The war against the Jews (6)

Big Ted

What pudding-headed ignoramus wrote that leader column? It's disgraceful.

Alex Bensky

The Times doesn't think that Israel and the Palestinians are equally vested in war. But to say otherwise might well cause the Times to re-examine its thinking as to who is to blame. The paper might have to give some moral sway to Israel. Since that's plainly unacceptable, the Times deals with it this way.

Peter

Self defence is brought into question when military operations extend beyond counter terrorism measures. It is legitimate in that the current ops are self defence but dead babies on tv is very much counter productive. Gives the arabs every bit of propaganda they need. I am aware that hamas uses human shields etc but I am not even slightly convinced Israel is taking proper care not to harm civilians. By not doing so the practitioners of moral equivolence have all they need. Apart from the "holocaust" myth the Times leader is as close to sensible as you're going to get form the MSM.

phil

Do any of the critics actually say what they consider is proportionate? -how many on each side need to die to do this sum ?the critics are just gross-,one death is too many on either side ,but when the Israelis are criticised it is because Gazans have been hit and sadly are casualties ,but nothing is made of the fact that the militants have sent thousands of rockets with deadly intent ,but missed -surely it is their intent to kill and maim that is the important fact ,not that they missed .If those people want peace and a decent life for their citizens ,all they need to do is say they recognise Israel,s right to exist and sit down together to work out a just settlement-can that really be too hard ?.But I wouldnt wait by the phone ,these people are too consumed with hatered of the Israelis rather than careing for their own -The example of Sadat and the late prince Hussein is lost on them .

Me

But Western public opinion regards the deaths of more than 100 Palestinians for three Israelis Read this as: Israel may not actually take any action that might actually resolve the conflict, by winning. What type of moron thinks that a proportionate response is equal number of dead?

Tom

Huzzah for Mel! I expect a very thorough deconstruction of the appalling Paxman interview last night, asap Mel.

George

The article has the following statement: "Any talk of a “proportionate” response is self-defeating. What is proportionate? The question should be: what is effective?" The answer to that is very simple - effective and proportionate are the same thing. The effective and proportionate response is one that is so terrible in the price that the Palestinians have to pay, that they won't think of sending even a single firecracker over the border for generations to come. By that time, hopefully, there will be a full peace.

EDDIE

I wrote a critical 'letter to the Editor" about this sloppy piece. In the current era of free speech, I wonder what my chances are of getting it published?

Waiting and watching

the more often these half-witted leaders are written the greater the bias mounts up against Israel. The BBC must be waiting with glee for the next "over reaction" by Israel.

field

Doesn't it say it all when the Times leader can't be bothered to get it right on Shoah. The Times and much of the media are on Planet Dhimmi.

Andy Gill

"...Western public opinion regards the deaths of more than 100 Palestinians for three Israelis... as disproportionate." Since when was maintaining "proportionality" a rule of armed conflict? The whole idea of military force is to kill more of them than they kill of you. It appears that Western public opinion has yet to grasp that fact.

Mladen Andrijasevic

Here is yesterday's editorial from the Jerusalem Post which was inaccessible for a day: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546397258&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull “No matter how much the simple facts of this current conflict are ignored or willfully obscured, however, they must not be forgotten: Israel is fighting to stop the bombardment of its cities.” Thirty years ago when as foreign student in the USSR I kept my sanity by reading The Economist and listening to the BBC Word Service I really could not imagine the distortions in the British media in 2008 on the topic of Israel would match if not surpass those of Pravda and Izvestia in the 1970s.

phil

What a gross discussion on what is or is not proportionate -what is the critics answer to the question anyway ?Even one death is too many for either side ,but the fact that Israels counteroffensive /defense has had more consequences is not the yardstick to be applied -The militants have sent thousands of rockets with deadly intent to kill and maim -thankfully so many have missed .If those militants had any regard for the fate of the Palestinians they would swallow their hatred and false pride and sit down to talk peace after recognising the Israelis right to exist .Israel has repeatedly said that is all they need to do ,but that they cannot negotiate with a people whose only purpose is to obliterate tham . Let Hamas follow the example of the truly great Arabs ,Sadat and Prince Hussein of Jordan and see how easy peace would be .Admiration and help from the whole world would surely follow

BJ

On balance I prefer the Times leader to the increasingly hysterical apologetics for the Gazan Holocaust on this blog. It is a welcome development that Mahmoud Abbas has discovered his backbone and made further negotiations on the "peace process" dependent on a comprehensive ceasefire.

Gary

No journalists complained when Palestinians established the exchange rate which they themselves find acceptable. 1,000 released Palestinian prisoners can be exchanged for one or two Israeli captives. With 100 dead Palestinians being exchanged for 3 dead Israelis it seems the Palestinians have gotten the better part of the deal this time. By Palestinian accounting there shouldn't be any compliants until over 2,000 have died to balance the three dead Israelis, and up to 1,000 more or each extra Israeli. Don't accuse me of double-standards. I use the same measure in the ledger for both credit and debit.

Dee Ranged

Hamas and Fatah take great comfort from views such as this which clearly distort reality

john doe

The UK seems to be caught up in some kind of mass psychosis characterised by so much malevolence and irrational hatred of Israel. It's becoming truly unbearable. The notion that Israel actually thrives on conflict and war is truly insane and completely disregards the profound desire of the Jewish people for peace. Outrageous calumny from the Times and the usual wilful ignorance. But why oh why this refusal to see, this denial of what is. It's enough to make a decent soul throw their hands up in despair.

Gary

"But Western public opinion regards the deaths of more than 100 Palestinians for three Israelis, whatever the extenuating circumstances, as disproportionate." The key phrase is this "whatever the extenuating circumstances". Paraphrase - "No knowledge of the context should be permitted to take part in your judgement. We want you to believe that the sole measure of an imbalance in body count proves that Israel is in the wrong."

osama

Contrary to BBC opinion that: Gaza is home to a thriving Christian community now preparing to celebrate their first Christmas under Hamas rule. you may like to read the truth at http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=317540

Ann

It's not 'Western public opinion', which the pathetic rag the Times has now become has no authority to speak for: it's the opinion of the air-heads of Islington, real and figurative.

Andrew

The Times is part of a 'War Against The Jews'? Um, are you sure? I always thought it's Comment Editor and the paper as a whole were fairly secure in any claim to not be part of any such anti-Jewish 'war'.

Ann

I urge everyone reading this who is not an antisemite to write to the Times and protest as loudly as they can.

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?

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Si, N -- I checked the first of your links, and Melanie very clearly uses the word "the shoah", which in Hebrew is HaShoah, not Shoah. The discussion is not what Shoah means in English, but what it means in Hebrew, and the important distinction between the Hebrew terms "Shoah" (disaster or destruction) and "HaShoah" (THE disaster, i.e. the Holocaust). Try picking up a Hebrew -English dictionary some time.

Si, N

I'm sorry Ahad 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.

Rob

What kind of planet is the Times now inhabiting? Probably one in which the Olmert government announces a big expansion of its illegal settlements. I can't think of a better way to show that he's no more interested in peace than any of his predecessors. Peace is OK but not when it gets in the way of ethnic cleansing.