The other day I happened upon a speech delivered by a professor affiliated with Harvard in which he seemed to advocate reducing the Palestinian population through means akin to genocide (and which match the legal definition of genocide).
The speech was delivered at the prestigious Herzliyah conference in Israel earlier this month. The Herzliyah conference, which has a focus on Israel's foreign policy and strategy, is a Middle East version of the Aspen Institute. Everybody who is anybody wants to be seen there.
One of the featured speakers this year was Dr. Martin Kramer. He is National Security Studies Program Visiting Scholar at Harvard University, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in Washington (the AIPAC-created Middle East think tank) and incoming president of Shalem College in Jerusalem. (Shalem College is affiliated with the neoconservative Shalem Center which is funded, in large part, by Sheldon Adelson, the union busting and very rightwing casino billionaire.) Next month he will participate in two panels at the AIPAC conference, one with uber-hawk Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA).
Kramer's speech (which was well received) was delivered as part of a panel on "Rising To The Challenge of Radical Indoctrination." Each of the speakers addressed the question of how Israel (and the West in general) could prevail against the terrorist threat, with specific reference to the threat posed by radical Islam.
Kramer's speech was devoted to utilizing demography to defeat terror.
His point is encapsulated here:
"Aging populations reject radical agendas, and the Middle East is no different. Now eventually, this will happen among the Palestinians too, but it will happen faster if the West stops providing pro-natal subsidies for Palestinians with refugee status. Those subsidies are one reason why, in the ten years from 1997 to 2007, Gaza's population grew by an astonishing 40 percent. At that rate, Gaza's population will double by 2030, to three million. Israel's present sanctions on Gaza have a political aim to undermine the Hamas regime but if they also break Gaza's runaway population growth and there is some evidence that they have that might begin to crack the culture of martyrdom which demands a constant supply of superfluous young men. That is rising to the real challenge of radical indoctrination, and treating it at its root."
Writing here at The Huffington Post, at Media Matters Action Network (where I work) and at and Talking Points Memo, I characterized Kramer's remarks as tantamount to a call for genocide.
Here is my logic. Kramer first states the obvious. The populations from whom terrorists arise are usually young men without economic prospects. Kramer calls them "superfluous young men," a repulsive term but accurate in its own way.
Palestinian children, growing up under occupation in the West Bank, or locked in the Gaza ghetto by Israeli and Egyptian border guards and robbed of life's necessities by the Israeli blockade, are more likely to become radicals or terrorists than kids with some hope for the future.
People like me, who support ending the occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza and implementing the two-state solution, often cite the need to give these kids something to live for.
Repression, occupation and joblessness breeds fanaticism and terrorism. No doubt about that. End the occupation, subsidize economic development, and you start defeating the radicals.
But Kramer, who supports the occupation, does not favor reducing the appeal of radicalism by improving the lives of Palestinians. He believes the solution is ensuring that there are fewer Palestinian boys who might grow up to be radicals. "Aging populations reject radical agendas, and the Middle East is no different," he said.
How do we accomplish this aging? "Now eventually, this will happen among the Palestinians too, but it will happen faster if the West stops providing pro-natal subsidies for Palestinians with refugee status" (i.e., all Gazans and most West Bankers). He says that it is those "pro-natal subsidies" that are why the Palestinian population has grown.
But what are "pro-natal" subsidies? They are, one can assume, the aid provided by international organizations that keeps Palestinians alive and thereby enable to produce and sustain children.
Kramer elaborates in a subsequent piece. In response to the argument that the international community does not provide Palestinians with "pro-natal subsidies," Kramer explodes: "This is a lie. UNWRA (the United Nations agency that provides support for Palestinian refugees) assures that every child with 'refugee' status will be fed and schooled regardless of their parents' own resources...."
So the "pro-natal subsidies" to which he refers are food! That explains why he points to the success of Israel's current sanctions. "Israel's present sanctions on Gaza have a political aim-undermine the Hamas regime-but if they also break Gaza's runaway population growth-and there is some evidence that they have," that will break the back of radicalism.
Of course, there is only one way that the blockade can break "Gaza's runaway population growth." It is by denying Palestinians the wherewithal to live, to reproduce, and to keep their babies alive.
Genocide?
Is suppression of a particular population in this way genocide? Or must that term be reserved for the mass murder of grown adults and their children?
The answer can be found in the Geneva Convention on Genocide, to which Israel and almost every other country in the world is a signatory.
The Convention on Genocide bans "bans killing of members of any racial, ethnic, national or religious group because of their membership in that group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, inflicting on members of the group conditions of life intended to destroy them, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and taking group members' children away from them and giving them to members of another group."
And it is that -- withholding aid to prevent births within the group -- that Kramer advocates. He even calls the birth of Palestinian babies "extreme demographic armament."
Is he advocating genocide? Imagine if he called for eliminating subsidies (food stamps, etc) to prevent live births of African-Americans, Latinos or American Indians. Would it be considered advocating genocide then? To ask the question is to answer it.
Here is Electronic Intifada with the back and forth from Harvard.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
My parents had a number of children. I have siblings, in other words. My parents neither received a Pro Natal subsidie nor a Pre natal subsidie. I had a number of children. My husband and I, similarly, did not receive such subsidies. My children had offspring. My children and their spouses did NOT receive either pro natal or pre natal subsidies, nor any other subsidies. They had children, nevertheless. And my whole family line did not die out, nor were we murdered that way. In other words, in that sense no genocide took place.
I have news for you, the world over, there are countless parents who have offspring without receiving subsidies of any kind. And no one calls that *genocide*, for the simple reason that it is not genocide.
Genocide is when a nation, or a group, declares war on another one, calls for the elimination of a specific population, not only in that nation, but wherever in the world they may be found.
If you take a look at the article above, you will see that the point being made is that since WWII, the definition of genocide has been expanded.
You can either agree with this or not.
As currently stated in the CURRENT Geneva Conventions, the definition NOW includes, as quoted above, "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group".
That is now included in the current LEGAL definition of genocide.
In Gaza, with the blockade, what is happening is that the population is being kept at a (barely) subsistence level. Food is being withheld, as is potable water. (You are no doubt aware that dehydration from diarrhea and dysentery from drinking contaminated water is the leading cause of death worldwide for young children-- and that this is easily and cheaply prevented and treated.)
But since medical supplies are ALSO being restricted by the blockade, Gazans have great difficulty in obtaining proper medical care and are dying from diseases which are easily treatable.
ctd
I HEARD MARTIN KRAMER'S REMARKS AT THE HERZLIYA CONFERENCE AND I ENTIRELY DISAGREE WITH MJ ROSENBERG'S CHARACTERIZATION OF THEM AND THEIR ULTIMATE INTENTION AND MEANING......context is everything.
Mr Rosenberg is entitled to his opinion and I thank him for his integrity in alerting us to his affiliation with Media Matters PAC and any bias that this may entail. Bravo.
But Mr Kramer's realpolitik approach in alluding to the undeniable math in the demographic relations is a far leap to genocide.
The attacks upon his affiliation with Harvard University are a well planned smear campaign that is well organized and well funded by Pro-Palestinian advocacy groups. They won't deny that. This is another version of the assault against academic freedom that all progressives should rush to oppose.
You may think that Professor Kramer had a point,but should have hushed up on this topic as being too risky.
Well, he deemed it an important addition to the geocultural calculus that is very real and important stuff in this bitter debate.
Your demographic or Sociological research cuold be next to be banned.
Speak Up !!!
You could be next.
Those here that do anything but condemn this man are monsters.
The Israeli right has finally become what they believed they were fighting overcome.
Nowhere in his column does MJ suggest that Kramer should be charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity, or even lose tenure.
What he IS doing is criticizing -- and expressing HIS freedom of speech-- the CONTENT of Kramer's speech.
I have to admit that I find Kramer's remarks troubling -- if you have anything to provide by way of context, please feel free to produce it.
But what Kramer doesn't realize is that in general, the poorer the people, the HIGHER the birth rate.
This is hardly unique to Palestinians. As living standards improve, people naturally have smaller families. That is a world-wide phenomenon.
I would also add that I hate euphemisms, I think they are a cowardly way of avoiding the horror of what is occurring. For example the term "collateral damage" -- which, by use of semantics, tries to sanitize civilian casualties.
This term, "pro-natal subsidies" is another repugnant example.
At least the Israeli politician (whose name I can't recall) was HONEST when he said, as the blockade was put in place following Hamas' victory (and subsequent coup when they were denied power) "We're putting the Gazans on a diet."
Of course nobody likes to mention the fact that roughly 50% of those Gazans are children under the age of 18.
Kramer has a right to his opinions. Let him at least pay us the courtesy of not insulting our intelligence by trying (badly) to hide his real meaning with semantic games.
There are cases where reducing births are advantageous to a over populated group which isn't self sufficient aren't there?
Most importantly, the measures Dr. Kramer is making reference to is not a direct measure such as sterilization program of a population, and even as a indirect measure against the select group of Palestinian "refugees" it wouldn't be considered an exclusive dependent measure, since refugee's receive U.N.R.A.W. support from many other Countries other then the U.S.A. , and money from many other support groups as well, and are free to earn a living and support their families; so its a very weak link to suggest what Dr. Kramer is proposing that the U.S. alone not subsidies pro-natal care to Palestinian refugees equates to genocide.
The fact of the matter is that UN aid is effectively being severely limited by the BLOCKADE! During the conflict a year ago, the UN tried to send a ship in with badly needed humanitarian and this ship was attacked by the Israeli Navy.
All the UN aid in the world will do no good if it can't reach those people that are trying to be helped.
And it is next to impossible to "develop an economy" if your infrastructure is constantly being bombed or bulldozed.
As I mentioned above, the most honest Israeli expression was from a politician (again, I cannot recall the name) who said, "We're putting the Gazans on a diet." -- We are talking about a policy of deliberate malnutrition, as well as creating (through thee bombing of water treatment plants) a shortage of potable water. Diarrhea and dysentery are likely the biggest killers in Gaza, and those most vulnerable are young children.
Also, Kramer and Heinsohn have it backwards-- IMPROVING the living standard causes population increase to slow dramatically.
And if his world-view was correct, the biggest problem would be in China, where, due to government limits on the number of children, and a cultural bias in favor of male children have created a huge number of young men who will never be able to marry, because there simply nowhere near enough young women.
It is extreme poverty and high unemployment which create dramatic population increase--- not the other way around.
You can't condemn one side all of the time.
"So it was that all who fell that day, both men and women, were twelve thousand; all the people of Ai. For Joshua did not draw back his hand, with which he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. Only the livestock and the spoil of that city Israel took as booty for themselves, according to the word of the Lord which He had commanded Joshua. "
1."bans killing of members of any racial, ethnic, national or religious group because of their membership in that group- Hama's, Hezbollah, Iran would be guilty of that against Israeli Jews and from past, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Saudi Arabia be included from previous Jihad Wars waged against Israeli Jews.
2. , inflicting on members of the group conditions of life intended to destroy them- Arab States had in past, no trade laws with Israel, and pressured other companies like Coca Cola and others to not do business with Israel, Egypt sea blockade of shipments to come into Israel in '56 and '67 etc etc be all guilty of that. Did the U.N. or anyone for that matter accuse them of genocide???
"And I didn't call on the West to "deliberately curb the births of Palestinians." I called on it to desist from deliberately encouraging births through pro-natal subsidies for Palestinian "refugees," which guarantee that Gazans will remain both radicalized and dependent."
There's a big difference between actively impeding births, and prevent births from being encouraged. Every other family in the world has to make hard decisions about the financial costs of having children, why not Palestinian families?
who is Kramer to advocate this, is he God? is this not personal decision of the families itself...had he raised the same argument about settlers I would have accepted your argument but he did not..so Rosenberg is right on the money here...this person should be removed from his tenure at Harvard at earliest....
http://blixx.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/landloss.jpg
It just speaks volumes against waging aggressive wars that you lose as the Arabs did in 1948 and 1967.
Had they close peace and coexistence, the maps would look quite different.
As you sow so shall you reap
And how about 1982, when Ariel Sharon, the Defense Minister, greatly exceeded his authority and had the IDF invade all the way to Beirut?
The first underestimates Jewish land and confluences British with Palestinian land.
The second cuts Palestinian land by a third; it assumes Palestinian land is only one of the three categories of land agreed to be theirs.
Palestinian *Refugee Populations* do not only exist in Gaza, and it is even an open question whether the Gaza population is a refugee population. They exist in Lebanon (11-16 refugee camps), in Syria and in Jordan. In Jordan recent Palestinian refugees from Iraq are not even allowed to be employed.
I agree that Palestinians deserve help. I do not agree that such help should consist of interminable Refugee Status, nor do I think that the help should be UN rations, or pro natal subsidies by THE WEST. I suggest it would be better if they are given the same rights as other refugees, i.e to be integrated and. to become part of the fabric of the nation where they are, be allowed to become citizens if meeting national criteria there, be allowed to work, to vote, and to be contributing members of society.
He said there was a shortage of crucial materials.Not even within the President's office has such a claim been reported.
Check the UN definition of Genocide then come back and try and show the same disregard for the Palestinians.So - if the world is groaning under the weight of over population please let us know why you only concentrate on the Palestinians? Sorry MM - you do nothing to counter Kramer's views.
And calling on the west to cease with such subsidies has one aim.....go work it out and apply your findings to the UN definition of genocide....there's your answer.
The Gaza Population increased by 40% in ten yrs. It will have doubled in 2030, based on statistical estimates. Superfluous Young Men may well be a *repulsive term* to the writer, but the expression was used here in terms of statistical/populist demographics. I.e. they will be superfluous in that there will not be work for them, or means to support themselves.
The world is groaning under overpopulation. For this reason people voluntarily and sometimes involuntarily limit offspring. An example of involuntary limitation of offspring is seen in China. Voluntary limitation is practiced by most of us in the West. That is not genocide. Population continues and population most often even increases, be it at a decreased rate as opposed to stimulation of growth through subsidies.
Genocide is extermination of those already living, or sterilization and other such procedures which are imposed, on creating new life. Pro Natal Subsidies promote life birth and health, to be sure, but on the other hand, withholding such subsidies does NOT CREATE GENOCIDE or prevent life birth, nor pregnancy. It is, moreover, suggested that THE WEST stop providing such subsidies.
Your reasoning is so flawed and pathetic it can be construed as nothing more than attempt to white wash the proposed genocide.
Involuntary limiting offspring? The Chinese decided to do this in THEIR country to THEIR own people voluntarily.
NON WHERE ELSE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD is there an example of one ethnic group or country imposing such a thing upon another people. I think the last time it was discussed in such a way was in Nazi Germany, where limiting the size of the Jewish population was discussed in much the same way. If you can think of another, please provide it.
When one group uses onerous methods to "involuntarily limit the population size" of another ethnic group OUTSIDE of their own, its is more commonly known as genocide.
You are a monster.
Just a couple of points. Perhaps the reason the refugee status is normally five years is that most conflicts are resolved by then.
In point of fact, the 1948-49 War was stopped by an armistice. At THAT point Israel should have permitted those Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. But Israel made the deliberate choice to destroy those homes (and villages-- one can still see the ruins) OR re-settle those empty homes with new Jewish immigrants.
Now let's not be coy-- the REASON Israel took this choice is that IF Israel had allowed those refugees to return, then the new Israeli state would have had a Palestinian Arab majority. Rather difficult under those circumstances to have a state that is both Jewish (majority) AND democratic.
Now we have this speaker, Mr. Kramer, who is tied to Sheldon Adelson, a big financial backer of the settlement movement.
So if your job depends on coming up with "solutions" to the conflict that involve keeping the Territories, then one has to be "creative" in dealing with the Palestinian demographic problem. Because this settler ideology doesn't allow for a separate Palestinian state.
As for overpopulation, the simple fact is that poor and agrarian societies (particularly those peoples living at subsistence level) tend to have their populations increase dramatically. Increase the standard of living, and people naturally have fewer children.
It's the poverty that creates the overpopulation, not the other way around.
Subsection (b) on Incitement provides that anyone publicly inciting and of the measures in (a) in such a manner as likely to influence then he or she is guilty of an offence, which carries a penalty of 5 years in Prison or 50,000 dollar fine.
The law has no meaning if it is not enforced.
The Gazan rate of population growth is the 5th highest rate in the world, according to the CIA factbook.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate
Gazans are demonstrably not being denied the wherewithal to live, reproduce, and keep their babies alive, which are their rights. However, it's hard to argue that a reduction in the population rate of Gaza would not be in Gazans' own interest. There aren't enough acres of land or enough jobs, even in the best of times, to comfortably support Gazans' current or future population.
Dr. Kramer seems to have implied with his "pro-natal subsidies" remark, indirectly, that food should be withheld from children in Gaza. Could he have meant anything else by this? Most nations in the world offer subsidies for childbirth in the form of tax credits, childcare services and the like, and I assume Hamas conducts itself similarly. Could "pro-natal subsidies" in this case refer to these less inflammatory policy choices? If so, the remarks are benign and may be recommendable. If he indeed refers here specifically and only to the provision of basic food sustenance to children, his remarks might be understood to support what we agree is the definition of genocide.
So Isr is doing this to BENEFIT the Palestinians? Or the world at large should take it that way?
2) "There aren't enough acres of land or enough jobs, even in the best of times, to comfortably support Gazans' current or future population."
Of course there aren't. The land was not divided equally, and Palestine is evaporating day by day like the dead sea.
Israel is not reducing the population growth rate in Gaza. As I said, it's among the highest in any nation. Like many areas of the world in which family planning isn't practiced, it would benefit Gaza to slow its rate of population growth.
"The land was not divided equally, and Palestine is evaporating day by day like the dead sea."
The land was divided reasonably equally during the 1948 partition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War#UN_Partition_Plan
A series of armed conflicts changed that, and those in which land changed hands can be fairly seen as Israeli defensive victories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
“This is the first war in history which has ended with the victors suing for peace and the vanquished calling for unconditional surrender.” —Abba Eban
with peace the palestinians can have it all ..but peace with the jews is too much for them . i understand its hard to accept defeat , but its time for the arabs to overcome this and just make the peace for their children.
what other county in this world supplies food , water and power to the enemy .
However, it does illustrate your misplaced arrogance beautifully.
Gaza's agony does not end there. According to Amnesty International, 90-95 percent of the water supplied by Gaza's aquifer is "unfit for drinking." The majority of Gaza's groundwater supplies are contaminated with nitrates well above the acceptable WHO standard--in some areas six times that standard--or too salinated to use. Gaza no longer has any source of regular clean water. According to one donor account, "Nowhere else in the world has such a large number of people been exposed to such high levels of nitrates for such a long period of time. There is no precedent, and no studies to help us understand what happens to people over the course of years of nitrate poisoning," which is especially threatening to children. According to Desmond Travers, a co-author of the Goldstone Report, "If these issues are not addressed, Gaza may not even be habitable by World Health Organization norms." "
.../2
and take care of their own .but instead egypt is building a wall that is better then
the israelies have on the west bank and goes into the ground to stop tunnels .
why did the eygtions stone the gaza convoy galloway was in ,
i think the eyptions are pissed with hamass and dont want an islamic state on their
borders.
It is possible that high nitrate levels have contributed to some shocking changes in the infant mortality rate (IMR) among Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. IMR, widely used as an indicator of population health, has stalled among Palestinians since the 1990s and now shows signs of increasing. This is because the leading causes of infant mortality have changed from infectious and diarrheal diseases to prematurity, low birth weight and congenital malformations. These trends are alarming (and rare in the region), because infant mortality rates have been declining in almost all developing countries, including Iraq. "
This constitutes the collective punishment of children, this is child abuse and yes, genocide! So it is already happening. Kramer is advocating that Israel extend the blockade in order to reduce births in Gaza, while children continue to be poisoned by these nitrates. In suggesting that babies be deprived of pro-natal subsidies which are destined mostly for nutrition, on top of what they are already being subjected suggests cruel and depraved indifference to human life!
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100301/roy