Condem Genocide - short anti-war protest

by citogk - n/a Fri Aug 04, 2006 23:15

Our government has to get off the fence-They must condemn the Israeli and Hizbollah use of weaponry on civilians. Our government thinks wringing their hands and saying "dear dear isn't awful" is enough. It is not!

by no guide Fri Aug 04, 2006 23:29

There really needs to be a cessation of all violence on both sides. But for that to be successful there needs to be an candid frankness about world politics, really other countries should stay out of other nations politics and let them develop naturally . But the pointing of fingers and invasion of developing states does not help, as we can now see in Lebanon it has completely exacerbated matters gathering up more support for fundamentalist groups. The same could be said for Israel as their government will now be seen as heroes of their nation saving them from the Islamic appocolypse.

by Kristina Fri Aug 04, 2006 23:34

When Shelley said that the poet should be the legislator of the world - he was too right. I loved reading Blake's words a brilliant choice for Sunday.

by Mr. T. Sat Aug 05, 2006 00:59

The Israelis are certainly committing various illegal acts in their incursion into Lebanon. Their killing of civilians as a result their disproportional bombing campaign against the Hezbollah terrorist puppets of the Syrian and Iranian islamofascist dictatorships may perhaps even qualify as war crimes, although that remains to be proven.

To call Israel's crimes Genocide, however, is a disingenuous nonsense. The overuse of genocide to describe various war crimes dilutes the true nature of Genocide's definition: it refers to calculated, planned, state sponsored campaign of complete extermination of a cultural class or ethnicity.

Condemnation of Israel for it's heavy handed, irresponsible bombing campaigns that have killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians is deserved. It is, however, irresponsible and simply incorrect to use of the term Genocide to describe what Israel is doing in Lebanon.

Oh, and why not a "Throne of Father Christmas"? He is certainly no less a figment of imagination than this fucking god the article's author chirps on about ...

by Seán Ryan Sat Aug 05, 2006 01:27

Genocide is a hard crime to define, simply because nobody has ever faced being accused with it in a court.

I suppose in one sense genocide has never happened. At least since the term was coined. Even what was practiced on the Jewish peoples during the Holocaust could not be termed genocide, seeing that not all jewish people were butchered. This is of course an argument in semantics. And when one gets past the argument based on semantics, it can be seen that the atrocity perpetrated on the Jewish peoples was an act of committing genocide.

Just like what is being done to Arabic peoples is committing genocide. The speed that this act is committed is not used to define the crime itself. One should not look at this act of committing genocide in isolated incidents. If one looks back to the first Gulf War (One could look a lot further back), it can be seen that millions have died. With Millions suffering, and in terror, and in extreme peril. The term 'Committing Genocide' is a very apt and correct description

A people who have the right to exist, are being butchered, for no other reason, than to butcher them. This is committing genocide.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:03

You should read what Blake wrote about God, before you deride his works.

'The Garden of Love' says it all. He was fiercely anti-dogmatic, a visionary
and completely free from biblical , monotheistic control.

Semantics aside, the action, is conceived to tie in with the commeroration
of a massacre_ Hiroshima_ and to stand in solidarity with the Jewish, Palestinian
and Lebanese victims of atrocity. Our government is well versed in semantics
and twisting and we regect it.

It is symbolical and it is anti-war. The refrain "Who can Stand?", is a question
for the conscience, and since we are busy (the breeders, amongst us) raising another
generation of refusniks, we think actions speak louder than words-

by glenda - unmanageables Sat Aug 05, 2006 13:20

The Unmanageables. a group of women who have come together from diverse backgrounds and organisations to create symbolic actions around issues of violence to women and children in particular, are creating a symbolic event around the death of children in war.

They will undertake this event in Merrion Square, on Sunday 6 August, following the CND commemoration [a separate event] at approximately 2 pm, to honour the dead children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and then will march on foot to the Israeli Embassy to remind the world that Israel is a nuclear power and that the dangers of nuclear war and its horrific aftermath have not been eradicated from a world in which violence and war are still seen by the deluded as 'solutions' to intergroup problems. Anyone who wishes to accompany us to the Israeli embassy is welcome.

As to genocide: there is no doubt in my mind that the actions of the Israeli military in Gaza and Lebanon amount to genocidal intentions, whether they succeed in wiping out the entire population or not. If there is any doubt, consider the shipment by the US of 100? depleted uranium tipped bombs - the radiation of which, like that from the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, goes on maiming and deforming the unborn and killing for generations.......
the only force that can make us all safe in this world is love for our fellow beings, not war.

by Aine Sat Aug 05, 2006 20:13

Will be there, with kids.

by Dave Sun Aug 06, 2006 06:17

Genocide isn't really that hard to define. It is an attempt to destroy -in whole or in part- an ethnic, religious, or other type of group.

As such Israel's actions -while atrocious and most certainly war crimes- are absolutely not genocide. It isn't genocide merely to kill innocent civilians. It may be murder but its not genocide. Its only genocide if there is an express purpose to kill all members of a certain group, for example all jews or even just all jews who live in israel. The Israelis arent purposely trying to kill as many lebanese as they could -if they were there would be even more dead than there are now, as Israel has the military capacity to flatten half the region if it wanted to.

What the Israelis *are* doing is bombing indiscriminately and irresponsibly -for which their leaders should be prosecuted as war criminals. But their purpose is not to kill as many civilians as possible but rather to kill Hizbollah (and perhaps to cripple the country economically, we don't know). The civilian dead are just down to Israeli wrecklessness.

It's important not to get too carried away with overly emotive language even though it's a distressing situation. Using hyperbolic words like genocide only make you look hysterical and irrational, and diminish the strength of your arguments as well as undermining criticism of israeli war crimes.

by Seán Ryan Sun Aug 06, 2006 08:18

I hardly think I could be viewed as hysterical, considering I've already dealt with the majority of what you've had to say. As I've said, you should not look on attacks on Arabs in isolation. There are millions dead since the 1990' s if you include the genocide of the sanctions that ourselves and the UN imposed etc. Israel are merly taking up the next phase of the genocide, and by 'taking it up,' they are committing it. I also pointed out that the rate of their extermination, does not contribute to the definition of genocide. The rate is sustainable and can be increased at will, and there are no guarantees that it won't. And there are no guarantees that it will stop. You said that the Israelis were not trying to kill as many Lebanese as they could. Without knowing how many Lebanese will be killed, you cannot make this assumption. Without these guarantees and without making assumptions, it is impossible to say that there is any plan to stop. So we've got a race being exterminated, with no sign of relenting in sight or no promise to. This is an act of committing genocide, regardless to rate. For example: what would be the rate, that would constitute an attempt at genocide in your opinion? Think of a line of people being marched into a gas chamber (of all the same race or creed), by your idea, the thickness of the line would be a deciding factor in defining the genocide of this group, regardless as to its lenght.

I'm not getting carried away with emotive language. 'Genocide,' the word exists, to describe a legal term. It describes a crime. And this is is the way I'm using it. This law also describes, what an attempt to commit genocide is. All good law should seek to be preventative. And the Genocide convention does seek to be preventative.

It is important when you debate an issue, not to dwell on the personality or the imagined mood of the person who's argument you are trying to contradict, even if your are right, you point out the blaringly obvious, and if wrong, you take from any argument you might offer.

It's also a good idea not to have your argument contradict itself:

'Genocide isn't really that hard to define. It is an attempt to destroy -in whole or in part- an ethnic, religious, or other type of group'

And:

'What the Israelis *are* doing is bombing indiscriminately and irresponsibly - for which their leaders should be prosecuted as war criminals'

If the Israeli's are bombing indiscriminately and irresponsibly and they are doing it to Arabs specifically, they are at least attempting to destroy - in whole or in part - an ethnic, religious, or other type of group.

You say in the next sentence in paragraphs, that part of the the Israelis' purpose may be to '(and perhaps to cripple the country economically, we don't know)

You must remember that you are talking about genocide or mass murder (with no sign of stopping). By killing everyone, one would cripple a country economically. But, the economical effect hardly merits rating. As for the infrastructure being bombed into nothingless, this hardly merits an economical description either - most of the infrastructure is life sustaining, and economics are but a facet of this.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Sun Aug 06, 2006 17:58

The protest/vigil /minute's silence was short.
The letter was delivered to and accepted by staff at Bertie's office
(that photo is on film and will take a little longer).
Some of the group went to the Israeli embassy .

Thanks to the groups who sent representatives and support.
And to the people at the commeroration who stood with us.

A copy of the final draft of the letter will go up under the
photos in the comments section.

by Dave Sun Aug 06, 2006 20:04

This is a pretty pointless discussion I suppose but I can't not respond to your ridiculous statements.

"You said that the Israelis were not trying to kill as many Lebanese as they could. Without knowing how many Lebanese will be killed, you cannot make this assumption."

You know full well that Israel has the power to reduce most of Lebanon to rubble. If they wanted to exterminate the Lebanese or simply to simply to kill as many as possible then there would be tens of thousands killed by now instead of hundreds. There is no evidence whatsoever that Israel is trying to kill as many Lebanese as they can, therefore you have nothing to back up your claim.

Israel's actions are based on cold-hearted, rational power politics. Logically, the Israeli state has nothing to gain from civilian dead in Lebanon -they make it look bad in the eyes of the world for one thing. It does have something to gain from destroying Hizbollah and -perhaps- weakening the Lebanese state. But apart from the fact that common sense indicates that Israel would not purposefully try to kill as many Lebanese as possible, you cannot prove that they are therefore the burden of proof rests on you.

"If the Israeli's are bombing indiscriminately and irresponsibly and they are doing it to Arabs specifically, they are at least attempting to destroy - in whole or in part - an ethnic, religious, or other type of group."

That is the most ludicrous statements i have ever heard. Indiscriminate violence is not the same as planned extermination. If it were then pretty much every combatant group in history could be accused of genocide. Indiscriminate bombing is wrong, but you undermine the seriousness of actual genocide when you use the term to describe every wrong act of violence. All of the palestinian factions have used indiscriminate bombing against Israelis. Are they also guilty of genocide?

You and I both agree that the Israeli actions are state terrorism and war crimes. However you have lost your sense of perspective when you irrationally accuse the israelis of genocide. And it undermines both the seriousness of the term and also the credibility of opposition to the Israeli actions.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:08

Hiroshima was commerorated all over the world, yesterday.
The reason for the Unmanageable action was made clear in the letter and statement.
There is a delay with the shots of the action.

*In Ireland- a commercial radio station (fm 104) had taken up a large part of Merrion
square, where it provided 'street entertainment' , commercial ads, ice-cream vans,
wandering zombies.A small group of people commerorated Hiroshima. actually it
was quite similar to the Military Parade protest- the castrated theoretical hierarchical
socialist groups, argued, did nothing and let the parade go ahead, whilst sitting
in the pub giving out and getting a beer gut. Now we did something,
we created a link with the present middle-eastern situation,
we commerorated Hiroshima
and we delivered a letter of protest to Bertie's office which was accepted-asking for a condemnation of the war.

*When the shots go up, I will re-publish the letter*

So, if you don't get activism, or don't agree -fair enough, but do your rutting and fights
elsewhere, because we are not interested in your opinion.

by dave Mon Aug 07, 2006 17:54

"So, if you don't get activism, or don't agree -fair enough, but do your rutting and fights
elsewhere, because we are not interested in your opinion."

Actually Chris, I do "get" activism. You may not be interested in my opinion but I guess since we have this whole free speech thing you'll just have to put up with it.