Its ethnic cleansing, its displacement and suspension of human and civil rights. An apartheid system so unless you would classify South Africa as a genocide, which it wasn't you can hardly claim so for Israel, and we also have to take into account the differences between these two types of apartheid. In South Africa the black population largely waged peaceful resistance. Hamas on the other hand attempted to wage warfare and also has ideologically threatened Israel's right to exist, thus giving Israel the opportunity to claim the stance of self-defence and justify the lock down in Gaza and the check-points for example. My 'moral stance'? LOL! Well its wrong but it doesn't matter whether I or you think its wrong. The US obviously has shown no moves to discontinue its financial and political support towards Israel unless of course it comes to a time when they no longer deem it in their best interest. Having said that there is no guarantee that even if support were withdrawn that the Israeli government would alter its position in regards to the Palestinians. Its like dealing with N. Korea. Western powers think their treatment of their people is 'wrong' and they have withdrawn much of their support but N. Korea continues to behave as it does. The only thing one can hope for is change from within. The one thing I do not do is look at the situation in the middle-east as 'my' problem, nor is it my moral dilemma. Its theirs to figure out one way or another. I think the US should fiscally cut off Israel but I also think they should do the same with Egypt, I think its financially irresponsible to support any of these nations and the US should focus on their issues at home. I say cut them off the purse string and let someone else broker for peace. Other than that I do not find the Israeli-palestinian situation any more important than I do the situation in the Congo. I'm live in Asia and care more about what's going on in Thailand than I do with the middle-east in terms of focus, care more about the economic recovery in Europe for example. I hope they work it out I really do but if the US doesn't seem to know what to do with the situation I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I'm of the opinion that if someone truly cares or feels determined by a certain situation then they should join a grassroots org and actively engage in it. Join the peaceful volunteers who go to Gaza or the West Bank and aid the Palestinians directly or financially something like that. I don't believe that simply having a strong 'feeling' about something and having an opinion on something is the same as actually 'doing' something. @Iceaura "None of those places have been doing what Israel has been doing - expanding its territory and importing colonists while removing the natives into ghettoes and concentration areas." Well there was South Africa which did import colonists while removing natives and placing them in Ghettos and the same was done with the natives in the building of the US and Australia. @Bells You say you believe that its also 'ethnic cleansing' but insist there is also a genocide. Simply listing (c) from the criteria doesn't cut it. You have to show all listed. You also have to show 'intent'. Intent to destroy all of said people, not displace them, not harass them, not steal their land and destroy their property but the actual intent to murder all the people. Like I pointed out to you before in Nazi Germany, Hutu Rwanda and Sudan they hunted those who tried to escape. Israel on the other hand would love it if all the Palestinians simply packed up and headed towards Jordan, hell I'm sure they would even pay for it and give them an olive branch as they passed by! Israel is engaged in a violent conflict with a group that also has engaged in violence (remember the rockets launched and the suicide bombings), they are also dealing with Hamas in Gaza that has vowed to see the State of Israel 'destroyed' which allows Israel to take military action in the name of self-defence. If the Israeli government truly intended to kill every Palestinian they could do so in less than 24hrs and there wouldn't be much that anyone could do to stop it. Like I have said you nor anyone else has offered an example of genocide that didn't end up with mass graves. Even the conflict in torn apart yugoslavia produced mass graves as they went on a genocidal spree. They were cutting babies from their mother's stomachs in front of UN troops for christs sake! As I have also pointed out Palestinian Israeli's are not being taken away at night and put to death! You are a lawyer, you should know that the criteria that distinguishes 1st degree murder from manslaughter has its nuances and that they are not the same thing. This is precisely the case here, in order to show genocide you have to show the intent to slaughter all the people. So for example you have to show Israeli troops killing all the palestinians as they gather at a checkpoint for example, not simply harassing the people or denying them access. You have to show that they are systematically killing off all the people and there is no evidence of this at all. Was the embargo on Iraq by the international community that caused deprivation and the death of the said '500,000' deaths of children a genocide? No. So saying Israel's embargo on Gaza amounts to a genocide is being either histrionic or disingenuous. There was this online today: RAMALLAH, West Bank – Israel's military announced Monday it plans to further ease restrictions on Palestinian travel in the West Bank, delivering what appeared to be a first in a series of gestures requested by the U.S. as part of renewed peace talks. Indirect U.S.-mediated negotiations began earlier this month, with a U.S. envoy shuttling between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Palestinian officials say the Obama administration has asked for Israeli confidence-building steps, including removing more West Bank checkpoints, releasing some Palestinian prisoners and allowing more goods into blockaded Gaza. An Israeli government official, speaking on condition of anonymity to comply with briefing regulations, said the easing of restrictions came in the context of the peace talks. He gave no timeline, but at least one of the changes was in effect Monday with the opening of a road. For the past decade, since the outbreak of the second Palestinian uprising, Israel has severely restricted Palestinian movement with hundreds of obstacles and checkpoints, as well as its West Bank separation barrier. The restrictions were meant to keep out Palestinian attackers and largely remained in place after the uprising ended several years ago. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100524/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians Why would a government with a genocidal agenda still engage with the US on easing restrictions on the Palestinians in the West Bank if they were 'intent' on simply killing them off? Again if you have to show evidence not simply state its a genocide. You say my saying its not a genocide doesn't make it so but the burden of proof is on you not on me. Show your facts. You asked why I think Israel behaves the way they do and I gave you the reason why they have Gaza on lock down and I gave you reasons why they were treating Palestinians so harshly...THEY WANT ALL THE LAND!!! Its obvious. But taking the land is not a genocide, making someone's life tough is also not a genocide, it just isn't. Bells: Because the US expected the UN to order in the troops, in that the US refused to act without a UN mandate. Why would they expect that? The UN said they didn't yet find reason to call it a genocide and there were scholars and journalists who agreed with that stance. Again you make the claim that the US controls the UN body and it is they who decide when a genocide is a genocide, so why didn't they simply order the UN to call it a genocide? The UN had troops there but not many and they even wanted to send more but the Sudanese government warned that if they did they would see it as an invading army. The UN cannot just send troops in even if there was a genocide, they have to be invited as they were in Rwanda (thought there presence was useless). The US could have gone in there all gung ho but then it probably would have been said that they were there for oil or were occupiers, said to kill innocent civilians etc. because people think you can actually engage in warfare without killing innocent civilians. Personally I think the US was right not to send in troops, and I don't think it matters if the UN does send in troops because they have proven time and again that peacekeepers are useless. If they behaved like an army they would get the same flak as the US so they basically have taken to standing around doing nothing but 'observing'. Oh yes and there is always the cry from member nations if any of their troops get killed wearing a blue hat. Kill one UN member and the rest will leave:shrug: No Bells I will not go back and re-read Dallaires book just because you want to argue the point that since the UN and the US didn't use the term 'genocide' openly to the public that it meant they didn't think it was one when there is proof to the contrary. Also Dallaire KNEW there was going to be a Tutsi slaughter and said so. I won't argue this point with you any more since its ridiculous point to make. You then tell me to go and take a look at international lawPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's too funny! Since when has international law taken any real weight for sovereign nations? Isn't the argument that Israel is defiant of international law? International law didn't bring US troops to Darfur even if they did consider it a genocide, your point of course being that the only reason the UN didn't declare it a genocide was because they would be forced to send in more troops...even though they had troops there and wished to send more troops. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Then you bring up the international's court arrest warrant of the Sudanese president. Ha! He's been out of the country twice once to Egypt and someplace else I can't remember where and neither country would honor the arrest warrant. So much for 'international law'. Again your reasoning makes no sense and the facts do not cover the gaping holes.