I am beginning to wonder, Gerry, whether you are David Ainsworth in disguise, for your posts consist almost entirely of extended quotations from published sources. I suppose I should be grateful that you are actually addressing my request, namely to define genocide. Unfortunately you do so at one remove, by quoting somebody else. Personally I think this runs counter to the spirit of the Forum, which ought to be a place where people exchange views rather than advertise their opinions or, even worse, other people’s opinions. It also makes it difficult to construct a counter-argument without writing an essay as long as the quoted source, which is rather boring for the diminishing number of people reading this thread.That said, I will try to address the points made in the passage you quoted:1) The Special Rapporteur according to your source has focused on the ‘genocidal intent’ of Israel, yet no evidence is produced of any statement by Netanyahu or his government or indeed any Israeli politician in which they advocate the extermination of the Palestinians, which is what genocide means. Oddly no mention is made of the clear genocidal intent of Hamas, an organisation whose Charter (1988) specifically calls for the extermination of the Jewish population of Israel. The justification given for this blood libel of Israel is that colonisation of Palestinian land and ethnic cleansing amount to genocide. There are several things to say about this. Firstly, it is not clear what she means by Palestinian land. Is she referring to the State of Israel or the West Bank or Gaza? Secondly, no evidence is provided of any plan by the Israeli government to remove the Palestinian population from all the lands they presently inhabit. She provides no evidence because there is no evidence. As regards Israel, Palestinian Arabs, who constitute a fifth of the population, enjoy full rights of citizenship. Even on the West Bank, no Israeli politician has called for the expulsion of the Palestinian population of 3 million, which in any case would be impossible. Only in respect of Gaza have a few right wing politicians called for the expulsion of the Palestinians, but this is not the policy of Netanyahu’s government. But thirdly, even if a charge of ethnic cleansing could be proved, which would be serious enough in itself, this still would not amount to genocide. It is simply an abuse of language to confuse the two. The second paragraph focuses on the refusal of Israel to allow the Special Rapporteur and ICC investigators access to Gaza, which she believes constitutes obstruction of justice. I am not sure that Israel is legally obliged to grant access to a UN official and Israel, like America, China, Russia and India, doesn’t recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC. In any case this has nothing to do with genocide.The third paragraph refers once again to the land of Palestine. What is this? Does it include the State of Israel? If so, it would signify that the Rapporteur is an anti-Zionist. Many people, including myself, equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism since Israel was created in 1948 by a vote at the UN as a homeland for the Jews, who had suffered an actual genocide during the Second World War. If the Rapporteur wishes to avoid a charge of anti-Semitism, she needs at the very least to clarify what she regards as Palestinian land. Finally she speaks of the need to punish genocide as if she had proved that it is taking place, when in fact there is nothing in this account to suggest that she has even established the existence of genocidal intent, let alone genocide.
Steven Rose ● 15d