Times of Israel: ‘When Genocide Is Permissible’

green73

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
13,670
Times of Israel: ‘When Genocide Is Permissible’

The Times of Israel has deleted an article from their website titled “When Genocide is Permissible.”

The article contends that the nature of war has changed and that “nothing, then, can be considered disproportionate when we are fighting for our very right to live.” It continues with a variety of outrageous claims about “the enemy,” none of which are backed up with sources or links. The writer probably got his information from the highly-accurate social media.

The article concludes: “If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals?”

A screenshot of the article is available here. The article is also still available online reposted by the Five Towns Jewish Times.
cont.
http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/08/01/times-of-israel-pulls-op-ed-whengenocideispermissible/
 
I have no problems with what this gentleman has written. In fact I've been writing the same argument for a little over a week now in another thread. I would not use the word "genocide" because this is not actually accurate. But the modern concept of war began to emerge in the late 19th century and is part of the idea and growth of the concept of a "new world order".

Here are my recent posts on this topic:

...I don't recognize as legitimate any claim of "war crimes". War is hell. And has been throughout history. It's purpose is to kill and to keep killing until you win. In WW2, the Japanese did not surrender until we had nuked the civilian populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Claims of "excessive force" and "disproportionality" by the Israelis are laughable. Also, statements by U.N. spokesmen that Israel needs "to respect its obligations under international law" hold no standing in my eyes as the U.N. has no standing...

...What "war crimes", precisely; and under what jurisdiction are these judged to be war crimes?

The deaths of civilians, and children in particular?

Israel is not singling out and targeting these individuals. These deaths are what you would call collateral damage. Plus, there might be the occasional error. But if these are war crimes, then the U.S. commits war crimes on a regular basis with their drone attacks. And all nations which fight a war commit war crimes.

Using the description "war crimes" is merely a PR tactic to gain public sympathy. If you live by the sword then you must accept the fact that there will be civilian casualties. War is hell. ...


...The modern concept of war crimes originated with the idea that a new world order could be created. Atrocities are committed during war, but the idea we need a world body to control and govern nations, and mankind, is more abhorrent to my libertarian consciousness...


...the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 were followed by the League of Nations (1920-1946). You also had the Geneva Conventions of 1864, 1906 and 1926 and the Geneva Protocol of 1925. You had the Nuremberg Trials of 1945 and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal of 1946. The United Nations replaced the League of Nations in 1946 and finally the International Criminal Court was created in 2002.

You can't have prosecution of war crimes without a world body having the authority to do so, and with the political, economic and military power to enforce the decisions.

That body, today, is the United Nations and its goal is a one-world government...
 
I have no problems with what this gentleman has written. In fact I've been writing the same argument for a little over a week now in another thread. I would not use the word "genocide" because this is not actually accurate. But the modern concept of war began to emerge in the late 19th century and is part of the idea and growth of the concept of a "new world order".

Here are my recent posts on this topic:

What is your take on Hitler's "war" against Jews few decades back?
 
...I don't recognize as legitimate any claim of "war crimes". War is hell. And has been throughout history. It's purpose is to kill and to keep killing until you win. In WW2, the Japanese did not surrender until we had nuked the civilian populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Claims of "excessive force" and "disproportionality" by the Israelis are laughable. Also, statements by U.N. spokesmen that Israel needs "to respect its obligations under international law" hold no standing in my eyes as the U.N. has no standing...

Japan had offered to surrender, with minor conditions---the US nuked them to get an unconditional surrender, and to use the situation as a pretext for actually deploying the nukes in order to intimidate the rest of the world. I agree on "international law" being the camel's nose for global big government, but it is possible for governments and cultures to officially express preponderant agreement as to whatobjectively constitutes military aggression, violations of human rights, abuse of prisoners, etc, in the form of conventions, proclamations and the like.

Whether such formal expressions of just war principles are later used to create "international law" is a separate issue from affirming the objective truth that certain parties in war are the aggressors, and defining what actions, events or conditions may be called genocidal or criminal.
 
Last edited:
What is your take on Hitler's "war" against Jews few decades back?
I really don't have a "take" on it as I haven't given any thought to it.

But since you ask, my first thought is that what you describe as "Hitler's war against Jews" was really equivalent to "our" war on poverty, or our war against drugs. It really isn't a "war".
 
Japan had offered to surrender, with minor conditions...
I would appreciate a link to this information, if possible. I'm reasonably well educated in history but this is one that I've never run across.


...t is possible to for governments and cultures to officially express preponderant agreement as to objectively constitutes military aggression, violations of human rights, abuse of prisoners, etc, in the form of conventions, proclamations and the like.

Whether such formal expressions of just war principles are later used to create "international law" is a separate issue from affirming the objective truth that certain parties in war are the aggressors, and defining what actions, events or conditions may be called genocidal or criminal.
I essentially agree with you on this point. And I believe that a moral nation should do its best to abide by these guide lines when fighting a war. But then you get into a sticky point when you accuse other nations of not following the "rules" you dictate and then attempting to enforce these rules on others. This is particularly bothersome when the accusing nation itself does not fully comply, such as the civilian casualties inflicted by the U.S. with our use of drones and our support for the Kiev government in its deliberate targeting of civilian targets in eastern Ukraine. There is always a bit of subjectively in interpreting "rules of war". And in the past it was the victor who determined rightness or wrongness. But now we have no victors and it is the economic and political and militarily strong which tries to enforce it's will; or its the U.N.
 
Yochanan-Gordon.jpg


Full Text:

When Genocide is Permissible by Yochanan Gordon
Judging by the numbers of casualties on both sides in this almost one-month old war one would be led to the conclusion that Israel has resorted to disproportionate means in fighting a far less- capable enemy. That is as far as what meets the eye. But, it’s now obvious that the US and the UN are completely out of touch with the nature of this foe and are therefore not qualified to dictate or enforce the rules of this war – because when it comes to terror there is much more than meets the eye.


I wasn’t aware of this, but it seems that the nature of warfare has undergone a major shift over the years. Where wars were usually waged to defeat the opposing side, today it seems – and judging by the number of foul calls it would indicate – that today’s wars are fought to a draw. I mean, whoever heard of a timeout in war? An NBA Basketball game allows six timeouts for each team during the course of a game, but last I checked this is a war! We are at war with an enemy whose charter calls for the annihilation of our people. Nothing, then, can be considered disproportionate when we are fighting for our very right to live.



The sad reality is that Israel gets it, but its hands are being tied by world leaders who over the past six years have insisted they are such good friends with the Jewish state, that they know more regarding its interests than even they do. But there’s going to have to come a time where Israel feels threatened enough where it has no other choice but to defy international warnings – because this is life or death.



Most of the reports coming from Gazan officials and leaders since the start of this operation have been either largely exaggerated or patently false. The truth is, it’s not their fault, falsehood and deceit is part of the very fabric of who they are and that will never change. Still however, despite their propensity to lie, when your enemy tells you that they are bent on your destruction you believe them. Similarly, when Khaled Meshal declares that no physical damage to Gaza will dampen their morale or weaken their resolve – they have to be believed. Our sage Gedalia the son of Achikam was given intelligence that Yishmael Ben Nesanyah was plotting to kill him. However, in his piety or rather naiveté Gedalia dismissed the report as a random act of gossip and paid no attention to it. To this day, the day following Rosh Hashana is commemorated as a fast day in the memory of Gedalia who was killed in cold blood on the second day of Rosh Hashana during the meal. They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over. History is there to teach us lessons and the lesson here is that when your enemy swears to destroy you – you take him seriously.



Hamas has stated forthrightly that it idealizes death as much as Israel celebrates life. What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely?
News anchors such as those from CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera have not missed an opportunity to point out the majority of innocent civilians who have lost their lives as a result of this war. But anyone who lives with rocket launchers installed or terror tunnels burrowed in or around the vicinity of their home cannot be considered an innocent civilian. If you’ll counter, that Hamas has been seen abusing civilians who have attempted to leave their homes in response to Israeli warnings to leave – well then, your beginning to come to terms with the nature of this enemy which should automatically cause the rules of standard warfare to be suspended.



Everyone agrees that Israel has the right to defend itself as well as the right to exercise that right. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has declared it, Obama and Kerry have clearly stated that no one could be expected to sit idle as thousands of rockets rain down on the heads of its citizens, placing them in clear and present danger. It seems then that the only point of contention is regarding the measure of punishment meted out in this situation.



I will conclude with a question for all the humanitarians out there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly stated at the outset of this incursion that his objective is to restore a sustainable quiet for the citizens of Israel. We have already established that it is the responsibility of every government to ensure the safety and security of its people. If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals?
 
Last edited:

OK, so what is the point of this post? Pro? Con? Neutral?

The author wrote nothing particularly disagreeable. I would also take some issue with the tacit implications of "standard warfare", which is a concept as idiotic as the days are long at the poles. "Standard" warfare should be unbridled death and destruction to all involved. Otherwise, let us dispense with "war" and call it patty-cake.

So tell us, why did you post this?
 
What is your take on Hitler's "war" against Jews few decades back?

In principle, no worse than any other mass murder event. The differentiator, though emotionally compelling, is really a non-started insofar as complaints go: mechanization, which is to say the application of science and industry to the task of killing as many people as possible with the least necessary manpower.

At the end of the day, murder is still murder whether you are killing one or one billion. We are inclined, whether by wiring or mental conditioning to look upon the slaughter in numbers as being somehow "worse" than when done singly or in far smaller sums. That, of course, fails miserably under stricter scrutiny.

The Israelis want what they want. The Palestinians want what they want. The wants are so very apparently in mutual conflict - that much we can say about this situation, if nothing much else. I say leave them to their devices, and I mean LEAVE them alone. They will work things out one way or another. If the Israelis go too far, the hundreds of millions of Arabs may decide to go for the gusto and if that happens, chances are that Israel's nukes will avail them not enough to survive. If the Palestinians go too far, Israel may just say "enough" and wipe gaza from the face of the earth. At some point one just gets tired of the bullshit and gets really mean because the specter of death no longer frightens them enough to keep them self-regulating. That's when things get interesting. We shall see how interesting things ultimately get over there.
 
It is ironic how similar Israel has become to Nazi Germany in the way that they think and behave.

And they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

I say leave them to their devices, and I mean LEAVE them alone. They will work things out one way or another. If the Israelis go too far, the hundreds of millions of Arabs may decide to go for the gusto and if that happens, chances are that Israel's nukes will avail them not enough to survive.

I agree. Let them blow each other back to the Stone Ages. It's not our fight.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cap
This goes back into antiquity. In war you either subjugate the enemy or you completely kill them. If you do neither, you just piss them off and they comeback with a vengeance.

That's why America is screwed. We've pissed of every other nation on Earth with our war machine. When we collapse it will be quite a doosey, and the Military Industrial Complex corporations who used us will simply move to another nation and continue on. This goes back into antiquity.
 
Let them blow each other back to the Stone Ages. It's not our fight.

And that is exactly what some are working diligently towards.

And no,, it is not our fight. But we sure helped to create it,, and support it.

And Our fight with Russia, (as stupid as that is) makes no good sense either.

But it needs to be a really cataclysmic war,, Everybody has to be there. :(
 
At least Israelis are not doing barbaric attacks and mass murder of civilians.

CAUTION GRAPHIC-Obama WH: Attack on the Israeli soldiers "barbaric"









Yochanan-Gordon.jpg


Full Text:


A fascist ****bag or mentally ill lunatic or both.



I really don't have a "take" on it as I haven't given any thought to it.

But since you ask, my first thought is that what you describe as "Hitler's war against Jews" was really equivalent to "our" war on poverty, or our war against drugs. It really isn't a "war".

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Number19

...I don't recognize as legitimate any claim of "war crimes". War is hell. And has been throughout history. It's purpose is to kill and to keep killing until you win. In WW2, the Japanese did not surrender until we had nuked the civilian populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Claims of "excessive force" and "disproportionality" by the Israelis are laughable. Also, statements by U.N. spokesmen that Israel needs "to respect its obligations under international law" hold no standing in my eyes as the U.N. has no standing...
As history often repeats itself, it's instructive to examine what happened in the past.

I am curious that since you invoked "war is hell" in case of killing of mostly unarmed civilians in the Gaza ghetto by one of the most well armed military regimes in the world operating under the "chosen race" dogma to make a national homeland ... why you would not apply same "war is hell" mindset to Nazi's killings of mostly unarmed jews in ghettos in Poland or Germany?






In principle, no worse than any other mass murder event. The differentiator, though emotionally compelling, is really a non-started insofar as complaints go: mechanization, which is to say the application of science and industry to the task of killing as many people as possible with the least necessary manpower.

At the end of the day, murder is still murder whether you are killing one or one billion. We are inclined, whether by wiring or mental conditioning to look upon the slaughter in numbers as being somehow "worse" than when done singly or in far smaller sums. That, of course, fails miserably under stricter scrutiny.

The Israelis want what they want. The Palestinians want what they want. The wants are so very apparently in mutual conflict - that much we can say about this situation, if nothing much else. I say leave them to their devices, and I mean LEAVE them alone. They will work things out one way or another. If the Israelis go too far, the hundreds of millions of Arabs may decide to go for the gusto and if that happens, chances are that Israel's nukes will avail them not enough to survive. If the Palestinians go too far, Israel may just say "enough" and wipe gaza from the face of the earth. At some point one just gets tired of the bullshit and gets really mean because the specter of death no longer frightens them enough to keep them self-regulating. That's when things get interesting. We shall see how interesting things ultimately get over there.

Bold mine. All compelling arguments.. except that such "specter of death" in mideast coupled with culture of revenge/blowback etc tend to make mideast and NY/Washington one global village as recent history shows and after-effects don't tend to be limited to OVER THERE.

U.S. Gives Israel More Grenades and Mortar Rounds for Gaza Offensive

7/30/14
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has allowed Israel, waging an offensive in the Gaza Strip, to tap a local U.S. arms stockpile in the past week to resupply it with grenades and mortar rounds, a U.S. defense official said on Thursday.
 
Last edited:
Hannity, Chris Christie, Netanyahu and friends just don't support Israel enough. They are practically anti-Semites. The solutions are obvious. Why don't they support the real solutions? It's time to call out Hannity and friends. There's some prime coastal real estate in Gaza. Why destroy the place? Hannity needs to support the use of neutron weapons or Ebola virus, to just get rid of the obstructionist people there, and then it's time to properly develop that real estate. If Hannity does not support this, he is an enemy of Israel!
 
Last edited:
In principle, no worse than any other mass murder event. The differentiator, though emotionally compelling, is really a non-started insofar as complaints go: mechanization, which is to say the application of science and industry to the task of killing as many people as possible with the least necessary manpower.

At the end of the day, murder is still murder whether you are killing one or one billion. We are inclined, whether by wiring or mental conditioning to look upon the slaughter in numbers as being somehow "worse" than when done singly or in far smaller sums. That, of course, fails miserably under stricter scrutiny.

The Israelis want what they want. The Palestinians want what they want. The wants are so very apparently in mutual conflict - that much we can say about this situation, if nothing much else. I say leave them to their devices, and I mean LEAVE them alone. They will work things out one way or another. If the Israelis go too far, the hundreds of millions of Arabs may decide to go for the gusto and if that happens, chances are that Israel's nukes will avail them not enough to survive. If the Palestinians go too far, Israel may just say "enough" and wipe gaza from the face of the earth. At some point one just gets tired of the bullshit and gets really mean because the specter of death no longer frightens them enough to keep them self-regulating. That's when things get interesting. We shall see how interesting things ultimately get over there.

Yup. +rep.
 
Genocide was definitely "permissible" in the Old Soviet Union; over 60 million (or more) ethnic Russians were killed by the Jewish Bolsheviks by forced starvation, death camps, or firing squads.

640px-Trotsky_on_a_Polish_poster_of_1920.jpg


However, the details of this genocide, the greatest in the 20th century, is rarely if ever mentioned by the Western Media -- unlike the Holocaust of Jews in WWII, which even if the numbers are accurate, is miniscule in terms of sheer size when compared with what happened to the Russians and others in Eastern Europe.

So given the magnitude of this human mega-catastrophe, it's quite unsettling that this Zionist extremist Israeli writer is still giving the thumbs up to the genocide of helpless Palestinians, although not really surprising since leopards (zionists-bolsheviks, same difference) don't change their spots.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top