Landis and Barbara Ann on Israeli Genocide

One of five hundred children’s drawings collected by Waging Peace showing killings, bombing and looting committed by government troops. In November 2007, the drawings were accepted by the International Criminal Court as contextual evidence of the crimes committed in Darfur. 

Earlier today our Landis started a conversation on the appropriateness of the term genocide being applied to what Israel is doing in Gaza. I find his comment here just as well thought out as his earlier comments on the financial sector.

Landis:  A thought hit me this morning, it really is inappropriate to call what is happening in Palestine a genocide. It confers far too much respect for the Palestinians from the perspective of the Israelis than exists. I don’t think the Israelis actually care enough about the Palestinians to want to systematically kill them, no they just want to displace them and get them off their land. What is happening is ethnic cleansing, because again the goal is not murder, it’s to literally cleanse the land of the Arab stain.

The goal of Bibi and Likud has always been to do just that, ensure there will never be a future for the Palestinians in greater Israel. This is why they propped up Hamas against secular opposition and they approach the whole population with such indifference that would be insulting to call disdain.

When you spray RAID on ants you aren’t committing genocide, you are simply conducting pest control. This IMHO is the true Israeli perspective. In case it’s not obvious I find this all abhorrent on more levels than is practicably communicable, but also find the discussion and bleating of genocide to be counterproductive to the point of actually bolstering the Israeli position through obfuscation.


Barbara Ann:  The views of the majority of Israelis or even the Israeli government are not at issue. The ICC has “reasonable grounds to believe” that Bibi and Gallant want to make the Palestinian problem “go away” via the deliberate a use of

– Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare

– Willfully causing great suffering

– Using murder as a war crime

– Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population

– Extermination and/or murder

Got that? The charge is intentional starvation, suffering, murder and attacks on civilians. Hey, they are innocent until proven guilty of course but let them at least face justice, along with Sinwar and his buddies.

The “in whole or in part” bit of the definition of genocide is too broad? Fine, the nations constituting the UN can change it for the future. But as it stands if the 1948 definition was good enough for 8,000 Bosniak Muslims why not 35,000 (and counting) Gazan Palestinians? You either respect international legal authority or you don’t. If we are already at the point where we do not we are on the fast track to Hell.


Landis:  I don’t think anyone disagrees that Bibi employs these abhorrent means to achieve his end but I think the question is what is his end? and I don’t think it is simply murder ie genocide. If it entails murder maybe he sees that as a bonus, but I think he would happily take displacement over murder if it meant he could get his “solution” to the Palestinian problem.

With respect I don’t think there is such a thing as “international legal authority”. In the strictest sense none of the countries that matter ( the US or Israel) are signatories to any of these courts, and maybe more importantly the enforcement mechanisms for these courts are either essentially voluntary or in the case of UN backed court essentially rests solely both explicitly through veto and subversively through funding and administration with the United States. There is no international court in the world that is going to tell the US what to do. Period.

Comment: I found the argument made by Landis to be reasonable. Same with Babara Ann’s response. The term genocide conjures up visions of the Nazi’s deliberate policy of ridding the world and Western civilization of Jewery, the people, the culture and, supposedly, the world’s problems. I don’t see the Israeli government engaged in a similar deliberate policy of extermination. Eric Newhill pointed out that the IDF has delivered tons of food and medicine to Gaza even while they are bombing the bejeezus out of apartment block after apartment block. 

Barbara Ann points out that the legal definition of genocide goes far beyond Hitler’s Final Solution and includes specific acts that the ICC have determined the Israeli government to have committed. 

Russia’s conduct in Ukraine presents the same dilemma. I don’t think the Kremlin has a deliberate policy of exterminating the Ukrainians, but their actions meet the legal definition of genocide. 

So is our use of the emotionally charged term of genocide clouding the issue of war crimes? Should we stick to the specific actions committed rather than broaden  the behavior, or alleged behavior, to the crime of genocide?


This entry was posted in Israel, Justice. Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to Landis and Barbara Ann on Israeli Genocide

  1. Fred says:

    “35,000 (and counting) ”

    Hamas’ count, the UN count, or the adjusted count? Speaking of counting, has anybody counted how much money the UN has spent in Gaza and just what was it spent on over the last decade plus? I’m sure it is all as above board as the ICC’s actions.

    • TTG says:


      Netanyahu admits to 16,000 dead civilians in Gaza and 14,000 combatants.

      • Fred says:

        14,000 dead combatants is 14,000 more combatants than the Queen of Jordan admits existed. Which is moot, as they will do as little as necessary to placate their own Palestinian population. Bibi would be happy to resettle a couple of million here in the US. Biden & Co. will probably agree. Everyone can wash their hands of the matter and blame the US, which is something the UN is good at. Meanwhile none will ask what the UN was doing in Gaza for the past decade and a half and where did all the billions in aid go.

  2. leith says:

    I’m siding with Barbara Ann. There is nothing emotionally charged about the meaning as defined by the International Treaty on Genocide (CPPCG). In that Treaty, genocide does not have to be anywhere near as bad as the millions murdered during the Holocaust or the Armenian/Assyrian/Greek genocides. It’s the act that counts, not the numbers. 152 nations are signatories to that CPPCG including Israel, Palestine, Russia, China, Sudan & Myanmar. Yet those six (and others) have either incited or attempted genocide in part. Or they’ve been complicit to it while looking the other way. Netanyahu, Sinwar, Putin, Xi, Bashir, and Myint Swe should all be arrested and put on trial.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      The whole thing is ridiculous. Right, look at who signed it. It’s like some a-hole sucker punching you in the face and then when you go after him, he slumps down to look as small and weak as possible and puts on glasses and reminds you that it is against the rules to hit a small bespectacled guy.

      These international bodies are crooked political machines and Westphalianism suggests they shouldn’t be give the time of day (sarcasm).

      • leith says:

        Eric –

        The US signed it. The US Senate ratified it. Israel also signed and ratified it.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          Well, no one is going to want the give the appearance that they are ok with genocide. So of course they were pressured into signing it. Neither the US nor Israel recognize the ICC, though. The ICC is the kangaroo court that is leveraging the CPPCG.

          Also, everyone seems to not be noticing or deeming it discussion worthy that ICC also wants to arrest Hamas leadership for genocide.

          Think about that. The ICC sees Hamas as genocidal. The ICC confirms what I said. Israel and Hamas (+ other Jihadis) are locked into what each side sees an existential war. So it is normal and correct for Israel to fight like its very existence is at stake; just as the Allies and Russia fought the Nazis and Japanese.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            “Also, everyone seems to not be noticing or deeming it discussion worthy that ICC also wants to arrest Hamas leadership for genocide”

            Demonstrably false. A complete fabrication.

            The statement from the Chief Prosecutor is here:

            The arrest warrants are sought for violations of these statutes:
            Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute
            Article 7(1)(b) of the Rome Statute
            Article 7(1)(f) of the Rome Statute
            Article 7(1)(g) of the Rome Statute
            Article 7(l)(k) of the Rome Statute
            Article 8(2)(c)(i) of the Rome Statute
            Article 8(2)(c)(ii) of the Rome Statute
            Article 8(2)(c)(iii) of the Rome Statute
            Article 8(2)(e)(vi) of the Rome Statute

            The text of the Rome Statute is here:

            Show me where a single one of those articles stipulate the crime of Genocide.

            Go on, give it your best shot.

            (Hint for the non-Eric people out there: you have to go to Article 6 of the Rome Statute to find the crime of Genocide, not Article 7 nor Article 8)

  3. mcohen says:

    The process of genocide against Israeli Jews is taking place right now.It started on 7/10.
    The river to the sea is the catchphrase.It is so obvious but people are turning a blind eye.The Jewish people have been here before throughout history.We know in our souls what the threat is.
    The media propaganda is impacting every Jewish person.The UN nations is calling
    for the state of Palestine to replace Israel.

    I sat around a Sabbath table not so long ago and gaza came up.No one had an answer

    Strangely enough on the friday the 6/10/2023 near midnight I had a premonition and posted a poem on twitter.

    Would I ask
    Of the earth
    To speak
    With fire and dust
    Ashes and shaking
    To us mere mortals
    In this hour before
    The rising sun

    And how would we answer

    • Eric Newhill says:

      Yes, the ICC, US media, college campuses, Muslim lobbyists and some people here are participating in genocide; genocide against Jews.

      The they have the nerve, or ignorance – both I guess – to try to flip it.

      River to the sea. No problem. Those damn Jews have it coming. So it’s not genocide. Wonderful. Bless you hearts.

    • LeaNder says:

      The river to the sea is the catchphrase.It is so obvious but people are turning a blind eye.The Jewish people have been here before throughout history.

      – room full of mirrors? –
      Wikipedia: The precise origins of the phrase are disputed.[17] According to American historian Robin D. G. Kelley, the phrase “began as a Zionist slogan signifying the boundaries of Eretz Israel.”[18] Israeli-American historian Omer Bartov notes that Zionist usage of such language predates the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and began with the Revisionist movement of Zionism led by Vladimir Jabotinski, which spoke of establishing a Jewish state in all of Palestine and had a song which includes: “The Jordan has two banks; this one is ours, and the other one too,” suggesting a Jewish state extending even beyond the Jordan River.[19] In 1977, the concept appeared in an election manifesto of the Israeli political party Likud, which stated that “between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty.”[20][21] The current ideology of the Israeli government in 2024 is rooted in Revisionist Zionism, which sought the entire territory of Mandatory Palestine.[22][23]

      Middle East scholar Elliott Colla says that the relevant historical context for understanding ‘from the river to the sea’ is the history of partition and fragmentation in Palestine, along with Israeli appropriation and annexation of Palestinian lands.[24] In his opinion these include: the 1947 UN Partition plan for Palestine, which proposed to divide the land between the river and the sea; the 1948 Nakba, in which that plan materialized; the 1967 War, in which Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza; the Oslo Accords, that (in his view) fragmented the West Bank into Palestinian enclaves (that he describes as “an archipelago of Bantustans surrounded by Israeli settlements, bases, and checkpoints”); and the Israeli separation wall first erected after the Second Intifada.[24]

  4. Eric Newhill says:

    Good question, TTG. IMO, the term “genocide” is being cheapened by the ICC’s and anti-Israel crowd’s use of it.

    In war, civilians die. Never been a war where that didn’t happen. Some civilians are killed, caught in the crossfire, by bullets and bombs, some are more or less targeted and some large number always die from starvation, the breakdown of societal infrastructure and disease. I think that anyone would be hard challenged to present a war that didn’t qualify as “genocide” under the standards being applied by the ICC and its fanboys/girls to Israel.

    A few examples to illustrate. At the end of WW2 the German people were starving. Women were selling their bodies for chocolate bars; that was in Allied controlled sectors. I’m sure it was the same, or worse, in Soviet sectors of Germany. Was the US/Britain, et al guilty of genocide? Moreover, the bombings of German cities, like Dresden, make Gaza look relatively inconsequential. Again, Genocide? Did the US seek to eradicate the German people? The Marshal Plan, Berlin airlift, etc indicate otherwise.

    The last battle of WW2 involving US ground troops was Okinawa. Estimates of civilian casualties differ depending on the source, but no source has civilian casualties at less than 65,000 and some as high as 120,000. The higher end estimates would mean that more civilians died that Japanese and US troops combined. Civilians hid from the carnage in caves and tombs. Sometimes Imperial Japanese troops were in the same caves. Sometimes tombs were utilized as pill boxes. US troops simply blasted the caves and tombs with TNT, often approaching the mouths of the caves with suppressive machinegun fire and flame throwers. These actions, repeated countless times, resulted in the deaths of all those inside.

    I find Gaza to be analogous to Okinawa, where Hamas and other jihadi groups hide and fight among civilians, who they use as shields. I find the starvation of Germany at the end of WW2 to be analogous the food deprivation among the residents of Gaza. I find the Israeli’s delivery of tons of food and medical to be analogous to the allied efforts to keep Germans alive. Logistics can be a bitch. Try as you might, it’s often not enough.

    Circa WW2 we had the wisdom to understand that war is hell and the best way to end hell is to get it over as quickly and as definitively as possible with overwhelming violence of action, despite the terrible costs – because the costs of doing it cautiously or half-assed are worse.

    We, in the west, are weak and squishy now, feminized and emotional, and engage in the weird concept of “wars of choice” where the ROEs are highly restricted and anyone who tries to fight like a serious warrior is going to be charged with crimes. That is because the wars are not existential. They are about nation building and other such impossible dreams. WE can afford to pretend we are there to help the natives, even though we still kill them in large numbers in spite of our best intentions.

    That brings us to Gaza. The ICC lovers/Israel haters do not understand that Israel is fighting an existential war and has been since even before 1948. Israel cannot afford the weak and squishy mind games that we play when at war these days. Israel’s critics do not accept that the very existence of Israel is an affront to Islam, or at least a major portion of it. That is the crux of the matter. If it is an existential war, then the same rules that we applied in WW2 should be applied to the Gaza operation. Israel critics like to see the jihadists as romantic freedom fighters. Personally, I disagree with that depiction and, IMO, the reason they are fighting and killing Israelis, military and civilian, is irrelevant. Everyone who has ever started a war has their reasons. What matters is only what Israel is facing as an enemy and the how that enemy fights – and what efforts Israel has implemented to minimize civilian casualties.

    On that last point, efforts to minimize civilian casualties, whether by ordnance or starvation, the death toll is remarkably low, suggesting that Israel doing all it can to NOT kill (genocide) Palestinians. 35K Palestinian deaths, with at least half being fighters – so 17.5K civilians killed – in a densely populated environment like Gaza, with Hamas mixed among those civilians during the fighting, is astoundingly low. If Palestinians are starving to death, where are all of those deaths?

    Genocide being leveled as an accusation just because the people you think are in the wrong are winning and your underdog heroes are losing is complete hyperbolic BS and it is shameful to the memories of those who suffered, both killed and survived with the memories and loss, real genocides. So no, there is nothing like a genocide occurring in Gaza. It’s simply good old fashioned war. Same with Ukraine.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      Now that I think about about it a little more, Abraham Lincoln would clearly be a genocidal maniac of the first order, in need of arrest, based on the ICC’s definition. What was done to Atlanta, by itself, would be enough for a conviction, but he also started of a war that killed by large numbers of civilians via starvation and disease across the entire South.

      It’s fun when words mean whatever we want them to. Anyone can become a villain. Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime!

    • Keith Harbaugh says:

      “The ICC lovers/Israel haters do not understand that Israel is fighting an existential war

      This is pure propaganda.
      Israel could have accepted a two-state solution.
      Israel could have accepted UN resolution 242.
      Israel could have withdrawn to the 1967 borders.

      Israel refused to accept a reasonable compromise with the Palestinians.
      That is the reality, and the problem.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        And Ukraine could just surrender and Lincoln could have waited for a peaceful solution or just let the South enjoy a two state solution.

        You really believe what you wrote? And then they all lived happily ever after. Now go to sleep children.

        Anyhow, all of that is irrelevant. Decisions were made by people far more informed than you are and now things are as they are. The question is concerning how the war is being conducted, not how it could have been avoided.

    • leith says:

      Eric –

      Okinawa’s Suicide Cliffs near Itoman are where thousands of civilian men, women and children committed mass suicide. Those suicides were ordered by the local Japanese commander when the end was near. More ‘civilian’ casualties occurred when Okinawan schoolboys, some as young as ten, were forcibly conscripted to fight in the ‘Blood and Iron Corps’.

      Saipan also had mass suicides of civilians, many of them forced or goaded into it by the Army, all part of the seppuku (harakiri) heritage within the IJA officer corps.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        Yes, there was a lot of civilian death by suicide on Okinawa and Saipan as well as by crossfire. That’s a good point. It makes the death of Okinawan civilians even more like what is happening in Gaza. The enemy (Japs/Hamas) has brainwashed the population in a very bad way, with ultimately lethal results.

    • Yea says:

      “Good question, TTG. IMO, the term “genocide” is being cheapened by the ICC’s and anti-Israel crowd’s use of it.”

      Eric, you are arguing against a straw man

      The Chief Prosecutor is not seeking arrest warrants on the grounds of Genocide.

      He is seeking arrest warrants for war crimes that have been commissioned by Netanyahu and Gantz.

      Genocide isn’t a war crime – it exists in a category of its own.

      You need to distinguish between the two courts: it is the ICJ that is adjudicating on the dispute between South Africa (who insist that Israel is conducting a genocide) and Israel (who deny that accusation)

      The ICC has clearly decided to stay away from that dispute, as is looking at something else: prosecuting Netanyahu and Gantz for war crimes committed on their orders.

      You do a disservice to your case by not knowing your ass from your elbow.

  5. Poul says:

    Genocide apologists in action. Harsh words but that’s my view.

    Remember Kosovo. We charged the Serbs with genocide for what is a lot milder than anything the Israeli Jews have done in Gaza. There is also the rhetoric which is genocidal – aka Amalek. The Serbs could argue they were just engaged in ethnic ceasing hence it was just the West persecuting Serbs. Like we hear from Israel and their collaborators today.

    And finally – the judges of the ICJ have found that it is plausible that the Israeli Jews are engaged in genocide. Israel is awaiting a genocide trial which will take years to resolve. So who knows best what constitutes genocide in legal terms. The judges of the ICJ or Landis and Ann?

    I reiterate – the ICJ found with overwhelming agreement among the judges that it is plausible that Israel is engage in genocide in Gaza. Six verdicts – 2 with 16-1 against Israel and 4 with 15-2 against Israel.

    I trust the legal judgement of the ICJ above some apologists .

    • Eric Newhill says:

      The ICJ also says that Hamas is engaged in genocide and seeks to arrests its leaders.

      • Yeah, Right says:

        Eric, you have no idea what you are talking about.

        The ICJ adjudicates disputes between states.

        It is NOT a criminal court and has no authority to seek the arrest of anyone.

        That you do not know the difference between the ICJ and the ICC makes plain that your blather is born of profound ignorance.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          Doesn’t matter and I don’t care which idiotic “international” body is doing what. The ICC is going after Bibi, Sinwar, Putin and none of them care, just as I don’t because, at the end of the day, it’s 100% BS that no one is adhering to except when convenient. But, as always, thank you Mr Pedantic for your nit picking useless contribution that misses the larger issues.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Eric, it is you who “misses the larger issues”, precisely because you approach all of these issues from the most partisan position possible.

            Tribal loyalty….. how very, very…. primitive.

  6. Jovan P says:

    Killing of app. 2500 Bosnian muslims is a war crime, not a genocide. But since the western deep state pushes ths false narrative thirty years for geopolitical reasons, it’ll come back to them just like ,,Kosov0’s independence” did. Double standards tend to fire back.

    Regrading the Israeli crimes in Gaza, this is an interesting topic. Both Barbara Ann and Landis have strong arguments. I would like to add, that legally it doesn’t mean much if the USA or Israel haven’t ratified the 1948 Convention, because these rules are Ius cogens (

    ”The Convention has been ratified by 153 States (as of April 2022). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly stated that the Convention embodies principles that are part of general customary international law. This means that whether or not States have ratified the Genocide Convention, they are all bound as a matter of law by the principle that genocide is a crime prohibited under international law. The ICJ has also stated that the prohibition of genocide is a peremptory norm of international law (or ius cogens) and consequently, no derogation from it is allowed.”

  7. F&L says:

    FWIW Ralph Nader puts the number of dead in Gaza at 200,000 not 35,000. See his article at the link below.
    The World Must Calculate the Real Gaza Death Toll.
    With virtually no healthcare left, no medications, and infectious diseases spreading especially among infants, children, the infirm, and the elderly, can anybody believe that the fatalities have just gone over 30,000?

  8. Artemesia says:

    TTG wrote:

    “The term genocide conjures up visions of the Nazi’s deliberate policy of ridding the world and Western civilization of Jewery, the people, the culture and, supposedly, the world’s problems.

    I don’t see the Israeli government engaged in a similar deliberate policy of extermination. Eric Newhill pointed out that the IDF has delivered tons of food and medicine to Gaza even while they are bombing the bejeezus out of apartment block after apartment block.

    — Germans “delivered tons of food and medicine” to concentration camps; set up hospitals where thousands of Jews were treated/healed/cured.
    If “Marshall Plan, Berlin airlift” etc. indicate Allies did not intend “extermination” of Germans, then hospitals, medical care, provision of food to Jews must similarly be understood as indicating Germans did not intend “extermination” of Jews.

    TTG’s rhetoric outpaced his thought-control: Nazis wanted to rid Germany of Jews, a position shared by Louis Brandeis, according to a statement he made to Rabbi Stephen Wise on ~Feb 14, 1933, recorded in Wise’s autobiography & quoted by Edwin Black in The Transfer Agreement (1984 ed., p. 78). Eichmann spent his career shuttling Jews out of Germany, Hungary, etc. into the nascent zionist colony in Palestine.

    Imagine that: Hitler, Brandeis and Bibi had common goals, ethnic cleansing: Palestinians out of Palestine, Jews out of Germany.

    “Was the US/Britain, et al guilty of genocide? Moreover, the bombings of German cities, like Dresden, make Gaza look relatively inconsequential. Again, Genocide? Did the US seek to eradicate the German people? The Marshal Plan, Berlin airlift, etc indicate otherwise.”

    Unlike TTG’s version, “the bombings of German cities” was a planned, rehearsed, perfected industrial process targeting German (and Japanese) civilians and did, indeed, “make Gaza look relatively inconsequential;” Hamburg, ironically, a predominantly Jewish city, was bombed 240 times, culminating in Operation Gomorrah, which some called the fiercest firebombing in history.

    OK, maybe not a genocide.

    But how about war crimes, crimes against humanity?

    And if we can agree on that — that war crimes are being committed in Gaza and were committed in Germany, why were Allies who firebombed German civilians never held to account?

    • TTG says:

      Allied bombing of German cities was aptly named terror bombing. It was designed to instill terror in the German populace, but the goal was to induce Germany to surrender not to rid Germany of Germans. Hitler’s solution to his “Jewish question” started as forced emigration, but soon devolved into deliberate mass murder especially in the occupied territories. It was a “final solution” separate from militarily defeating his enemies. If anything, it detracted from his war efforts.

      In a remarkable feat of self-awareness, General Curtis LeMay said about his firebombing of Tokyo, “If we lose the war, we’ll be tried as war criminals.” He knew damned well what he was doing could be called a war crime, but his goal was not to exterminate the Japanese. It was to defeat Japan.

      • Artemesia says:

        How clever of LeMay to revise Just War theory, from:

        “In waging war it is considered unfair and unjust to attack indiscriminately since non-combatants or innocents are deemed to stand outside the field of war proper. Immunity from war can be reasoned from the fact that their existence and activity is not part of the essence of war, which is the killing of combatants.”

        to: “If we lose,” that is, if the adversarial combatants prevail, presumably because civilians that we terrorized (i.e. killed) failed to bring about a surrender of said combatants, “then our (ignoble) acts of killing civilians are culpable, but if we win, that is, if we kill enough civilians that the adversary is forced to surrender, then killing civilians is just.”

        How is that different from what Israel is doing in Gaza?

        In fact, many argue that Hamas is “hiding behind civilians,” a moral equation similar to LeMay’s rationalization and to Israel’s claim.*

        *Except that: Palestine does not have a military; it is an occupied people, and it has been argued that occupied persons have the right to resist occupation even with violence.
        THAT muddies the water.

        Curtis LeMay already having muddied the water to the extent that he seems to justify killing civilians as long as one prevails over the adversary-combatants, does any in such a category — “adversary-combatant” — exist, where the “adversary” is engaging in legitimate resistance?

      • Eric Newhill says:

        “….but his goal was not to exterminate the Japanese. It was to defeat Japan.”


        So where is the evidence that Israel’s goal is to exterminate the “Palestinians”*, as opposed to defeating Hamas and allied terrorist org.s? Where is the evidence that Israel even wants remove Palestinians from Gaza? Seems to me that such intent is only being inferred by people who are wont to infer such meanness in Jews.

        * I have decided that “Palestinian” is an artificial term concocted as a part of the anti-Israel propaganda scheme. The people are simply Arabs, many of whom arrived from all over the Arab world, to Israel, looking for work from the Brits during the brief period the Brits were in charge. So very recently. There never was a Palestine. The Ottomans, who rule the MENA for 500 years prior to the Brits, considered that land part of the Syrian province. Before that, the Egyptian Mamluks ruled the place and had it broken out into several prefectures.

        • LeaNder says:

          * I have decided that “Palestinian”
          no, you don’t have decided yourself, as a rule you simple repeat narratives of the Israeli right. Same, same in this case.

    • Barbara Ann says:

      Artemesia, good to see you back here.

      Colonel Lang held very strong views on the utter immorality of “strategic bombing”, as you may recall.

      As TTG’s LeMay quote illustrates, war crimes trials were (are) never held by the vanquished. The history of the ICC is instructive. The rationale for creating the ICC was to hold all guilty parties to account for war crimes. And if there is to be such a concept in international law surely this is the only way in which it can be meaningful.

      As for Eichmann, sure there was a commonality of interest during the first part of his career – while the destination was Palestine. He was hanged for his part in what came afterwards.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      But there are a couple million or so Israeli citizens who are Arab, or Palestinian, if you prefer to call certain Arabs that. Those Arabs are not under attack. They are in government, in the IDF, working in all market segments – well integrated into Israeli society. So Israel’s goal cannot be to simply rid itself of Arabs.

    • Paul says:

      “Hamburg, ironically, a predominantly Jewish city, was bombed 240 times,”

      In the 1930’s the Jewish population of Hamburg was appx 17,000 in a city of over 1.5 million. In what sense was Hamburg “a predominantly Jewish City”?

      • Artemesia says:

        Series of lectures by Prof. Ken Ruderman, “Intellectual History of the Jewish People, Pt. I”
        paraphrase: When Jews were kicked out of Spain and into Portugal, then out of Portugal, the European places where they found secure settlement were in Netherland, Hamburg, Venice.

        Max Blumenthal mentioned “Holocaust Survivor” Miriam Ingram, 88 years old, who has protested for 6 months in front of White House for Peace in Palestine. She carries a poster that says, Holocaust Survivor” in pink letters. She defines herself as a holocaust survivor, explaining that she was born and grew up in Hamburg, where she “survived the holocaust,” tho her grandmother was “taken by the Nazis.”

        With all respect to Ms. Ingram, what she survived was Allied firebombing. Different sources state wildly varying numbers of residents of Hamburg who died in one of the 240 bombings Hamburg endured, including “Gomorrah,” slated as the most deadly of all firebombings in history, killing 46,000.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        Good observation, but I’m sure the Jewish population of Hamburg was even less than 17,000 when the bombing took place b/c the 17K Jews had been rounded up and deported (and many killed) by the Nazis.

        Statements like, “predominantly a Jewish city” reveal the antisemitism that everyone possessed by it denies, which, as far as I can tell, is the case with just about everyone adamantly calling the Gaza situation a “genocide”. It’s such a weird thing to say. Such a strange focus. It reminds me of redneck racists that call New York City, “Jew York City” because there is a vibrant Jewish community there that they hate so much it taints the whole city in their eyes.

    • LeaNder says:

      — Germans “delivered tons of food and medicine” to concentration camps; set up hospitals where thousands of Jews were treated/healed/cured.

      This deserves a response, Artemesia. Why not again via Wikipedia:

      [Herbert Friedrich Wilhelm Backe (1 May 1896 – 6 April 1947) … Minister in the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture] developed and implemented the Operation Hunger that envisioned death by starvation of millionsof Slavic and Jewish “useless eaters” following Operation Barbarossa, the 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union.

  9. John Minehan says:

    Essentially, Prof. Mearsheimer sees this as “ethnic cleansing” rather than “genocide per se.

    His theory is that Israel is in some sense an apartheid state, that the GoI has seen that such an arrangement in South Africa was untenable and seeks to cause the Palestinian population to rapidly decline because they deem either a “Two State Solution” or “A Single State Solution with Protections for Religious Minorities” as being either unachievable, untenable or contradictory to Israel’s nature.

    Mearsheimer also opines that these positions have weakened Israel’s position in the World.

    Before Netanyahu returned to power, Israel was on the back foot, with the defeat in Lebanon in 2006 and the 2o08-’09 and 2012 set backs in Gaza. Israel’s improved performance in Gaza in 2014 was an indicator that Israel had turned the corner.

    The Hamas attack and his own legal problems indicate that Netanyahu may have insurmountable political problems.

    This is a crisis in the truest sense.

    • leith says:

      John –

      The UN says that ethnic cleansing can “… constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.”

      • John Minehan says:

        But that is not quite Prof. Mearsheimer view, as presented in the video. His view is that it does undermine Israel’s position, in any case.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          John Minehan,
          Does Mearsheimer opine that the Palestinians’ position is also undermined by the fact that the ICC seeks to arrest Hamas leadership for genocide as well?

          • TTG says:

            Eric Newhill,

            The ICC seeks the arrest warrants for a list of war crimes and crimes against humanity, not mentioning genocide. Although extermination is specified as one of the crimes, both the IDF and Hamas are hardly doing a bang up job at extermination.

          • Eric Newhill says:

            Yes, our ever alert neighborhood pedantic pro-Hamas autist has already corrected me on the nuances between charges leveled by the ICC v the ICJ.

            But yeah, both sides are hardly effective at extermination. Hamas because they just plain don’t have the resources to do what they’d like to and Israel because they could and, therefore, obviously, don’t want to.

            You and I know what a force such as the IDF could do to a dense civilian population; how easy it would be to have inflicted hundreds of thousands of deaths by now, if that was the goal.

          • Yeah, Right says:

            Eric: “Yes, our ever alert neighborhood pedantic pro-Hamas autist has already corrected me on the nuances between charges leveled by the ICC v the ICJ.”

            Eric, it isn’t just that you didn’t know the difference between those two courts.

            It isn’t just that you still appear to believe that both courts are “leveling charges” (though I could be charitable in this case and assume you simply don’t know how to write a sentence).

            It’s that EVEN IF we forgive your inability to distinguish one court from the other you still REPEATEDLY said that the accusation leveled at Netaynahu and at Sinwar was “genocide”, when neither man has been accused of that crime by any criminal court.

            This isn’t a “pedantic” point: you don’t even understand WHAT CRIME THEY ARE BEING ACCUSED OF.

            I mean, honestly, You Don’t Know Anything.

  10. walrus says:

    The hair splitting visible here revolts me. Forcible dispossession under threat of death is what is being inflicted. by Israel on the native human population of land that is now labelled “Israel”; There can be no doubt of that.

    All else is BS.

  11. elkern says:

    IMO, “ethnic cleansing” is clearly the more appropriate term.

    “Genocide” implies the extermination of a “genus”, an entire [ethnic?] group of people, and Israel doesn’t really seem to be attempting that. Since 1948, Israel has always accepted a [small] minority population of non-Jews while constantly striving to make sure that the [voting] population overwhelmingly Jewish.

    The problem is that Israel cannot continue to be both a Democracy and a Jewish State if the non-Jewish population gets close to 50%, so each time they have expanded their territory, they haven’t accepted the people living there as “citizens”. Israeli settlements in the West Bank make it obvious that Israel intends to annex the “occupied territories”, so they will have to get rid of the Palestinians who live there. So far, their plan for doing this seems to be to make life so miserable for them that they leave “voluntarily” – and not overt mass murder (“genocide”).

    Also, Israel and its supporters often claim that there is no such thing as “Palestinians” – they view them as Arabs, and claim that they should just go “back” to Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, or wherever. This may be just a legalistic ploy, but it seems more like a heartfelt belief, an internal psychological defense mechanism to maintain a feeling of being “moral”, “right”, and “good”. From this perspective, Israel is obviously not trying to exterminate all Arabs, they’re just trying to move them out of Israel, to Arab countries… which is “ethnic cleansing”, not “genocide”.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      Your perspective is more reasonable than the genocide! crowd’s and is fairly close to accurate. In fairness to Israel, if they allowed the population of Arabs to be more than 50%, then the Arabs would vote to screw over the Israelis; of that there can be little doubt. So the Israelis have to displace – through means you note – Arabs that represent the biggest threat politically, culturally and criminally (i.e. terrorist activity). That kind of situation has been the story of human migration throughout historic times to current. It is not unique to Israel and the Arabs. Heck, even in the US, California and New York are driving out conservatives who have lived in those states for generations. So I think “ethnic cleansing” is too strong a term. It too much connotes genocide.

      Then there is the fact that the Arabs commonly called Palestinians do commit acts of terrorism on a regular basis and have for generations. Sometimes they align with Arab nations (more recently Iran) and start wars against Israel. Common sense security concerns dictate that Israel cannot have too many of these people within its own borders. From the river to the sea means genocide. The Hamas charter called for genocide. Iran calls for genocide. These are facts that should not be ignored, but consistently are by antisemites. It seems Israel was fairly content to allow Palestinians and even Hamas exist in Gaza until Oct 7th. So I think that the Gaza operation and its objectives should not be conflated with the west bank and other areas.

      • elkern says:

        Equating the “exodus” of conservatives from Blue States with the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank is far more ridiculous than accusing Israel of genocide.

        And “from the river to the sea” means equal rights for Palestinians, Jews, and everyone who lives there. That would mean the end of Israel as “the Jewish State”, but doesn’t necessarily mean the systematic murder of all Jewish citizens (“genocide”). OTOH, the bad blood between Israel and Palestinians has gone on so long and gotten so bad that yes, I would expect bloody civil war. OTOOH, that’s exactly what we have there now anyway, except that Israel’s refusal to grant citizenship means it’s not “civil”.

        I don’t see any decent way out of that mess. So my position is now mostly “a pox on both their houses”; I just don’t want Israel to take the USA down with it.

        Also, I want Jews to feel safe as US citizens, but insisting on infinite US support for Israel endangers that. When AIPAC shovels millions of dollars into primary campaigns to defeat candidates who don’t support Israel, it reinforces at least two of the worst stereotypes that true anti-Semites have historically used to whip up hatred for Jews: (1) Jews are greedy and rich, and (2) Jews are outsiders whose true allegiance is to their tribe, not our country.

  12. Landis says:

    I certainly appreciate my comments being elevated for the purpose of discussion!

    I think my main point here is being missed, because it seems that by not focusing on this genocide the point is somehow to provide cover for the actions of Israel when that is actually precisely the opposite of what I am trying to do.

    I will use a small example, I used to work around the Financial District at the time of Occupy Wall St, and used to walk by Zuccotti Park and see the encampments quite regularly. On one or two occasions I stopped to talk with the protesters there, and what became immediately apparent to me, the same thing that is apparent about all of these campus protests, is that they are wholly un-dangerous to the establishment, and in many ways coopted by it, when (this is important) they shouldn’t be. There was so much righteous anger after 08 and all of it was obfuscated and displaced to the benefit of the establishment that it was protesting against.

    The reason I am against labeling this as a genocide is for the sole reason (and I cant emphasize this enough) that it is actually beyond being counterproductive, it is actually directly aiding in the cause of the Israeli establishment, even more so than if you went out and raised money directly for the IDF.

    We have to understand that Israel is insulated from discussion of genocide for 3 key reasons: 1. The state of Israel was founded on the backs of the holocaust so they will always drag that out as a moral basis for differentiation between that event and this one. 2. There is a lot of aid and supposed humanitarian activity that just in its inception can be used to dismiss calls of genocide (why would be provide x$mm in aid if we are trying to kill them all (the press releases write themselves)), 3. the entire “rules based international order” that is supposed to deal with issues like these are coopted by the US and and/or the main parties are not signatories to and it is all functionally meaningless with no enforcement mechanism.

    Again I’m not trying to split hairs and say genocide isn’t happening, what I’m saying is that having the basis of this discussion be whether or not this is a genocide just means Israel wins. Nothing that will come of this discussion is dangerous (to the effect of eliciting a change in Israeli views of policy) to the establishment here or there and the coup de grace is that by extension and in actuality a lot of the people who are protesting will come out in support of Hamas. This is a losing proposition from the start which is why Israel ALSO supports Hamas as the gov’t for the Palestinians, something Bibi and the protestors have in common despite their obliviousness to it.

    • Mark Logan says:

      Landis, Barbara,

      Thanks to you both for articulating the subject so well. I’ll suggest though that while such demonstrations of outrage about the civilian casualties in Gaza might be counterproductive in some ways they may also serve to keep the Israeli extremists such as Ben-Gvir in check. Or at least give them pause. There are some pretty nasty people with power in this Netanyahu government.

  13. TonyL says:

    Israel started it as an ethnic cleansing of Gaza. After the Palestinian population refused to leave their native land even under death threat, Israel escalated it to a genocide.

    Like Walrus just said, all else is BS.

    • Fred says:


      October 7, 2023. Just a figment of our imagination.

      • Razor says:

        Everything was just fine and dandy before Oct 7th, eh Fred? Then suddenly, out of nowhere, those fiendish Hamas terrorists carried out their dastardly attack for absolutely no reason at all at all! But then, you’d need a fatal dose of amnesia to swallow that nonsense.

      • aleksandar says:

        So everything began October 7, 2023 ?

        72 000 Palestinians killed 1948-2023 is a figment of our imagination ?
        Land stolen ?
        Apartheid ?
        Colonialism ?
        Olive fields ripped out ?
        Crops set on fire ?
        Farms and houses destroyed ?
        Deir Yassin, Tantura, Lydda , Saliha, al-Dawayima, Kafr Qasim ,Khan Yunis ?

        Easy !
        Just a figment of our imagination !

      • Yeah, Right says:

        “October 7, 2023. Just a figment of our imagination.”
        No, Fred. Very real.

        And as far as Netanyahu was concerned, the events of October 7th weren’t “a figment of the imagination”.

        No, he saw them as “an opportunity not to be missed”.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      “Native land”

      Ha ha ok sure.

      Arabs began migrating to what is today Israel at the same time the Zionists did. The majority of “Palestinians” are no more “native” to the land the Jews are, less so in many cases. Learning history is a good thing if you’re going to make arguments that depend on history.

      • aleksandar says:

        History written by Jews.

        Palestinians aka Arabs are there since the beginning of time.
        Jews in ME were Arabs belonging to a religious sect.

        Now they are Europeans or slaves or from north Africa.
        Transferred there.
        Israel is the last westerner colonial project.

        • TonyL says:

          Thanks aleksandar!

          I got tired of responding to Eric Newhill. Glad there are Walrus, Yeah Right, Razor, and aleksandar, and a few others in this forum still willing to do that.

          • Barbara Ann says:


            I no longer waste my time and energies on the hate-filled rants of a rabid Islamophobe who considers the world’s second largest faith should be “erased”. It is pointless engaging with such an individual. I see he apparently has his own website now, so اذهب مع الله Mr Newhill.

            Your quotes below from Netanyahu and Gallant demonstrate that they do not consider the Palestinians as a group worthy of humane treatment. Such attitudes revolt me and billions of people around the world. Israel’s leadership is leading the country into the abyss.

        • Eric Newhill says:

          LOL. Ok sure. Keep telling yourself that. The revolution must continue at all costs.

          Dinosaur BBQ, CCP t-shirt? Ring a bell?

      • Yeah, Right says:

        Eric: “Learning history is a good thing if you’re going to make arguments that depend on history.”

        This is an excellent suggestion that Eric would be wise to live up to.

        He can start by looking up the meaning of “Mutessariflik of Jerusalem”, which was created by the Ottoman Empire (you know, the predecessor to the Mandatory Power that allowed all that Zionist migration that he spoke about).

        Created in 1841 and included Jerusalem, Hebron, Jaffa, Gaza, and Beersheba into one distinct administrative unit.

        So UNLESS you want to claim that all those cities were – what, exactly? Ghost towns? – then that Mutessariflik was understood to be a distinct (and distinctly Arab-dominated) part of the Ottoman Empire decades before Theodor Herzl was even born.

        But, of course, the rival British Empire decided that “Mutessariflik of Jerusalem” was too much of a mouthful, so they referred to it by a much simpler word: “Palestine”.

  14. Barbara Ann says:

    Arguments about the facts of this case (e.g. Fred) or that the ICC prosecutor simply has it wrong re the Israeli PM & Defense Minister are reasonable enough, but these are matters for lawyers to argue over – if and when indictments are actually issued. A discussion on the meaning of “genocide” is an academic exercise which has nothing to do with due process under the current law.

    Observations like Landis’ that “There is no international court in the world that is going to tell the US what to do. Period” are of a different character. This is a statement about exceptionalism and the exercise of power without regard for the law. It may well be true, but we should not fall into the trap of thinking that disregarding international law will be consequence free. All communities (both of people and nations) need laws of one kind or another to function. If one member of the community (and its close allies) hold themselves as above the law we should not be surprised that other members seek to form a new community in which (they say) the law will be applied equitably. This is exactly what we are now witnessing with the Russia-China led BRICS alliance. A direct and explicit challenge has been issued, as they insist they are no longer willing to live under a rules-based order where the ‘rules’ are unilaterally defined and applied selectively. This is a Big Deal, the biggest of our lifetimes.

    Sure, America, Israel and others can go down the Melian route and “do what they can” and hang the reputational consequences. IMO this will simply accelerate the coming bifurcation of world orders. In the raw exercise of power we must also not conflate any sort of moral justification for actions which may be in violation of international law. Outlaws are the bad guys. Period. Conditional support for Israel is in America’s interest. Unconditional support is not and it is destroying America’s reputation around the world.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      So is Sinwar going to surrender to the ICC for the genocide charges? Or is he going to be more like Israel and the US in that regard and do what he wants?

    • Fred says:

      Barbara Ann,

      The “Special Military Operation” was a direct consequence of the “rules based order” exercising power; not just all the “Arab Spring” color revolutions and the one launched in Maidan Square also, but long before. This ICC ruling is little more than icing on the over-baked cake. I would point out that the EU’s targeting of member states for not doing as ordered is creating a backlash as well. It’s not just Orban, but the almost assassinated Prime Minister of Slovakia, the election of Geert Wilders, and the rise of AfD, are all a back lash against the rulers of the “rules based order”.

      “Unconditional support is not…” I agree, it is ruining the uniparty’s support in the US also. It has always been detrimental to US national interests.

    • Eric Newhill says:

      Oh, and how about Putin? The ICC has arrest warrants for him too. He hasn’t surrendered yet. More exceptionalism? Or something different when Sinwar and Putin thumb their noses at the kangaroo court? Only “exceptionalism” when the US and Israel do it?

      I never figured you for an anti-American pro-globalist (ICC) lefty type, but here we are. All the buzz words coming to the forefront – “Down with American Exceptionalism”, “America exercises of power without respect for law”, “Go BRICS!”, “Hooray Hamas!”, “Genocidal Zionists!”.

      “All communities (both of people and nations) need laws of one kind or another to function. If one member of the community (and its close allies) hold themselves as above the law we should not be surprised that other members seek to form a new community in which (they say) the law will be applied equitably. This is exactly what we are now witnessing with the Russia-China led BRICS alliance.”

      You have to be kidding (or lost your marbles). Again, Putin invaded another country. Again, he is wanted for crimes against humanity by the very court that you say represents the global community.

      This is what happens when you become a self-appointed moral authority. You stop making sense and become arbitrary.

  15. mcohen says: must be joking.

    Sneaky sneak year after year from egypt.well that’s over.the tunnels will be put to good use afterwards.

    There is this cement factory in El Irish Sinai.the money flows,who knows,bro

    In the desrt of my kind

    I’m drifting from blue into the dark
    Wandering lost in the park
    I’m on a path
    Can hear the mockingbird laugh
    Any what way I may turn
    Coals make my feet burn
    I’m looking for the way out
    When I hear a shout
    I turn my head and catch a glimpse
    Of a woman I once knew since
    Queen of the night
    Burning bright
    Light my way yeah
    All the way to the sun
    All the way
    To my heart in your hands
    You hold all true
    Upon the golden sands
    Desert of my mind
    In the desert of my kind.

  16. Yeah, Right says:

    While I appreciate Landis’ effort and do not doubt his sincerity, there is a major problem with his argument.

    Which is this: there is no legal definition of the term “ethnic cleansing”, whereas there is a legal definition of the term “genocide”.

    And this is always true: where there is no law there can be no illegality.

    So slapping the label “ethnic cleansing” on what Israel is going amounts to indulging in a “Is too! Is too! / Is not! Is not!” argument that can have no resolution and allows for no legal remedy.

    Much better to use the term “genocide”, because then you have a legal yardstick (Article 2 of the Genocide Convention) to measure against Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip.

    To my mind Israel is unquestionably guilty of violating these sections of Article 2:
    (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

    A court might have trouble concluding that Israel is guilty of:
    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    and IMHO would have no chance of proving this:
    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

    There would remain only the question of proving “intent” i.e. arguing that (a)-(c) isn’t happening is a hopeless brief, but a good lawyer might be able to argue that this is merely the unavoidable byproduct of war and was not the “intent” of the Israeli government.

    It’s…. an argument to be made, I suppose, but too many ministers in Netanyahu’s government have shot off their mouths too many times for that argument to carry the day.

    But all of that is in MARKED contrast to throwing accusations of “ethnic cleansing” at Israel, because all that will lead to is the legalistic equivalent of arguing this: Ethnic cleansing, you’ll know it when you see it.

    Yeah, OK, but what if you insist on averting your eyes?

    • TTG says:

      Yeah, Right,

      The ICC charges don’t include genocide or ethnic cleansing. Isn’t it better to stick to the specific charges?

      • TonyL says:

        I think the ICC is wise to only charging war crimes. It’s easy to prove that the Israelis commiting war crimes killing and starving civilians in Gaza.

        The genocidal intent is also not difficult to prove too.

        Netanyahu’s Amalek rhetoric:

        Yoav Gallant’s “human animals”

        But lawyers can argue all days whether there is intent or not.

      • Yeah, Right says:

        Oh, I agree completely with you on the essence of what the chief Prosecutor is doing.

        It seems obvious to me that WHILE the ICJ is adjudicating on whether or not this is a genocide THEN the ICC will steer clear of charging anyone of that crime against humanity.

        So,yes indeed,I think it is right and proper that the Chief Prosecutor restricts his application for arrest warrants to war crimes.

        But what I was commenting on is the discussion between Landis and Barbara Ann: Landis thinks that the discussion should be on “ethnic cleansing”.

        That is wrong in my book, for the reasons that I do not need to repeat.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        It is not better for people like “yeah right” b/c then they have to admit that their heroes, like Putin and Sinwar, are targeted by the ICC for pretty much the same crimes as Bibi. They want that fact to be overlooked. So they seek to emphasize the more shocking crime of “genocide”.

        This all all semantics and how they play into propaganda memes.

        • Yeah, Right says:

          Look, Eric, you Cavalear attitude towards fact-checking and your monumental disregard for accuracy is getting very, very tiresome.

          Eric: “then they have to admit that their heroes, like Putin and Sinwar, are targeted by the ICC for pretty much the same crimes as Bibi.”

          Well, no, they are not. The rap sheet for Putin is very, very different to the allegations against Netanyahu.

          Be honest: you don’t even know what Putin is wanted for, do you?

  17. mcohen says:

    I posted this a few weeks ago.seems appropriate

    Ships of the desert range
    Sailing across the Sea of Sand
    Upon the winds of change
    To Custer’s last stand

    Whereupon the poverty of identity
    Has no answers
    To the coming reality
    Pouring forth from sewers

    Tear our enemy asunder
    For this we pray
    Deliver fire and thunder
    On judgement day.

  18. Landis says:

    I think again any argument that is prefaced on the Israelis are doing genocide, or they are going ethnic cleansing is a “bad” argument from the perspective of actually trying to be productive. Semantic arguments over definitions cannot be won and they cannot be used to actually change policy. Nothing about the ICC/ICJ matters at all to anyone that is making any decisions. They are not just functionally meaningless they are practically meaningless as well.

    My point with genocide is that I think its a losing argument to say this is what Israel is doing when it is not their objective, bc they can always wave away well that is not why we are here.

    The opposition that is needed needs to spend all of the energy that is focused on trying to shame Israel through definitions and semantics on laying out the actual political project of Israel for the last 20 or so years. Again I think its counterproductive to try to go back to 1947 or the 70s and 80s when the vast majority of what is operative here (the political machinations of Likud, the marginalization of the more secular PLO, and the empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood born Hamas) happened this century.

    The rub here too is that any hope for change MUST jettison Hamas. Hamas is the trump card of the Israelis because they know (and this is from its inception in pursuing these policies) that no lasting and internationally recognized future (political or otherwise) for the Palestinians can include Hamas as the governance as its extreme elements and even its basis in the Muslim Brotherhood are incompatible (correctly so IMHO) with western values.

    The real struggle here, even though it seems kinetic, is political, and it has to start with the recognition of what the actual political projects at hand are (ie ensuring there will never be a Palestinian state), it seems now by pushing all of the Palestinians into Egypt (and elsewhere) and taking and rebuilding a leveled Gaza. If every college kid was quoting the Likuds own papers instead of UN statistics I think at least we could orient this discussion on the axis it actually exists on, not the one of terror and violence that as long as it remains on ensures the terror and violence continue.

    • TTG says:

      And with this, I am closing comments on this post. Plenty of good points have been made and argued, but it has reached the point where the mud throwing has become tedious.

Comments are closed.