it isn't at fault particularly.  Clearly, Iran is violating the Geneva Convention rights of the British sailors in captivity (if nothing else, if you don't think the female sailor voluntarily asked for a veil, then they are violating them).  But, some people have said, who cares since the US is violating the Geneva rights of so many, probably including some Iranians?

                Wrong answer.  We condemn what we condemn because it is wrong, not because of who does it.  If we think these are basic rights of defendants, then by definition, we cannot in good conscience support the ICC as currently formulated.

                The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:38:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  we do have those basic rights... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  npbeachfun

                  ...and, each signatory is obligated to institute legislation at a state level to criminalize behaviour. we have the war crimes act of 1996, for example, that makes war crimes subject to prosecution.

                  oh, and also, you are agreeing to a poster that may or may not be characterizing the icc policies regarding their procedure with a slightly 'imperfect' understanding of what those rules are. but, lets go on.

                  an american war-criminal, if tried in america pursuant to its existing law, would have those rights.

                  but, herein is the dilemma. as i have diaried, john conyers and 50 other representatives, when they were in the minority, wrote to the justice department to have the bush administration investigated under domestic law.  as you know, nothing happened.

                  germany, in their rumsfeld 'indictment' noted that if americans were not going to pursue war-crimes against rumsfeld using american law, that they would do so using a universal jurisdiction element of german law.

                  do i give two shits if germany, not that the case will ever actually be 'filed', assuming they are less, gives rumsfeld less rights than he would be afforded here? a big NO...  

                  •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    npbeachfun, james risser

                    ...we'll never see these particular people tried anywhere under any circumstances.  That's just the way it is.

                    But, to my thinking, the question is not one of how do we get justice for Rumsfeld.  Nothing close to that exists.  If he was tried and hung tomorrow, it would be many things, but not "justice".  But if we have the ambition to write laws, especially laws that theoretically apply to all people in all places, we have a higher responsibility.  

                    In America, we believe it is better that a guilty man go free rather than sully our laws with injustice.  That's a good standard.

                    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                    by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:00:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  and, international law... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      npbeachfun, jdcondit

                      ...will not sully that good thing.  but, you understand that we are to try to prosecute our domestic war-criminals. it is sort of part of the international community 'package' of being a good citizen...

                      think of the alternative: every war-criminal in the world would become an american citizen first just to get our 'get out of war-crimes free' card!

                      •  They already get out of them free... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        james risser

                        ...I think that you need far more capability to hold elected leaders in the US accountable for their actions at every level before you can hope for that.  We're starting that work now, but Rumsfeld will likely be dead of natural causes before we are done.

                        I'm just speaking realistically.  Should he be tried?  Sure, if for no other cause then the betrayal and illegal orders given to sworn soldiers under his demand.  But I'm not going to exert myself for something I can't see happening under any circumstances.

                        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                        by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:11:21 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  side bar~ (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  james risser, jdcondit

                  If the British sailors were in Iranian Waters, then they have the right to detain the sailors.

                  we are off topic... but if we are going invade Iran it has to happen in the spring (like now) all the lights have been blinking, all my friends that still have sources have been telling me that we the "peace actives" can do nothing to stop this war- and that is way the UK was pulling out... well it looks like they maybe bake in now?  

                  "A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen" James Madison (-6.88, -6.26)

                  by npbeachfun on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:48:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Gosh Jay~ (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jay Elias, james risser

              I would hope you would know me a tinny bit by now?
              It was snarky (sorry)

              "A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen" James Madison (-6.88, -6.26)

              by npbeachfun on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:37:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I know.... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                npbeachfun, james risser

                ...but the initial point is one so good I thought it was worth pointing it out.  You know it isn't any reflection on you personally, I hope.

                The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:39:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  PS (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                npbeachfun

                I'm also a little short - I've been in one of the most annoying running arguments here of my entire tenure, that has gone on far past sense or logic.  My apologies if my sense of humor was lacking.

                The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

                by Jay Elias on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 09:41:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  umm.... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            npbeachfun, jdcondit

            ...i don't think they torture you to death in den haag, however.  

            mmmmm, it might be worth it now that i daydream about the coffee....

            •  I will state this clearly (0+ / 0-)

              The ex-secretary of defense is innocent until proven guilty, and I will defend that to the hilt. We have our rights in place to protect a person from being lynched by the public, media, or government.

              Germany has no claim to prosecute an American citizen, and the ICC is merely a thinly veiled way to violate our national sovereignty and our rights.

              Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. -Heinlein

              by AmoralAmerican on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 10:37:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I was living in Chile (4+ / 0-)

                when Pinochet was detained in London on an arrest warrant issued in Madrid.

                I can tell you from personal experience there are times when the international community absolutely must step up, because national institutions have failed in their responsibilities.

              •  unfortunately... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                npbeachfun, jdcondit, Chilean Jew

                ...most people agree with you.  sometimes many people can be wrong at the same time.

                as an AMERICAN surely you know that there is a war crimes act of 1996 that makes war-crimes, such as those committed by your 'client', against the law. with any luck, under the next democratic president, the next justice department will fry your 'client' to a toasty brown...

                your understanding of the icc is understandable too, since you are an AMERICAN, and you see yourself as exceptional and above international law...there too, most people agree with you, and, once again, you are all wrong.

                thanks for playing...

                •  Our rights (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vcmvo2

                  most people agree with you.  sometimes many people can be wrong at the same time.

                  Indeed so the majority is wrong when it doesn't agree with something that you advocate? By that logic I  could claim Congress and the public is wrong about Iraq.

                  as an AMERICAN surely you know that there is a war crimes act of 1996 that makes war-crimes, such as those committed by your 'client', against the law. with any luck, under the next democratic president, the next justice department will fry your 'client' to a toasty brown...

                  Indeed and until charges are brought, evidence presented I will defend him as I would defend any American.

                  What seems to upset you is that I'm applying the same doctrine I apply to all Americans to someone you just know is guilty.

                  your understanding of the icc is understandable too, since you are an AMERICAN, and you see yourself as exceptional and above international law...there too, most people agree with you, and, once again, you are all wrong.

                  thanks for playing...

                  The ICC doesn't guarantee rights granted by the United States Constitution, no citizen can be stripped of those rights. They've been paid for in blood, and I will defend them against anyone I see trying to threaten them.

                  The ICC has no authority over American citizens, and guess what?

                  Your right, I'm an American and so is every other citizen of this country. That means we have certain rights enshrined to us by the United States Constitution.

                  Now if you want to throw yourself at the mercy of an international tribunal, go ahead.

                  Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. -Heinlein

                  by AmoralAmerican on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 11:18:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Can't Anybody Read? Don't need to be int'l lawyer (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dhonig, another American, debedb

    I happen to have a degree in international law, but it seems to me that anyone with a reasonable uderstanding of English could read the relevant article and realize that it isn't applicable -- this is not genocide. I don't care what your view of the I/P situation -- criticize the occupation all you want -- but, you sound like either an idiot or a lunatic when you call this genocide.

    Let's review the provisions:

    "2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

    1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
    1. The transfer was from that group to another group."

    OK - we're talking about Palestinian children -- they fit under the rubric of #2. -- part of a national, ethnic or religious group.

    Provision #3 is a little trickier -- the perpetrator (the Israelis) have to intend the destruction of that group, i.e., Palestinian people.

    I think you'd have to be a raving lunatic to think that the Israelis intend that -- but intent is kinda subjective. You have to find objective evidence of the intent -- conduct that might suggest such vile intent.

    What would be objective evidence of the intent to destroy the Palestinian people? Hmm...Wait, I've got it! Go to #4!!! Remember that provision?  Let's review:

    "The transfer was from that group to another group."

    In other words, the transfer of the children wouldn't be from one vilage to another -- unless they were being transferred from an Arab village to an exclusively Jewish one (or from their Arab parents to "new" Jewish families) -- with the intent of removing them from Palestinian culturel so as to destroy their Palestinian identity...thereby eliminating the next generation of Palestinians, and thereby eliminating/destroying the Palestinian people.

    Are the Palsstinian children being transferred into Jewish homes, or Jewish villages? I don't think so.

    If Mr. Risser finds evidence of that, he can come back and start claiming that there are acts of genocide going on. Until then, he should apologize for this travesty  -- this insult to everyone who has perished or suffered through actual genocides.

    "The Lord loves a working Man; Don't trust Whitey; See a doctor, and get rid of it."

    by FischFry on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:18:26 PM PDT

  •  Well........ (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    james risser, jdcondit

    The ICC, whose mandate is to investigate and prosecute war crimes: It is true we are Not signer nor is Israeli. When it come to Criminal Tribunal that has not seemed to matter-

    International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda:

    The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia:

    So who knows what the future will bring- one day we could be brought before the Hague?

    There Just wont be any Israeli or Americans that sit on the court.

    "A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen" James Madison (-6.88, -6.26)

    by npbeachfun on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 08:25:28 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site