David Singer has made a quite specific objection to the South African allegation that Israel is engaged in genocide in Gaza. He argues that the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to consider the allegation because the operations of the IDF, whatever their object, are not directed against the whole or a part of a 'national, ethnical, racial or religions group, as such'. This is a requirement for jurisdiction, under Article II of the Genocide Convention. It seems a dubious argument and it does not seem to have played a significant role in the Israeli response to the South African allegation.
However, let's put to one side the question whether Singer's argument is sustainable. My concern, as a consistent reader of Online Opinion, is the steady deterioration of the Readers Comment section. This is a particularly egregious instance of that deterioration. None of the respondents to Singer has made any attempt to address his argument. Most have resorted to personal abuse. There's nothing unusual about this. The Comments section is consistently disfigured by the same correspondents ventilating their familiar prejudices frequently, as in this case, expressed in an abusive terms that go well beyond any justifiable argumentative or rhetorical purpose.
May I suggest to the Editor of Online Opinion that the time has come to require correspondents to modify their transports. There is no reason why correspondents who wish to comment should not be subject to the same minimal standards of argumentative relevance and form as contributors who write for the online journal.

Dear Olivera,

«There is no reason why correspondents who wish to comment should not be subject to the same minimal standards of argumentative relevance and form as contributors who write for the online journal.»

I am not aware of any such journal and if such exists then it has nothing to do with this particular forum, on which I have been a member for some 19 years and have no other place to freely express my views online.

Our discussions here were never meant to be informative or even truthful, and nothing in the forum's rules states that they need to be. In fact, the disclaimer for this forum states:

"This includes (but is not restricted to) loss or damage you might suffer as a result of any of the following: your reliance on the completeness, accuracy, suitability or currency of the site or its content (including third party material and advertisements on this site), irrespective of any verifying measures taken by us. This site is designed for general interest only. It is not advice and you should not rely on it."
- http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=legal

So please consider this place as a very private club with its own uncommon rules, then it is completely up to you whether to take it or leave it.

Hi Olivera,
I don't think it does any justice at all to even entertain Davids arguments.
- Not in this instance anyway.

This is how David Singer plays, he's always trying to get a win on an obscure technicality.

"None of the respondents to Singer has made any attempt to address his argument."

Basically he's saying 'It's not a genocide, because they are not 'a' people'.
His argument tries to whitewash the real fact that regardless of whether they are 'a' people, they are still people.
I resent this argument.

Sometimes the best response to certain arguments is to not get into the argument in the first place, it's better to simply write it off and ridicule the suggestion.

I'm sitting here watching videos of Palestinian doctors doing amputations on kids without anesthetic, for no seemingly good reason at all Israel withholds medicine, and people wish to argue the merits of whether or not Palestinian people actually constitute 'a people'.

Why should I not ridicule the suggestion?
How would you like to cut off your own 16 year old daughters foot without anesthetic?
Have people tell you she deserves to die for being born Palestinian, and that she is sub-human.
Have people sitting around doing nothing complaining about 'correct forum etiquette', while kids are starving to death, the ones that weren't already bombed.

I'm sorry that I've not argued David's issue on it's own merits and that you feel I've brought the comment section into disrepute, but I think to even attempt to do so diminishes and minimises the real suffering that is continuing, and that is every 10 minutes, another kid dies.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I am trying to not be so opinionated, but it's not easy when these are the arguments presented.

Yuyutsu

Well said. Olivera is a bit cheeky for a first timer, telling Graham what he should be doing, and turning his nose up at us veterans.

Accusing Israel of Genocide has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with a kleptocratic South African ANC party that has stolen everything that was not nailed down struggling for relevance. That anyone would take this bunch of thieves seriously is a joke.

#Olivera

You hit the nail on the head when you state: "None of the respondents to Singer has made any attempt to address his argument. Most have resorted to personal abuse"

That is the standard reaction my articles receive at the hands of a few vile anonymous Jew haters - whose only interest is shooting the messenger and ignoring the message.

Take Armchair Critic who stated to you:
"Basically he's saying 'It's not a genocide, because they are not 'a' people'.
His argument tries to whitewash the real fact that regardless of whether they are 'a' people, they are still people.
I resent this argument."

Resent it at his leisure.

The Genocide Convention clearly states in article II:
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group ..."

That remains the first hurdle South Africa has to jump over if it is to win its case. There are many other hurdles facing South Africa to get over the winning line.