An incendiary error

patricia

From the same article;

"41 innocent people were killed in the street outside the school. Many of those people had taken refuge in the school and wandered out onto the street.

"The state of Israel still has to answer for that. What did they know and what care did they take?"

Whatever are we to make of you Melanie?

Raymond Joseph Douglas

Gill Craig, still think it was agood iidea to make a donation to UNRWA ?

Cam

Just why does the UN tolerate its property being used for aggressive action? Shouldn't Hamas be ticked off for firing from the premises of a world 'peace-keeping' organization? Unless the UN aren't as peace-keeping as we thought?

Anyone, please?

Original Tony

The UN (in most parts) is made up of nations that are led by dictators or are failed states. Their financial contribution to the UN is so poor that the UN would collapse without US funding.
If I was St.Obama I would not have sent the UN a new ambassador, I would have sent it a termination of financial input order.
The place is a den of thieves and liars and western nations should withdraw from its shabby corridors.

Carl

I think Melanie is clutching at straws here in her rush to smear the UN and defend the IDF atrocities.

Stephen

Patricia. Melanie is a lone voice of reason drowned out by a world ready to believe anything without question as long as it reinforces their assumption that Israel is a nation of war criminals. I suggest you direct your vitriol at the Palestinian leadership who, when faced with a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza by the Israelis, chose the path of war.

Jenny

Pardon Patricia? The suggestion - repeated unquestioningly by the mainstream media, on the front page of newspapers and at the top of BBC and Channel 4 News bulletins -was that the school had taken a direct hit and that the Israelis had the co-ordinates for it given to them, as if they had done so deliberately.

Yet again the mainstream media has made a blood libel about Israel and has shown how so many journalists have simply abandoned trying to tell the truth.

John

Patricia,

So 41 innocent people allegedly sheltering in a school "wandered" out into the street and the line of fire. To do what exactly?

J.Green

No doubt in Melanie world there is a good sound reason for every home, school, clinic, police station, food store, hospital, sewage works, factory, shop, mosque etc that was bombed. It is unthinkable that Israel was deliberately damaging civilian infrastructure.

Original Tony

Patricia 3:42 pm...."The state of Israel still has to answer for that. What did they know and what care did they take?"

I think, Patricia, the IDF took a lot more care than when Hamas fired rockets DELIBERATELY and INDESCRIMINATELY at schools and other civilian targets in Israel.
I am an ex-serviceman and I am very, very impressed with how precisely (and overly caring) the Israeli's have fought in Gaza. Please don't comment on military operations until you have been in the front line okay?

David

So, guns were fired from a compound next door to a school. The Israeli army responded by firing shells, none of which hit the intended compound, but instead, killed 41 innocent people in the road outside the school and injured 12 people within the school grounds...

...and your point is?

Stephen Rothbart

Patricia, whatever are we to make of YOU?

I know of no army in the world that warns people that they are going to attack a house/target. Hamas' response is to bring in as many human shields as possible to either deter the attack, or better still, get as many 'civilians' killed as possible, so that people like you can run off statistics like the one you just did.

Can you imagine yourself, for once, as an Israeli soldier, advancing down a street where every stone, window, doorway, roof, school, mosque, etc. can be a danger to your life? Can you imagine how nervous, stressed and anxious you might be about possibly being killed or kidnapped by these people?

Why should the Israeli army put their soldiers at more risk than any other soldier in the world fighting in urban warfare?

During WW2, did the Allies hold back from shelling enemy positions simply because civilians were there? Did Bomber Command?

To most people, the wars against Hamas and Hezbollah are a skirmish with a modern Army against people with slingshots.

If the British Army came across a patrol of seven soldiers, did they send seven soldiers out to attack them, or use whatever force was necessary?

It is a war and Israel has the right to pursue it with full force, just like we British did. But they don't, and still they get blamed.

And if that makes you believe all Israelis are war criminals, it makes Churchill a war criminal, and Bomber Command and all the pilots who bombed cities war criminals, the Royal Artillery perhaps. Let's pull down the Cenotaph perhaps?

Safe in your homes, far away from danger, it is easy for people to point fingers.

But if you must point fingers, try, for once to point them at Hamas and their terrible abuse of children, the use of Human Shields, and their willingness to put civilans deliberately in harms way, just to get people like you to sympathize with their crimes.

God I am tired of this hypocracy.

Jenny

This is why John McCain wanted to abandon the UN altogether and set up a League of Democracies - and look how he was shouted down.

Andrew

Interesting article on UNRWA:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/07/gaza-hamas-unrwa-oped-cx_cr_0108rosett.html

r m kraus, akron

A question for George Mitchell ; Why is it okay for the US to ship all kinds of war material into Israel and not okay for Hamas to smuggle arms thru tunnels from Egypt?

Gordon

If the people of Gaza do not want Israel to rain down death and destruction on them they might think of asking their democratically elected government to stop firing rockets at the Jews?

Peter Burman

And the US and EU keep blindly pouring money into the UN and UNWRA. That UNWRA still exists as an agency and that the UN is driven more by its hatred of Israel than any desire to do good is shameful and only worsening the problem. Ban Ki-Moon is now fundraising for Gaza but ignores the genocide in Darfur and the Congo.

Adam B.

The reactions of carl and patricia are typical of a mindset which isn't truly concerned with facts, only agendas - and that agenda is: Israel is wrong, always, in any circumstances, and the Palestinians are right, always, in any circumstances. Truth no longer matters. Anyone remember the lies about the Jenin "massacre" that never was, or the Al-Dura hoax? they don't care that the truth emerges later, the damage is already done.

Leslie

r m kraus,akron
"Why is it okay for the US to ship all kinds of war material into Israel and not okay for Hamas to smuggle arms thru tunnels from Egypt?"

Take a wild guess.

Adam B.

Because r m kraus, Israel is a liberal democracy ruled by laws and Hamas is a neo Nazi terror organization whose charter calls for the extermination of all Jews and the establishment of the world wide Caliphate. Moral equivalency anyone?

Enquiring and Infuriated Reader

I wish to interrupt this discussion thread to ask Melanie Phillips if she has read the first letter up on this edition of the Spectator, which is from one Deborah Maccoby who declares that anti-semitism is NOT a tradition in Islam, unlike Christianity? If she has not read this letter, would she care to read it and then discuss it with this magazine's Editor? This is the type of flagrant disregard of the truth which helps to get people killed. There is little point in sending in a comment to that letter and pointing out that there are literally hundreds of verses in the Koran, the supporting ahadith and the Sira which most emphatically do support persecution of, forced conversion of, and unceasing warfare against Jews and Christians and which also contain degrading and offensive statements about the followers of these two faiths. Is the editorial staff of the Spectator entirely dhimmified, are they acting under orders from the owners of the Telegraph Group, do they think their readership is uttlerly clueless and, most relevant to the ultimate point of all Miss Phillips' topics, do they actually care about the future threat of Islamisation of this nation? Would Peter Hoskins kindly have the courtesy and professionalism to pass this comment on to Miss Phillips rather than simply binning it?

ahad ha'amoratsim

J. Green, if Israel is out to destroy the civilian infrastructure of Gaza and kill the maximum number of Gazan civilians, one would expect to see a lot more devastation and a lot more death. In fact, as documented by a retired British colonel, Israel has taken unprecedented efforts at great cost and at risk to its own foreces in order to reduce the number of deaths among enemy civilians and to keep destruction of civilian infrastructure as low as possible. You seem to have no problem with Hamas planting explosives under private homes, commandeering ambulances, digging bunkers under hospitals and rounding up civilians at gunpoint to act as human shields. Is your criticism all reserved for Israel?

I would ask the same question of Patricia and Carl but I know the answer already.

Penny

In my view it is a hopelessly illogical argument to state that the IDF must take responsibility for every death and casualty in Gaza.

I have no idea about others on this forum, but I suspect that if war broke out in the UK, I would probably be aware if it approached my home town. I would be aware of tanks and shells. I would likely be suicidal if I decided to walk around on the streets or go to the shops. I daresay I might even be prosecuted if I allowed my children to do the same. They wouldn't be at school because any school in an area threatened by attack would not be open.

In the UK - and I daresay abroad - almost every single shop, religious building, school or company has an emergency policy which dictates exactly what should be done in an emergency. Hanging about on the street wouldn't figure highly in a plan that factored in threats from the outside.

In the UK I am quite sure that - as in WWII - in addition to emergency policies, shelters would be a major consideration during a state of war.

Hamas has never opted to spend money on shelters and clearly has no emergency policies to help the Gazan people.

The saving of life is surely a prime concern of any state engaging in war within its own territory? Why is Hamas never called to account in terms of the death toll and casualties?

If Hamas opt to fight from within the homes of its people - despite their fears and objections - and do nothing to prepare their people via shelters and emergency procedures, then they, too, must shoulder some of the blame levied at the IDF.

Straydingo

Carl & Patricia,

Your responses to Melanie’s article were so predictable - the ‘Fact’ is we have a UN agency clearly using themselves and the media as part of Hamas Propaganda machine – it’s plain and simple.

The reality is the Israelis were fired on from the vicinity of where their mortar rounds hit and those lives that were lost we at the hands of HAMAS as they would have know that they were putting their own civilians lives at risk when launching their attack.

The reality is the majority of the West population will never learn of the fact that UNRWA manipulated the truth and that the MSM was equally complicit in this process – so you have no fear in seeking comfort that your twisted ideological views will keep being supported.

Maximilian

Penny, today at 7:02 pm. I believe you have accurately described how civilized nations set about preventing or minimizing civilian casualties in case of war. Any nation that fails to take such precautions is gravely at fault. In your final sentence, I would be inclined to write "most" rather than "some".

Straydingo

r m kraus, akron,
You have made a statement and I would like you to back it up – tell me what % of Israel’s weapons come from the US? Do you even have an idea?
I think you will find that Israel in fact produces most of its weapon systems – I know for a fact that is soldiers are armed with Israeli made guns and that their frontline tank are also built in Israel.
Israel is a DEMOCRACY in which 25% of its population is Arab and who share the same rights and freedoms that their fellow countrymen also enjoy– how many Israeli Arabs are being murdered or run out of Israel – surely if Israel was hell bent on murdering Muslims they would start with those living within their own boarders.

Derek BLADES

Stephen Rothbart pictures "an Israeli soldier, advancing down a street where every stone, window, doorway, roof, school, mosque, etc. can be a danger to your life? Can you imagine how nervous, stressed and anxious you might be about possibly being killed or kidnapped by these people?"

The 41 non-combatants were kileed by shell fire not by foot soldiers. The brave boys and girls of the IDF stayed safely in their tanks, warships and airplanes safe from any retaliation by Hamas.

Derek BLADES

Adam B asserts that the Hamas Charter calls for the extermination of all Jews. My reading of the Hamas Charter available in English on Wikipedia indicates nothing of the kind. Read the Hamas' charter Adam and you might learn something.

Dave

Mel really is through the looking-glass here. Given the title of the post you might expect "An incendiary error" to refer to the slaughter of 43 civilians. Apparently it refers to the fact the shells didn't strike a school as claimed but the street outside.
I think most sane people would think in the end the deaths of 43 people is the point here.
But not our Mel. It's this causual glossing over of the terrible loss of life for a bit of political point scoring that turns the stomach.

Original Tony

Well said Penny and Stephen Rothbart.

John A

David at January 29th, 2009 4:51pm

Uh, the school was INSIDE the compound, as was the road where it seems people felt free to watch, if not join in, the shooting.

Norm

Does anyone believe anything the UN says?

Terry

In the ongoing war being fought against civilisation by islamonazis and their leftofascist allies, the un is the high altar of enemy crimes. Ironic, because the un was supposed to be the body that would prevent nazi crimes occurring in a civilised world. It has become the instrument by which islamonaz and leftofascist crimes are given the official stamp of approval. If one should ever end up in hell, it would certainly be styled on the un.

Straydingo

Carl & Patricia,

Your responses to Melanie’s article were so predictable - the ‘Fact’ is we have a UN agency clearly using themselves and the media as part of Hamas Propaganda machine – it’s plain and simple.

The reality is the Israelis were fired on from the vicinity of where their mortar rounds hit and those lives that were lost we at the hands of HAMAS as they would have know that they were putting their own civilians lives at risk when launching their attack.

The reality is the majority of the West population will never learn of the fact that UNRWA manipulated the truth and that the MSM was equally complicit in this process – so you have no fear in seeking comfort that your twisted ideological views will keep being supported.

FFSCotland

I haven't found the quote that Melanie produced to indicate a change of story on the part of UNRWA. In the original BBC story, UNRWA makes it clear the shells landed outside the school.

The issue at the time was why Israel had apparently targetted the school. Israel had said as much because they believed Hamas was using the school to fire from.

Israel subsequently retracted the claim, but a reasonable person would continue to assume that Israel had indeed targetted the school, albeit in error.

The only other explanation would be that Israel was lying when it made its original claim.

In the absence of other evidence, I don't think UNRWA has a case to asnwer.

Ordnance

No chance of this making the 10pm news on BiasedBC.

Yehuda

Any UN official, any journalist, any politician, any priest,any person in a position of influence,non-Jew or Jew , who knowingly lies in order to incite hatred and violence against Israel and the Jewish People is a war criminal and must be brought to justice.

These people have created a lynch atmosphere in the world, which is reminiscent of Salem in the 17th century and the Spanish Inquisition before it. They are collaborators with the most vile, inhuman force the globe has seen since the Nazis.
Not content with their perversions, they try to clothe themselves in mantles of self-righteousness and superiority.
Israel needs to issue arrest warrants against some of them, make examples of them, and try them in glass cages, as it did to Adolf Eichmann, may his memory be erased.

This is not an issue of freedom of expression. These people are only too ready to censor and stifle pro-Israeli material, as the BBC,e.g., does. This is an issue of incitement to mass murder.
"The Holocaust began with words."

Civil law prohibits defamation. How much more important is it to stop defamation which leads to genocide or politicide?

Penny

Derek Blades - I have checked the Wikipedia version of the Hamas charter and notice that it has been flagged up for its lack of neutrality. Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information as it comprises articles written by volunteers. I could write one if I chose to do so. In any case, the entry you mention is an article and not the charter itself which has remained unchanged since its inception in 1988.

Regardless of the charter, in the early days of the conflict, one of the Hamas leaders, Mahmoud Zahar said:

"They (Israeli's) have legitimised the murder of their own children by killing the children of Palestine. They have legitimised the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people.”

That sounds conclusive to me, and directly from the horse's mouth, too.

Might I suggest you 'Google' another site which contains the charter itself? There are many sources other than the unreliable Wikipedia. You will also see that Hamas' view of peace talks is relatively clear. They deem them as being pointless given their objectives.

Furthermore, it would appear that it isn't just the Jews who need to worry. The following was taken from Foxnews.com (link provided below)

"A sermon last Friday by a prominent Muslim cleric and Hamas member of the Palestinian parliament openly declared that "the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital," would soon be conquered by Islam.

The fiery sermon, delivered by Yunis al-Astal and aired on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV, predicted that Rome would become "an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread though Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, even Eastern Europe."

"Allah has chosen you for Himself and for His religion," al-Astal preached, "so that you will serve as the engine pulling this nation to the phase of succession, security and consolidation of power, and even to conquests through da'wa and military conquests of the capitals of the entire world"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351242,00.html

This statement was made on April 14th 2008, months before any conflict with Israel had occured.

I can't imagine that such an objective would be without enormous bloodshed for all - regardless of religious or national origins.

If such a threat comes to pass I would imagine the experience of the IDF might be rather useful to us all.

Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences: [Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance

Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences: [Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance

George

Derek Blades,

I am the father of two of those brave boys of the IDF. My sons and their comrades WALKED into the Gaza strip and WALKED out again. Amongst the pleasures they saw during their visit was a booby-trapped mosque full of armaments.
As to the Hamas charter, I suggest that you read it at a more reliable source than Wikipedia. But as you insist, here is a quote taken from the source that you provided: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews). When the Jew will hide behind stones and trees, the stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharqad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews".
In future, get your facts right before you put finger to keyboard.

Jerry

RE Dave: The death of 43 people was a horrible event, but you add nothing new to the discussion by pointing out the obvious. There are many Israelis who feel the same. Please note that the film "Waltzing with Bashir" gives voice to your feelings. However, my impression from the manner in which you express yourself belies your underlying presumptions. Have you every expressed similar feelings about the deaths of Jews? In what forum? What internal emotion would arise inside you if it had been 43 Israelis? Know yourself!

egh

I don't understand why you aren't all bored with this.

Grumpy the Real

Just read on the JPost website that a whole bunch of palistinians in gaza are petitioning hamas to have the bbc thrown out of gaza, for not broadcasting that um......ad.

way to go hamas!
bye-bye bbc - next up sky/cnn and the rest of the msm-news manipulators.

Carl

AdamB - I notice that you, as with all apologists for the IDF atrocities would rather play with words than take into account that the IDF killed 41 civilians in this incident. They are so afraid of war crimes that they have ordered those that took part in the operation to remain in Israel as they know that they can be arrested and charged with war crimes if they attempt to travel.

Derek BLADES

Penny 30 January. No Penny the Wikipedia article has not been "flagged up for its lack of neutrality". It has been nominated to be checked for neutrality. Move to the relevant "talk page" and you will see that there is an ongoing lively discussion about whether it is suficiently neutral to deserve its place in Wikipedia.

You go on to say that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information as it comprises articles written by volunteers". Being a volunteer does not preclude a person from being unreliable.

As a long-term user of Wikipedia I have found that it has good editorial procedures in place to ensure accuracy and impartiality. Inaccuracies do creep in but the Wikipedia community is quick to make corrections.

For correspondent who are not familiar with Wikipedia here is a quote from the Hamas Charter article in Wikipedia that shows how the article tries to give a balanced view of Hamas:

"Although Hamas's charter calls for the replacement of the State of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip,[11] Ismail Haniyeh, Prime Minister of the Hamas government in Gaza, stated in 2008 that the group was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, and offered Israel a long-term truce.[12] Hamas describes its conflict with Israel as political and neither religious[13] nor antisemitic.[14][15] However, Hamas Charter and some Hamas public statements reflect the influence of antisemitic conspiracy theories[16] , as reflected in the following quotes taken from the Charter: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.""After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying." [17]"

Note that this short excerpt contains 8 footnotes. It is quite a scholarly entry and I am happy to rely on Wikipedia for my understanding of Hamas' aims.

S. Holmes, Baker St

School name? To date, this has consistently been described, with various names, as a GIRLS school. The Globe & Mail are now calling it the "Ibn Rushd Preparatory School for BOYS". If they are wrong, what else in the story was made up?

solemnman

"The lie circumnavigates the globe many times before the truth gets its trousers on"

Carl

Yehuda, get a grip of yourself. The UN plainly stated the truth, Israeli artillery hit the perimeter of the school, killing a number of people. The immediate response of the IDF was to issue a lie, claiming that Hamas gunmen were in the school which was why it was targetted. The war criminals are the Israeli gunners.

Linda Smith

Derek Blades: You state that Hamas in 2008 declared themselves "willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, and offered Israel a long-term truce". Acceptance of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders is merely a Hamas landgrab, one more step towards Hamas' ultimate goal of destroying the state of Israel. A long term truce is not acceptance of Israel's right to exist, but merely a lull in the storm to allow Hamas to prepare itself for its next onslaught. How long term does Hamas intend this truce to be - how long is a piece of string?

Yehuda

Carl, the UN has degenerated into being an organised crime syndicate: serial flagrant abusers of what are regarded in the West as "human rights" are in control of "Human Rights Commissions", lies are paraded as "truth and justice", bribery and corruption are rampant.
One need not look further than the following three damning cases ; they typefy what has become of the UN:
Kurt Waldheim, the Nazi, "rose" to be Secretary-General; U Thant triggered the Six-Day War by removing his risible "peacekeeping force" from the Egypt-Israel armistice line, thus giving the Egyptian megalomaniacal dictator, Nasser, a free hand to move his whole army up to the border amid his strident, triumphant prophesy of Israel's imminent demise; Kofi Annan, before sinking to the depths of his office as Secretary-general, had been deeply complicit in the genocide in Rwanda. He is a war criminal. His subsequent assertion that "Diplomacy is good, but diplomacy backed by force is better," though objectively valid, is totally at odds with what is supposed to be the spirit of the UN.
The League of Nations went down the sewer as it kowtowed to the Nazis; the UN has gone down the sewer kowtowing to their successors.
Your tone and assertion mark you as a Hamas collaborator.

Mister B

Let’s assume for one moment that the basic claim in this article is correct, i.e. the 41 deaths did not occur in the school instead but on the street in front of the school.

Does that change anything?

Does that cancel out these people’s deaths?

Does that exonerate the IDF for attacking densely populated areas?

I hardly think so.

And describing the UNRWA and UN in the “incendiary” tones used in this article is both outrageous and a little bit rich. Given the relentless blockade of Gaza by Israel, it is only the UNRWA that has kept Gazans from sure starvation these last few years.

And given that the UNRWA was created specifically to deal with the refugee crisis created by Israel in 1947-48, Israeli sympathisers should in fact be eternally grateful to this organisation. It picked up the tab for Israel’s ethnic cleansing then and continues to foot the bill for Israel’s bullying and intransigence now.

Adam B.

Derek, I have read it. It was me who advised you to read it, which, reading your comments, I doubt you have. Please refer to article 7 for the following:

"The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"

What do you think that means Derek?

Furthermore, you can find anti-Semitic ranting in articles 22 and 32, which even quote "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as fact.

Article 13 is interesting reading for all those misguided souls who think negotiations with Hamas would work (it is a polemic against any peace negotiations). And look at how Hamas speaks:

http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=7215

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv-hamas.htm

Still unclear?

John H

Derek Blades is correct about Wikipedia. Look up anything relating to GAZA or the Arab Israeli war or Hamas etc etc. It has excellent protocols and guidance for editors/ contributors in an attempt to ensure neutrality and objectivity. I think it has enormous and unique potential to open up those dark areas within rigid mindsets that other media fail to reach.

Adam B.

Carl, you have, as usual, missed the point. Israel was accused by you and others of deliberately targeting (not hitting accidentally) a UN run school, where civilians were sheltering. The accusation was that the IDF deliberately targeted these civilians. This has turned out to be untrue, and was in fact propaganda. Rather than accept that the IDF did not target civilians, you do what most Israel haters I have encountered do - you change the accusation. So now it doesn't matter to you that the school wasn't targeted, you bring out your casualty list instead. Yes it is tragic that civilians in the street were killed, but you seem utterly incapable of accepting the following:
1. Hamas uses civilian areas from which to fire.
2. That the deaths of these civilians was not deliberate, and is an inevitable consequence of war, particularly in an area where the governing body, Hamas, has built no shelters for its people, despite the money being available to do so.

You would give the terrorists carte blanche, able to freely fire from any civilian structure or position, or hide under Shifa hospital as the Hamas leadership reportedly did. This means that in effect Israel could never respond at all to the thousands of rockets fired at her civilians, which, I suspect, is the outcome which would please you. Do you think Hamas has acted responsibly?

Linda Smith

Derek Blades: Your name does not have an islamic ring to it. Unless you are a fundamentalist muslim willing to live under global sharia law, I don't understand why you defend Hamas, Iran's proxy. Iran is a muslim fundamentalist theocracy whose president is a militant Islamist intent on getting nuclear arms. Israel is the central front in the Islamic global jihad. The Islamists use refusal to accept Israel's right to exist as a rallying cry to enlist muslims in the global jihad. The Islamists' goal is world domination.

Derek Blades: Are you an Islamist? Do you want to live under global sharia law?

phil

Penny here is the selective Derek Blade s in action or not as you will see -he does not respond when he is shown up for what he is--------it is always the same they run as fast as they can hoping nobody will notice the lies -you will never find this man in a queue for bagels .save your soul penny he isnt worth it .

Hamas breaks cease-fire, Britain ignores it 21/1/09-Mels thread

Derek Blades
January 25th, 2009 5:20pm

Dixon, Jan 21. No. Carl did not raise an old "chestnut" about Israel acquiring modern weapons from abroad. I did.

I was noting the enormous disparity between the weaponry available to the Israeli army and what Hamas has been able to bring in through the tunnels. I said that most of the Israeli weapons came from the United States and you corrected me on this. I did not reply because of course the provenance of Israel's weapons is irrelevant. I was commenting on the glaring inequality of the weapons available to the two sides.

In their planes, tanks and gunships the brave boys and girls of the IDF loose off their white phosphorous and DIME weapons safe in the knowledge that Hamas cannot reach them. When I served in the British military we called that a "Turkey Shoot". Not a sport for gentlemen.---------------------------

phil
January 26th, 2009 11:55am

Derek Blades-is this naivety or your own form of reasoning -do yuo believe the IDF should have gone in with water pistols and stones -did we not bomb the nazi,s in their cities from a great height ? did we not deal with sadaam with missiles ? what would you have done .your reply will be interesting .
phil----------------------------------

January 27th, 2009 12:45pm

Derek Blades -or not as the case maybe -I never get an answer when the question proves too difficult .--------------------------

THIS IS JUST A SMALL DEMO OF A REGULAR OCCURANCE,WHENEVER I TACKLE THEM -THEY HATE US PENNY AND WE WILL NEVER CHANGE THAT BY LOGIC ,TRUTH OR PERSUASION -I JUST THANK GOD FOR THE MANY WONDERFUL NON JEWISH SUPPORTERS THAT WE HAVE .

Dave

Jerry: Know yourself, mate. I have indeed critised Hamas in posts on here. I've said the biggest problem would seem to be neither side sees the other as even human. Mel's rather twisted post here is an illustration of this. To reach once again for accusations of anti-sematism says much more about you than me.

Carl

Adam B - I am happy to be corrected: Israel deliberately targetted a school perimeter, rather than the school itself, obviously using special non-explosive shells (sarcasm). Realising that they had killed yet more civilians, they then hastily issued a statement saying that Hamas fighters were in the school that they didn't target, which is why they targetted it.

FFScotland

Adam B. Israel, by its own admission, was deliberately targeting a UN run school.

See, for example, this statement here, which calls the school a legitimate military target: http://www.israelpolitik.org/2009/01/06/casualties-at-unrwa-school/

Which is why I don't understand Melanie's point in this blog entry

Adrian

This article is pathetic. I mean just absolute hyperbolic drivel.

41 CIVILIANS were killed. Is the author saying that since they were immediately outside the school they are fair game?

It is possible to love Israel, but concede they screwed up in this instance.

Penny

I noted the discussion on Wikipedia. I find no real difference between the term 'lack of neutrality' and in need of being 'checked for neutrality' - the latter implies the former.

A Charter is an official document that defines an organisation, outlining its objectives, authority and status.

Regardless of what may or may not be publicly stated by others, unless those views are within or supported by the Charter, they are not deemed to be official.

It is extremely rare for a member of an organisation to publicly depart from the authority of their Charter. If and when this happens, they may be said to be speaking for themselves but not for the official organisation. Therefore, their words are not official and may not be taken factually or with intent.

Changes within an organsiation are usual. When such changes occur, the relevant article(s) are re-written to reflect those changes.

Hamas' Charter has remained unchanged since 1988.

It matters not a jot what Wikipedia contributors write or discuss between themselves. It doesn't matter what Ismail Haniyeh said. Until or unless Hamas revise their actual Charter, its tenets remain as their official position. Such discussion, debate, statements and argument that occur about it are at best an opinion when stated by those outside of the organisation and classified as 'unnofficial' by those within it.

In my opinion, this is why it is always better to review the official position, rather than take information from another source.

Emmet

For all you Hamas-supporters, let me spell it out as simply as it can be, so that even you might understand. When Israel kills civilians, it is by accident, an acciednt that they try hard to avoid. When Hamas kills civilians, it is by design, and they would kill very many more if they could. What part of that can't you pea-brains see? And I refer to Patria, Carl, etc.

Adam B.

Adrian, Carl, Mister B:

Do you accept that it is inevitable that civilians will be killed if fighting takes place in the Gaza Strip, or do you think that a military operation against Hamas could be conducted without any loss of civilian life? It's a pretty straightforward question.

If you think it is impossible to carry out an operation targeting Hamas in Gaza without civilians being killed, your position is that Israel must never respond militarily to Hamas. This in effect means that Hamas is given carte blanche to do what it wants, target as many Israeli civilians as it wants, (as it has done - and note it deliberately targets civilians) because Israel must never respond. This is absurd. Is Israel meant to sit on its hands whilst 8000 missiles are indiscriminately fired at its southern towns?

None of you have questioned why Hamas initiates these situations, why has Hamas not built shelters for its people, why has Hamas not devised any emergency procedures for its people, why does Hamas use civilian infrastructure from which to fire, why does Hamas use places of worship to store weapons caches, why does the Hamas leadership hide under Shifa hospital, why has Hamas not used millions in aid (more aid provided than to any sub-Saharan African country) to build homes, roads, new hospitals and schools etc. For you, the ONLY way of judging this situation is about casualty lists. This is lazy thinking, and ignores any kind of context or contributing factors. If one applied the same criterion to Britain and Nazi Germany in WWII, then you would have to say that Britain was the aggressor and Germany the victim. Your emotive manipulation and hysterical simplistic characterization of the conflict does not promote any in depth understanding of the situation. You repeatedly and condescendlingly present yourselves as being the only feeling people here, that only you care about civilians, that everyone else is nasty and heartless. This is childish.

Derek BLADES

Phil. 30 January
You wrote "Derek Blades-is this naivety or your own form of reasoning -do yuo believe the IDF should have gone in with water pistols and stones". No Phil. I don't think Israel should have invaded Gaza at all. The Israeli government should have talked to the Hamas government with a view to an arrangement whereby Israel would lift its blockade of Gaza and Hamas would stop firing rockets.

In your same blog you write "Derek Blades -or not as the case maybe (sic) -I never get an answer when the question proves too difficult". You write in such a contorted fashion that I cannot identify what your questions are. Please write out, in simple language (preferably without using upper case) a list of the questions you want me to answer and I promise faithfully to do so.

Alexandrovich

Linda Smith: you cannot understand anyone who is not an islamist defending Hamas?

Would you call Adam B a Zionist, because he vigorously and repetitiously defends Israel? Regardless of the fact that he has told us, on earlier threads, that he is not even a Jew?

Or can you only understand people whose opinions concur with your own?

Derek BLADES

Linda Smith 30 January. You wrote " Your name does not have an islamic ring to it. Unless you are a fundamentalist muslim willing to live under global sharia law, I don't understand why you defend Hamas, Iran's proxy."

Your quite right. I am not a Moslem but I would like to see a fair resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict that respects the rights of both groups.
To answer your question - I have no wish to live under Sharia law, global or not, but I do not believe that a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem will lead to that result. On the other hand I see clearly that failure to achieve a settlement based on mutual resect for Israelis and Palestiinians puts us all in danger.

Adam B.

FFScotland, your point is entirely academic, because Israel DIDN'T target the school, as is made clear in Melanie's post.

Contrast this with Hamas' targeting of civilians, and celebrations when they kill innocents.

Original Tony

Adrian, the point of this post is that Israel was FALSELY accused of something it did not do. Melanie has set out to correct this misinterpretation of the facts.
Inview of this, this post is about a false accusation being corrected and has nothing to do with discussing 41 dead. Get the point now?

phil

Mister b ,can you tell me where the IDF should have targeted ,given of course that you agree that it was necessary to do so ,and that hamas fire their rockets from homes ,schools and hospitals-It is the responsibility of hamas to ensure the safety of it citizens ,but by their own admission they glorify in their deaths and then blame it on an enemy who have no wish to fight- I am no general so I would be interested to hear your views ,and I certainly hope you will give them --

.Nothing can cancel the death of those individuals and for those that were innocent I am truly sorry ,but I will not cry crocodile tears for those that were attempting to kill my family. Again I will ask you .would you ?------

Your refugees were the fault of 5 Arab armies telling the inhabitants to get out until they had made the Med sea run red with the blood of the Jews ,after which they would inherit the homes of said Jews ,some it has to be admitted fled from fear .I have a Palestinian friend whose family did exactly that.they fled to Jordan ,then Syria and ultimately Lebanon because they were not welcomed .I have said this before but I will repeat it, we hug each other and weep for what evil people have caused us .-------

Even so more than a million Arabs live in Israel ,use their health service and schools ,are in the Knesset and are never killed by Jews. My history of this problem goes back too many years for my liking and I sincerely hope you will afford me the courtesy of a reply along with the provenance of your information .I have wasted my efforts many times here by not hearing again from those that allege things that cannot be backed up ,but you do not write like carl who is not interested in the truth and just wants to continue the fight -he reminds me of Jake Lamotta who was regularly battered by Sugar Ray Robinson but was so proud of the fact that he never went down ,so I will remain optimistic that I will find at least one open mind.

Walter Ellis

There are none so blind as those who are narrow-minded fools. Melanie Phillips is a prime example. I support Israel's right to exist; if Israel is attacked by Arab armies, I expect the West to declare its immediate support. But this does not mean that Israel gets carte blanche in its dealings with the Palestinians. Israel is guilty of war crimes in Gaza. It should stand condemned.

Derek BLADES

Penny. Let me help you with your Wikipedia problem.

One or more of those who have read the current Hamas Charter entry in Wikipedia have told the editors that they consider that the article is biased. Following their standard procedures the editors have opened a kind of "blog page" on which those who believe that the article is not neutral and those that believe it is can have their say. The editorial team will consider these contributions and, when they reach a decision, the article will either be left as it is or ammended.

Wikipedia is certainly not flagging the article as being biased. They are merely telling readers that there is a debate going on about its neutrality - a debate in which readers (not contributors) are invited to particpate. It is excactly this kind of open and transparent approach to difficult issues like those surrounding Gaza, Palestine and Israel that give me - and many millions of Wikipedia users - confidence in its articles.

John H. 30 January, put it perfectly: "[Wikipedia] has enormous and unique potential to open up those dark areas within rigid mindsets that other media fail to reach."

As regards your substantive comment, I can only say that I am encouraged by a statement from a leading Hamas official that he can accept an Israel within its 1967 borders. At the same time I quite agree with you that the Hamas Charter contains anti-semitic language and I included one example in my earlier contribution. This was the reference to the Prtotcol of the Elders of Zion. Obviously rubbish and on a level with the suggestion that Jehova assigned Palestine to the Israelites.

Derek BLADES

George 30 January. I am happy for you that your two sons in the IDF walked both into and out of Gaza. Obviously they are not among the 1313 dead from the Gaza War (1300 Palestinians + 13 Israelis = 1313 human beings).

Just one question - did either of them fire a shot in anger?

wonderer

Penny, Derek Blades et al, Wikipedia is very helpful on some things. For ex, someone installed an appliance for us the other day and said he had used a "self-tapping screw". Neither my wife nor I knew what that was but the poor chap had over-run his time on a fixed price contract so we didn't stop him to ask. Wikipedia subsequently supplied a clear and comprehensive definition. For something like that the absence of a check for neutrality doesn't bother me. But when something is politically sensitive, a range of people partis pris with different agendas are liable to chip in and mold the entry to suit their views, so Wikipedia then needs to be treated with caution.

Now as to Hamas, despite their genocidal charter they apparently announced that they would accept a state within the pre-June 1967 borders. Big deal, the Palestinians recognise a Palestinian state! And I understand there was to be a long-term truce. But nothing was said about recognising Israel or its right to exist. Also, the front cover of the Hamas election manifesto had shown a map of Palestine including the whole of Israel’s territory without a single Israeli town!

Obviously Hamas would use the truce to arm themselves to the teeth and resume hostilities at a time of their own choosing.

Sure, there are differences between Hamas and Fateh but Hamas have learned the craft of trickery at the feet of the master conman Arafat.

darkhorse

How come no onee showed the same fury when Hamas started killing Fatah members?....over 600+, Were these deaths any less painfu?.

King Hussein of Jordan Killed more Palestinians in a few weeks than Israel has done in decades.... strangely no one call this as a war-crime.

Selective moral outrage will not work, either one condemns sin equally or shuts up

ChanahS

To Derek Blades re Hamas Charter
From Article 7
But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said:

The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

From Wikipedia:
"Hamas's charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and for replacing it with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip"

You were saying?

ChanahS

To Darkhores:
Apparently when Muslims kill Muslims this is kosher - "not our business". However when Muslim are killed when attacked by Israel (Jews?) then all the bleedinng hearts rear up on their hind legs with their statistics. The truth is that Hmams loves Palestinin casualties far mor than they love Palestinians (same goes for Nasrallah in Lebanon). Why else would they prevent Gazans from being treated in an Isreli field hospital set up on the border - or let out a group of kids to holiday in a Kibbutz, at the invitation of the kibbuts residents. There are so many similar cases that you never hear of. More Gazans were arrested, tortured, shot in the knees an/or killed by Hamas in the past month than died as a result of war. Hamas terrorists have no compunction about putting the people at risk as long as it fits with their goals (as laid out in their charter - a must read).

Adam B.

Walter Ellis, don't you see that by saying "I support Israel's right to exist" you are in fact putting its existence into question? It's like me saying I support Britain's right to exist.

Why is it that Israel alone in the world has its right to simply exist constantly questioned?

Adam B.

No Derek it's not on that level at all. Do you know what the Protocols of the Elders of Zion allege? I am glad that you can see the blatant anti-Semitism in the Hamas charter, but do you really believe that it's the same as believing the Bible?

You mention peace talks with Hamas again, but I referred you to Hamas' view of peace talks in the Hamas Charter (i.e their obvious disdain for any peace talks of any kind). Please read article 13 and then tell me that one can have any meaningful peace talks with Hamas. And incidentally, do you accept that the Hamas Charter does indeed call for the extermination of the Jews, in light of article 7?

We all want to see peace Derek, but trying to accommodate the nihilistic, racist and utterly uncompromising Nazi movement of Hamas will push peace further away, not bring it closer.

Linda Smith

Derek Blades (30 Jan 2.31pm). You wrote: "..I see clearly that failure to achieve a settlement based on mutual respect for Israelis and Palestinians puts us all in danger."
Mr Blades, You just don't geddit!!! The Islamists don't want "a settlement based on mutual respect for Israelis and Palestinians". That's your mindset. The Islamists don't give a damn about what Mr Blades wants. Islamists want to destroy Israel. That achieved, they will take over Lebanon -they've got Hizbollah well installed there already. I noted a BBC report last night that the shiite area of Iraq is contemplating breaking away from Iraq to unite with Iran. Hamas and Hizbollah are Iran's proxies and Iran's militant fundamentalist, Holocaust denying President has stated his intention to wipe Israel off the map. Unless you are a fundamentalist muslim willing to live under global sharia law, you should be terrified at the thought of Iran getting nuclear arms. The Islamists want to dominate the world; that is not my delusion - they keep broadcasting their intentions to conquer the world. They say it is demanded by their religion.

You want an Arab-Israeli settlement on your terms, Mr Blades, "a fair resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict that respects the right of both groups" because you think that would appease the Islamists. Unfortunately, Mr Blades, you remind me of the silly people in the 1930s who thought they could appease Hitler. Remember Mr Chamberlain and his silly bit of paper? No, Mr Blades, Islamists are not nice English gentlemen playing cricket by Marquis of Queensberry rules. To them, YOU are the infidel. They hate you too. YOU too are their target.

So you see Mr Blades, the Islamists don't have "mutual respect" for anyone except themselves; they want to destroy Israel and take over the world. They will settle for nothing less. And we are all in danger, because if the Islamists had nuclear arms, they would happily blow us all to smithereens in the name of their religion - themselves included - and therein lies the real danger.

phil

derek blades first of all you start with an untruth ,I wrote to you on the 26 jan not 30 jan and you never bothered to answer .My words are only "contorted" to you ,and just because you cannot answer logically my questions .Your opinion now that Israel should not have invaded Gaza demonstrates the lack of understanding of this region--------

-
You quote "The Israeli government should have talked to the hamas government with a view to an arrangement whereby Israel would lift its blockade of Gaza and hamas would stop firing rockets." --after that do you seriously think anyone is going to pay heed to your opinions?, .you are living in a different world to the rest of us -they want to kill us all not talk.Perhaps we could send you over to have a word with them and get that agreement .the dandy galloway tried it with sadaam with great affect didn't he ?

another quote "in their planes, tanks and gunships the brave boys and girls of the IDF loose off their white phosphorous and DIME weapons safe in the knowledge that hamas cannot reach them. When I served in the British military we called that a "Turkey Shoot". Not a sport for gentlemen." --tell me derek where is it that you are considered a gentleman ? tell me also your tactics ,other than sticks and stones of course ,assuming they had to go in to Gaza of course .---

Your denial of the hamas charter is beyond comprehension ,everyone in the world knows what their intentions are except you ,but never mind mum says my derek is the only one in step and all the others are marching on the wrong foot .

Derek BLADES

ChanahS. You both misquote and quote selectively. Two sins for the price of one.

Here is the correct and less selective quote from Wikipedia. "Hamas's charter calls for replacing the State of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip,[10] but Ismail Haniyeh, Prime Minister of the Hamas government in Gaza, stated in 2008 that the group was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. He also has offered Israel a long-term truce.[11]"

No mention of "destruction" old chap.

P.S. Like many contributors to this blog you use a pseudonym or is it a "nom de guerre"? Why do you do that. Are you secretly ashamed of your views?

phil

Derek BLADES I will tell you your answer as chana may well be fed up with your pithy comments -its because we do not want the lunatics to come round to our homes -we are the peaceful types who do not march with burning flags and swastikas -if we lived in Israel we could post our names without fear of lunatics coming to break our windows .not you of course .I assume you only write nasty things .will that do for starters ?.It is high time you spoke up for us ,we live here and never harm anyone ,yet it is us who get attacked in the street whilst those that talk like you etc stir up hatred against us .think about it .maybe you have .

Stephen Rothbart

Derek Blades, what was the point of your rather spitefully sarcastic remark to a father of two IDF soldiers when you asked if they fired a shot?

Up and until then, I thought that your comments had been well constructed even calmly put even though I disagreed with about 95% of them.

But that remark - what were you implying? How spiteful. Did you want them to have fired a shot? Or was the point you were making that IDF soldiers should put themselves in harm's way when fired upon in case they hit an innocent victim? And if they did not then they are cowards. Was that your point?

Accusing a man who had two sons in Gaza of being cowards?

Please note that I alsways use my own name. And although a Brit I live in a country that was betrayed to both German and Russian occupation by the appeasers such as yourself, who choose to hide behind the empty words of charters and decrees, instead of seeing for themselves the actions of the people involved.

Britain was not directly threatened when she decided to sell the Czechoslvakian people down the river, so at least there was a point to keeping out of the war, even though clever people like Churchill knew Hitler would not stop there.

Fundemental Islam makes no secret of their intentions to impose their ideology on all the world. That is not ALL Islam but a significant and powerful part of it.

Sadly we don't really know what moderate Islam is thinking because they don't actually tell us.

But their silence is an appeasement of a kind.

50 miles away from where I live is Thereisenstaat, where the Nazis sent the Jewish population of Europe from their homes, before sending them to their death camps.

Forgive us if we are a little paranoid about how the world treats us Jews. The world has form.

Derek BLADES

Phil 31 January

I was responding to your contribution of 30 January and not to one of an earlier date.

I asked you to list the questions you want me to answer, but your 31 January letter does not do that. There are however some questions buried in your text and I will try to answer them:

(1) "do you seriously think anyone is going to pay heed to your opinions?" Answer: I certainly hope so. You at least seem to be paying attention to them.
(2)"tell me derek where is it that you are considered a gentleman ?". Answer: I hope that most of my friends and acquaintances so regard me.
(2) "tell me also your tactics ,other than sticks and stones of course". Answer: I would have advocated a strategy rather than a tactic. Specifically, Israel should not have invaded Hamas. They should have negotiated a cease-fire agreement in which Israel would stop its economic blockade of Gaza and Hamas would stop firing rockets".

If you have any further questions please get back to me.

Ronnie

Adam B, I think you are taking a bite out of your own tail at 12:06 am today. You wouldn't be happy if Walter said he didn't support Israel's right to exist, would you?

What we really need, in the face of the current challenges, is to have as many people as possible, at every level, confirming their support for Israel's right to exist and leave the thought that it shouldn't with only the discredited nutters like Hangmejacketup.

Having sorted that out and made clear that Israel is not going to disappear, ever, we have to get to the next stage - accepting that the Arabs who live in the West bank and Gaza are not going to disappear either.

Therefore...

Note: I will tolerate no further mention of that piece of toilet paper known as the Hamas Charter, by those fundamentally opposed to any peace process - the trigger-happy, tough-talking armchair killers.

I've read the refrain, 'have you read the Hamas Charter...?' almost as many times as I've had to endure Frank P's marketing campaign in favour of the works of Antonio Gramsci.

ChanahS

To Derek Blades
I am not the only person here Using my name + surname initial - and I'm not your "old chap" - I am a woman.

My first quote was from the charter itsel - so no mistake there. As we are discussing the charter itself, regardless of what Mr. Haniye SAYS (Muslims also condone lying if its to the enemy), even the Wikipedia quote says "Hamas's charter calls for REPLACING THE STATE OF ISRAEL (my capitals) with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip"
What is there about this section of the Hamas charter that you don't understand? What is there about Hamas's behaviour that contradicts this goal? What is it about Hamas's behaviour that supports its claim to recognizing Israel? read the following (quoted by you) very carefully again - Freudian slip?
"Haniyeh, Prime Minister of the Hamas government in Gaza, stated in 2008 that the group was willing to accept a Palestinian state WITHIN (my capitals)the 1967 borders. He also has offered Israel a long-term truce."
If they were serious about peace, they would accept a Palestinian state on the WB and Gaza (offere by by Barak in 2000 and turned down by Arafat, with no counter offer and the launching of the 2nd intifada -threats and violence seems to be what they are best at - best examaple is the recent demonstrations around Israel where they called British police "swine")and give Israel a peace agreement (why a truce only?) in return.
Sorry, no dice.

phil

Linda Smith I so agree with you ,Hitler wrote his "book" meinkampf and told the world what he would do and nobody listened apart from WINSTON C .our modern day nutters are telling everyone their objectives and the derek,s think they will survive to live in a place of honour and comfort -if that is in a hole in the sand ,being stoned ,he is of course correct .He may well finish up begging Israel to take him in ,where he will be able to show the IDF how a gentleman fights .

phil

mister B got lost with peter ,just as always .never can answer -always run away

phil

Derek BLADES some of the posts seem to get mislaid but no matter -I do not require lessons from you particularly as you seem to know so little but say so much -you sit quietly behind your keyboard pushing out childish but nasty remarks such as the one to George.which was not just nasty but despicable .your answers
1-opinions Derek -all seem to think they are either rubbish or just plain nasty .
2 remember mandy rice davies
3 well that really demonstrates that you live in a world far removed from the planet we inhabit .or are you just being deliberately obtuse ?

Ok I will ask you one question -tell me why you keep coming back to appear nasty and lacking in knowledge of your favourite subject -the knocking of everything Israel does and those that support its stance -no Derek not the deaths of the Palestinians which none of us wanted ,just the defence of its citizens ,A supplementary (ok) why do you want us to know your name ,are you a person of some importance ?I will tell you why you can though -its because you know none of us will come round to break your windows -its also why you could make such a snide remark to Chana .you will have noticed we do not have that privilege ,so make sure the friends you claim you have know that .

Derek BLADES

Linda Smith 31 January.

My problem is that I really do not know who these "Islamists" are that you have in mind. I know several Palestinian people and they are well educated, knowlegeable and family oriented. Normal people in fact. They have a grievance against Israel because they believe that many of the Israeli settlers are occupying land that was taken from them or their parents by illegal means in 1947/48. Until that issue is addressed by the Israeli government there is simply no hope of peace. The Israeli government's policy of bombing them into submission will not be any more successful than the London Blitz. It just adds to their sense of grievance.

Hamas is a nationalist movement with a limited set of regional aims. It is on a par with the ANC, ZANU or FRELIMO. It is concerned with righting what it sees as wrongs committed against the Arabs in Palestine. You surely exaggerate when you paint Hamas as a world-wide threat.

Perhaps I am as naive as you think but I do believe that with Obama in the White House and George Mitchell as his envoy in the Middle-East there is now at least a chance of a peace agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis based on mutual respect.

As a sign of my personal respect for you Linda, I inform you that the Marquis of Queensbury laid down the rules for boxing. The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) did cricket.

Derek BLADES

Stephen Rothbart 31 January

My understanding is that almost all of the death and destruction in Gaza was achieved by bombs, naval and ground artillery, tanks and rockets. IDF foot soldiers seem to have been involved only in supporting roles and did not engage directly with the Hamas soldiers. Is that correct? My "spiteful" question could certainly have been better phrased. I hope it did not give offence to the father of the two boys but I really am interested to know whether my interpretation of events is correct.

Incidentally, I strongly object to you describing me as an appeaser. Please retract that insult.

Adam B.

Derek, would you mind answering the points which I put to you at 12.15am? The Hamas Charter makes it clear that this terror organization rejects ANY peace talks. In addition, do you accept that in light of article 7 of the Hamas charter, this organization does indeed call for the extermination of the Jews?

I would also like to strongly reject your contention that Hamas is akin to the ANC. I'm sorry Derek, but this is intellectually and morally lazy; the ANC did not call for the extermination of all white people, nor did it express its intention to establish its rule across the globe (PLEASE read the Hamas Charter, and you will clearly see its intention to establish the worldwide Caliphate). The entire nature of these organizations was and is completely different. This takes me onto your next point, which is your scepticism about the existence of Islamists: Hamas itself may not be taking over the world, but it is one facet of a wider movement to establish the Caliphate, a movement shared by Al-Qaeda and other jihadists across the globe, from the Phillipines to Kashmir to London. Your comments about knowing Palestinians who aren't Islamists are quite meaningless - some Palestinians are Christians (although an ever diminishing number thanks to the efforts of the Islamists) - this doesn't negate the fact that Islamists exist, as demonstrtaed by Hamas. And as for your comments about 1948, now we really see your true thoughts - your problem isn't simply about the recent conflict in Gaza and southern Israel, your problem is with the establishment of Israel itself. It is interesting to note that you view Jews living inside the borders of 1948 as "settlers", thus betraying your view that Israel shouldn't exist at all. I could write a whole thesis about your accusations about "illegal" land, but instead I will ask you one simple question: if you think that peace is impossible without Israel addressing the issues of Palestinian refugees, is peace impossible without addressing the plight of an equal or slightly greater number of Jewish refugees from Arab and Islamic nations? (what refugees I hear you ask).

Linda Smith

Derek Blades: You wrote on 31 Jan at 5.31 pm "My problem is that I really do not know who these "Islamists" are.....

To answer your question - Islamists are religious zealots, place what they believe is their duty to their depiction of "God" at the core of their being. Unfortunately for all of us non-moslems, we are fighting fascists who believe that their islamic domination of the world through military conquest is "God's will".

You say you are not a moslem and have no wish to live under sharia law (30 Jan 2:31pm). If that is the case, then I suggest you tune in to You tube to have your eyes opened. For example an Iraqi Ayatollah (Islamist) said on 5 May 2006 on Al-Jazeera TV (Qatar)
",,,even if this means usking biological, chemical and bacterial weapons, we will conquer the world" You will find many such examples of Islamic sentiment on Youtube.

You also wrote on 31 Jan at 5.31pm:
"Hamas is a nationalist movement with a limited set of regional aims.". You're wrong there Derek. On 14 April 2008, Yunis al-Astal broadcast on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV that Rome would become "an advanced post for Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, even Eastern Europe....Allah has chosen you for Himself and for His religion so that you will serve as the engine pulling this nation to the phase of succession, security and consolidation of power, and even to conquests through da'wa and military conquests of the capitals of the entire world."

As a qualified lecturer in psychology, I can only conclude that your denial of the self proclaimed and oft repeated agenda of Hamas and all the other Islamists is based on your own fears for our future and your own need to persuade yourself that Islamists can be appeased. Although I understand your psychological need to deny the repeated proclamations of the Islamists, I, and many others, cannot collude in it because that would indeed be committing suicide.

Oh, and by the way, I know about the rules for boxing and cricket. I just like to have a bit of intellectual fun mixing my metaphors and suchlike.

Derek BLADES

Linda Smith, ChanahS, Phil, Stephen Rothbart and Adam B

Two questions for all of you:

(1)Do any of you see any point in talking to the political leadership of Hamas - not its armed wing - about securing a long-term peace settlement? Before you answer, bear in mind that the UK government repeatedly declared that it would never talk to IRA terrorists until, under pressure from George Mitchell, it did just that. Peace has now returned to Ulster.
(2) What do you think is the most likely outcome of bombing Lebanon and Gaza? Will it make your Arab neighbours more or less likley to want a durable peace with Israel? Linda's qualification in psychology will make her answer particularly interesting.

Nicholas

Those people on here writing about resolving issues through peaceful talks are the same sort of fools who thought the ambitions of Adolf Hitler could be prevented through peaceful talks. They are the sort of idiots who might stand on a beach continuing to bemoan the loss of a sand castle as the tide comes in and ignoring the warnings of others that a huge tidal wave is forming on the horizon.

There are evil bastards in this world to whom no amount of peaceful talking will make a jot of difference. Sometimes you have to fight them and kill them - with all the unfortunate consequences. Since the evil bastards in question appear to welcome martyrdom on the part of themselves, their countrymen and even their women and children, perpetrating it themselves via their hordes of suicide bombers, I don't see what the fuss is about.

They don't shed tears for their martyrs or the innocent victims of their 40 year worldwide campaign of terror but they shed tears for civilians killed accidentally by the Israelis? And people actually write and protest in support of them? Fools.

phil

Derek BLADES-I think NICHOLAS in his own way has given you your answer ,and I see you did not answer my question from yesterday -sometimes I ask myself why I reply to those that write like you .Adam B will tell you if you are interested .but occasionally its because its raining .I have nothing better to do and I always wanted to be a journalist ,when I read what I have written it makes me realise that I had made a better choice and perhaps you might reflect on that too because I do at least do my research before I write .

Adam B.

Derek, please will you answer my question before I answer yours?

phil

Derek BLADES-I think NICHOLAS in his own way has given you your answer ,and I see you did not answer my question from yesterday -sometimes I ask myself why I reply to those that write like you .Adam B will tell you if you are interested .but occasionally its because its raining .I have nothing better to do and I always wanted to be a journalist ,when I read what I have written it makes me realise that I had made a better choice and perhaps you might reflect on that too because I do at least do my research before I write

Dave M

"No, Mr Blades, Islamists are not nice English gentlemen playing cricket by Marquis of Queensberry rules. To them, YOU are the infidel. They hate you too. YOU too are their target."

Yes, many times I've spoken to people overseas and they tell me the same thing about the Brits, applying their own standards of fair play where this simply isn't practical. Take the recent study on the Titanic: Of all the nationalities on board, it was the Brits who stood less chance of survival as they were too polite to save themselves. Whereas the Americans did all they could to get into lifeboats - every man for himself, so to speak. Well, now we see this in more modern times. Every time on the BBC you hear these naieve people wringing their hands and talking about "initiatives", "peace plans", "negotiations". What they failed to grasp and never will grasp is there is a war being launched on western civilization and there are no rules, no uniforms and no borders. There are militants who genuinely believe if they detonate themselves (even using women or children in a night club or bar), the reward will be 72 virgins in paradise. How on earth can you negotiate with that kind of mentality? It's also odd that all these do-gooders who actually try to appease, support and march with Islamic extremists wind up becoming targeted. As I recall, an angry mob even tried to lynch George Galloway for persuading Muslims to take part in democratic elections. The Police actually saved his life for that matter. Kate Burton was also held to ransom while in Gaza and Hamas likewise threatened hellfire and brimstone on those Europeans who had printed the Muhammad cartoons not so long ago. What is Europe gaining from this support of Hamas, I ask myself? Personally, harsh as it may sound I have no interest in sending money or aid to Palestinians who threatened violence against Britons and Europeans on more than one occasion. You do feel sorry for the children but I fear much of the charity money will be spent on smuggling weapons.

Derek BLADES

Adam

I thought your questions were mainly rhetorical but if you want answers here goes:
1)"Do you know what the Protocols of the Elders of Zion allege?" Yes I think I do and I regard it is a forgery and not worth discussion.
2) "do you really believe that it's (i.e. believing in the POTEZ) is the same as believing the Bible?" Yes Adam I do. The same degree of suspension of disbelief is required for both. (God created the world in seven days, Eve was fabricated from one of Adam's ribs, Moses parted the Red Sea ...Come on Adam. Surely you don't really believe that stuff?
3) "Please read article 13 and then tell me that one can have any meaningful peace talks with Hamas. And incidentally, do you accept that the Hamas Charter does indeed call for the extermination of the Jews, in light of article 7?" No Adam I will not read any more of the Hamas Charter. It is a dociment designed to win support from religious people in Palestine. It is not the basis for serious discussion of peace between the warring factions. I know that and so, hopefully, does George Mitchell and President Obama. The new US Administration will talk to Hamas and will eventually work out a peace deal regardless of what is written in the Hamas Charter.

Phil also grumbled that I had not replied to all of his questions. Here is a sample of an unanswered one: "why do you want us to know your name ,are you a person of some importance ?." Grow up Phil.

Now I have answsered your questions I await - without great expectations - your answers to mine.

Adam B.

Derek, you responded without answering, and I'm afraid you completely ducked my questions about the Hamas Charter - you seem to be under the impression that this document isn't really important, and you even suggest that the authors don't really think this way, as if they wrote it simply to "win support from religious people". Firstly, this shows naivete and a lack of knowledge about Hamas as an ideological force, and its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, but secondly, if what you say is true, what does that tell you about Palestinian society - that a document such as the anti-Semitic and grotesque Hamas Charter is popular? You have not answered whether you think it calls for the extermination of the Jews (and your silence seems to suggest that perhaps the penny has finally dropped), nor have you given any substantive reply about article 13. This article utterly rejects any notion of peace talks, and indeed roundly condemns them, instead specifically claiming that a violent jihad is the only path to follow. Now you may think that peace talks are important, but frankly Derek, what you and I think is completely irrelevant - it's what Hamas thinks which is the determining factor - and clearly they reject peace let alone peace talks. Have you noticed they've started up with the rockets again? Then you launch into an ill judged comparison with the IRA (rather like your previous comparison to the ANC, which I wrote about and again you haven't replied). The above answers your first question. As for your second, you seem to think that Israel would be liked in the region, if only it didn't defend itself. Derek, the genocidal impulse of the Arab world against the Jews has been in full swing for over 100 years. So my answer would be that if Israel didn't defend itself militarily after it has been attacked repeatedly, there would be no Israel to like at all. I would rather Israel survives than see the crocodile tears of hypocrites if Israel was annihilated.

Adam B.

In addition Derek, as mentioned in a previous post to you, is peace possible without addressing the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab nations? You forgot about that one.

Linda Smith

Derek Blades: In response to your post of 1 February at 9.17am: It seems that you have failed to digest my comments, especially those of 31 Jan:10.23pm.

I do not see any reason to answer your questions as they are made without reference to the Islamist project for world domination as set out in my previous posts.

Derek BLADES

Sorry folks. i have tried to illuminate the dark corners of rigid mindsets but I am clealy getting nowhere. You will hear no more from me on Melanie's blog for bigots. Byeee.

phil

Derek BLADES -goodbye Derek but we all know you will be reading our replies .and mine will suffice to say that it was you who asked why we did not put up our full names-you got your answer .so I think it is you who needs to grow up ----this was your comment was it not ?to Chana

"P.S. Like many contributors to this blog you use a pseudonym or is it a "nom de guerre"? Why do you do that. Are you secretly ashamed of your views?"

Adam B.

Derek, what a complete cop out. Your latest "comment" shows you weren't interested in a debate in the first place. Sorry to hear you couldn't keep up with our intellectual pace.

Adam B.

Why is it that people would rather run away with an insult than admit they're wrong and perhaps change their thinking? Truly pathetic.

Linda Smith

To fellow travellers on this thread:

Derek Blades has departed this "blog for bigots" because he is unable to present a rational argument that reconciles the evidence for the Islamist project for global domination with his thesis that Israel's "Arab neighbours want a durable peace".

Fare thee well Derek - and check mate!

Stephen Rothbart

Well, Derek, to answer your questions:

1.Do I see any point in talking to Hamas? Aside from whether the armed and the political wing are any different, the answer must be no. Why? because Hamas is not a Palestinian movement. It is an Iranian sponsored movement and has only one item on its agenda. To remove Jews (not just Israelis) and non-Muslims from the Holy Land and in particular from the land currently called Israel. In which case what is there to talk about? Which day the Jews would like to move? How many moving vans can be supplied by Iran? Hamas never signed a peace treaty with Israel, only ceasefires. During this time they brought in weapons and built bunkers under mosques and hospitals to hide from combat. Not the actions of very nice people, certainly not a people looking for a peaceful solution.

2.The bombing of Lebanon and Gaza was designed to stop rocket attacks on Israel. Despite the claim the Hezbollah 'won' the last conflict, rocket attacks have almost completely stopped, even to the point where they almost apologized for 4 being fired during the Gaza conflict. so mission more or less accomplished.

Since the ceasefire, Hamas rocket attacks have dwindled to about half a dozen from a high of 80 per day. Is that a good result for the Jews living in Israel? Probably.

The consequence of all this is of course the world and the Arabs hate the Israelis even more than they did before the war when the UN and EU kept quiet as Iranian backed militias (Hamas to you) poured 6000 rockets on civilian targets in Israel. But the Palestinians already hated the Israelis anyway.

Don't take my word for it. It costs nothing to view the way they treat their children and the hatred they teach them in schools. Just visit any You Tube site and type in Hamas and children. This was before the conflict in Gaza.

Right now, and until all these lovely donations from the EU and UN re-arm them, they are unable to show it in their usual way.

If the West stopped interfering in this conflict and let Hamas and Hezbollah get armed by their true supporters, the conflict could be over quite quickly, because Iran/Syria are their only true supporters. A blockade of Iran and Syria would end the conflict and bring peace to the Palestinians and Israelis alike.

As for retracting the statement that you are an appeaser, you have already stated that you think Israel should talk rather than fight Hamas. That is what people said Chamberlain should do with Hitler. That was called appeasement. It is not an insulting word. But sometimes appeasment doesn't work and you just have to fight to save what you believe in.

Unpleasant as it may be, that is what Israel has been doing for the 60 years it has been in existance.

Adam B.

Linda and Stephen, you're quite right, but it has become evident that Derek wasn't really interested in a debate at all, and scarpered once the going got tough i.e. he realized he was spewing nonsense! However, I doubt he is open minded enough to question his beliefs - it would mean changing his entrenched world view.

Original Tony

Derek Blades...you are on the losing side of history buddy and I sit back and laugh at it. Don't believe what I have to say by the way, time will REVEAL it!!

Anna

We know that at least 2 of the 43 who died were Hamas terrorists. Why are people presuming the other 41 were innocent civilians? Will we ever know?

unwelcome opinion

why was my comment not posted?

Chaya

Splitting hairs. Nonetheless, at least 40 non-combatants were killed by Israeli shelling in the incident.
Out of curiosity, whom conducted that interview with John Ging last week?