According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index Professor Chomsky is the eighth most cited scholar of all time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And there's a reason why.

why Israel's genocidal conduct is illegal- and also not genocide

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, its obvious to you that killing nearly 1,400 people is not in any way moral, legal or justified. Beneath the multiple layers of international law little is clear. Some guy has managed to navigate the murky waters of that discipline and pulled from them a nice, well argued explanation of why the Israeli case for "self defence" is a sack of horse shit.

"Israel's recent actions constitute, under Article 147 of the Fourth [Geneva] Convention, as well as Article 85 of Protocol I and Article 8 of the Rome Statute, grave breaches of international law which entail individual criminal responsibility."

Reza Nasri: Weapons-grade badass.


Addition:

I added the last four words of the title after reading this article, which explains why Israel's conduct is not technically genocide. It is still monstrous and the architects and main perpetrators of the many atrocities committed in Gaza over the years should still be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Noam Chomsky has a lot more to say on the issue and I strongly recommend listening to this talk and the following Q&A to anyone who wishes to see through the mountains and mountains of propaganda, misdirection and media blathering. The transcript is available here.

Noam rules.


Addition:

Thanks to Merrick for this link to John Pilger's take on the latest Israeli atrocities.

John rules too.

Noam rules

“If the left means anything, it means it’s concerned for the needs, welfare, and rights of the general population.”

Word. I wonder where Noam's political compass lies?

The Media Lens massive are pretty rad too:

"In the last decade of corresponding with journalists we have found that they often do behave as though they were living in a police state, or at least in a state policed by corporate power. Many are privately supportive and helpful. Indeed, many journalists who might be expected to be fierce opponents of our work, are in fact enraged by the mendacity and destructiveness of the media employing them. But they tell us their comments must be off the record; that they are not willing to comment over the internet (which is surely monitored); that they will help us only on condition that their names be concealed. Could it be more obvious that journalists do not feel free to write the truth about Alton and Kelner, and much else, because of the likely professional consequences?"