chat

I recall when I found a wikipedia article talking about the oil for food program in Iraq, where the human rights coordinator there quit his post so he could criticize the sanctions on Iraq as a genocide, and his replacement also quitting and saying the same thing; the UN's response? They wanted to quibble over the term 'genocide', even though they're being informed that many, many people were going to die.

Today, in regards to Israel, the discussion is seriously about whether or not the term 'genocide' is apropos, when the real issue here is that over 30,000 people have died, and food, water and medicine are being withheld.

Call it whatever the hell you want, just put a damn stop to it already; these actions are killing in the former a million people, and in the latter at least over 30,000 people and rising.

If this was happening to a Western country no one would entertain for a moment having a discussion on whether or not this is a genocide, everyone would be bending over backwards to put a stop to it; no one would care what you call it. For the last several months, Israel has been dropping bombs intended for fortified military targets on civilian centers; on apartment buildings and vital infrastructure. If this was happening to France or Germany, would the discussion in public right now actually be about whether the attacks fall under genocide or just typical war acts, or would everyone be in agreement that they need to come to an end because these attacks are unacceptable?

Hell, we have the answer already when Iran attacked military targets in Israel and that British politician on TV (no idea who he was; he was the guy who was asked by the reporter if Britain would respond had their own embassy been attacked and he said Britain's response would be strong) was talking about imagine how horrific it would have been had it struck a civilian center.