You've written, twice, that this 'is not a genocide', once making your own claim, the other referencing the Israeli publication Haaretz . You make or cite that assertion , and leave it aside as though you've dealt with it, as though it's not a tenuous claim... given the absolute mayhem Israel's been wreaking in Gaza for 40 days, leaving …
You've written, twice, that this 'is not a genocide', once making your own claim, the other referencing the Israeli publication Haaretz . You make or cite that assertion , and leave it aside as though you've dealt with it, as though it's not a tenuous claim... given the absolute mayhem Israel's been wreaking in Gaza for 40 days, leaving aside the blockade! Some exceptionally qualified people have said that it is in fact genocide, or at minimum it is ethnic cleansing, that Israel is very aggressively pursuing. ... Chris Hedges certainly asserts this, and to my view he has more skin in the game than you, Mr. Ling, in his own decades-long deep commitment to lucid coverage of political circumstances in the Middle East, and his deep perspective on the very willful interference of America/Britain and other states in Palestine/Israel's dynamics and development. The onus would appear to be on you, in the name of rigour and (I believe) moral honesty, to flesh out your position. Because there aren't going to be any negotiations, there will be no peace planning, if the residents of Gaza are made to flee Gaza, which is already largely decimated. And things are absolutely bending that way.
All I can do in this instance is turn to the language adopted by the UN itself: That genocide requires the *intent* to destroy a people based on their identity. I look back at decades of Israeli military operations in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon and have to conclude that they tolerate an intolerable amount of 'collateral damage' when it comes to Arab lives. But those actions, which often include prior warning of strikes and evidence of restraint when civilians are clearly present, as evidence that intent isn't there. I don't hold that position dogmatically: If evidence emerges to the contrary, or investigations find Israel purposefully tried to eliminate the Palestinian people, I'll change how I use that language. But I also reject the idea that we must make that conclusion in order to fully criticize Israel.
Thanks for your fulsome response. And you responded in a manner which did in fact 'flesh out your position'. This is much appreciated. I need to acknowledge that I found your analysis in the Substack piece in question very insightful. It raised the bar of my thoughts, and has given me a different horizon. I'm grateful for your depth and for your insights.
I'm going to place an addendum. Here's a 2-day-old piece on lobbying in the U.S. , specifically by the armaments industry there , as well as by the Israel lobby in Washington, and by lobbies conducted by very conservative-evangelical Christian groups ... all tilting the scales in the Oval Office, State Department and Congress-Senate away from any sympathy toward demanding ceasefire (though American public opinion is clearly in favor of ceasefire, especially among Democrats), and tilting the scales in favor of funding the continued saturation bombing and effacement of Gaza, in favor of minimizing or ignoring the continued bombing, destruction, obstruction and shooting up of hospitals, in favor of downplaying the massive civilian carnage, in favor of giving blessing to the hellish food-water-fuel-electricity blockade (which is clearly jeopardizing the entire population of Gaza)... This is an on-line piece by American journalist Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize winning author, one time Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times. He also does much-followed Substack segments. He's in conversation in this YouTube interview with Jewish-American anti-war activist Medea Benjamin. The conversation touches on Israeli impunity in the face of clearly evident war crimes, and in the face of actions which in any other context would be called out as 'genocide in progress'.
You've written, twice, that this 'is not a genocide', once making your own claim, the other referencing the Israeli publication Haaretz . You make or cite that assertion , and leave it aside as though you've dealt with it, as though it's not a tenuous claim... given the absolute mayhem Israel's been wreaking in Gaza for 40 days, leaving aside the blockade! Some exceptionally qualified people have said that it is in fact genocide, or at minimum it is ethnic cleansing, that Israel is very aggressively pursuing. ... Chris Hedges certainly asserts this, and to my view he has more skin in the game than you, Mr. Ling, in his own decades-long deep commitment to lucid coverage of political circumstances in the Middle East, and his deep perspective on the very willful interference of America/Britain and other states in Palestine/Israel's dynamics and development. The onus would appear to be on you, in the name of rigour and (I believe) moral honesty, to flesh out your position. Because there aren't going to be any negotiations, there will be no peace planning, if the residents of Gaza are made to flee Gaza, which is already largely decimated. And things are absolutely bending that way.
All I can do in this instance is turn to the language adopted by the UN itself: That genocide requires the *intent* to destroy a people based on their identity. I look back at decades of Israeli military operations in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon and have to conclude that they tolerate an intolerable amount of 'collateral damage' when it comes to Arab lives. But those actions, which often include prior warning of strikes and evidence of restraint when civilians are clearly present, as evidence that intent isn't there. I don't hold that position dogmatically: If evidence emerges to the contrary, or investigations find Israel purposefully tried to eliminate the Palestinian people, I'll change how I use that language. But I also reject the idea that we must make that conclusion in order to fully criticize Israel.
Thanks for your fulsome response. And you responded in a manner which did in fact 'flesh out your position'. This is much appreciated. I need to acknowledge that I found your analysis in the Substack piece in question very insightful. It raised the bar of my thoughts, and has given me a different horizon. I'm grateful for your depth and for your insights.
I'm going to place an addendum. Here's a 2-day-old piece on lobbying in the U.S. , specifically by the armaments industry there , as well as by the Israel lobby in Washington, and by lobbies conducted by very conservative-evangelical Christian groups ... all tilting the scales in the Oval Office, State Department and Congress-Senate away from any sympathy toward demanding ceasefire (though American public opinion is clearly in favor of ceasefire, especially among Democrats), and tilting the scales in favor of funding the continued saturation bombing and effacement of Gaza, in favor of minimizing or ignoring the continued bombing, destruction, obstruction and shooting up of hospitals, in favor of downplaying the massive civilian carnage, in favor of giving blessing to the hellish food-water-fuel-electricity blockade (which is clearly jeopardizing the entire population of Gaza)... This is an on-line piece by American journalist Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize winning author, one time Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times. He also does much-followed Substack segments. He's in conversation in this YouTube interview with Jewish-American anti-war activist Medea Benjamin. The conversation touches on Israeli impunity in the face of clearly evident war crimes, and in the face of actions which in any other context would be called out as 'genocide in progress'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN5FgiwYGp0