‘Those who’ve suffered least compromise least’

H Rogers

At last- a piece that does more than just parrot Likud propaganda! Congratulations to The Spectator for publishing an article that shows some fairness, humanity and editorial balance.

Sam Green

Interesting how Mary Wakefield cannot resist the temptation to add a 'because' to explain why the Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel. Of course; it's 'because' the attempt to free Gilad Shalit collapsed. ie. it's Israel's fault. Please don't put us in the same boat at the Palestinians Mary. Your next task should be to find out and compare what sort of songs children learn in Palestinian and Israeli kindergardens. Then you'll really find out what defines the children on each side. My favourite one is the Palestinian nursery rhyme with the chorus: "Mohammed is our prophet and the Jews are our dogs" I know, I know, doesn't sound much in English, but it does rhyme in Arabic. I don't recall hearing my children come home with anything quite so catchy. Our conflict is perfectly defined in microcosm by what our young children learn in kindergarden. Lets see you tackle that one.

David

"You know,’ says Robbie, ‘it’s always those who’ve suffered least who compromise least.’"

I'd love this woman to speak to Melanie Phillips. I'd dare Melanie to accuse her of being anti-Israel.

Tariq

Mr. Green, if a foreign army came blasting its way into your neighbourhood, killed hundreds of your neighbours and left graffiti reading "We came to annihilate you", do you think your children would sing hosannahs of praise to them?

Stephen Rothbart

Oh here we go again. They did this so they did that. But who did what to whom first? And when did the first first start?

Let me add the remark that I well remember TV cameras showing the British troops on their way to the Falklands sitting inside their ships singing ' we are on our way to kill an Argie' to the tune of a popular Football song.

So graffiti by soldiers in combat is nothing. I suggest that anyone who wants to understand the differences between the people that Mary Wakefield has selectively chosen to illustrate her point visit the site multimedia.heritage.org/content/wm/lehrman-092706.wvx

Watch it and then decide how you go forward with your views on this article.

Caesar

What the heck is this anti-Israel crap?

"Everyone here is employed by Hamas’, explains Hamada. ‘There’s no other industry because of the blockade.’ The further we drive, the more claustrophobic it gets: no jobs, no infrastructure, no escape, not even by sea — which Israel controls."

"We meet a farmer called Himli.....‘When they first arrived, the soldiers started firing at my house through the windows,’ he said.... He continues: ‘What happened next was that my wife went to the door, carrying our six-month-old baby. A gunman shot the baby, then he shot my wife. My brother was also killed.’ Himli falls silent. Hamada says, ‘Over there, a man bled to death in the street because the soldiers would not let the ambulance reach him.’"

Because Hamas grants some jobs to people they are somehow forgiven of being a terrorist organization that preaches hate and destruction against Israel? I suppose the fact that the Hamas grants jobs also negates the fact that they fired rockets into Israel. What a way to make the Israeli's out the be the bad guys. It's unfortunate that Himli's family was killed, but i highly doubt it's as you say and the Israeli's just went in and killed them. Where is your proof of this supposed Israel war crime? How convenient that Israel banned the media in Operation Cast lead and now here we have accusations of war crimes, and Israeli threats of violence against the poor innocent Palestinians (boo hoo).

The Israeli's want peace, the Palestinians view of peace is the eradication of Israel, that isn't peace. And i disagree with your view that both Israel and Palestine are "willing to sacrifice their children" for their land; there is a difference between being a suicide bomber and serving in the military to protect your country. If Palestine really wants change, maybe they should do something about Hamas. As long as Hamas preaches hate and destruction towards Israel, and fires rockets into Israel, the Israelis will be waiting to re-invade. "Those who've suffered least compromise least"...if the Palestinians have suffered so greatly, how come they haven't compromised and instead you expect Israel too?

Advocatus Diaboli

Here's the thing, Ms Wakefield. You took a guided tour of Gaza in the company of a Palestinian minder presumably assigned you with permission by Hamas. Presumably, you don't speak Arabic (or Hebrew) and everything was translated to you. Also presumably, you were taken to specific sights of visible destruction and pointed to people who told you of clear war crimes by Israel such as its soldiers shooting babies in cold blood without encountering eny provocation. Did you seek corraborating evidence for such claims? Presumably not.

Good journalism all around, in other words, just what we'd expect.

David

"Because Hamas grants some jobs to people they are somehow forgiven of being a terrorist organization that preaches hate and destruction against Israel?"

Where does it say that?

"How convenient that Israel banned the media in Operation Cast lead "

That's certainly Israel's own fault. It doesn't do itself many favours.

Steve Little

Congrats to the author (and the editors) to run this unbiassed article. Somehow I am not used to this, at least on this topic, on the pages of the Spectator.

wonderer

Mary Wakefield, you quote Himli as saying, "A gunman shot the baby, then he shot my wife." Are you certain he meant that the IDF shot them. A moment earlier he refers to the IDF as "soldiers".

Caesar

David, try re-reading the article. My "jobs" comment comes from the fact that the Hamada says Hamas employs everyone.

Let me get this straight, you imply that because Israel banned the media in Operation cast lead they somehow are getting "what they deserve" by being accused of war crimes and violent threats? Yeah that makes sense. I suppose when they DO let the media in and they are accused of war crimes you consider that "good journalism."

David

"David, try re-reading the article. My "jobs" comment comes from the fact that the Hamada says Hamas employs everyone"

Take your own advice. Where does it say they are forgiven of being a terrorist organisation or should be?

"Let me get this straight, you imply that because Israel banned the media in Operation cast lead they somehow are getting "what they deserve" by being accused of war crimes and violent threats?"

No. For someone claiming others can't read, your comprehension skills are stunningly bad. My point was that Israel made a tremendous mistake by banning the media. It ensured they lost control.

john problem

'The War in Gaza' they called it. Bombers, helicopters, tanks, phosphorus, fully trained and marvellously equipped soldiers, spies defining targets, etc, etc. But this was all on one side only. One didn't see any bombers, helicopters, tanks, phosphorus, fully trained and marvellously equipped soldiers or spies from Hamas. Only half-cock rockets most of which don't explode. Hardly a 'war'. However, it's all too much and takes up too much media time. The UN should go in and clear it up. Then we could perhaps learn something about what goes on in other countries of the world, rather than these two piddling little, bellicose, cockamany countries.

Caesar

David, okay.

In the article Hamada states that Hamas employs everyone because there is no industry because of Israel's blockade, and "no jobs, no infrastructure, no escape, not even by sea..." The article implies that because Hamas is the only answer to employment and that somehow they are the victim which implies that the fact that Hamas is a terrorist group, doesn't matter and somehow they aren't responsible for Operation Cast Lead. If they weren't a terrorist group at war with Israel and had not fired rockets into Israel, there would be no blockade and the "suffering" in Gaza would not be so.

David Short

The Spectator is not a newspaper and its assistant editors are not foreign correspondents. They should not be let loose to write this sort of stuff:

"We meet a farmer called Himli and stand in what was his bedroom looking out over a large lake of sewage. ‘When they first arrived, the soldiers started firing at my house through the windows,’ he said. Did you ask them why? I ask, always keen to clear up a misunderstanding. Himli looks amazed, then starts to laugh. He thinks I’m joking. He continues: ‘What happened next was that my wife went to the door, carrying our six-month-old baby. A gunman shot the baby, then he shot my wife. My brother was also killed.’ Himli falls silent. Hamada says, ‘Over there, a man bled to death in the street because the soldiers would not let the ambulance reach him.’ "

MW has been suckered, and no serious publication should print this unsubstantiated rubbish.

Mary Jackson

What a disgustingly biased article, more at home in The Guardian than The Spectator. No mention of the rockets. No mention of the ample warnings to stop firing the rockets which, unlike the Israelis, deliberately target civilians, and fail to hit them only because of incompetence. No mention of the fact that Hamas, supported by all the "poor suffering" Gazans is irrevocably committed to Israel's destruction. Also the "Palestinians" interviewed are unquestioningly believed, when it is known that they lie and pose for the cameras.

"And one of the fastest-growing populations in the world."

Doesn't this tell you something about those "poor" Palestinians. Their population is burgeoning. Given that they leech off Western aid, which - oh poor darlings - doesn't grow at the same rate, you'd think they'd use a bit of common sense and a few contraceptives. In fact, reckless with their fertility as they are with their rockets, the "Palestiniansd" (a name invented only in 1967 for political convenience)are the archtects of their own misfortune. Why should we be concerned about the "plight" of a "father of ten" who lives in a two roomed apartment with his two wives - an entirely voluntary "plight".

David Preiser

Well, now we know why Taki likes Ms. Wakefield so much.

Readers should take note that the two comments celebrating this article as being "unbiased" and as showing "fairness, humanity and editorial balance, are lauding a piece which places no blame whatsoever on Hamas, nor on their PLO predecessors.

A. MacAulay

Mary Wakefield tells us what she saw, which is also the responsibility of a journalist. Having noted that everyone works for Hamas, she reports as yet unsubstantiated attrocities.

Criticism of this seems to boil down to saying that if a "Palestinian" said it, it must be a lie. The corollary being if a press officer for the IDF says anything, then it must be the truth! As a basis for criticism, this is clearly not good enough.

Hamas ensures election victory for Likud and vice versa. Meanwhile a large portion of our planet is being held to ransome by this problem. I feel that neither Israel nor the Palestinians have the right to do that. When we consider the waste of life, treasure, honour and reputation that this impasse has caused in the last 40 years then one must say that the main actors carry a very heavy burden of responsibility.

Dr Steven Gately

According to the writer of this article she managed to meet everyone who told her what she wanted to write?

This comes across as the worst sort of propaganda.

R Brown

‘Those who’ve suffered least compromise least’

>> Is that not what all violent terrorist groups believe?

Worrying article. Extremist propaganda.