It's déjà vu all over again

john Norman

Surely Israel should now look for new defence partners such as India and China. As for Am. Intl. we have been boycotting these malevolent organisations for many years now.

tiki

It's a desperate attempt of GB and his LNLP (Losing New Labour Party)to win some more votes from Muslems against the winning BNP. I didn't see the Brits having any problem selling arms to the most horrible regimes in this world.
Such hypocrites.

Miranda Rose Smith

There ARE two states in Mandatory Palestine, one Jewish, one Arab. Either Miliband can't count or he never heard of Jordan.

Alan Stoddart

Why would this government send arms and spares to Israel in its fight against the Muslim fundamentalists when it won't supply its own troops in Afghanistan with the necessary equipment and troop numbers to fight effectively.

Clearly this policy is aimed at appeasing the Muslims in the UK whose votes are going to be the deciding factor in keeping many Labour MPs in power.

Astonishing the power of those bombs on 7/7...a craven bunch of politicians in thrall to terrorists, those here and in Gaza.

gary

Someone should check what licence restrictions were issued with the guns etc donated by the west to Palestinians, and subject them to a similar embargo.

Robin

Miranda - Miliband can't count. He's a Miliband and a member of the Government.

john robert

The Israelis simply should forget about world opinion and target all these "BRAVE" jihads who are speaking out loudly about genocide of the great Jewish people - forget the world its 1938 again and the default mode of people is cowardice and its happening now - Israel is the scape goat.

Philip, London

The FCO have effectively joined the kaffiyeh-wearing ignoramuses that vandalised much of central London last year, in a meddlesome piece of diplomatic posturing that will have no beneficial effect whatever.

A cynical own-goal from David Milliband & Co. Barack Hussein Obama will be very proud of them. George Galloway will be very proud of them, too.

James Hovland

International recognition of Palestine, including borders, will not require Israel's approval. Furthermore, all Israeli settlements outside of Israel's recognized borders are illegal, regardless of what your religion tells you. Apparently, "natural growth" is something that occurs within a nations borders, not outside of them. For the America audience, it should be made clear that the Israeli settlers living in the Palestinian territories are in fact "illegal immigrants".

paul stevens

Sad that Britain has come to this. And does anyone doubt that if there were 2,000,000 Jewish British citizens and only 300,000 muslims that Britain would be doubling up on its arms shipments to Israel. The sad confluence of inherent anti semitism and electoral benefit will result in even more anti - Israeli measures in the future. And the next time Jews or those of Jewish heritage lend the cover of their "Jewishness" to aid anti Semites I will have to further hang my head in shame.

Jonathan Hoffman

The decision has apparently been made under Criterion 2 of the granting of arms licenses.

Criterion 2 deals with ‘internal repression’ …..

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/europeandtrade/strategic-export-control/legislation/consolidated-criteria/page46288.html

Eh? One, Cast Lead was done because of rocket attacks on Israelis. And far from 'internal repression', Israel did everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. 75% of the casualties were males over 15 but they only form 25% of the population.

In sjhort the government has taken a step closer to the LibDem position: “We support Israel’s right to defend itself but not if it means we have to sell them the means to do it”.

Nannette

Barry Rubin made the following comment on your GREAT article Melanie:

"Regarding Melanie Phillips article, let me point out another dimension of this which I think is interesting.

What is being embargoed? Parts for ship guns. Ship guns? So did Israel kill civilians by bombarding the cost from battleships? No.

So why ship guns? What are the ships for?

What the embargo does is reduce Israel's ability to patrol the coast and stop terrorists and weapons from getting in.

In other words, even if the British government could find some rationale for embargoing some weapon being sold to Israel, what they selected is not only completely unjustified regarding anything that happened in the Gaza war but also subverts the counterterrorism effort. That makes it even worse."

Trumpelor, the proud kafir

@James Hovland said

Furthermore, all Israeli settlements outside of Israel's recognized borders are illegal,

On what ground sir ?????
1920 San Remo international conference awarded the WHOLE Palestinian mandate to the Jewish People,
I do not see on what ground are your charges made ....
I am very eager to read your arguments .....
On the contrary, UK should be charged and sentenced by illegally ceding Jordan East bank to Hashemi family from Mecca and subsequently and always unlawfully prohibiting settlements on OUR Jewish territory !
Let me remind you that Jordan east bank constitute two third of the original mandate !

Trumpelor, the proud kafir

And let me add that the Palestinian resolutions from the San Remo International conference are still legally valid and binding !

John Edwards

Good comment from James Hovland.

The settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem are illegal under international law as was most recently confirmed unanimously by the the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on the Separation Wall.

The position taken by the British Government is entirely justified and overdue.

Augustus

Melanie is precisely right; it was the Arabic world which repeatedly attacked Israel. The Arabic leaders told the Arabs who lived in Israel in 1948: "Leave Israel!" Anyone who thinks the Arabic world truly wants peace with Israel, and that there would be peace if Israel withdrew completely from the West Bank, doesn't see that it would then be attacked from all sides, and possibly be completely destroyed.

The Hamas Charter demands the total destruction of Israel, still today. Palestinian schools teach that the entire land of Israel is Palestinian land. Mosques call daily for Israel's destruction. Why don't the Arabs build factories and health centres? Saudi Arabia, which builds mosques around the world, could perfectly easily fund a functioning infrastructure in the West Bank or Gaza. But the Arabs prefer to fund Palestinian terrorism. They could quite easily stop the terrorist activities against Israel, but it's not in their interest to do so. It's precisely in their interest for the Palestinian problem to continue. That way they can always give Israel the blame.

Yehuda

Proportional force in warfare is defined as that quantum of force which is necessary to stop the enemy's aggression.
Since the Arabs of Gaza continued to fire rockets into Israel even after Operation Cast Lead, it is clear that Israel had not used enough force.
It appears that Israel was prevented from bringing the operation to a successful conclusion by the incoming Obama administration, for which good relations with Islam are more important than Jewish lives.

just Louise

"Let us not hear any more sickening cant from Gordon Brown about how he learned to love Israel at his father’s knee."
Indeed.
But all we get from Gordon nowadays is "sickening cant" on virtually every object under the sun - including the demise of Michael Jackson and the sacrifices of our under-equipped servicemen - as he and his appalling government attempt to hang onto power for power's sake.
btw, lest that slimy little serpent Peter Hain should one day decide to make a bid (à la Boy Miliband) for leadership of the Labour Party, it would be well to remember that during the 1970s, when head of the Young Liberals (!), he was virulently anti-Israel, calling for a "Secular Democratic State of Palestine" in place of the Jewish State and denying the right of Soviet Refuseniks to find refuge in Israel.
The evidence is still there, if you know where to look.
He's been shtum on the issue in recent years ... but I wager that he's only biding his time ...
Heinous, eh?

Michael B

Intoning the harrumph of "international law," while avoiding any sound, well grounded, cogent argument that takes primary existential concerns into account, is to indulge a full-bore Quixotic deluded quality - without venturing any personal risk to one's self.

Intoning "thou shalt" obey the dictates of this or that international body absent a sound appreciation for basic existential concerns is to offer to play the fool - and to simultaneously demand that others, not one's self, pay the price for that stupefying, foolhardy abandon.

alex

dont forget whats happening in Iran melanie, although I dont agree with you often I admire your principled stand on Iranian democracy, most of the western media has already moved on and the tyrants are flourishing as a result...

gary

Settlements illegal under international law ???

Could someone please advise which clause of what particular set of general laws passed by which international authority applies to this case?

Does this law apply in any other case in the world? Was it set as a precedent by a previous similar case?

John Elliot

Israel illegaly occupies the West Bank? Really? The Arabs attacked Israel, were defeated and lost the West Bank, yet Israel is deemed to be in illegal occupation. Does that mean the borders of Europe and Asia should be restored to their pre-WW2 status?

jonathan klineberg

Labour's decision to stop the sale of military spare parts only mirrors the Tory govt. of 1973 when the revolting Ted Heath not only stopped the supply of arms to Israel AFTER the Arabs attacked but actually carried on training Arab fighter pilots here in the UK even whilst the war was raging. I can still remember a very embarrassed Keith Joseph trying to explain away this travesty at a heated meeting in Leeds. However the important thing here is how Israel responds. They know that the British Arms Industry will, like them, be aghast, especially if Israeli arms buyers turn their attention away from the UK and look to Russia & China for supplies.

Midwesterner

Melanie, please consider writing a book about Israel. Europe sorely needs a strong pro-Israel advocate, and honestly I think you could write a multi-country bestseller on the topic. Just think -- a pro-Israel volume on the best-seller list of the UK, France or Spain! It has to happen -- the pendulum has got to swing at some point.

Maurice, MD

Adendum to Jonathan Klineberg's informative post --

During the Yom Kippur War, Britain impounded tanks that Israel had sent to Britain for repairs --

That is -- while Israel was fighting for its life, the British government denied it the use of weaponry that was Israel's own property.

J. Isaacs

Good point Jonathan Klineburg. One remembers Heath's intransigence over the supply of Chieftain tanks to Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War led to the speeded-up development of Israel's locally built Merkava ("chariot" in Hebrew) battle tank, resulting in the recent Merkava mark 4 "tankbulance" designed to save troops' lives under fire.

Perhaps Miliband's decision to embargo gun parts to Israel will herald a new age in ships' gunnery manufactured in Israel and then exported to the Royal Navy.

Mailman

John Edwards conveniently forgets that Jordan lost East Jerusalem after its war of aggression with Israel went horribly wrong.

Further more, he also conveniently forgets that Jordan had ILLEGALLY occupied East Jerusalem prior to their war against Israel.

Also, under Jordans merciful rule of East Jerusalem, Jews were forcibly removed from the area, ethnically cleansed if you will.

Or does ethnic clensing only apply to Israel (even when Israel doesnt actually force Arabs out of Israel)?

Mike

Michael B
July 13th, 2009 10:36pm

Would you mind very much if I asked you to kindly re-write this post in a style and language that I, and possibly others, would understand more easily. Regrets.....but I don't have the intellectual reach that you would appear to enjoy.

Nannette

To John Edwards and James Hovland,

Your uneducated comments are truly obnoxious. You should both read the Economist article of 10th October 2002 entitled Iraq, Israel and the United Nations.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1378577

"It is commonly asserted that Israel's occupation is “illegal”. This is questionable. In March, for the first time ever, Kofi Annan, the UN's secretary-general, called Israel's occupation illegal, but it is no accident that he has not repeated this claim. In the view of Sir Adam Roberts, professor of international relations at the University of Oxford, it was a “serious mistake” to describe the occupation itself, as opposed to some of Israel's actions as an occupier, in this way. In a subsequent letter to the New York Times, Mr Annan's spokesman admitted as much. The secretary-general, he said, had not intended to refer to the legality of Israel's occupation of the territories during the war of 1967, only to breaches of its obligations as an occupying power."

Original Tony

I dont know how anyone can say the Jewish settlements are illegal. The West Bank belonged to Israel until Jordan annexed it.

Israel then took its own land back in a later war, so why was it not illegal for Jordan to build houses during its period of annexation but it's illegal for Israel to do the same thing after taking it back?

What dreadful bias in this world!

Marsh

Britain and all its ungodly allies will pay. The Lord will make sure of that. He warns all the nations in the Bible but they refuse to listen. He WILL have the last say.

Original Tony

Marsh, you are spot on there! A certain madness has entered the minds of politicians here and in the USA ever since they started turning their backs on Israel.

Britain lost its empire and is flooded with all sorts of immigrant problems while the USA is heading so far left it will end up like Russia with the elite owning all and the peasants owning nothing.

This is their reward for betraying Israel

John Ecclestone

"Israel illegaly occupies the West Bank"?

But it was a gain from a war Israel didn't start. Perhaps, by extension, the US is illegally occupying North America and should hand it back to Britain? Or shall we go back further? And I sometimes wonder what the world would think if Turkish Cypriots starting rocketing Greek Cypriots.

Mervyn Doobov

By the way, Mr Milliband, ruined Crusader castles are not "poignant monuments to the religious violence of the Middle Ages". They are actually monuments to an earlier failure by Europe at intervening in the affairs of the Land of Israel.

Si, N

'The unhinged malevolence over Cast Lead can no longer be brushed off as the foamings of the far-left and its acolytes in the media, NGOs and fashionable society'.???
What is she talking about? Cast Lead (the massacre in Gaza of 1300+, mostly civilians including 300+ children) WAS 'unhinged malevolence' - saying it was so is perfectly normal. The defence of such a massacre is obscene.
Again MP posits the ridiculous notion that Israel sat on its hands before eventually being goaded into 'defending itself against relentless rocket attack'. Fact: Israeli bombardment of Gaza predated Gazan attacks on areas such as Sderot and Ashkelon; were more frequent, and far deadlier. As one astute poster has noted:
'[s]ix thousand Hamas rockets feature largely. Hamas has indeed launched thousands of Qassam missiles. As an illustration, in the period from September 2005 to June 2006, Hamas and others launched approximately one thousand missiles. Israel launched between seven and nine thousand shells. These relative magnitudes are in the public domain, generally known, and not disputed, and apply over any period you wish to choose'.
Note: Hamas’ projectiles contain for the most part low grade explosive (fertiliser), whereas Israel uses military grade high explosives. So not only has Israel fired far more ordnance into Gaza, but the effects are more profound. Basically, the notion that Israel patiently sat on its hands in the face of gross provocation is simply propaganda parroted by apologists - including 99.9% of mainstream media.
Ahead of the massacre 1.4 million people - more than half under the age of 16 – imprisoned, denied access to essential medical supplies and brought to the brink of starvation over a period of almost 2 years as a result of official Israeli policy – Israel then turns its considerable ‘military might’ on that captive population – and through implementation of the ‘Dahiya Strategy’ claims over 1,300 (mostly innocent civilian) lives - 'unhinged malevolence'.
Further 'malevolence is evidenced in MP's entreaty to 'boycott NGOs like Amnesty, War on Want' - disgraceful.

Sam Armstrong

DISGUSTING.

Don't blame the British people though. The British people are under the same kind of attack by the the same administration. Our rights, like those of Israel, can go hang whilst Muslims get the upper hand.

Blame the incumbent, immature and nasty PC Brown gvt.

But the incumbent wimps will soon be out, what will the Tories do about this upon gaining election?

Manuel

Miliband is such a wow! Does he not understand that he talks gibberish?
I have only praise for our British boys and girls, I know some who have served in afghanistan and I wish them G'd speed and a safe return home. However Miliband has the affrontry to tell us yesterday, on tv & radio, that our troops are in Afghanistan to prevent Taliban & others terrorising Britain's streets. He further tells us that our troops are there as a result of the 11th September 2001 terrorist attack upon New York, That is in the USA, not Britain. The troops are using sophisticated weaponry in the most part against fairly primatively armed, but none the less deadly, enemies.
But then it is acceptable for British troops to be in Afghanistan following an attack upon one of our friends but not on us.
It therefore must follow that Israel's defensive measures have considerably more legitimacy than does Britain being in Afghanistan.
Israel's enemies are right on the doorstep, they attack the country daily, they fire rockets, send in suicide killers etc. Israel is defending itself to ensure terrorism does not come to its city's streets.
It went into Gaza after being years under constant indiscriminate rocket barrage, rockets designed to kill.
So Mr Miliband, where is the difference?
Why has this mistake of a government decided to castigate and demonise Israel? Is it the muslim votes you crave? Is it currying Obarmy's favours? Has the government adopted the craven anti-Semitism of the pseudo-intellectual left? Has it lost all vestiges of morality?
Our mis-government may well be acting illegally in Afghanistan, whereas Israel is acting in a perfectly & strictly legal aspect in responding to its immediate neighbour's terror attacks.
The sooner Brown, for all his worthless mouthings of love of Israel, Miliband and his disgusting utterances and the rest of the totaly discredited clique go the better for all.

Michael B

International law is not at all settled as applied to the West Bank. Non-binding advisory opinions are precisely and only that, though that is among the least of the facts that mitigate against notions of illegality as applied to West Bank settlements.

From the 1922 Palestine Mandate to 1949 legal guarantees were accorded Jewish communities in the West Bank.

From 1949 to 1967 Jordan controlled the territory, though two states only, Britain and Pakistan, acceded to Jordan's formal control, the remainder of the international community did not.

The 1967 Six Day War was a war of aggression conducted by Syria, Egypt and Jordan with the support of still other Arab states. It was an effort designed to eliminate Israel, a war of aggression that, essentially, was the capstone of Nasser's pan-Arab campaign of that era.

Israel won the Six Day War and with it took Gaza, the Sinai, the Golan, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel still controls the Golan Heights as well they should - basic strategic necessity demands it: defensible borders. Wars of aggression are, for obvious reasons, to be distinguished from defensive wars. International law and international affairs in general have long recognized that basic reality. This is not a brute force dictum of excess; this is an aggressor/defender based reality with responsibly conceived, defensible borders in mind. And again, for the broadest of contexts, Israel represents approximately 0.166% of the land mass in the Middle East.

In terms of withdrawals, every time Israel has withdrawn, without a solitary exception - from the Sinai, from Lebanon, from Gaza, from notable quarters in the West Bank - jihadist and militant entities have re-infiltrated, have re-established and newly established redoubts, and have deployed still additional terrorist and militant attacks into Israeli civilian centers from those positions, have used them to build up armaments, etc. There is not one, lone, single, solitary, isolated exception to that rule. It is sometimes said that "exceptions make the rule." Not this time, this time the rule has no exceptions:

Israel withdraws ≡ terrorist and militant redoubts are newly established

International institutions and international law are not all-important, they achieve their warrant only to the degree they are willing to heed basic realities, only to the extent they are willing to eschew an a priori logic that denies those most elemental of realities.

Arius

The greater self destructive trend in the West may result in one of the great ironies of history - that Israel may out survive the West.

Penny

Manuel - I was about to say something similar, too. It's really rather ironic, isn't it?

Michael B - I believe that during the period that Jordan annexed West Bank and East Jerusalem, thereby grabbing land allocated to Palestinian Arabs under the 1947 UN Partition Plan, there was actually no outrage / attempts to form an independant state / demands for self-determination coming from those same Arab Palestinians whose land had been annexed. Neither were there any calls for the capital Amman to be replaced by Jerusalem.

Penny

Manuel - I was about to say something similar, too. It's really rather ironic, isn't it?

Michael B - I believe that during the period that Jordan annexed West Bank and East Jerusalem, thereby grabbing land allocated to Palestinian Arabs under the 1947 UN Partition Plan, there was actually no outrage / attempts to form an independant state / demands for self-determination coming from those same Arab Palestinians whose land had been annexed. Neither were there any calls for the capital Amman to be replaced by Jerusalem.

Maurice MD

Re Arius --

Israel and/or the Israelites have thus far outlasted
Egypt of the Pharaohs
The Assyrian Empire
The Babylonian Empire
The Greek Empire
The Roman Empire
The Holy Roman Empire
The Inquisition
The Czarist Empire
The British Empire
etc etc

And Israel is the only "Western" nation today that has a birthrate above the replacement rate.

John Edwards

Jonathan Hoffman (of the Zionist Federation) claims that 75% of the casualties of Israel's attack on Gaza were males over 15 although they form only 25% of the population. He is obviously implying that 75% of the casualties were therefore militants.

I wondered what was the source of this "statistic"? A reputable Human Rights organisation perhaps?

Of course not this "statistic" comes from that well known pro-Israel propoganda outfit the "Campaign for Accurate Reporting in the Middle East" or CAMERA. Their article is not even recent but was based on an attempted "analysis" of the weekly reporting by a Palestinian Human Rights Organisation during the conflict to try and discredit claims of a high civilian death toll.

If we look at the current estimates of civilian casualties by for example that well known Hamas front Amnesty International. We see that the estimated 1400 fatalities included 300 children, 115 women, 85 men over 50, 240 traffic policement slaughtered on the first day, and approximately 200 men under 50 who took no part in hostilities.

Kirk Strong

The idea that a nation's response to aggression should be "proportionate" is as absurd as it is devastating.

The bloodiest wars by far and the ones which cause by far the most human suffering are those fought between combatants of roughly equal -- that is, proportional -- strength.

As Sun Tzu argued in The Art of War centuries ago, and as the Israelis have demonstrated time and again, the least bloody and therefore the most humane wars are those in which one side quickly overwhelms the other with superior strategy and force.

What do those who castigate Israel for her "disproportionate" response want -- a return to beastly trench warfare of World War I?

Israel should be praised for her long-suffering restraint in the face of continued bombardment from Gaza. She should also be praised for acting swiftly and decisively when restraint was no longer an option.

Groovy Times

John Edwards, and where do you get your reliable statistics from? You fail to discredit your protagonists in this discussion and merely highlight your own bias and gullibility when you dismiss what does not suite the Palestinian narrative as 'Isreali progaganda'.

Ralph Haglund

It is scary for us Swedes to see how once proud Britain is bending over backward in scare of their Muslims.
Our third city is now 1/3 Muslims going towards 50%, and not even the police dares to go into those Muslim ghettos. England is so scared that it does not even let a Dutch parlamentarian in to tell the truth in a more visible way!

At least the boycott from England and Obama is good as it forces Israel to rely more on themselves concerning weapons production.

mikeNZ

what do you expect?
you wrote Londonistan!

Augustus

If the British Government wishes to 'reach out' to Muslim states and engage in talks with terrorist organizations it must make that case properly, and not try and obfuscate its true intentions. At the end of the day Hezhollah and Hamas will remain who they are, who they say they are, and what they will continue to be: Terrorists devoted to jihad against Israel and the West. It is more honest,
and more productive to acknowledge that some liberal democracies don't have the stomach, and aren't able to carry the load of a confrontation with the jihadists
than attempt to rewrite history and reality.

Liz

Would those of you who refer to Israel's 'illegal occupation' of the West Bank please refer to the Balfour Declaration. As far as I'm aware this legislation was never rescinded. All we are seeing, dear friends, is legalised anti-semitism. I wish the British government would apply the same criteria to their foreign policy as it does to Israel's domestic policy.

davod

The Britsh arms industry wouldn't give a rat's arse about its sales to Israel which are probably miniscule compared to sales to Arab states.

UK arms sales to Israel in 2008 amounted to $27 million up to and including the third quarter.

Arms sales just to Saudi Arabia in 2008 were $4.4 billion.

Remember the bribery scandal concerning the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis screamed and Blair shut down his own investigation.

Oh, and while we are at it, in 2005, the FCO had Israel and Saudi Arabia on its list of countries of major concern. The UK sells arms to 11 of the 20 countries on its list.

Lets see, Israel bad, Saudi Arabia ( )

Mark, Newbury

As the Arabs refused to agree on any borders how can Israel be in illegal occupation. Returning to the pre '67 borders is pointless because the Arabs refused to accept it and went to war over them.
The law of self defense is universial it cannot exclude those that Miliband etc don't like.

Lastly if Israel is acting illegally please explain our actions in Afganistan and Iraq.
Sexed up reports, unpublished white wash enquiries??? etc.

zkharya

"Lines drawn on maps by colonial powers were succeeded, among other things, by the failure to establish two states in Palestine."

i.e. a "failure" to "draw lines" in Palestine?

alanadale

Nannette takes John Edwards and James Hovland to task in intemperate terms for ascribing to the view that Israel’s occupation is illegal.

As regards occupation, yes, but settlement building, no. ANY settlement building is illegal as scores of UN resolutions, the World Court Ruling on Israel’s wall and the Fourth Geneva Convention attest. So given that Israel’s intention is to settle as well as to occupy (on a temporary military basis pending a settlement) the Palestinians’ homeland the distinction is legal hair splitting.

It’s worth noting too that Israel would have been in Chapter VII territory long ago without the unwavering protection of the US veto. How long can Israel rely on unconditional American support?

davod

"It’s worth noting too that Israel would have been in Chapter VII territory long ago without the unwavering protection of the US veto."

You are mixing terminology. However, I will address the economic picture:

The US provides Israel with approximately $2.6 billion per year in miltary and other aid.

Israel -
GDP (2008): US $205.7 billion

GDP per capita (2008): US $28,900

Unemployment rate (2008): 5.9%

GDP growth (2008): 4.2%

Exports of goods & services (2008): US $54.16 billion

Imports of goods & services (2008): US $62.7 billion

Inflation (2006): -3.8%

Foreign Direct Investment (2006): US $14.2 billion

I think Israel is doing Ok, nothwitstanding the efforts of the ratbags of the world to stifle the country.

alanadale

Yehuda writes: ‘Proportional force in warfare is defined as that quantum of force which is necessary to stop the enemy's aggression. Since the Arabs of Gaza continued to fire rockets into Israel even after Operation Cast Lead, it is clear that Israel had not used enough force.’

Do you realise, Yehuda that you come perilously close to condoning and inciting war crimes?

Take this testimony of serving Israeli reservists and conscripts sent into Gaza.

Houses were systematically demolished days after hostilities had ended. Houses occupied by troops were vandalised. A reservist soldier said that there was a "big difference between the way we treated the contents of the house and the way the regulars did. The regulars wouldn't take care even of the most basic sanitary stuff like going to the toilet, basic hygiene. I mean you could see that they had defecated anywhere and left the stuff lying round".

In one incident a 50-60 year old man came out with a torch and was shot dead at 50 yards without warning on the orders of the unit commander who declared over the radio after the incident: "Here's an opener for tonight". Challenged as to why he had not authorised deterrent fire when the man was further away the commander said he didn't agree and couldn't give a damn. The soldier continued “finally the guys felt that even if they could take this up with the higher echelons it wouldn't be effective."

An army rabbi was described as trying to “inspire[e] the men with courage, cruelty aggressiveness, [and] expressions [such] as 'no pity. God protects you. Everything you do is sanctified'... it was pretty obvious …that we must win because this is a holy war". Leaflets distributed at military synagogues described the Palestinians as “the Philistines of old, newcomers who do not belong in the land, aliens planted on the soil which should clearly return to us".

And much more besides. Can you not understand how such actions and the mentality that inspires them excite the deepest contempt for the IDF and have people wondering how Israel has the nerve to lecture anyone about religious fanaticism and terrorism?

Adam B.

alanadale, what are the sources for your accusations?

Without these, I don't believe a word you've written.

Kiwi

Flying quietly under the radar, forgotten by most, was it really only last November that Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson went grovelling to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States asking them to inject billions of their petro-dollars into the IMF, which in turn would enable a bail out of ailing western economies, including Britain's? It is very likely that Miliband's words and actions against Israel are merely a partial fulfilment of what no doubt was written up in the small print of the IOU contract. If indeed a compliant Britain has finally sold what's left of its soul to the devil, we can expect more government animosity towards Israel, more Sharia, more concessions to Islam, and much, much more in the future.

Michael N

The NGOs are dangerous. I was once approached in the street by a lady urging me to donate to - or join - Amnesty. I asked her about some of the wilder claims Amnesty had made about Israeli actions, claims later proved false. She admitted this, but asked me, "If the Palestinians give us shocking information, do you expect us not to publish it? Should we just bury it until we have proof, even while more may be dying?" I told her it was evidently NOT "information", but pure propaganda and, as such, Amnesty should certainly NOT be publishing it without independent verification, having been fooled several times before by a community with a proven track record of lying to her organisation and others for propaganda purposes. She shrugged and claimed the Israelis were 'welcome' to give Amnesty their side, but usually didn't bother. I said, "I wonder why..." and told her that while Amnesty was willing to be used as a propaganda mouthpiece for Palestinian lies they would not be getting a penny from me, despite the good work they undoubtedly do in many parts of the world. She seemed troubled that anyone would actually find the FACTS more important than the need to show solidarity with a narrative of oppression and victimhood.

alanadale

Adam B writes: ‘alanadale, what are the sources for your accusations? Without these, I don't believe a word you've written.'

I would refer you to this lead

http://www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/testimonies_category_e.asp

which collates the testimonies published earlier this week of Israeli conscripts and reservists who served in the Gaza invasion.

Channel Four News last night aired interviews with a number of witnesses only one of whom identified himself for fear of reprisals - being serving soldiers they are not supposed to talk to the press.

However the Israeli Government spokesman Mark Regev appeared to give them immunity from reprimand or prosecution by declaring they had a DUTY to report irregularities. We shall see whether this is followed through or is just chutzpah.

What is incontrovertible is that Israel sought to manipulate the ‘truth’ about what happened in Gaza by denying independent access to it during the invasion. It has also consistently failed to cooperate with independent enquiries into its Occupied Territories operations, the latest example being the current UN war crimes enquiry on Gaza.

It speaks well of Israeli society that despite the massive state of denial and self serving sense of being a victim of circumstances it has in large measure helped to create by not recognizing the Palestinians’ equal right to all the appurtenances of state, home and identity they do, there are still those prepared to blow the whistle and that the country’s declared adherence to Western liberal principles - invariably more honoured in the breach than the observance - still allow for such voices to be heard. Let’s hope so anyway.

Mailman

Alanadale,

One of the sources of information has already been discredited as they were not present during the so called incidents they reported to breaking the silence.

Surely, if these people really were so concerned about incidents happening they should have taken them to their commanders?

The very fact they didnt, and instead chose to speak to a small, highly politicised human rights group perhaps speaks more about this groups true motives than their willingness to actually make real changes to their army.

Also, given the rabid fanaticism of these so called human rights groups in the past, where every blood libel is swallowed wholly and spat out as the truth, is it no wonder Israel refuses to work with these groups?

alanadale

Mailman writes: ‘Surely, if these people really were so concerned about incidents happening they should have taken them to their commanders?’

Surely this is the point; they feel as one of the witnesses said that it would be pointless to put in a complaint. The problem is institutionalised.

It never ceases to bemuse me why human rights groups should uniquely be ‘highly politicised’ against Israel. There’s ample prima facie evidence that something’s rotten in the IDF: the sheer scale of the devastation wrought on Gaza indicated a clear intention to trash the place; and then how do you explain just under a third of the fatal casualties being children? Or is there a suggestion the Gazans use their children as human shields? It was pretty evident from the preternaturally light IDF casualties that in words attributed to a battalion commander: "not a hair will fall of a soldier of mine. I am not willing to allow a soldier of mine risk himself by hesitating. If you are not sure, shoot." And if Israel has nothing to hide from the war crimes investigation why does it put obstacles in its way and refuse to cooperate?

The historian Martin van Creveld put his finger on the malaise saying it was not a question of personalities but the balance of forces. He used a Lao-tzu proverb ‘a sword put into salt water will rust’ to make his point. When at the start of aerial operations Ehud Barak commended the ‘bravery’ of Israeli pilots about to embark on completely risk free bombing missions over defenceless Gaza it was evident the rust has well and truly set in.

Old Mose

-- Surely Israel should now look for new defence partners such as India and China.

And it has been there before when it allied with apartheid South Africa. Israel has never been a country with a good understanding of who its TRUE friends are.

Sopwith Camel

Old Mose - Israel already has India, the world's largest democracy, as a customer for its brilliant new Tavor TAR21 assault rifle. Poor friendly democratic British squaddies in Afghanistan's sandpit would instantly swap their notorious sandjammer SA80 rifles from 1986 for a waterproof sandproof Tavor. But, as Melanie says, the current democratic Labour government "can no longer be counted a friend or ally of Israel."

Adam B.

alanadale, do you believe the anonymous (and therefore unverifiable) "evidence" you have cited would convict in a court of law? Do you hold Hamas to the same standards?

Augustus

Alanadale, what's all this nonsense about Israeli soldiers feeling guilty about their misdeeds during Operation Cast Lead? One can only have respect for these people, and ditto for Israel society, as this only proves what a true democracy it is.

War is a dirty game, who doesn't know that? Israel is obliged to go to war with an enemy without morals and scruples for others. Allah makes every deed in his name holy. Bombs in buses, bombs in cafes and clubs and shopping malls filled with innocent people. One can understand these soldiers, as Jews respect other people above even the Torah. Only hypocrites judge Israeli actions without admitting that there is cause and effect. And why don't you hear Palestinians admitting that their side isn't all squeeky clean? Why don't they ever admit that Hamas's tactics speak a clear message: Every Israeli citizen is a justifiable target. They voted for Hamas after all, and surely not every Palestinian truly wants to see Israel disappear, or do they? Could it be that if anyone did speak up there they would get the bullet? The Israeli soldiers who you so keenly cited may not become heros in Israel, but one thing is certain, they won't have to fear for their lives.

john norman

If the British arms industry is not concerned about one of its clients - Israel - then, perhaps, it will become more concerned when Israeli UAVs turn up in the weaponry of some of Britain's competetiors, say China. China will no doubt see them as a useful addition to their armoury for the surveillance of some of their more restive minorities. This is where the cynicism of the West and hostile NGOs is leading us.