Human shields killed? Let's blame Israel

Ben Archibald

Bizarrely, it took the Channel 4 News to directly ask those questions. Hamas said the school had never ever been used by their fighters. it will be interesting to see whose remains are confirmed int he building.

CS

Here we go again. Western media typically churning out the same Hamas propaganda.
As if any aid agencies account of the situation in Gaza would be any different. I mean would you dare put your name to anything remotely pro-Israeli or anti-Hamas if there were Hamas militants living alongside you in Gazan schools and hospitals? No, of course not, you would fear for your life.
However the BBC journalists are not in that position and their choosing to accept this Hamas propoganda as gospel is truly distressing.
Tied to this is their willingness to relay interviews from highly suspect eye witnesses without even mentioning their stance on Israel or any of their previous allegiances.
At best its sloppy journalism, at worst its a deceitful malice to cover up the truth.

YA

..doesn't matter the name - Hamas terrorists or Jihad terrorists or UNWRA terrorists.

Certainly they steal Western relief help to grow generation after generation of their ilk.

Practically Europeans are already paying jizziya tax to these orks.

Here in the UK they even shouldn't be very articulate to demand obedience - just mentioning "radicalization of young Muslims" does the trick.
A code words for "remember Madrid and 7/7 and smell your strong Arabica coffee".

In Europe, nobody is left to kill.

Tony

We have to question the judgement of UN officials who allowed children onto a site which wasn't even shellproof, and then failed to stop Hamas from launching mortars from the school grounds. Why would a school even be open during a war when it would be safer for the children to be dispersed in their homes over a wide area?
The BBC reports are somewhat confused – they began by reporting that Israel had killed 40 by a direct hit on the school – which later changed to a death toll of 30 as a result of “shells landing near the school” - which points to the Israelis targeting Hamas fighters outside the building. The school may have been bombed by Hamas itself.

HarleyDavidson

A huge THANK YOU, Melaine! Thank you for getting actual facts our here so I can used them on other sites to fire back at the useful idiot Hamas sympathizers!

God, I do despise the UN, that horrific house of anti-semantic fanatics. With this info I can gladly say, UP YOURS, to the UN and enjoy ever moment while doing so!

Hell, has the Nazi Party had the today's UN they could have done their dirty work with the blessings of the BBC and their EU counterparts. Exactly what the Muslims are doing with paper!

Dixon

Blaming Israel for this incident is like blaming the Russian army for what happenned at Beslan.

Stupid.

phil

Another sad story of an accusation without provenance .just the usual way of the hamas evil following on from the same stuff from hesbollah ,nevertheless I mourn the loss of innocent life. -Mark Regev appeared on newsnight and was treated to the regular nonsense from Paxman who attempted an accusation,but when he was shown to be intellectually inept finished the interview as quickly as possible and as rudely.Mark showed commendable patience with a man that can be brilliant and stupid all within the same minute . Alex Ferguson knows how to deal with the BBC he does not give them interviews ,smart guy .

I have found here too that once confronted with facts that cannot be disputed many of our posters cut and run,just in the last few days roGER,frank owen, wrighty.,mike(the original) ,koestler, adam ali et al ran for the hills when they could not answer my points even an American although that was only about Obama on whom she seems to have a blind spot in contrast to her mostly sensible remarks .Well we have only two weeks to wait and see who will have to eat humble pie when O emerges into the heat ,if it is me I will do so, but for most of our sakes I hope it will be those that do not trust him. I do not for one moment he will fail the Israelis ,but likewise I hope he will provide the Palestinians a way out of this terrible morass that hamas have plunged them into .

ettiena

Thank you

greatly,Melanie for

keeping us updated

Hassan

For gods sake 30 human beings just died - you know, human beings like you and me - who didn't deserve to die. Can't you look at this incident without reducing it to a whose-to-blame scenario, thus dehumanising those killed.

Mrs. Phillips, I'm sorry to say that imo all your series of blog osts on this most recent conflict has been nothing but more than a blown-up extended version of "Hamas started it", and I think the people of Britain, and the world, are tired of seeing the 60-year Arab-Israeli conflict as a game of "you started it".

GC

Thanks for the LFG link Mel: new to me and I shall browse contentedly for hours.

Dave

About bloody time somebody had the balls to publicly come out and state the bloody obvious that msot of us following this debacle have known all along! This is one report on the crisis that I am finally not wanting to put my fist through the screen while reading.

Maybe you'll start a new trend of reporters actually posting a bit of truth instead of merely repeating the same old tired claptrap and propaganda on behalf of these cowardly maggot terrorists.

Rosemary

Neil Clarke is speaking ill of you because you are not buying hook, line, and sinker, the Arab propoganda (he's also in the voting for the best UK blog), so I just want to let you know I am voting for you! No greater endorsement than ones enemies.

PS. Great article!

Towncar

Hamas must be getting sloppy. They forgot to hand-paint 'baby milk factory' on the school. Hey, it worked in Iraq..oh, wait, my bad. It didn't work there either.

gary

"Hell, has the Nazi Party had the today's UN they could have done their dirty work with the blessings of the BBC and their EU counterparts. Exactly what the Muslims are doing with paper!"

Arafat was first welcomed at the UN when Kurt Waldheim was secretary general. After hijacking planes & ships he managed to hijack the UN and fly it from New York to Geneva. The links between the Nazi party and Islamic-Arab fascism go back much earlier than that, but this was when it was firmly installed in the foundations of the UN.

Rose

Hamas does not want a ceasefire!It wants more media propaganda! They provoked Israel until they had no option!
What sort of VERMIN orchestrates such suffering to try and manipulate World Outrage

HarleyDavidson

Hassan - Hamas wanted to play with the big boys and are now paying the price. Perhaps you've forgotten Iran in all this. After all it is the mullahs who provided the funding and rockets for Hamas. And Iran who provided the funding and rockets for Hezbollah. Strange isn't it how Iran gets to sit on the sidelines egging them on while people die with little cost to them? For what?

Perhaps you failed to recall Hamas using Mosques, schools, and hospitals for their launching sites and using women and children as shields. That's not Melaine's fault for pointing out the facts you don't want to accept.

BTW, have you asked yourself why Egypt did not open IT'S border to allow food in or Palestinians out? That is an Arab brother is it not? Why expect Israel to do all the feeding and water and electricity? What is Egypt doing to help? Before the war and during this war?

Human beings killed you said? Like you and me. Does that include Israelis killed by friendly fire? You know, the fog of war? Same in ever war ever fought?

Meanwhile, Iran gets what from the death and destruction? The innocent loss of life? Now that is truly pure evil!

Are the 75 Fatah members executed by Hamas in hospitals human beings?

BTW, it was Hamas who canceled the cease fire and then began firing up to 80 rockets a day into Israel. Hamas is reaping exactly what it sowed.

No Israeli son or daughter wants to be remembered for killing civilians just as no Israeli wants to be remembered for killing his own troops. That is the horrible truth. $hit happens!

The brutal truth is if Israel wanted to indiscriminately kill civilians Israel has the military power to reduce Gaza to glass.

Ronnie

I'd like to echo what Tony said above.

What exactly were these children doing at school in the obviously hellish circumstances that currently prevail in Gaza? Is that someone's idea of life goes on and stiff upper lip or are there more sinister forces at play?

Roland

I have to agree with Hassan's comment. Melanie's repeated claim about the booby-trapping is not an established fact. However, irrespective of its veracity or otherwise, at least thirty people died in the school, including women and children. It was known to be a refufee centre (where else can terrified Gazan families hide?). Hundreds, including women and children, have been killed elsewhere in Gaza. The attempts to deny this terible fact on these pages (an astonishing example of self-deception), and the wrangle about blame, are both fruitless and morally distasteful. The only true question, which isn't discussed here, is what the result of the Israeli attacks will be. More misery, more militancy, an everlasting cycle of blame and hatred on both sides - the same blame and hatred which permeates these pages.

I'll repeat what I said before - I urge everyone here, above all Ms. Philips, to take a deep breath and look at what's being written. We're in a war situation, where emotions get heightened. Nevertheless, the inhumanity and denial of reality which is being expressed here is shaming.It reaches depths when the poster cites the appearance of dead babies as resembling that of baby dolls, to justify their murder.Those were someone's children, loved and nurtured.

EC

Hamas is engaged in a propaganda war where the death of a human shield is prized as highly as that of a Jew.

Israel will have to go the distance this time.

http://www.patriotpost.us/opinion/charles-krauthammer/2009/01/02/israels-dilemma.html

La Cumparsita

According to an Associated Press report, local residents confirmed the IDF's account - see below:

"In a statement, the Israeli army said an initial investigation found that "mortar shells were fired from within the school at IDF soldiers. The force responded with mortars at the source of fire. The Hamas cynically uses civilians as human shields."

The army said two Hamas militants, Imad Abu Askar and Hasan Abu Askar, were among the dead.

Two neighborhood residents confirmed the Israeli account, saying a group of militants fired mortars from a street near the school, then fled into a crowd of people in the streets. Israel then opened fire.

The residents, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared for their safety, said the Abu Askar brothers were known low-level Hamas militants."

I phoned the BBC twice last night as in their Radio 4 news headlines they were not reporting the Israeli version of events i.e. that fire had come from the school, that there were secondary explosions & that Hamas operatives were among the dead. My complaints were ignored. Do the BBC trustees know or care about this blatant bias?

Sarah

This is an interesting post (there's more on this issue at "Harry's Place") but why does MP put "refugees" in quotation marks (8 lines down). Glossing over the fact that innocent civilians were killed doesn't help her case one bit.

Mike Woodman

It certainly looks like a set-up by Hamas. If they can't win the war they can certainly win the propaganda war.

Hamas don't care about the people of Gaza. They are simply fodder for their Muslim Brotherhood inspired project of destroying Israel and eliminating Jews. They will be used in whatever way will most effectively meet these objectives.

Geoff M

The Israeli Ambasador was on the Today prog this morning.

He was criticised for "breaking" the cease fire when Israel killed some Hamas militants.

The interviewer in so doing also said that Hamas had only fired a few dozen rockets beforehand.

Doesn't THAT actually constitute the breaking of the ceasefire?

What planet are these irrational BBC cretins from?

EthanII

The appointed HEADMASTER at one of the UN schools was revealed this spring to be a leading Islamic Jihad rocket-maker, and he was praised for this in a (post-mortem) notice put up at the entranceway to the school--until a Reuters correspondent noticed it and it was then taken down. Here is the story, from Reuters:

RAFAH, Gaza Strip, May 5, 2008 (Reuters) - By day, Awad al-Qiq was a respected science teacher and headmaster at a United Nations school in the Gaza Strip. By night, Palestinian militants say, he built rockets for Islamic Jihad.

The Israeli air strike that killed the 33-year-old last week also laid bare his apparent double life and embarrassed a U.N. agency which has long had to rebuff Israeli accusations that it has aided and abetted guerrillas fighting the Jewish state.

In interviews with Reuters, students and colleagues, as well as U.N. officials, denied any knowledge of Qiq's work with explosives. And his family denied he had any militant links at all, despite a profusion of Islamic Jihad posters at his home.

But militant leaders allied to the enclave's ruling Hamas group hailed him as a martyr who led Islamic Jihad's "engineering unit" -- its bomb makers. They fired a salvo of improvised rockets into Israel in response to his death.

Qiq's body was wrapped in an Islamic Jihad flag at his funeral and a handwritten notice posted on the metal gate at the entrance to the school declared that Qiq, "the chief leader of the engineering unit", would now find 'Paradise.'"

Hassan, one can indeed talk about blame if (as it now seems) Hamas was using the school as a site from which to fire weapons, and as a storage site for munitions (which is why there were secondary explosions that killed many Palestinians).

If you google Fatih Muhammad + human shields, you will see a video of this major Hamas figure boasting of using women, children and old people to protect fighters. The video is from February 2008.

MartinW

The BBC World Service at c. 03:40 this morning, in a discussion about a new film that includes something about the Nazi's 'solution' for Jewish children, had the presenter drawing an equivalence between that and the present Jewish 'genocide' (sic) in Gaza. I was aghast. The sheer wickedness of this comparison is beyond belief. However, this is typical of the 'World Service's seemingly now complete support for Hamas and Hisbollah, and visceral hatred of Israel.
Later on, by the way, sometime after 04:00, a lengthy (juvenile) discussion on a new book about the relationship of Castro with Guevara, totally sanitised, no mention of the atrocities committed by both on the Cuban people and, most telling, referred to as 'Fidel' and 'Che' throughout by presenter and guest alike.
This is just a snapshot, but typical of the World Service's output. It is shocking that this sort of thing is being broadcast worldwide. The BBC World Service - degraded, subverted, immoral and ignorant.

Louise

From Jeremy Bowen's blog on the BBC News website:
"most of the BBC coverage comes from the Israeli side. The shining exceptions are our two Gaza-based journalists, Rushdi Abu Alouf and Hamada Abu Qammar".
Note the subjectivity conveyed by the adjective. A tad biased of Jezza, wouldn't you say?
And still this morning, from the BBC, the straight Hamas/John Ging line about the UN school, with no mention of the Israeli claim.

Ronnie

Please disregard my post of 8:09. I got the wrong end of the stick somewhat and would make a terrible journalist.

Vision Aforethought

Probably not a good idea to read Robert Fisk's lead article in The Independent today. He really is turning the screws. What happened to him since he reported from the Falklands War?

Vicky

The question remains to be asked, did the UN know Hamas was using their school, because if so, that makes them conspirators with Hamas against Israel. If you add that to last night's suggestion that the UN may send troops to Israel to protect Palestinians and the latest condemnation of both Israel and Hamas for hurting Palestinian civilians and you can see very clearly which side the UN is on. Heaven help us if they control the much vaunted New World Order.

Meanwhile, what are all these Palestinian children doing wandering around the streets of a war zone on their own? Why aren't their parents keeping them safe out of harm's way? Or is this example of bad parenting also Israel's fault?

Miranda Rose Smith

I sent Ehud Olmert a fax this morning, urging him to ignore the demands for a cease-fire. A cease-fire would just demoralize the Israeli soldiers and give Hamas (which even the Arab states want finished off) time to re-arm and regroup. The world ignored the rockets raining down on Sederot for years, and the minute Jews did something about defending themselves, world leaders rushed to Israel to tell them to stop.
Why DO the BBC reporters allow their company to be turned into a propaganda wing of HAMAS? They obviously want Israel destroyed, but don't they know or care that, as I've said before, ENGLAND, where they LIVE, is one of the next countries on the Islamofascist hit list?
Did it occur to anyone besides me that Olmert hopes to finish off, or at least neutralize, Hamas, WHILE BUSH IS STILL PRESIDENT. That for all his faults, for all his dimwitted talk about "two Democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security," Bush is a better friend of Israel and a smarter, more decent man that Barack Obama?

Roland

Vicky - think about your comment just for one moment. Children are killed by bombs falling on their homes, or on the schools in which they are sheltering, or by shrapnel.Ther is nowhere safe for families in Gaza to hide. To try to deny the reality of what is happening in Gaza is very, very wrong.

JC

Melanie comes across as quite hysterical in her article. I'm surprised The Spectator allowed this rant to be published. I'm really tired of reading the "you started it" commentaries as well - here's the big picture a) Israel occupies land belonging to the Palestinians. It should be prepared to give up more land and jointly administer Bethlehem with a legitimite Palestinian governing authority, who, with US/UN/EU and Israeli help, will isolate extremist organisations within and adjoining Israel's borders. A negotiation and long-term peace plan effort should be lead by someone like Tony Blair, who made total sense in his Today (Radio 4) interview yesterday, b) Israel is unrealistic to believe that it's country should exist to the exclusion of another, it must help re-create Palestine and eliminate it's own extremist elements (I think everyone calls them terrorists nowdays) and c)Palestine will only prosper with the support of Israel, just as it relied on other countries in its own development, real economic opportunity, access to education and technology, decent housing and and autonomous and responsible government are fundamental steps to a lasting peace. Apartheid states like South Africa and Northern Ireland proved to be failed models - Israel cannot surpress and entire people forever, nor should it tolerate missiles flying over its borders. Can we all take this arguement out of the schoolyard and post some constructive comments ? Israel and Hamas are equally to blame - let's all move on

Shaun Pilkington

I keep saying this. The ISraelis have, on average, killed 66 people per day (660 so far in 10 days of operations). They have a first world arsenal.

The Rwandan Genocide was a proper massacre where 1500 people a day were killed at one point with small arms and machetes. So either the IDF is trying really hard to minimise casualties or to target their strikes or they are unimaginably incompetent at their critics presumed aim of 'massacre'. Nobody is that incompetent.

peter

Israel has a long standing history of killing Palestinian children, even in the arms of their parents, regardless of whether or not Hamas is in the vicinity.

I love the timing of this invasion. Designed to support the right pre election, assured to peeve Obama.

Funny if the whole thing bacfired though.

A large proportion of the Democratic electorate want change from Obama. Not more of the same, which is what Israel is hoping for.

In the words of one Israeli diplomat - negotiations is good, results is bad.

phil

An American-I did not see your reply as it must have gone missing .the web site went off for me too partly yesterday -hence my post which said you did not respond .You have every right to express your opinions ,most of which I agree with and as far as O is concerned I am also not sure of what he will turn out to be ,but what I want is for him to be given a chance to prove himself ,and one which I believe he earned in the election .Your comments are valued even when I do not agree with them as you write with a passion similar to mine and with a good heart which is what most posters here have -I look forward to seeing your critique of O -I may well have missed something :)

I will post this also on the current thread so that those who are interested will know you replied .ITS ORIGINAL DEBATE ON THE MORAL BATTLEGROUND THREAD

john doe

'Those were someone's children, loved and nurtured.'
That's a huge assumption. There is nothing loving and nurturing about inculcating hatred of Jews and encouraging your children to be martyrs for Allah.

RUTH

I ve never heard Melanie give her recipe for Peace.

What is it?

I can tell she backs this war, Lebanon in 2006 and a thoroughly strong armed approach to the Palestinians,

But I have never heard her give her own version of a roadmap.

What is the best way forward?

Gregory

Channel 4 news last night was surprisingly good in managing to put the UNRWA representative on the spot:

Ch 4: Have you lost control of your buildings to HAMAS?

obviously he could not give a coherent reponse.

Why was it beyond the ability of the BBC to ask similarly searching questions, unless they are only interested in pushing a partisan agenda.

Conclusion: the worst enemies of the Gazan people are not only Hamas, but also their apologists in the West: the Guardian, BBC, Ch 4 (most of the time), Oxfam, United Nations, etc, etc. These organizations are just as evil as HAMAS, maybe even more so.

phil

Roland THERE IS NO ONE DEFENDING THE DEATH OF BABIES most people here are laying the blame on hamas who place these women and children in danger in sharp contrast to the Israelis who have safe rooms built to protect themselves -hence the difference in the numbers of dead -it is not for the want of trying by hamas that these numbers are reduced .I

have no doubt either it eventually will be shown that hamas booby trapped that school ,why in fact did they use it to send mortar attacks knowing what the consequences might be ?-This is a war that need never have happened ,all that was necessary to prevent it was goodwill and a desire for peace ,not in the vocabulary of hamas

. Why do you continue to defend them in the face of overwhelming evidence of their wickedness, and then attack Israel who want no part of these wars and only a just peace settlement

Adam B.

Vicky, exactly right. Whenever you see Palestinian confrontations with Israeli soldiers, you see children right at the front. I would ask any of the Israel bashers this: if you had riot police or the army at the end of your street, and there are terrorists running around shooting at them, or others throwing molotov cocktails, would you let your children out into the thick of it? Not only let them out, but encourage them to do so, through a hateful school curriculum which glorifies jihad? It's cynical beyond words.

davidka

Yes, good question Vicky.
and the short answer is yes and for which, if caught out will simply claim that they were fooled.
the same goes for the BBC who i now believe would have no qualms in knowingly perpetrating propaganda for hammas staged 'massacres' knowing that if caught out they can make the same claims of "innocence".
It is also obvious that hammas would have no qualms about murdering palestinians to achieve world wide publicity from their bbc france2 or any other channels hungry for stories of Israeli atrocities.
All this is yet to come and i'm sure the stage management is already under way.

Tony

Tony 12:11 am, I have been contributing as 'Tony' for some time now and would appreciate you changing your name to Tony 1,2,3 etc.
Thanks from the REAL Tony

logdon

Even a so called 'scientist' on a programme directly following this morning's Today had a pop at Israel. It was totally gratuitous, had zero bearing on the subject at hand but he just had to get his stupid twopenneth in. All Al-Beeb man said afterwards was something vague about moving on but then I pondered, was it arranged with the compliance of Al-Beeb and connivance between Mr Parrot The BBC Line and his presenter? Somehow the 'move on' feeble protest was synthetic and altogether too glib. I used to love the BBC. My TV never fired up before the Ten O' Clock News and after that it was Newsnight. Now? I can hardly bear to watch. Pro Labour. Pro Hamas. Pro Taliban. (See Afghan reporting.) Pro blind support for Islam. Pro censorship. (When it suits.) Ultra pro PC. They are nothing more than a highly politicised Brown supporting, left wing marxism lite extension of the Labour spin machine. And we all, like it or not, have to pay for it.

logdon

Dixon
January 7th, 2009 12:43am
Blaming Israel for this incident is like blaming the Russian army for what happenned at Beslan. Stupid.

Actually I'd compare the whole thing with blaming the Russians for Stalingrad. A nation with back to the wall, fighting for it's very own survival.

Edmund

Roland. This is exactly the point here and you are missing it completely - it is wrong to use civilians consistently as human shields.

Tony

I am a Christian, who has read extensively about the days we live in, as prophesied in the Bible, which reveals it will come to pass that Israel will have the whole world turn against her in the 'last days'.
The current events fit the 'last days' to such a degree that I can say in all certainty that the whole world will turn on Israel in the near future. I wondered how this would take place with firm American support but now I see a virtually unknown man about to take office in the white house.Turkey is now turning its back on Israel.
In all honesty, are there any public or government bodies that truly support Israel anymore? Many INDIVIDUALS and organizations may support Israel, but which official bodies do anymore?
The liberal-left wing agenda will see the demise of governmental support for Israel from the entire world.
This current conflict will spread to Lebanon, drag in syria and Russia and hook in Iran.
But....Israel will still survive and not only survive but win!
The news media are controlled by a very evil spirit and it's in this context that we must come to understand the assault on Israel. It is spiritual and the assault began with the conflict of Abraham and his off-spring and will not end until Christ returns to unite the remnants of mankind under His rule.
The Bible is no longer a fairy tale to many and its incredible accuracy about these days just amazes me.
Why, after all, has Israel been persecuted for eons if it's not a spiritual battle, why has this one group of people been so villified and hated by mankind when they have produced over 240 nobel prize winners and thousands of high tech inventions; art; culture; laws on morality...WHY????

Ronnie

Roland, what you are saying is not generally unreasonable. However...

At some point a country must surely decide to try to stop hostile elements in a neighbouring territory from firing unguided missiles indiscriminately at them with the aim of killing and maiming their people, destroying their property and creating a very real sense of terror throughout the land, simply because they are Jews.

If Hamas were a more professional organisation than the chaotic and murderous bunch of thugs they have become, the death toll exacted by their efforts would be much higher.

As it is, they have been allowed to continue with their deadly bombardment for many years, unimpeded and with hardly any condemnation from the international community.

I wonder how often you have condemned unguided missile attacks on the Isreali civilian population on this or any other forum during this period?

The problem is exacerbated by the simple fact that only one side, Hamas, can call an effective halt to this because if Israel calls a ceasefire Hamas feel disobliged to observe it.

The violence and carnage is certainly disgusting but it didn't start in December 2008.

phil

Vision Aforethought-you should have seen the one he wrote yesterday and when I posted a reply I COULD NOT BELIEVE THE HATE HE HAD WHIPPED UP-today there was not even a chance to comment -what a wicked excuse for a paper-Both he and they bear a heavy responsibility for that hate and what it might cause .

Ronnie

Tony, as I understand it, the 'End of Days' will come when Northern Ireland win the World Cup.

Michael

Last night I heard an Israeli spokesman put this down to the 'fog of war'. He appeared to regret the incident. I completely sympathise with the plight of the Israelis and support them - but I would dearly love to see Melanie Phillips stop point scoring over a tragic situation on the strength of a report from the Jerusalem Post.

Roland

Phil and Edmund as I've said elsewhere on this blog, Hammas is a terrible, terrorist outfit. For the record, I'm a firm supporter of Israel's right to a peaceful co-existence with its neighbours.

I'm making a simple point. Melanie, and many of the posters here, fired up by the current situation, are attempting to evade the consequences of the Israeli Army's attack on Gaza. The blame can be discussed, it could even be argued that the death of imnnocent civilians is a natural if regrettable consequence of wa. But to deny that men, women and children are being blown to pieces, killed and horribly mutilated by Israeli fire - well this denial is strange, intellectually and morally dishonest, and suggests a form of defensiveness on the part of those who support Israel's action, and a suppressed doubt as to its justification or proportionality.

The second point I made, no-one has answered. What will the long-term consequences of this action be? Does anyone here sensibly believe that the Palestinians can be suppressed and hammered into the ground in perpetuity? Surely the only way forward is a long, boring, difficult process towards accommodation, the two state solution?

Nawab Ibrahim Ali Khan.

I have been posting my comments for the last two days but since they have highlighted the truth about Zionism and the creation of Israel, have not been put on this blog.
Two more lines today:-
Israel seems more concerned with electoral politics and restoring its military reputation than stopping the Qassam rockets.

Ronnie

JC, you missed a vital bit of your peace jigsaw.

That all of the Arab and Persion factions, groups, gangs and splinters, of every persuasion, unconditionally accept the right of Israel to exist peacefully within the borders that are agreed by all concerned during the subsequent negotiations.

In addition, all parties must renounce the use of force to settle disputes.

Only then can we all move on to meaningful negotiations. How long do you think that will take?

Vision Aforethought

@Tony, you are spot on. I believe we have arrived at 'End of days.' Jews are disliked for a similar reason to why the bespectackled genius at school is bullied.
a) People don't understand him/her (him from now on refers to either gender).
b) People are envious of his intellect.
c) People fear what they do not understand.
d) The Jews are appalling communicators and therefore completely missunderstood. Just compare the propaganda used by their enemies (from the slick posters and websites put up by the demonstrators in London/PLO etc) to the half baked Israeli efforts to explain their case.
e) The Jews are trusting and get hoodwinked by their enemies. After all, if one believes in specific principles, then one may (falsely!) assume that others stick to the same principles. Look what happened to Jesus. A nice guy who few 'understood', so they vilified him - and worse. (And then blamed the Jews because one individual Jew betrayed him to the Romans. Says it all really!)
f) Some Jews who stray from the path do their race no good, such as the chap who just lost a lot of people about $50billion, but then, there are many more non Jews up to no good too. People should be judged on an individual basis anyway. After all, why aren't all these outraged countries and media judging how the British are behaving in Iraq or elsewhere? And what about other countries run by true dictators, of which there are rather a lot in the world?

The real problem is lack of honest and effective propaganda. How many of those calling for the death of Jews / Israel are aware of the fact Israeli hospitals treat their injured enemies and even provide their power? And what about the pioneering Israeli company Better Place that has probably come up with the only workable solution to sustainable energy?

The world is jealous. And what will happen is it will wipe out the caring intellectuals and replace them with CCTV, DNA databases, humorless automated governments et all, and this in turn will create a society unable to progress, returning humanity to a pre-industrial dark ages.

We've lost the battle, but as you say, we'll win the war. Hunker down, here goes...

Ronnie

Roland, the two state solution can only be applied if both parties, including all of the Palestinian factions and their sponsors, actually accept and are clearly seen to accept the valid existence of both states.

We haven't reached that point yet.

Roland

I want to add a couple of things. My revulsion, I have to use that word, at the tenor of many of the blogs here comes from this: on these pages, Palestinians in Gaza have been described as 'wide-eyed' and 'whining' - the latter a word with especially dreadful historical connotatations. The images of dead babies, looking like baby dolls rather than fragmented remains which appeared yesterday, have been cited by Ms. Philips herself as a kind of amelioration of the situation. Strange attempts have been made to talk about childcare, as though Palestinian mothers were fecklessly allowing their children to roam the streets.

We are talking about fellow human beings here - that is all I am asking people here to recall. if you think it is justified to kill and mutilate them, OK, then let's hear teh arguments. But don't pretend it isn't happening, and don't pretend it isn't Israeli shells which are causing death and misery on this scale.

EthanII

Roland,

1. Here is what the political philosopher Michael Walzer wrote about what we are witnessing:

When Palestinian militants launch rocket attacks intentionally from within civilian Palestinian areas, using civilians as human shields as they intentionally target Israeli civilians, they are themselves responsible--and no one else is--for the civilian deaths caused by Israeli counterfire.

Period.

2. No one on this blog is happy to see Palestinian civilian deaths. But it is Hamas that has chosen to fight this way. HAMAS on the other hand is delighted in the deaths of civilians--both Palestinians and Israelis; it profits from both, as a conscious tactic.

To see the Hamas delight in the use of human shields and their delight in the deaths of those civilians, simply google Fatih Mohammad (a major Hamas figure) + human shields, and see the video, which appeared on al-Aqsa television in February 2008. AFTER you've seen that horrific video, perhaps you'll have a different view of what is going on.

Augustus

In any military operation the following questions have to be asked: What are the military objectives? And, what political objectives do we want to accomplish?

A few years ago the Gaza Strip was abandoned by Israel's premier Ariel Sharon. It was an emotional and nearly a violent evacuation. The violence wasn't aimed at Palestinians, but against the Jewish colonisers. If the Palestinians had themselves dared to use violence against their brothers on behalf of others, then perhaps the first signs of trust could have been born. But what happened after the evacuation? After a short while Hamas took over possession of Gaza in a particularly authoritarian manner from the PA, who was and still is led by Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah. After that, Hamas subjugated members of Fatah and preceded to put in place a permanent miltary infrastructure.

Thus, two Palestinian authorities were formed: Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and Fatah on the West Bank. However, After a truce of several months,
which ended with rocket fire, Israel went into military operation mode. Israel is at war with Hamas and other Islamic terrorists, that's why Israel always has to be prepared for a military operation against these groups.

The political goal of the operation is the weakening of Hamas's influence, in the hope that the political authority led by Abbas can be restored. This also follows the political wishes of other Arabic countries who also oppose Hamas.

The Military objectives aren't fully clear, as Israel is not divulging these. But, undoubtedly they include destroying the Hamas military infrastructure, but people say that Israel doesn't aim to occupy the area for any length of time.

In the Middle East' image can also be seen as a military objective. Israel needs to show, after the war in lebanon in 2006, that their security services and army can be effective. First they successfully eliminated the Syrian nuclear programme, later Israel killed an important Hezbollah terrorist commander, and now Gaza. If this operation proves successful Israel's authority will have been restored for a few years. Hezbollah howls in rage, but apparently doesn't dare open up a second front. What are they afraid of? Perhaps the Mullahs are keeping their second card up their sleeves for later? Syria's not interested in fighting, it seems the Mullahs may now be more isolated than ever.

Edmund

Roland. You continue to miss the point. These children are being used as human shields by a terrorist organisation. The subsequent international outrage works to its favour thereby giving it a propaganda victory.

This is a script which the Western media are pushing relentlessly. Ordinary Gazans remain the losers as do people like you Roland who fail to understand.

Robert McBride (Kettering)

I am utterly sick to death of the nauseatingly anti Israeli and pro Hamas biased reporting we are being fed here in the UK.

By far the worse offender is the BBC, or should we now call it the Hamas Broadcasting Corporation? I am at a loss now which news report to watch since nobody seems to be asking the Hamas mouth-pieces that are trotted out on news items the questions people like Melanie are asking?

I have totally given up no watching the BBC news as I'm sick to death of having the terrorist's dictate the news. When will we ever see properly balanced and fair reporting from the Middle East that isn't totally biased against Israel?

By the way, I am a Christian not Jewish before anyone tries to accuse me of being an Israeli mouth-piece!

EthanII

You can get to the video by googling Fatih Mohammed + human shields, but I go the name a bit wrong. This man's actual name is Fathi Ahmad Hammad, and he is a major Hamas figure, boasting of the use of human shields, and praising women, children and old people for their love of death.
(I'm not making that up.)

So everyone who is interested should google, "Fathi Ahmad Hammand + human shields," and watch the (horrific) video.

Ed Barham

Can i add to this debate by saying one thing.
While being Jewish and Isreali are linked they are not one and the same thing.
It is entirely possible to believe that Israel is being too heavy handed in its use of force and not be anti sematic.
I disagree with many things religions stand for, from contracpetion to other religious doctrine. If i disagree with Catholics am i saying i disagree with the policy of Italy as a country - of course not.
Being against Israel is not the same thing as being anti Sematic

Vicky

Roland, I'm sorry I didn't express myself clearly - small children roaming the streets unattended upset me at the best of times, and my concern about the footage I saw yesterday centres around the fact that since Gaza is currently a war zone, these children should neither be at school nor on the streets, but at home. I appreciate that home is probably not very safe either, but I would want my children somewhere I could see them. By roaming the streets they are a) much more likely to be exposed to the types of horrors none of us would want our children to see and b) much more likley to be caught up in fighting and at risk of becoming casualities. Such tragedies will be then be used as further propoganda against Israel.

I deplore the loss of life but I don't know what else Israel is supposed to do: ceasefires are ignored and/or used as an opportunity for Hamas to rearm and 'peace negotiations' seem to centre around taking more and more land from the Israelis. The background reading I've done suggests that in 1948 Israel only received 23% of the land originally agreed after WWI, and that the extra land was used to create a state for the Palestinians. It's not Israel's fault that Jordon did not become a Palestinian state and it's not Israel's fault that the real agenda is about taking the whole of their land for Islam, a fact which is firmly and incontrovertibly rooted in Islamic theology. I'm not denying the fact that it is Israel's shells that are killing innocent (and not innocent) human beings, but this war is even more serious than simply trying to halt the constant bombardment of innocent Israelis: it is a war to defend their very right to existence. Bombs and rockets are symptomatic of much much deeper philosophical and theological conflicts, which the Jews can see quite clearly but which here, in the secular west, tend to be obscured or ignored.

Dixon

Roland...you just dont get it, the ONLY thing that you should regard as important is that these were not YOUR children, or children of YOUR friends, relatives, community.

Dixon

Two state "solution" be damned: John Bolton has the right answer. West Bank goes back to Jordan. Gaza goes back to Egypt. Except, of course, neither Jordan nor Egypt want to have to handle the "Palestinians".

David

I suppose that there's just no chance at all that the Israelis, after over-zealously attacking some fighters who were in/retreated to a school, concocted a story of secondary explosions which were nothing whatsoever to do with them?

Dixon

Sarah
January 7th, 2009 8:48am
This is an interesting post (there's more on this issue at "Harry's Place") but why does MP put "refugees" in quotation marks (8 lines down). Glossing over the fact that innocent civilians were killed doesn't help her case one bit."

Because, Sarah, she's alluding to the continual reference to Arabs who live in the area as "refugees", and their towns as "refugee camps" even when these terms are applied to families who moved into the area from places other than Israel or, indeed, are where they were already.

You cannot attack a writer on the grounds of your own ignorance of the usage of a term.

Penny

I would be shell-shocked if I genuinely believed that anyone posting here has been without regard for human life. I don't believe that is the case at all.

However, in order to understand what is going on and why and to preserve human life, some de-construction is necessary. This doesn't conflict with the genuine concern for those affected by this conflict. We must get to the bottom of the various motivations of both sides if we are to have a hope of understanding and of avoiding more war - not just in Gaza but world-wide.

I also feel that part of Melanie's points here were made not merely to illustrate a Palestinian/Israeli viewpoint, but to address a potential concern for us all.

If the press and TV ARE biased - what else might be being held from us? Just how much 'truth' do we know about anything at all? And if we are being misled - who is misleading us and why?

I hope with ALL my heart that the suffering in the region is alleviated and that ALL sides may reach a purposeful and peaceful way forward. But I also hope with ALL my heart that the quest for TRUTH will continue.

Dixon

The latest lefty "argument" seems to be that we must desist from "who started it point-scoring". But all that really means is, when they launched the "Isreal did it" points scoring, they didnt expect to be shown wrong.

Its basically an assertion that its OK for enemies of Israel / the west to make any accusation they like but any attempt to defend Israel / the West is "who started it / point scoring".

George

JC,

Let's examine your big picture claims:

a) Israel occupies land belonging to the Palestinians……
The fact that you ask Israel to jointly administer Bethlehem, which is currently totally controlled by the Palestinians, says much about your understanding of this point.

b) Israel is unrealistic to believe that its country should exist to the exclusion of another…
Israel doesn’t think this and never has done. Israel was prepared to accept the two state solution as long ago as 1947 (actually, it’s a three state solution, as Jordan also exists in Mandatory Palestine which was originally intended to be for a Jewish state in its entirety). By the way, when you talk about re-creating Palestine, do you think that King Abdullah will agree? And no, not everybody calls the Jewish extreme-right terrorists.

c) Palestine will only prosper with the support of Israel…. Israel is more than happy to have economic ties with a peaceful state of Palestine. The most prosperous time for the Palestinian population was in the period between 1967 and 1986 – before the first intifada. Since then, and even more so since the transfer of power to the Palestinian Authority, aid money has been used to line the pockets of corrupt officials, build vast, lavish palaces of state offices and to buy more and more munitions. The Palestinians even totally destroyed all the infrastructure left by the Israelis in Gaza after the 2006 disengagement, instead of using it for their own good.

Neither Israel nor Northern Ireland are/were apartheid states. You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word. I very much doubt if in a true apartheid state, over 10% of the elected Parliament would be members of the minority population. Also, if I remember correctly, in South Africa it was actually the minority who ruled!

You are right, Israel should not have to tolerate rockets flying over its borders. That is why, after trying diplomatic means for eight long years, Israel felt that she finally had no choice but to resort to military methods.
Finally, no, Israel and Hamas are not equally to blame. Israel wants peace and Hamas wants the total destruction of Israel. Where would you suggest the common ground is as a basis for the start of negotiations?

hadrian

'Anti-Sematic'...
Honestly, the spelling is 'Anti-Semitic'.
And being 'against Israel' IS anti-Semitic if what you mean by that is making common cause with Hamas and others who wish to see Israel 'wiped from the map'. Sounds like genocide to me, mate. Being critical of some of Israel's policies is quite a different thing.

Shy Guy

David, I suppose there's no chance that you're wishful thinking is just that.

Tell me, do you post on the Arab and Muslim forums asking them to suppose that Hamas maybe shouldn't be believed.

I thought not.

Usual phony hypocrite.

Roland

Dixon - your comment - that we should only care for our own family - says it all. Rather flies in the face of all religious and moral teaching whih mankind has struggled to develop over centuries, doesn't it? Something about brothers and keepers springs to mind ...

EthanII

Roland, I think Dixon was being (anti-Israel) sarcastic.

cuffleyburgers

Personally I cannot stand Ms Phillips' hectoring strident bordering on hysterical tone.

However, that doesn't detract from the fact that behind the hyperbole, she is not entirely wrong.

As an observer of this tragic situation with no great firsthand knowledge the following points are clear to me:

* Israel is a democratic country with a values system essentially informed by Western ideas of freedom and human rights

* Hamas is a terrorist organisation explicitly dedicated to wiping israel off the face of the earth and funded to an undetermined extent by Iran, a soon-to-be nuclear armed state with similar frequently stated ambitions, and an equally weak grasp of pluralism, or freedom, or legal process

* Hamas deploy rockets targetted on Israeli civilians from inside schools and hospitals, something which can only lead to unnecessary civilian deaths which happen to play well with the world media

* Israeli hospitals treat both jewish and arab casualties in their hospitals

* through hard work and thrift the israelis have made their patch of desert bloom and a technological hub to boot with IT firms and pharmaceuticals etc

* The palestinian areas are a welfarist hell hole with sky high unemployment and wholly dependent on the outside for help

As a disinterested outsider personally I would naturally tend to sympathise with the Israelis who seem to have made a better fist of the cards they have been dealt

As a human being I am shocked by the intransigent nature of the conflict and the decades of suffering.

In the end though, I just think that, if the palestinians had accepted the offer of the west bank and Gaza, and devoted as much energy to marketing the fruit of their labours as they do to marketing their tragic plight, well maybe their plight wouldn't be so tragic.

Israel is of course not beyond blame - but equally to equate the actions of the IDF with the nazis is quite disgraceful.

And of course the BBC is being unspeakable.

Tony

As a ceasefire draws near it can be said that in the eyes of the world Hamas has been humbled.

Edmund

Roland. You still fail to get the point - HAMAS has an ideology which worships death per se - they do not care about death, in fact they welcome it, it is part of their strategy. A strategy which they impose on the unfortunate Gazans.

Cameron

Robert Fisk - From the Independent today. Let's see if you have the sense of fair play to leave it up:

So once again, Israel has opened the gates of hell to the Palestinians. Forty civilian refugees dead in a United Nations school, three more in another. Not bad for a night's work in Gaza by the army that believes in "purity of arms". But why should we be surprised?

Have we forgotten the 17,500 dead – almost all civilians, most of them children and women – in Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon; the 1,700 Palestinian civilian dead in the Sabra-Chatila massacre; the 1996 Qana massacre of 106 Lebanese civilian refugees, more than half of them children, at a UN base; the massacre of the Marwahin refugees who were ordered from their homes by the Israelis in 2006 then slaughtered by an Israeli helicopter crew; the 1,000 dead of that same 2006 bombardment and Lebanese invasion, almost all of them civilians?

What is amazing is that so many Western leaders, so many presidents and prime ministers and, I fear, so many editors and journalists, bought the old lie; that Israelis take such great care to avoid civilian casualties. "Israel makes every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties," yet another Israeli ambassador said only hours before the Gaza massacre. And every president and prime minister who repeated this mendacity as an excuse to avoid a ceasefire has the blood of last night's butchery on their hands. Had George Bush had the courage to demand an immediate ceasefire 48 hours earlier, those 40 civilians, the old and the women and children, would be alive.

What happened was not just shameful. It was a disgrace. Would war crime be too strong a description? For that is what we would call this atrocity if it had been committed by Hamas. So a war crime, I'm afraid, it was. After covering so many mass murders by the armies of the Middle East – by Syrian troops, by Iraqi troops, by Iranian troops, by Israeli troops – I suppose cynicism should be my reaction. But Israel claims it is fighting our war against "international terror". The Israelis claim they are fighting in Gaza for us, for our Western ideals, for our security, for our safety, by our standards. And so we are also complicit in the savagery now being visited upon Gaza.

I've reported the excuses the Israeli army has served up in the past for these outrages. Since they may well be reheated in the coming hours, here are some of them: that the Palestinians killed their own refugees, that the Palestinians dug up bodies from cemeteries and planted them in the ruins, that ultimately the Palestinians are to blame because they supported an armed faction, or because armed Palestinians deliberately used the innocent refugees as cover.

The Sabra and Chatila massacre was committed by Israel's right-wing Lebanese Phalangist allies while Israeli troops, as Israel's own commission of inquiry revealed, watched for 48 hours and did nothing. When Israel was blamed, Menachem Begin's government accused the world of a blood libel. After Israeli artillery had fired shells into the UN base at Qana in 1996, the Israelis claimed that Hizbollah gunmen were also sheltering in the base. It was a lie. The more than 1,000 dead of 2006 – a war started when Hizbollah captured two Israeli soldiers on the border – were simply dismissed as the responsibility of the Hizbollah. Israel claimed the bodies of children killed in a second Qana massacre may have been taken from a graveyard. It was another lie. The Marwahin massacre was never excused. The people of the village were ordered to flee, obeyed Israeli orders and were then attacked by an Israeli gunship. The refugees took their children and stood them around the truck in which they were travelling so that Israeli pilots would see they were innocents. Then the Israeli helicopter mowed them down at close range. Only two survived, by playing dead. Israel didn't even apologise.

Twelve years earlier, another Israeli helicopter attacked an ambulance carrying civilians from a neighbouring village – again after they were ordered to leave by Israel – and killed three children and two women. The Israelis claimed that a Hizbollah fighter was in the ambulance. It was untrue. I covered all these atrocities, I investigated them all, talked to the survivors. So did a number of my colleagues. Our fate, of course, was that most slanderous of libels: we were accused of being anti-Semitic.

And I write the following without the slightest doubt: we'll hear all these scandalous fabrications again. We'll have the Hamas-to-blame lie – heaven knows, there is enough to blame them for without adding this crime – and we may well have the bodies-from-the-cemetery lie and we'll almost certainly have the Hamas-was-in-the-UN-school lie and we will very definitely have the anti-Semitism lie. And our leaders will huff and puff and remind the world that Hamas originally broke the ceasefire. It didn't. Israel broke it, first on 4 November when its bombardment killed six Palestinians in Gaza and again on 17 November when another bombardment killed four more Palestinians.

Yes, Israelis deserve security. Twenty Israelis dead in 10 years around Gaza is a grim figure indeed. But 600 Palestinians dead in just over a week, thousands over the years since 1948 – when the Israeli massacre at Deir Yassin helped to kick-start the flight of Palestinians from that part of Palestine that was to become Israel – is on a quite different scale. This recalls not a normal Middle East bloodletting but an atrocity on the level of the Balkan wars of the 1990s. And of course, when an Arab bestirs himself with unrestrained fury and takes out his incendiary, blind anger on the West, we will say it has nothing to do with us. Why do they hate us, we will ask? But let us not say we do not know the answer.

ed

Hadrian
Firstly sorry for the spelling.
Secondly,saying Israel is being heavy handed is not the same as being against Jews.
They need secure boaders and i can understand why they have taken some of the action they have.
To be accused of supporting Genocide is nothing short of pathetic.
The loss of life in any war is a tragedy.
Read my comment again and saying "Being against Israel" i mean their handling of this situtaion to some extent and not the country
but please calm down in the responses.

JC

George - you're becoming a little hysterical like Melanie, I wasn't making any "claims". My blog attempted to raise the level of tone/conversation, oh, and I didn't claiming to be a historian or expert - so cool yours heels a little. Apartied literally means separateness (Afrikans), so you'll see it has been applied correctly. Under law, apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." Again, in my opinion, correct useage. The point of using the term is that having been to South Africa, Ireland and Israel/Palestine, the general problems and themes are the same - the key difference is that both sides are much better armed/more extreme in the current conflict. On a)Jerusalem, NOT Bethlehem, ... OK,OK, Christmas is still on my mind, don't jump down my throat ! As for b) historically, maybe Israel have supported the idea - objectively though, they must see it through (or no peace). Remember, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I saw terrorism (get out your dictionary again) on both sides when I was in Israel. Finally c) and your closing question - clearly Hamas and Hezboullah are not appropriate counterparties. The West needs to step in with a dedicated lead negotiator, who is comitted to working with the Israeli government and Palestinian Authority to solve this problem. Israeli's and Palestinian's have to be forced together, with appropriate peace/economic and social incentives on the table. There wasn't any common ground in N. Ireland until Major and then Blair's government pushed through a settlement. Israel does have a choice, it should spend time behind a negotiating table instead of weapons. You probably don't care about public opinion, but it's important in global diplomacy. (Your reply doesn't actually endear me to Israel's cause). In time a legitimate Palestinian authority will, rightly, crush the extremists. Peace for Israel should quieten its own extremists as well.

Can anyone point me to their favourite text on the history of this subject and something that objectively presents the arguments ?

Cath

Dixon's comments are so disgraceful that I wonder if they are just another part of the propaganda war. If you really do believe that then it cuts to the basis of this whole conflict. Pure evil. From both sides.

Dixon

Roland
January 7th, 2009 2:45pm
"Dixon - your comment - that we should only care for our own family - says it all. Rather flies in the face of all religious and moral teaching whih mankind has struggled to develop over centuries, doesn't it? Something about brothers and keepers springs to mind ..."

No Roland, you still dont get it. Those "moral" and "religious" teachings are all myths created by various tribes ( including our own ) to rationalise what they are going to do anyway. We are all born without morality as much as without clothes. There REALLY is NO SUCH THING as "right and wrong. The ONLY things that matter are tangible. In Human terms, that means ones tribe, ones friends, ones family and ones self.

Your high minded posturing about equal ethics for all is simply the expression of someone who has never found themselves having to choose between ones own and complete strangers. In other words, you prate about ethics but have no real experience of your own nature, Human Nature. When push comes to shove, EVERYONE chooses sides. Thats REALITY.

Some of us have the self-awareness to understand that our own Humanity means we are weak, whilst fools and children and the generally inexperienced fantasise that they are "above" such things.

People like you Roland.

GRUMPY the GOLANI

The fundamental problem with the palistinian narrative as played to destruction by the msm, is that nobody is prepared to wind the tape back to the all important start.

In interview after interview (many with highly suspect arab commentators) the reporter conducting the discussion (bbc/cnn/sky - does'nt really matter), allows the commentator the luxury of starting the narrative at any stage of the ongoing proceedings, thereby nullifying, in this particular case the seqence of events leading up to the situation in hand.

The usual line trotted out by these so called arab/arab leaning commentators goes something like this:

Gaza is occupied, so hamas fired rockets (fatuous lie)

Israel started the current round of hostilities, forcing hamas to fire rockets in self defence (a masterful reversal/turn around of the victim play act)

And the best bit of inverse phychology of all - Israel is trying with all its might to kill the civilian population of Gaza - a population that hamas is desperately trying to defend.
(if Israel truly wanted to kill the civilian population it would be over in seconds with no loss of life on the Israeli side)

as Golda Meir once said:
PEACE WITH THE ARABS CAN ONLY BE ATTAINED WHEN THEY LOVE THEIR CHILDREN MORE THAN THEY HATE US.

So please, enough with the intellectualising BS.
It is what it is - as has been pointed out by many commentators on this site - and that is the cynical use by iran to destabilise the ME situation to their advantage by the use of one of its proxy forces (hamas/hizbollah/madi army etc.

Penny

A few after-thoughts.

In a civilised world, it is usual to present two sides of a story. This is not point-scoring. It is fairness and democracy at work.

Without fair representation from both sides, judgement will not be 'fair' and such events will simply continue.

If Israel are found to be culpable then they will be judged - but without their points of view being heard, this will not be democratically possible.

If there is a chance that there is biased reporting going on then this, too, needs investigation for the sake of us ALL. This time Israel - next time.....?

And supposing Melanie's articles are accurate? If we genuinely care about human beings then aren't such things as using women and children as war fodder an abuse? Do we wish to cover this up, too?

Even if there is the remote chance that such things are occurring, then I would say that to hear Israel's side and to at least investigate it is crucial in this situation.

Dixon

As I said: "Some of us have the self-awareness to understand that our own Humanity means we are weak, whilst fools and children and the generally inexperienced fantasise that they are "above" such things."

I should have added, people like Cath as well.

You havent faced evil madam, you do not know what you would do.

Towncar

Someone asked earlier about a 'roadmap' to peace, or a peace plan. Such a path or plan is laughably doubtful. In the long run, this isn't about Gazan real estate. This conflict goes back a thousand years to Templars, Moors, crusaders. The immediate focus may be Israel, but the end of Israel tomorrow wouldn't bring about the peace those posters think it will. New plans will be made, and the jihad will go on. Peace isn't in the Islamic interest - that's not what they want. They're just saying what the useful left wants to hear, a process they're extremely good at. All we're seeing is the current chapter in the story, and it won't end here.

Bill

Thank God there is someone like Robert Fisk to point out the truth!

phil

Roland who is denying the deaths of any Palestinians ,certainly not me and I deplore them ,but I will not blame Israel ,do you know they have sections in their army who train the soldiers in how to avoid enemy casualties -I am sure you do not.They even build mock villages to train the soldiers in urban warfare with the aim of saving enemy (innocent)lives -do you know any other army that does that ?The blame remains squarely with hamas ,it is they who hide within their population ,booby trap and disappear leaving the innocents to die and be fodder for the press .-bitter words ,yes but true
.
You ask about long term consequences -why ask? you know the answer -its when the Palestinians decide peace is more important than death and destruction and that A TWO STATE SOLUTION IS IN THEIR INTEREST.one does not need a double first to see the logic in that .It is available to them as soon as they sit down and decide Israel will be the other state .

Roland I am sick of writing .sick of death and destruction,sick of anti-semitism (an expression I hate) sick of feeling the need to put the view of decent Jewish people who want nothing other than peace -and utterly sick of the deceit in so much of our media.You can write a million words but what i know is the culture that I grew up with ,that values life above all else and that life is for all people .

Frank P

How did a complete column by the egregious Fisk get past the 'moderator' here? Thank God for the scroll wheel. Obviously someone is trying to finish this blog as a source of enlightenment. Trolling is one thing, but Fisk? Now that is taking the piss! Using the soubriquet 'Cameron' to do it is also mischievous, but I suppose the assigned Windypendent troll has a sense of humour, at least. Please... nobody fisk Fisk or I may be gulled into to reading it by proxy! Very bad for the blood pressure. Come the counter-counter-revolution, if I'm still extant, I have a special lamp-post earmarked: "Save this for traitor Fisk." The one next to it is marked with just one word - "Pilger!" WTF has the latter been lately, btw? He hasn't beaten us to it and popped his clogs, has he? I sincerely hope not, I want to get to hell before him so that I can fix up some special arrangements for his 'welcome'!

Roland

Dixon,let's aside the obvious fact that you don't know me, so are not in the position to make assumptions about my life history,and therefore have no foundation for your rather cheap and meaningless abuse.

Your reasoning is crude and defeatist. You equate humanity with base animal instincts. Those instincts are there; religion and philosophy grappple with the task of lifting us up from the low base you see as inevitable.

Frank Pulley

EC

Thank you for the Krauthammer link at 8.27am; Occam would have been very pleased with Charles. Not a word wasted nor an idea overblown. Wonderful stuff!

Edmund

Roland. You still fail to get the point. There are no lower base instincts apart from those created by the religions and philosophies you appear to set such store by. It is pointless therefore to expect these entities (philosophy/religion) to eliminate that which keeps them in business.

Dixon

Roland
January 7th, 2009 6:04pm
"Dixon,let's aside the obvious fact that you don't know me, so are not in the position to make assumptions about my life history,and therefore have no foundation for your rather cheap and meaningless abuse.
Your reasoning is crude and defeatist. You equate humanity with base animal instincts. Those instincts are there; religion and philosophy grappple with the task of lifting us up from the low base you see as inevitable."

What absolute codswallop. Theres nothing "defeatist" about facing reality. You just wrap yourself in delusions. Atoms exist. Morals dont exist. They are invented. Find me an atom of morality anywhere in nature? Go on, give us an example.

I dont need to know anything about you as an individual to recognise your fatuous blather when I read it for what it is. Pious self-delusion.

No? Well try a little "thought experiment" as philosophers say:

You are sat at a desk on which there is a red button. Hooded men tell you you must press the button. If you do, dozens of babies in a far away country will be blown apart by a missile. If you do not, these masked men will inflict severe agony upon you. Now, which do you do? Press the button ( pass the pain ) or be a hero?

You, Roland, will clearly fantasise about being the hero. Who knows. Maybe you ARE a super-Humanly altruistic hero, who would choose to die in agony to spare the lives of innocents unknown to you? But you have NOT been in that situation, and until you have, to strike a pose of heroic altruism is utterly facile and mind-bogglingly arrogant.

I, on the other hand, need not hesitate to say I would press the button every time. THAT, sir, is HONESTY! Whereas I cannot imagine choosing the path of heroic self-acrifice for strangewrs unknown ( it being a different matter where my own "tribe" is concerned ) I think you are in no position to expect us to believe that you would not press that hypothetical button!

You are not merely deluding yourself but presenting yourself in a most fantastically conceited light if you cannot acknowledge this.

Jeremy

Hassan, are you as distressed when Suicide bombers kill their own in Iraq or Afganistan. Where are all the protests than ?

dominic

What a wet blanket you are Roland. The plain fact is that Israel is fighting a war of survival against an organisation that is committed to Israel's genocide. Hamas are the epitome of fascism, and it is their creed that dictates them to extol death and murder above all else. In this they are the true child abusers, and their record in using women and children as human shields is well documented. When children are killed in war it is truly terrible, but Israeli forces are trying their utmost to MINIMISE civilian deaths. Hamas, on the other hand ate trying to MAXIMISE them so as to further egg on a sadly gullible and morally bereft world media. What do you seriously expect Israel to do? It is being relentlessly attacked and war with Hamas is both necessary and morally right. Presumably you would be objecting to the allied bombing raids on Nazi Germany because of the chance that children might be killed also? You seem to be suffering from a kind of mental and moral dyslexia.

stanley Jerusalem

After the 1956 Suez Affair the 5th and 6th years in my school were given a talk by the recently kicked out headmaster of the British Grammar School in Alexandria. He explained that truth was a moveable feast in the sense that if asked the truth a Levantine would tell you what he thinks you would want to hear. With truth like that what chance do we have of accurate reportage never mind the vile BBC.

sally

Jerusalem Post ... no thats not going to bias is it!

As the U.N Report showed today no hamas members were in the school.
What excuse will they use now?

A rose by any other name

Bill writes a post saying Fisk tells the truth. I write one saying the opposite. Bill's get posted. Mine does not.
Yesterday I wrote a post in which I doubted the truth of some of the more extravagant hamas claims. It did not get posted either.

Cath

But Dixon you used the word "should" in your initial post. That humans are, at core, selfish I don't deny but your post implied that it was morally right to be so, even when lives are at stake. At a much more mundane level its like the 4X4 drivers who say "I'm driving one so that my children will be safe" while making everyone else's children, by definition, less safe. They may be acting in a normal human way but that doesn't make them right to do so.

sanchez

Cameron, you hit the nail on the head. Nice piece, Melanie, you could learn something form this guy about journalism.

Dave M

"We are talking about fellow human beings here - if you think it is justified to kill and mutilate them, OK, then let's hear teh arguments."

The Israeli objective is to come as close as possible to ending indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel. The major difficulty they face is how to disable Hamas terrorists who operate in highly populated, urban areas. What's truly despicable is the fact the terrorists use mosques, schools and hospitals to hide their stockpiles of rockets and arms. They do this because they believe either this will guarantee their stockpiles won't be targeted by the IDF, in such cases and (if they are targeted), any resulting civilian carnage will allow the BBC (and others) to have a field day, demonising Israel on Hamas's behalf. Without a doubt the time will come when Europe is going to be facing the same kind of blackmail and underhanded tactics as Israel is facing. The question is do you allow yourself to be defeated and subjected to terrorism in cases where the terrorists are willing to use human shields? Do you throw in the towel because you don't want to appear trigger-happy, cruel or inhuman on the international stage, in cases where human shields are being used? Or do you bite the bullet, try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible and press ahead to defend yourself from terrorism? Incredibly, the feeling in Europe seems to be that it's better to just put up with Islamic terror if the stakes come to be so high. That is, it's better to do nothing at all if to win a conflict you are forced into fighting amongst civilians in civilian areas. In other words, surrender civilization in the face of blackmail. Before demonising Israel, the media should recall how thousands of Britons and Europeans danced in the streets after the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were dropped, ending the war with Japan. How many innocent civilians did that kill, compared with Israel's targeted, restricted military action in Gaza?

Straydingo

Roland,

I would give up mate as you are being nailed - Dixon has managed to peel you back like an onion in a short flurry of posts :).

Roland

The problem with Dixon's increasingly hysterical and personally abusive posts is as follows:

Hamas does indeed have the appalling stated aim of wiping Israel off the map. Hamas is indeed a loathsome organisation,capable of carrying out murder and terror, including the rocket attacks in southern Israel and against its opponents within Gaza.

What Hamas is not capable of doing, and is, bar an unforeseen and unbelievable change of circumstances, never going to be capable of, is, Thank God, eradicating Israel. Do you really think they are a match for the power of the Israeli army, with guarenteed support from the US?

Take away the bogus claim Dixon makes, and his line about the law of the jungle becomes lurid melodrama.

As for the abuse he (and Dominic) pour out, well,I guess the more dodgy the argument, the more shrill the arguer.

I'd add to this, that Hamas's impotence , for me, makes their actions even worse if possible - firing rockets into Israel, knowing that action could only have one consequence, of risking bringing about what has indeed happened.

Dixon

Cath, Im not advocating conformity, but connected thinking. Read my last comment.

However,your example only illustrates the point further. The 4x4 driver is connecting his actions to palpable outcomes. Your accusing said driver of "harming" other children in terms of a debatable environmentalist trope is merely pinning culpability to an abstraction.

My point...intitially...was that Rolands own children, family, friends "tribe" are a palpable reality, whilst arguments regarding "ethics" or "morality" affecting the children of unknown, unconnected strangers of another tribe than our own is , like your fatuous environmental credo, an abstraction.

In fact, your example only underlines the absurdity and feebleness of your attempts at a "moral" argument. It illustrates my case, rather than undermining it, exposing the absurd sophistry of people who would think like that.

Moreover, that you should place the interests of ones own before that of the Gazan children is pertinent to the view that many of us hold that the deaths of children in Gaza is a necessary consequence of a train of actions that ultimately distances our own communities from conflict. In other words, if Israel loses, ultimately, OUR families will be in the frontline next.

KateA

"... why does MP put "refugees" in quotation marks (8 lines down)." Sarah
-----------------------

Likely because the media uses the term 'refugees' for a group who are not refugees. They are Arab citizens of Gaza. Some before the Zionist agricultural enterprise, and others who came as workers. Gaza is not a refugee camp.

Gaza was originally a Philistine settlement. By the fourth century it was Jewish.
Jews were 'removed' by the Romans but maintained a presence until 1929, coexisting with Arabs.

Gaza riots in 1929 fomented by the infamous Nazi Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini killed 135 Jews and injured 300. The British 'removed' the Jews out to placate the Mufti.

But, the Jews returned and, in 1946, kibbutz Kfar Darom was established. In 1947 the UN allocated Gaza to the Arabs; Arabs refused it so it belongs to no one. Israel took it in the 1948 War but gave it to Egypt. Took it again in the 1956 war, but gave it back to Egypt!

In 1967 Israel won again but wished they hadn't. Eshkol called Gaza “a bone stuck in our throats." i.e. they couldn't get rid of it.

By 1981, Israelis had 21 settlements over approx 18 percent of the territory. Jews and Muslims coexisted until the first intifada. The Palestinian Authority then controlled 80% of the territory; violence escalated.

In August, 2005, Israel evacuated all Jews. Hamas razed the infrastructure, houses, schools, synagogues, greenhouses, and the agriculture. One million dollars, donated by a Jew, to assist Gaza build an economy, disappeared; likely spent on weapons.

-----------------------------------

JC: 'Israel occupies land belonging to the Palestinians.'

How can that be? The 'Palestinians' have no land. There never was a Palestinian 'land' or a 'Palestinian' nation (until 1967!). Only Egypt, Syria, Jordan et al; only Arabs. The land offered to Arabs in 1947 was refused and therefore belongs to no one. Which land precisely do you refer to?

Certainly not Golan; the Israelis have been in talks with Syria re. Golan. Gaza was 'given' to Egypt several times - they don't want it. It was given to the Palestinians in 2005 - they voted in Hamas and attacked Israel.

I presume you refer to the West Bank? What do you suggest - more land (like Gaza) for a peace that never comes? More land for Islamic terrorists to set up rocket ranges to target Israel?

What does this mean: 'Israel must re-create Palestine' and 'Palestine will only prosper with the support of Israel'?

Have you missed the GLARING obstacle: the Arabs have REFUSED all offers of peace. They have REFUSED land. The destruction of the Jewish people is more important to them than land or economic security. Read Hamas and Fatah Charters.

So, WHY is it then the responsibility of Israel to 're-create' a Palestine? HOW can they possibly do so anyway?

Are the Arabs so inadequate, so irresponsible, so corrupt, they are incapable of accepting the land allocated as theirs in exchange for peace and recognition of Israel?

WHERE do you think has the billions in aid already allocated to Hamas and Fatah gone? WHO is going to pay for this re-creation notion?

Answer: USA, European and Israeli taxpayers. The 'black hole' of 'Palestinian' neediness has already consumed billions. All the while, the Islamic brothers all around sit back and wallow in their obscene wealth.

PS: I am Northern Irish. N.Ireland has NEVER been an 'Apartheid state like South Africa'. NI people lived side by side in the working-class areas before 1969. They worked in the same mills and factories. After 1948 Education Act UK a new generation of NI youth were educated to second and third level - free. The mixed and talked and were the basis of the Civil Rights movement.

Thousands of NI women (neighbours and old friends) marched, met regularly, prayed together and deliberately defied the minority men of violence. We maintained that defiance for 30 long years. Please STOP uninformed comparisons. It is deeply insulting.

Louise

After the BBC have been gleefully telling us today, in bulletin after bulletin, that Israel is now admitting that there were no fighters in the UN school but outside it, the demon Bowen admitted in a later bulletin tonight that Israel has not, in fact, admitted it.
He has been editorialising as usual, flouting the BBC Charter as usual.
It was wonderful to see Henry Grunwald, President of the Board of Deputies, interviewed on the BBC 8 p.m. bulletin. I suspect that Mr. Grunwald's appearance was not solicited by the BBC but was the result of some tough words from the Board to our disgraceful national broadcaster about its flagrant anti-Israel bias. He was treated almost with kid gloves, and put the case for Israel with commendable calm and clarity, making all the pertinent points, and stressing that Hamas is committed to Israel's destruction and reemphasised its terrorist credentials by calling for the killing of Jews all over the world.
I fear Mr Grunwald did too well for the BBC's liking and that it thinks itself off the hook now that it has allowed him an airing. For the BBC seems to be in no hurry to repeat his interview in subsequent bulletins.

phil

roland you spend a lot of time here complaining about the abuse you take but when I write to you without any abuse -you do not address my points.Should I presume you are one of those deviants who prefers pain ?:)I think my points were valid and worthy of your time or maybe you prefer sparring with dixon ,who seems to have your measure .

Frank P

Dixon. "OUR families will be in the frontline next."

Already have been - 9/11, 7/7, etc, etc. The Gaza eruption is current, but merely the latest attack on Western Civilisation. Israel is doing something about it on behalf of 'us' in addition to repelling the existential threat to its own nation. God bless 'em and speed their victory. Don’t forget that "our" children are also still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan: all part of the same war of attrition with Islamic jihad. The UK is also under existential threat. The major problem being the enemy within, which albeit extremely stupid, is in some ways more powerful than the enemy without, because it demonstrates our weakness and the divisions within our culture, politics, religions and social institutions - giving succour to the demented jihadists. Prepare for Dhimmitude. It is already implicitly accepted by an alarming number of quislings who comment on this blog. Melanie is performing a powerful public service; her blog is like a poultice that draws pus from a carbuncle. No journalist has exposed the latent anti-Semitism that exists within the UK more comprehensively than Melanie Phillips, there is a putrid miasma of anti-Semitism hanging over this blog, but I fear the die is cast; as a nation, as an island race, we have gone soft in the arm and even softer in the head. Britain's glorious dead are screaming from their graves. Too few can hear them - and too few of those that can hear them care anymore. The generation that did care is moribund, almost extinct and those of the younger generations that 'get it' now lack sufficient representation in the corridors of power. Unless the Conservative Party regains its patriotism and the BBC pro-Islamic propaganda machine is dismantled, we are doomed. Squeamishness, pacifism, laziness, hedonism, moral illiteracy and cowardice seem now to be the dominant characteristics of our country. Thus great civilisations fail – as history demonstrates.

Mark

John Gings eyes lie and quite obviously in the video i saw on bbc web site. They lie about several things as they sqiff to his right (lie to the hand)

They lie almost as obviously as madeleine albright when she speaks "the srebrenica massacre"

Roland

The last part both of Dave M's and Dixon's posts go to the heart of their misguided belief that we're engaged in a fight to the death with some overwhelmingly dangerous world jihad. But then, it's the same erroneous belief which fuels Mel herself and a large number of the posters here - a strange kind of paranoia.Fundementalist terror is a threat, and causes untold misery. But it does not threaten the very existence of the West. Do you really believe that, oh, say Hamas will be sitting in the White House in a few years's time? (actually in asking that I have a sinking feeling that some of you probably do think just that). How about trying to look at the problem from a fresh perspective, just to test out your prejudices?

Roland

Phil - in a rush to work, so will try to reply later. Sorry, both you and Stray Dingo seem over-impressed by Dixon's schoolboy debating style!

Ronnie

So, Roland, where does your post of 7 January, 7:01, leave us?

Hamas can't defeat Israel in battle but they won't stop trying to kill Israelis and they will not enter peace negotiations because they are fundamentally opposed to the process.

We agree that Hamas are a clear obstacle to any progress on peace in the region.

Taking things one step at a time, should Hamas be allowed to continue indiscriminately killing Israelis indefinitely?

Louise

Frank P, how right you are, and how eloquently you write!
I believe that the rot in this country is compounded by the fact that so few British children are taught about the history of these islands, taught (I mean) in the traditional sense which provides a "shared narrative" of British history in the sense that American children receive a shared narrative of American history. American children, irrespective of ethnic origin, no matter how recently their families arrived in that great nation, know the basics of their country's history and revere its glorious Constitution and respect its flag. Our children are taught to despise British history, are lamentably unfamiliar with its constitutional landmarks and its iconic heroes, and are taught that the Empire was a shameful institution rather than one that gave parliamentary democracy to the world. They appear to be bereft of the basic knowledge that equips them to have a sense of national pride and cohesiveness, to appreciate the organic connection between past and future, and to put current events in context. I can only assume that the dismantling of the traditional curriculum was done because it is "irrelevent" and therefore presumably "offensive" to the children whose families are newcomers to these shores; but as other "pluralistic" cultures have realised, there is nothing like the national story to give the disparate strands within a country a sense of a common purpose and destiny.

Dixon

But you see, Roland, you don't actually have any "philosophical" arguments after all.

One moment you are citing "philosophy" as though its your choice of battleground, the next, when confronted by a debating technique used in "real-life" philosophy, as it is taught in universities, you refuse to offer a defense, merely saying its a "schoolboy debating style".

No, Roland, its called "philosophy". Other readers, I invite you to go back to my post of 7th Jan a 6.45 to see the philosophical argument that Roland is patently snagged by.

My comments about "our children" were directed at Cath. As far as the argument you picked with me, Roland, whether or not "our children" are ever in jeopardy is largely irrelevant. That is, my objection to your "moral" concern for "their" children.

An American

Frank P,
Thank you for your great comments...but it made me very sad. The US hasn't quite reached the crisis point of the UK...our only hope is to see and learn from what is happening in the UK and Europe ...but with a socialist goverment now in complete power and a socialist press...I fear we'll be next in line.
Sorry about my ignorance...but what does Dhimmitude mean? Is it the Islamic word/meaning for conquest?

Louise

To An American: Dhimmitude means the state of being a Dhimmi, as the tolerated People of the Book (Jews and Christians) were known in the Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire. Jews and Christians were tolerated by the Caliphate, but were not equal to Muslims, and were reminded of their unequal status in several humiliating ways. Furthermore, they had to pay a special tax in order to preserve the privileges of Dhimmitude. I imagine that people using the term on Blogs such as this mean that organisations such as the BBC have, de facto, surrendered to the idea that Islamicism can now make the running in the secular Western world - that its demands for sharia law, and therefore the status of a parallel community within the nation, must be meekly met and that when Muslim spokesmen warn that unless Britain changes its foreign policy to one of hopstility to America and Israel Muslim youth will be radicalised and turn to terror, they believe that the government should give in to such demands. Of course, it helps that the BBC hates Britain, American and all they stand for; it makes Dhimmitude so much easier to bear. Needless to say, the oh-so-progressive BBC (so quick to sniff out amd denounce sexism in general society and so quick to demand the humane treatment of offenders under the British penal system) somehow manages to ignore the inequality of women in Islam, and the savage punishments for miscreants inherent in the sharia law code. I suppose such ostrich-like behaviour is what a Dhimmi does when he knows who his masters are.

phil

AN AMERICAN IN CASE HE IS SLEEPING LATE HERE IT IS :
Dhimmitude is a neologism, imported from the French language, and derived from the Arabic language adjective dhimmi, which literally means protected. "Dhimmitude" adds the productive suffix "-tude" to the word dhimmi. This creates a noun with a meaning (arguably) distinct from the original Arabic noun dhimma. Depending on the author, the term "Dhimmitude" has several distinct, but related meanings, denoting an attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement towards Islamic demands. Its scope may be historical only, contemporary only, or both. It may encompass the whole system of dhimma, look only at its subjects (dhimmis), or even apply it outside of any established system of dhimma

IF YOU WANT MORE PUT WIKIPEDIA IN YOUR BROWSER AND CHECK IT THERE ,

Cath

Dixon, where did I mention the environment?

Roland

Hmm Dixon - you don't answer my point about the power imbalance between Hamas and Israel and the wider West and the ludicrous nature of of your fight to the death fantasies. This unwillingnes to deal with reality does, sadly, put you into the schoolboy debating category.Impresses some here, but is a bit sad in the real world.Unless you really are a schoolboy

An American

Dear Louise and Phil,

Thank you so much for the information.
I'm always impressed with the intelligence and information that Melanie's bloggers provide. Regards.

Mark

There is a fairly simple answer to Roland's power imbalance argument. In this so called "asymetric warfare" one may I suppose, ignore the rocketings from organisations like Hamas and accept some casualities from time to time. And if one is clear that that is all it is evergoing to be - well, tough on the casualties. Its utterly immoral but maybe not impractical.

Problem comes when you know that the result of ignoring the lesser threat is that the threat grows. So lets look at Hamas, which Roland himself has said is a pretty ugly organisation. It is also an organisation which by its own admission has "resistance" as its raison d'etre. Now, why shoud one beelieve that such amnd organisation is going to stick to low level attacks that "merely" cause the odd few casualities. It must surely be its aim to raise its game and cause ever more casualties, and if left unmolested that is what it will do.

So it seems to me reasonable to argue that by taking on Hamas before it gets to that stage Israel is reducing the number not just of its own casualities but also of the number of Palestinin casualties there would be if it has to fight this despicable organisation when it becomes stronger.

I believe this essential point is too easilly overlooked.

dominic

Roland you talk about Hamas's impotence but fail to acknowledge that they are but one front among many that Israel has to face. The Islamic fascist ideology that drives Hamas also drives Hezbollah and indeed Iran who together aim to blow Israel away in a perfect storm. What do you think will happen when Iran goes nuclear? The idea that Israel, a tiny pinprick on a continent almost viscerally opposed to it is somehow invincible is sheer lunacy. Look at the wider geopolitics. And the fact remains that enduring thousands of indiscriminate rocket strikes from Hamas is justification enough for the action Israel has taken. Your hand-wringing approach would simply hand victory to the Islamic jihadists.

steve

Haaretz is reporting that the UN is claiming that the IDF has admitted to the UNRWA that the school was struck by mistake and that Hamas had not fired from the school. If this turns out to be the case, I'm sure Melanie will run a correction to her post. All militaries kill civilians by accident (just like they kill their own troops by accident). To pretend that this doesn't happen with Israel is ridiculous.

Peace

Great Lie.... how can you manage to lie so truthfully so that you can create more hostile atmosphere? Anyway hats off to you for your desperate attempt to cover up the Massacre of innocent Palestinians with your lies.

Peace

All the palestinians killed including the 2-3 year old children were Hamas fighters, UN the pet dog of Israel and USA is also just lying that UN school was hit by IDF terrorists. Know she will write the incident did'nt happened at all, it was all propaganda from Palestine to blame Israel

phil

Peace-were you there ?same question for you on Jenin -none of you ever answer anyhow when you are exposed