The war against the Jews

James Fischer

first we had the Iranian president misquoted now we have the Israeli defense minitser misquoted - you must be at your tethering end Mel!

Howard

Why is everybody else always wrong in your eyes? You should try and be a bit more objective. More to the point, if you so dislike the BBC then stop taking the shillings that they give you on a more or less weekly basis. It is simply not on to always criticise the media that feeds you.

Belinda

Thank you for redressing the balance, as always, Melanie. Hamas act like the naughty kid sitting at the back of the class, causing constant low-level disruption. I haven't seen any worldwide condemnation of their rocket attacks on Sderot or Ashkelon. And when Israel has finally had enough, guess what happens? Hamas goes whining to the international community complaining about those nasty Zionists.... and the world is stupid enough to fall for it (again!) and rush to condemn Israel. When will the world wake up and smell the coffee?

Alcuin

As I am sure Melainie is aware, durng the 2000 Camp David talks, Arafat uttered the lie that there never was a Temple in Jerusalem, and that it had never been a city in Jewish times. This theme of outrageous lies has since become such a feature of Palestinian discourse that the MSM has partly bought into it. The BBC in its fatuous policy of "balance" tries to take the mean position. There can, of course, be no viable position between the truth and a lie.

Dore Gold was so struck by the blatancy of the /www.amazon.com/Fight-Jerusalem-Radical-Islam-Future/dp/159698029X">book on this, and a talk be him can be viewed here.

Alcuin

I should just like to highlight the absurdity of the UN Secretary General's call for a "proportionate" response, a favourite of Ming Campbell. The problems of such a response are dissected here.

As an illustration, suppose a Hamas rocket blows the leg off a citizen of Sderot. A proportionate response would be to take a Gazan citizen of similar age and gender and surgically blow his/her leg off. Can you imagine the righteous indignation of the BBC Palestine cadre at such a tactic. Perhaps Israel should do it, just once, to show how daft it is. But Israel would not, because it is not that indecent.

Or how about Israel positions a tank in Sderot and on receipt of every Hamas rocket, fires a shell (untargeted) into the nearest Gazan community.

Get real, BBC, Ming and Moon.

Thinkster

If I may comment on a certain BBC reporter who often spills untruths. I am a businessman who after many hard lessons has learned how to spot people who are 'trapped' in a lie. Such people often lack a sincere confidence, their eyes shift and as I spotted during one or two of his reports over the last year or so, these people appear strangely uncomfortable - almost, dare I say it, squirming in the unease of their soul. It is as if they know what they speak is possibly incorrect and/or are worried about a backlash from those they may be defending, whether it be their own flawed persona or a 3rd party.

This dangerous man has been hijacked by an entity whose PR machine (injured babies happen in all wars, but I don't recall them being used in PR stunts by either side in WW2!) is so effective, it has managed to fool everyone - with catastrophic consequences for truth and justice world-wide. What should concern UK residents is that we are paying taxes that employ this man who is an increasing threat to our lives and others - because terrorists may use his lies as a basis for attacks in the UK, Israel or elsewhere. Again!

We all know that the only solution to this issue is a respected competitor to the BBC whose funding and accessibility is identical to the BBC. (Sky News is subscription only, limiting its audience.) We just have to hope that such an organisation would employ journalists who do what journalists are supposed to do, dig deep and present the truth, and nothing but the truth.

Charlene Hale

Thank you for informing those who wish to get a balanced, truthful view Melanie. It is unbelievable the bias, lies and propaganda against Israel. These are very difficult times for Israel and the West and the world. Making Israel a scapegoat and forcing her into indefendisble borders will only make things worse, it is time for the West to sand up and confront the terrorists, those who wish to impose their lies and get everything for nothing. They should be the ones held up for scorn and Israel should be applauded, encouraged and supported in her efforts rather than this inversion.

Stephen Fox

Howard By your logic, we would end up with a BBC that was entirely left of centre and pro Arab. Why on earth is it not on for Melanie to criticize them, just because she works for them? It's not as though she was anything but up front about her views. I suspect that if we were talking about some government employee who went whistleblowing to the Guardian, you'd be wholly in favour. And 'everybody' is not wrong in her eyes. Just much of the British establishment and intelligentsia. The fact that you imagine that to be 'everybody' says more about you than her.

phil

Does anyone remember Czechoslovakia.Austria and finally Poland ?.lie after lie after lie and we bought it all thinking we could placate a monster .Well today its Israel who is the victim and tomorrow the world .Churchill tried for years to impress the truth on the appeasers and the world lost 40 million souls(?)-Now how long will we listen to the lies from these militants and still *believe* them .Can anyone really think Israel should just let the rockets come in and not defend itself ?perhaps they should invite the militants for tea and cakes to discuss a charter that calls for its destruction -just like we did with hitler

Jimbob

Good on you Melanie. A few of us are awake and interested in the truth.

Kevyn Bodman

I don't know what else Israel can do. The country has been suffering repeated rocket attacks, the rockets launcehed from Gaza. To those who are so ready to condemn Israel, please tell us what better alternative is available to the Israelis. The loss of innocent civilian life is a tragedy, but I think Hamas have created a parallel to 'suicide by cop.' That is when an armed criminal brandishes a weapon, threateningly, and armed police shoot him dead. Hamas launch rockets, the Israeli response is entirely predicatable, and in my view understandable.Tragically there are civilian deaths.Then out come the condemnations of Israel. Here's a solution: STOP THE ROCKET ATTACKS. As for SKYNEWS as an alternative to the BBC, no. SKYNEWS is trivia for nearly 24 hours each day. Tim Marshall is an excellent Foreign Affairs editor but he can't overcome the editorial policy of cheap TV press conferences, celebrities and sport. That SKYNEWS has won 'News Channel of the Year' so many times is shocking. What must the others be like?

Gary

Israel is misreading the UN's complaint about a proportional response. If Israel responded in the right proportion the rockets would stop. The UN condemns Israel for choosing a proportion too small to be effective.

Jimmy Mac

Stout and sensible defence of Israel and equally trenchant exposure of the posturing BBC and others. Even the Telegraph can't seem to resist the impact of insisting on a "holocaust" translation. Flabby journalism of this type is self defeating as it destroys credibility of the medium and the messenger. Just as our politicians are distiguished by their abilities to LIE and LIE again and again, to the detriment of the political process, so also are journalists exposed to the consequences of their Lazy thinking.

alan stoddart

from the Jerusalem Post: 'The Hebrew word "shoah" most often refers to the Holocaust but Israelis use it to describe all sorts of disasters.

Also of interest is story about Muhammed Al Dura...During the ongoing trial in France an independent expert states that IDF bullets did not kill the boy.

Woody

Melanie appears now and again on BBC panels to redress the balance. She does so elequently and convincingly. It is essential that such a sane voice is heard. Such a contrast to nasty buffoons such as Gallagher.

Darren

Keep up the good work Mel,exposing Albeeb for what they truly are.

Larry Teabag

It is preposterous nonsense to place the weight of the world on "the all-important definite article". Of course grammatical constructions inform and modify the meaning of the words, but they do not change them utterly. A definite article cannot magically erase a word's unfortunate connotations. If "hashoah" means "the holocaust" where "ha" is the definite article, then it is downright false to say that "the word ‘shoah’ is never used to mean ‘holocaust’", as Melanie did: in some contexts it means exactly that. The press may not be innocent in this, but it was, at least, a spectacularly poor choice of words from Vilnai. People on all sides should acknowledge this.

Huldah

Gary perhaps you aren't aware that Hamas and other Palestinian terror organisations are committed to Israel's total destruction. Hamas trumpets its intention to bring about the end of the Jewish state in its Charter. It isn't Israel's actions, but her very existence which is offensive to Hamas. The only people in the Middle East to promise the world another genocide are Hamas, and their paymaster, President of Iran. And if they have their way, it will be perpetrated upon the Jews. Again.

Louise

Howard, be glad and grateful that Melanie Phillips has the courage and the principle not to be "bought" into silence or collusion by the BBC's "shilling". As a licence-payer she, like all of us, has a perfect right to comment on the failings of the mischievous and malicious broadcaster and its continual flouting of its Charter, which binds it to objectivity. More power to you, Melanie. Yours is a voice of sanity amid a cacophony of madness.

sebastian

Ref Kevyn Bodman. Yes indeed. What else can Israel do? The options, according to some, are limited: get rocketed; or get back. Israel, after massive provocation, has chosen the latter. Hamas will probably continue their attacks from within civilian areas regardless of what Israel attempts, though. Civilian casualties are propaganda for them. Besides, given Hamas' sort of blood-cult, they're "martyrs" aren't they? Hamas doesn't care. Wailing widows and torn children make good copy. But despite this propaganda edge, a response there must be. When British troops were shelled and mortared in Basra, they responded with artillery and other stuff. They didn't just sit there taking it and waiting for the UN to decide what's "proportional" on a good day. They fought back. Israel, in a more measured manner, does likewise. And the stakes are higher. Civilian casualties are always tragic - but the contrast between Hamas and the IDF is that the first targets civilians, while the second targets militants who deliberately use human shields. Hamas looks to kill Israelis. Any Israelis. All Israelis. Indiscriminately. Israel looks for the elimination of Hamas operatives and active service units. There's a difference. Should the rockets cease and should Gaza begin to raise its living standards by peaceful, prosperous business and commerce, then the people could live in comfort as amiable members of a wealthy coastal colony. The IDF would happily withdraw. But no. This isn't the "cause" is it? The "cause" - the holy obligation - is Israel's destruction even if it means Hamas' own constituents suffer or perish on the way. The Israelis, still smarting from a partly bungled campaign in Southern Lebanon, are probably not in the mood to repeat their error. Hamas had better watch out. Israel, having absorbed the lessons, has every good reason now for going after them.

Albert

Thank you Melanie

YA

War is not about "proportional response".
Lie can't be a subject for discussions.
But anyway, question still remains, how to get rid of hamas, BBC and other spoilers of humanity. Becasue now we all support terrorism against Israel, by paying money to Hamas - via EU's "international help", and by paying to the BBC for their Goebbels-style propaganda cover for Hamas.

Ann

"Why is everybody else always wrong in your eyes?" - not everbody, dear, only the antisemitic liars and their useful fools. -- "You should try and be a bit more objective" - what nonsense. You can't be 'objective' by failing to recognise a difference between truth and lies. -- "More to the point, if you so dislike the BBC then stop taking the shillings that they give you on a more or less weekly basis" - more nonsense. Al Beeb has become the official voice of Islington-on-the-Euphrates, funded by our taxes, and any means to fight it are acceptable. -- "It is simply not on to always criticise the media that feeds you" - it mostly certainly is on, dear when the media (which is a PLURAL noun, darling) constantly distort the truth.-- Yes, it's just like 1938 all over again. The lies about Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland and now Israel are swallowed by all the fools and outright antisemites.

Ann

As pointed out, the internet is, indeed, something the authoritarian liars at Al Beeb should be more afraid of than the FoI Act. I urge you all to visit the Biased BBC website and post comments about this latest BBC outrage - it's regularly visited by beeboids.

Joe Strummer

The BBC cannot or will not just report the facts of the tragedy that is Gaza. The subtext garnered from news items or reports is forever tiresome and predictable with the Palestinians as " passive victims" and the Israelis as " hostile aggressors.|" Maybe they set their stall out in this manner in a simplistic " good guy" , "bad guy" scenario for their viewers and listeners.? It is unfathomable why the BBC does this. Personally, and I'm not either an Israeli or Jewish, but which country ANYWHERE in the world would tolerate with such incredible forbearance rockets pouring down down on its populace bringing death and destruction for years on end without substantial retaliation.? Israel has every legitimate right to defend its citizens how it likes and no nation on this Earth can condemn its so called "heavy-handedness."

wingtip

Give back the land the Zionists have stole from the palestinians. Note: before 1948 it had not been called Israel for over a thousand years. However, today the Palestinians call the same chunk of land, Forty Eight. In this way, none of the Palestinians can ever forget the land was taken from their relatives. Palestinians are calling to mind the moment when the UN recognized Israel as a legitimate state and simultaneously usurped it from the farmers living there........

Rachael

"Why is everybody else always wrong in your eyes?" This is drivel. Go through the (excellent) archives and you'll find it is not so. The Times and The Telegraph usually know better. The BBC's slant is just business as usual only I'm forced to pay for their spiteful cant.

Peter

Well I can't buy all this crock about "acting in self defence". Air strikes and the likes are not self defence. It's tit for tat murder. No excuses for it. Israel has access to the best war fighting technology there is and yet they still choose to employ unguided high explosives and have still failed to invest in a counter rocket and mortar system that has proved so effective in Iraq. Self defence would be intelligence lead targeted strikes by ground forces. You can't talk about the morality of Hamas's cowardly rocket attacks while perpetuating more of the same. If the west is morally superior then Israel needs to prove it by using more sophisticated means of disposing of its enemies. Why hand them propaganda on a plate by dropping the odd Mk82 in a civilian neighborhood? Saying Hamas uses human shields is a pisspoor excuse. Imagine if the NYPD used that excuse everytime a crackhead took a hostage and they shot both of them. This is just tactically useless and erodes any sympathy they might have had up to press. Yes the media is stacked against Israel but its incident such as the latest round of clumsy bombing that goes some way to explaining why. Israel is singled out because we read Alan Dershowitz telling us how enlightened Israeli society is compared with arab states but the thuggery of the IDF and the blunt application of air power doesn't look all that different. I'm tired of all the crying that Israel is held to a higher standard. It isn't. That's why we send MRAP patrols out with specialist marine squads and not A10 tankbusters and any conscript who can work an M16.

Peter

@wingtip... By your logic, serbs should be firing rockets at Kosovo. Grab yourself a history book there. They don't bite.

phil

wingtip where are you flying -must be on mars because you certainly don,t know what happens on earth-2000 years actually if that matters and there has never been a palestinian state -it was a mandate looked after by the uk after the ottoman empire lost in the first world war- and Arabs leader spent the second world war with hitler in his bunker (the grand mufti of Jerusalem )check that out as ali g would say ,and in case you have been away so long ,the UN voted freely for a new state of Israel-if you need any more history lessons let me know otherwise stay on your wingtip -try Saturn -nice beaches there

Phillip Reece

Peter, Come off it As if different tactics on the Israeli side would make ANY difference at all to the press Israel gets, Israels enemies have their own agenda and irrational racist hate knows no moderation, nor does that of its decayed western media enablers.

Max Kaye

Thanks Melanie, as ever, for not letting lies stand unopposed.

Alex Zatman

You're one of the few journalists willing to speak up for the truth when it comes to the Middle East. What is Israel to do when Palestinian terrorists fire rockets at civilian targets everyday? Unfortunately, Israel and Hamas are at war and Hamas seem to enjoy setting off rockets from densely populated civilian areas of Gaza. Noone in the world has the right to tell Israel how to defend their people.

Wahida Shaheen

Let’s not get lost in semantics as the death toll reaches over 100 in Gaza of innocent people. Israel's actions can be seen nothing less than hysterical and disproportionate at a crucial time when all those concerned should be working harder than ever towards peace.

john doe

Allow me to quote someone from Jihad Watch: 'Last I looked, the deliberate and very careful targetting of terrorists for assassination, and the effort intended, over the last few days, to do one thing -- stop those who keep raining down rockets on Israeli villages and cities -- was not quite equivalent to what we call The Holocaust. And it does not become "The Holocaust" even if, because of the way in which those who build and rain down those rockets live not on separate bases, but choose deliberately to fire from, and plot and plan and scheme and live within, civilian areas, precisely because they are aware that the Israelis exhibit such superhuman compunction about killing civilians (no other Western army -- and certainly, thank god, not the American army, would subject itself to the kind of hyper-moral principles that the Israelis insit, to their own great harm, in observing, and should long ago have reconsidered, and jettisoned). The deliberate targetting of civilians is one thing; the hitting of some civilians -- and just how "civilian" is that "civilian" population that appears to be foursquare behind the Lesser Jihad and all of its works and days, anyway? -- in an attempt to get at terrorist rocketeers is quite another. No sensible person regards this as equivalent -- in words or in life -- to the round-up, and mass-killing, with gas, prussic acid, bullets to the heart, hangings, being burned alive in synagogues, starved to death, subjected to medical "experiments," tortured in every conceivable way, six million inoffensive men, women, and children, which is what is meant by the phrase "The Holocaust"). But Reuters did, or tried to. The BBC, following Reuters, did, or tried to.' This 'immoral' equivalence is more than just reprehensible. It's evil.

Ian

Larry Teabag, if the difference between 'shoah' and 'HaShoah' is irrelevant, then the difference between 'a white house' and 'The White House' is irrelevant, or 'a queen' and 'The Queen'. Muslims make a great deal of the difference between 'a god' and 'The God'. The latter is 'Al Lah'. So Arabs know the difference, they just chose to exploit the mistranslation and ignorance of most Westerners.

D Goldwater

Melanie is correct regarding this one. What is more astounding is that the EU, UN and the western media have all declared that Israel has no legitimate right of self defence. It seems the PC concept of proportionality is designed to ensure that conflicts never cease and that the EU and UN and western media therefore retain their soap box to harp from.

N. Simon

wingtip

The term "Palestinian" is itself a masterful twisting of history. To portray themselves as indigenous, Arab settlers adopted the name of an ancient Mediterranean tribe, the Philistines (“Invaders” in Hebrew), that disappeared out over almost 3000 years ago. The connection between this tribe and modern day Arabs is nil. Romans, in order to conceal their shame and anger with rebellious regions, changed the references to Judea and Samaria by naming them Palestine.

1. Nationhood and Jerusalem - Israel became a nation in the 14th century B.C.E. Two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

2. Since 1272 B.C.E. the Jews have had dominion over the land for up to 1,000 years with a continuous Jewish presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

3. The only Arab dominion since the Arab invasion and conquest in 635 C.E. lasted no more than 22 years.

4. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.

5. For over 3,000 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

7. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray facing Mecca (often with their backs toward Jerusalem).

8. In 1854, according to a report in the New York Tribune, Jews constituted two-thirds of the population of that holy city. (The source: A journalist on assignment in the Middle East that year for the Tribune. His name was Karl Marx. Yes, that Karl Marx.)

9. In 1867, Mark Twain took a tour of Palestine. This is how he described that land: A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human.

10. In 1882, official Ottoman Turk census figures showed that, in the entire Land of Israel, there were only 141 000 Muslims, both Arab and non-Arab.

11. A travel guide to Palestine and Syria was published in 1906 by Karl Baedeker; The book estimated the total population of Jerusalem at 60,000, of whom 7,000 were Muslims, 13,000 were Christians and 40,000 were Jews.

12. As the Jews came and drained the swamps and made the deserts bloom, Arabs followed. They came for jobs, for prosperity, for freedom. And, they came in large numbers.

13. In 1922, with what was widely acknowledged as the illegal separation of Trans-Jordan, the Jews were forbidden to settle on almost 77% of the Palestine, while Arab settlement went unrestricted and encouraged by British mandatory authority.

14. Prior to the Second World War Mojli Amin, a member of the Arab Defense Committee for Palestine, proposed the idea "that all the Arabs of Palestine will leave and be divided up amongst the neighboring Arab countries. In exchange for this, all the Jews living in Arab countries will leave and come to Palestine."

15. Did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon until 1920? Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941; the borders of Jordan were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961. Any of these nations that would say Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as recent arrivals as well. They did not exist as countries. They were all under the control of the Turks. Over 80% of the original British Mandate land was given to Arabs without population transfer of Arabs from the land designated for Jews.

16. In 1947, the Jewish state huddled on 18% of the original British Mandate land. The Jews accepted it gratefully. The Arabs rejected it with a vengeance and seven Arab states immediately declared war against Israel.

17. In 1948, the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Most of them left in fear of being killed by their own Arab brothers as traitors.

18. Some 850,000 Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab countries, due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

19. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is claimed to be around 630,000 (where did they get this number?). Based on population census, estimated number of Arabs who left Israel was around 460,000. They were ordered to leave by Arab leaders at the time.

20. From 1948 till 1967 Arabs made no attempt to create a Palestinian state. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated, 58 synagogues in Jerusalem were destroyed and the Jews and Christians were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

21. Arabs began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1964 only, on the initiative of Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat. The idea became popular Arab propaganda tool after Israel re-captured Judea, Samaria and Gaza in the defensive 6-Day War of 1967,

22. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, Arab-Palestinians is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel.

23. Arab refugees INTENTIONALLY were not absorbed or integrated by the rich Arab oil states that control 99.9 percent of the Middle East landmass. They are kept as virtual prisoners by the Arab power brokers with misplaced hatred for Jews and Western democracy.

24. There is only one Jewish state. There are 60 Muslim countries, including 22 Arab nations.

25. The PLO's Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.

26. Pan-Arabism or the doctrine of Muslim Caliphate declares that all land that used to belong to Muslims must be returned to them. Thus, Spain, for example, must eventually be re-conquered.

The Palestine Mandate. In July 1922, the League of Nations entrusted the Great Britain with The Palestine Mandate, recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine," Great Britain was called upon to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine - Eretz Israel (Land of Israel). Three months later, in order to obtain full control over Suez canal, the Great Britain made a deal with Hashemite Kingdom, Egypt and France. The trans-Jordan (77% of the Mandate) was given to the king's brother in exchange for the Sinai, which was given to Egypt. Golan Heights (5% of the Palestinian Mandate) was ceded to the French controlled Syrian Mandate. This robbery was legalized immediately by, the puppet of the Great Britain and France - the League of Nations!

General Assembly resolution 181, of Nov. 29, 1947: It calls for the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem to be controlled by a "special international regime" to protect its holy places. The Zionist movement seeking to establish a Jewish state accepted the partition, the Arabs rejected it. The resolution was not carried out: After Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, war broke out pitting the embryonic state against surrounding 7 Arab states. Israel gained more land than it would have had under the partition resolution. Neither Israel nor Jordan, which controlled the divided parts of Jerusalem after the war, accepted control of the holy city by an international body.

Security Council resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967: It calls for "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied" in the 1967 Six Day War and for "respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." The resolution was not carried out because the Arab side did not recognize Israel, and Israel refused to withdraw.

Peter

Phillip, as a steadfast supporter of Israel in its war on terror, it would make a difference to me and many like me. Israel is fighting a propaganda war as well as a shooting war. Dead babies on TV don't help. Like it or not, these days, the one with the most casualties is right. The aim should be to protect Israelis first with whatever technology is available and kill terrorists second. If rockets don't land, there's no reason to retaliate. A counter rocket battery would make a huge difference to Israeli towns under constant barrage. I appreciate that even with the latest laser guided kit you still can't rule out civilian casualties and in Gaza, innocent civilians are few and far between. However, Helicopter gunships strafing targets on the six o clock news, against unverified targets does nothing for the cause. If you take the view that the propaganda war isn't worth fighting then Israel might as well get on with the very things its accused of. I wouldn't lose any sleep if they did. However, this kind of sloppy application of violence does nothing but step up the diplomatic pressure against Israel when it does what needs to be done. I've seen the Golan MRAP vehicle in action and what a motivated strike team can do. I'd rather see more of that than tanks blundering it shooting at god knows what. The media and the idiotarians won't notice but Palestinians will. There are two policy options. Invade and administrate and restore OR, sustain an accurate and lethal campaign against Hamas and their terrorists with every care taken to reduce civilian casualties. The former is a worthwhile form of conflict resolution, the latter is self defence. Anywhere in between is just pointless slaughter and fiddling round the edges. I vote for the former. Gazans need liberating and there is no Palestinian force capable. What concerns me is that the Israeli military has learned nothing from the US in Iraq or the IDF in Lebanon.

Jonny Paul

This is just a riddiculous lie by Melanie Philips. Any Israeli or someone that just reads the Israeli papers or know anything about Israeli culture and society, the word SHOAH is referred to Holocaust and Holocaust only. It is rarely used for "catastrophy". This is simply a Mealanie Philips white wash, intended once again to justify Israel's war crimes. Here's a collection of news article from Israeli papers where the word Shoah is used... you can simply to a search for yourself and soon you will realize the shoah is used for holocaust only! Search the Haaretz, JPOST, YNET. Stop the Israeli genocide deniers: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3499192,00.html http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3491591,00.html http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3460024,00.html

N. Simon

Jonny Paul, you obviously have no idea of the nuances of the Hebrew language. As for war crimes... the worst cases have been the Muslim genocides of Muslim populations.

YA

Peter: "Invade".. How do you see this? To control 1.5m population for a long time, you need to keep there 2-3 brigades. Israel is only 5m + 2m Arabs + northern border + Yesha, which all might become a problem in any minute. Americans invaded and controlled but they were able to cover expenses. There is no oil in Gaza. Who needs to "control" this crap? There are only 3 possible scenarios:

1) Invasion with annexation and subsequent expulsion of hostile population (ethnic cleansing, nobody will do it)

2) All-out clean-up and transfer to some international forces or to the interim local administration (very daring and costly and unreliable)

2) Version that you described - self-defence +the measures aimed at gradual erosion of Hamas power

Israelis obviously choose a combination of 2) and 3) options - hit hard at any good opportunity, and when it is soft enough, try to overrun Hamas. That will be long fight.

On your remarks on PR etc. - best PR is victory. Nobody wants to see dead babies, but even less people want to see terror plague spreading over the world.

Rachael

The Palestinian terrorists use their own civilians as human shields for the attacks they launch. The blood is on their hands. Never mind what handwringing nonsense goes on in the Western media about civilian casualties. Germany took many civilian casualties in World War II, that's what war is, I'm sorry to say. The impetus to this war lies fairly and squarely with Hamas' charter that says Israel has no right to exist. Until they want to drop that there's no going forward. Follow the logic of that position in any way and Israel will be wiped off the map. The logic is simple but so many are in denial.

J. Isaacs

Johnny Paul. You write in such an authoritative manner. Do you read Ha'aretz in Hebrew? Do you know your aleph bet? If so, could you please give a more detailed excursus into the meaning of the letter hay as a prefix? It would also be very helpful to know how to put Hebrew letters in web comments.

Peter

YA, In order to occupy you need a decent counter insurgency army which of source Israel is on its way to having. If we are correct in assuming that Palestinians just want peace and security and the peaceful ones will come out of the wood work if safe to do so then it is not unreasonable to assume that pacifying the area is possible. The Americans Surge doctrine has managed in Baghdad and the same could be done in Gaza. Al Q have been all but smashed in Iraq and now that Iraqis are confident the US are there to stay and will win they will come out in support of the US. Support for Hamas could melt away in much the same way as support for the Nazis on May 8th 1945. I've read many Palestinian statements to the effect that Israeli occupation is much better than the chaos and thuggery of Hamas government. The biggest glitch in the plan is the expense. But what is cheaper in the long run? A sustained occupation with the aim of setting up a provisional peaceful government or continuing sporadic military operations and defending against rockets? Israel would be entirely justified in starting a tab for the liberation of Gaza and ask for reparations in the form of national debt to be repaid by tourism to what I'm told are some rather nice beaches. When Hamas aren't staging artillery attacks that is. I agree that Hamas must be eradicated but while there is a blockade the people will be kept ignorant and while there is ignorance there is a sea for extremism to swim in. Since it is too dangerous to take down the walls the only option is a an all in assault to rid Gaza of hostiles. There won't be so many once the IDF has the monopoly on violence in Gaza. So long as a hearts and minds operation is running in paralel with Israeli approved NGO's allowed to operate freely in assisting Gazans to build a nation. We cannot expect gazans to do it since anyone with half a brain got out of there decades ago. Yes this would cause international outrage but what doesn't? It's the palestinains Israel needs to convince, not the UN. It must be an all out fight. No second thoughts like Lebanon. We are talking a war of conflict resolution. For that Israel would have to mount one hell of a PR operation stating its aims for a democratic and free Gaza as we did for Iraq. Naysayers be damned, Iraq will work. If Israel can restore order and a decent standard of living for Gaza then I'm quite sure the UN and EU will rush in to take over so they can take the credit but who cares about that so long as Hamas are dead to the last man?

Nick Kaplan

Wingtip: why do you arbitrarily choose 1948 to be the year in which that particular piece of land was stolen? Why in the historical process of reviewing ownership of Israel, is 1948 the place to go back to and arbitrarily decide who has rights to what? What you conveniently forget to consider or mention is that this piece of land has been more disputed over than any other throughout history. The Jews owned it and from them it was taken by the Arabs, the Arabs fought with the Europeans (Romans), then it became part of the Ottoman empire until it was taken by the British in WW1. There are many stages in history to which we could go back and just assert that such and such a particular group are entitled to it because they owned it before it got stolen. So if you are going to say the “Zionists stole” Israel, you will need to justify your view that the Palestinians had owned it before it was stolen. However, even then to say it was stolen by the Zionists is still misleading, given that most of the land was actually purchased from those who had lived before. What’s more in 1948 Palestine was part of Britain, so if you’re picking 1948 as the year to convey ownership rights to someone than in fact it was Britain who had the right to decide who did what with the land, not Palestine. Furthermore the idea that the Palestinians have some right to Israel, in the form in which it exists now is completely fallacious. The land that was purchased by the Israelis, has been utterly transformed from the piece of dry empty desert it was when they bought it to a thriving developed country, so even if we were to agree the Palestinians had owned it, it is not a simple matter of giving them back what is rightfully theirs, the Israelis have some claim over how they have developed it. I am not suggesting that the Palestinians have no right to any land, I personally favor a 2 state solution, however, your simplistic view of who owned or stole what is a great distortion of the truth (or born of historical ignorance). The issue of who now is entitled to what is far more complicated than you make out, history, in this case, will not provide a solution and we need to look ahead to a future 2 state solution. This position will only be reached when Hamas tear up their constitution or preferably step down from government, and Palestinians stop firing rockets into Israel and show a commitment to peace.

Ann

Isaacs: Johnny Paul cannot read Hebrew. He doesn't understand the first thing about Hebrew. He merely copies and pastes English references. He merely parrots the same nonsense that all the other useful fools with little (very little) learning spout. --- Simon: excellent, thorough and accurate - but why confuse the poor little antisemites with facts? Their heads might burst.

Adam B.

Thank you Melanie- we need you! The situation with the media is desperate. The BBC needs to be opposed, and I urge respondants here to complain to them.

Peter

Adam, no point complaining to the BBC. Any organisation which investigates itself will find nothing. The best thing you can do is not gratify it by continuing to educate yourself, reading blogs and most of all, not paying the license fee and encouraging others to do the same.

jobo

you're picking at bones in order to argue your own pro-israel sentiment. we are already aware of the tit-for-tat blood-letting. no reasonable person supposes israel is planning to exterminate the palestinians. but just as it would be impossible for any journo to argue for the cause of terrorism, nevertheless the palestinian plight is a geuinine one. mistranslations aside, for the BBCs part, to be mildly suggestive that israel has been heavy handed is neither detrimental to a debate nor excused from the facts. people are blowing each other up today and in history nobodies hands are clean, nobodies cause entirely gilded. state-sponsored terror and terrorism are equally worthy of our condemnation, and both should be reported. and they are.

Michael B

An admirable piece of commentary by the redoubtable Ms. Phillips, once again. Forceful, as well it should be and needs to be - and supremely condign in every measure. The standard has been raised.

EyeSee

Melanie, I have great sympathy for your comments and the plight of Israel. As a neutral nothing could be clearer than the stance taken by Western dupes in the media; what Daniel J Flynn would term 'intellectual morons'. However, please, in a Christian country, do not use the offensive and left-liberal term BCE. BC will do nicely, thank you.

Si N

Just a thought concerning Melanie Phillips reference to the 'ill-informed and sloppy English use of the word shoah' - see these articles: http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=463 - http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=295 - http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=545 - (this is a sample, there are many more) - in all of them Phillips uses the word shoah interchangeably with the word Holocaust. Now, if an expert in all matters Jewish and Hebrew like Phillips makes such an error how can she justify her diatribes against others who misuse the word?

Danny

Erm Si N, have you read these articles you posted? Note how she writes it "**the** Shoah". Which is exactly what she is talking about here. Or were you posting these articles to reinforce her point?

Si, N

Erm, I'm sorry but in your haste to defend the indefensible you fail to comprehend my very simple point - to begin with I was referring to Phillips' use of the word 'shoah' - she doesn't write 'The Shoah' nor even 'The shoah'. And why would she when the word shoah is inextricably associated with the Nazi Holocaust - everybody understands that. Just as all honest people understand that Mr. Vilnai was threatening to visit a 'bigger shoah' on the people of Gaza - it would have made no sense for him to say 'bigger The Shoah'. But more importantly it is Vilnai's explicit threat that should be of concern to all right thinking people. You point out that the word 'shoah' in Hebrew means 'disaster' - well it just so happens that the Palestinian word for 'disaster' is 'nakba' - 'nakba' or 'disaster' refers directly to Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 1948. Whichever way you slice it Vilnai's choice of words was vile.