The phosphorus cloud over Ha'aretz

Paul

Anshel Pfeffer, who is by no means one of the worst of the many reckless with the truth/ dishonest Haaretz journalists, regularly contributes to the Jewish Chronicle. Will this week's contribution by this journalist be accurate?

By way of digression - also revealed this week is the fact that most of the extreme left Israeli NGOs - falsely claimed to be "human rights" organisations - which contributed to the mendacious Goldstone "report" are supported financially by the New israel Fund (one of whose recent exploits was to compare Israel's "occupation" to the rape of a woman and to distribure posters in Israel showing a brutalised woman)

(See http://www.examiner.com/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~y2010m1d31-New-Israel-Fund-finances-most-Israeli-antiZionism and http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/article/2009/11/16/1009231/nif-on-defense-for-rape-poster-demonizing-israel)

Vivian Wineman, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews is a long-standing supporter of NIF. Is he going to continue to support this "Trojan horse"? Some conflict of interest surely?

Jonathan Karmi

Thanks so much for this research. When you read the full detail, it all makes better sense. However I'd like to see Israel use its collective ingenuity to develop smoke projectiles that are not based on phosphorus. It's nasty stuff to be using anywhere near civilians, even though technically it seems their use was within the law.

Jaz

So here is a simple question. Do you think it is appropriate for the IDF to fire white phos shells in areas where there are civilians. A simple yes or no will do.

alan stoddart

'The fact that two Israeli soldiers have been disciplined clearly gives substance to the Goldstone Report and rather than being merely sporadic incidents indicates a pattern of illegal action. This is a confession that something went very badly wrong and an admission that war crimes were committed. It reflects badly on the way the war was conducted and there will be consequences for Israel for such serious offences.

Er...said Ed Stourton, of the BBC.

He must be right because: If the question is "Can we trust the BBC?", the evidence shows most people do trust the BBC. Survey after survey indicates the BBC is significantly more trusted than other broadcasters and more trusted than any national newspaper.

Says Peter Horrocks...of the BBC.

Liz

Melanie, by mixing a little perverted truth with this story, Israel's enemies have made their lies far stronger. It's up to Ha'aretz to come out loud and clear and admit their linguistic blunder. Although..unfortunately...the damage has been done and will only serve to vindicate the haters of Israel...like the loathsome Galloway.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Jaz: it is truly heartening that you have such a "nuanced" view of the means of causing death and destruction in war....and you seem to represent a huge body of opinion which reflects a similarly extraordinary capacity.

I appreciate the moral thrust underlying the Geneva Conventions but I am always in awe of the extent to which ordinary people - like you - have not only managed to digest the subtleties of all the relevant points of International Law and moral distinctions upon which this Law is predicated but can also - so felicitously - develop such a strong position re techniques of causing death that they can feel no inhibition at all at the summits of self righteousness they so effortlessly inhabit.

Good on ya, mate!

Graeme

quite interesting that the BBC reported this about the phosphorus shells along with an Israeli soldier being disciplined for the theft of a credit card. Why did they not report during the conflict that Hamas rounded up civilians and placed them against their will next to military targets? Why did they not report that Hamas killed their secular rivals in Fatah? Why did they not report that the Hamas High Command hid in the basements of hospitals? Why did they not report that Hamas hid munitions in mosques? why did they not mention that Hamas fighters were fighting out of uniform in clear breach of the Geneva convention, which states that fighting out of uniform carries the death penalty for spying? Will Hamas court martial anyone on their side for war crimes or is that a silly question to ask?The only conclusion I can come to is blatant political bias by the Left wing BBC journalists and senior editors

George

Jaz,

When Hamas deliberately makes civilian areas into legitimate military targets, then the answer is a very simple Yes. The question you should be asking is whether it is appropriate for Hamas to deliberately fight from behind civilians.

Watt Tyler

Melanie Phillips, thank you, and keep up the good work.

It must be so tiring to work so hard for truth when our opponents lie with so much ease. So, we pray for your continued resistance.

DavidSI

Jaz asks:
"So here is a simple question. Do you think it is appropriate for the IDF to fire white phos shells in areas where there are civilians. A simple yes or no will do."
That’s a silly question. Does the ending of life matter whether a phosphorous shell, a tank shell, a Qassam rocket, a knife, a bullet, a suicide vest or a rifle butt caused it?
What is the moral distinction between a death of any civilian caused by any of the above weapons. I think the answer is "intent" .... what was the intended use of the weapon? I don’t think there can be any doubt about the intention of a suicide bomber who detonates his vest in a crowded civilian area. I don’t think there is much debate to be had about the intended purpose of firing an unguided Qassam rocket into a civilian area either.
Which brings us back to your question. If the clear intention of using a phosphorous shell is to obscure movement rather than kill, then its use is as appropriate. If, on the other hand, the phosphorous shell is intentionally fired into a crowd of civilians, then clearly its use is murderously inappropriate.
But the silliness of your question becomes clear at this point. Clearly, it is impossible to answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to your question without the context of proven intention. If your question was changed to “Do you think that it is appropriate to fire phosphorous shells into – or detonate a suicide vest amongst - a crowd of civilians, then the universal answer would be a resounding ‘No!’.
If it is shown that the IDF’s intended use of Phosphorous shells was to kill civilians then I’ll join you in damning that murderous act as much as I expect you to join me in condemning the deliberate targeting of civilian areas with Qassam rockets or suicide vests. Now, there’s something that you can answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to!

Trumpeldor

Haaretz agenda has been clear enough for decades !
Destroying Israeli's willingness to defend themselves is their only purpose.
Leftists'logics is so flawed now that all Israeli Jews are fleeing from this doomed ideeology except some remaining fools in the ranks of merets and "piece now",both heavily subsidized by the EU....
Best news are shrinking readership of that Israeli pravda whereas more serious piece of journalism come from real newspapers such as "Israel Hayom" !

Isaac Bickerstaff

Of course, the trouble is that everyone accepts Israel's terms of reference. THIS WAS NOT A WAR. So the rules of war are beside the point. There was a ceasefire, which Israel acknowledged was working, and which Israel broke. Osrael was offered negotiations, and Israel refused. Its assault on Gaza was simply that, a criminal assault.

It is interesting, nevertheless, that, even if we accept that the rules of war apply, Israel's actions were criminal.

The latest reports of the rules of engagement reveal that, if the IDF believed there to be armed men in an area, the IDF was allowed to fire on anything that moved. This in a strip of land with 1.5m civilians crammed into it and with nowhere off-limits to the IDF. "The IDF does not target civilians"! "It is the fault of Hamas for fighting among civilians."!

This is testimony to the inhumanity and irrationality induced by conflict.

Raymond Douglas

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this story.It seems that our media rushes to print the these sort of stories without first checking the facts rigorously ! Is this just sheer laziness, or an all to willing desire to all ways believe the worst about Israel?

Maggie

"Why did they not report during the conflict that Hamas rounded up civilians and placed them against their will next to military targets? Why did they not report that Hamas killed their secular rivals in Fatah? Why did they not report that the Hamas High Command hid in the basements of hospitals? Why did they not report that Hamas hid munitions in mosques? why did they not mention that Hamas fighters were fighting out of uniform in clear breach of the Geneva convention, which states that fighting out of uniform carries the death penalty for spying?"
- Because unlike you "Graeme", they can sometimes tell the difference between fact and unsubstantiated propaganda.

Carl

These will be the white phosphorous shells that Israel denied using then? The same shells that many contributors here denied were used? The IDF used brute force against defenceless civilians in defiance not just of international law but basic humanity.

If Eisenberg and Malka dare set foot into the civilised world, they must be arrested and tried for war crimes.

Graeme

Dear Maggie, it is NOT unsubstantiated propaganda but established fact what Hamas did during that conflict. I have read far too much from respected publications to be told otherwise.
apologies to Melanie for using her guest book for this sort of thing. I usually disapprove of this.

Shaun Harbord

Isaac Bickerstaff, well said - but you are a voice in the wilderness on this site.

Alex Bensky

I see that Isaac has adopted the general definition: Hamas is observing a ceasefire if it shoots fewer missiles at Israel than it did last month. If Israel shoots back it's breaking the ceasfire. I assume Isaac would also agree with the current definition of "disproportionate." When it comes to Israel "disproportionate" is a synonym for "effective."

As another poster remarks, Maggie is flatly and entirely mistaken--there really isn't any doubt that Hamas fired from civilian areas and used civilians as shields.

Davieboy

Thanks for this Melanie - another fab piece of research to counter the baying mob who love/live to attack Israel.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Alex Bensky,
I was simply taking the hazardous step of crediting what the Israeli security forces and indeed the then Defence Minister said. The ceasefire was working. That is the Israeli government's OWN assessment.

Ed

One question. Seeing as you are obsessed with the idea that the IDF are unfairly being seen as acting illegally.....Is firing rockets into a civilian area illegal or not? Your argument seems a little pointless.

Graeme - define 'respected publication'. The Beano is a 'respected publication' but I wouldn't trust it to tell me what the facts are in the Middle East.

D

Two things. One; There appear to be two seperate reports about what the two officers were reprimnded for. http://www.thejc.com/news/israel-news/26676/idf-officers-disciplined-gaza-white-phosphorus

Two; Still violated the laws of war.

ahad ha'amoratsim

Carl "These will be the white phosphorous shells that Israel denied using then? The same shells that many contributors here denied were used?" read the story, Carl. They were not white phosphorus shells. They were explosive, non-phosporus shells. And neither the IDF nor its defenders denied that white phosphorus was used as a screening or illumination device; we have denied that Israel used it unlawfullly as an anti-personnel weapon. So far those denials appear to be accurate.

Ed "Is firing rockets into a civilian area illegal or not?" What a silly question. Is taking money out of a wallet illegal or not? All depends on whose money, whose wallet, who has custody of the wallet, and on when, where and how the taking is done. The same is true of virtually any other act, up to and including talking. (If you think I'm exaggerating, go into court room some time while a trial is in session and try talking while the judge is.)

Trumpeldor

@Isaac Bickerstaff,

If this was not a war,go tell such a nonsense to the inhabitants of Sderot,Shahar ha negev and all the Eshkol districts who have been daily bombed for years !
Of course,in your twisted sense of logic,since these people are Jews , they have no rights to defend themselves !
Bear in mind that you may shed tears about holocaust and yellow star whereas ,we prefer the much more lively pictures of the blue star on a blue and white flag,adorning a school or even a Merkava MK4 battle tank !
We demand the same right,as Sri Lankan,to defend ourselves against terrorists
If they choose to hide among civilians,we will kill them while TRYING to avoid collateral losses of life.
Now,go and demonstrate your solidarity with really oppressed people in front of iran, Egypt,Sudan,Syria,China,Russia or Burmese embassies
Oh,you are not aware of war crimes in these regions ......
Sure,since Jews are not involved,you have no clue and goldstone is not interested...
By the way,what about "president"al bashir fate ???

Augustus

Israel's defence forces are entitled to use whatever means is at their disposal to search out and destroy terrorist operatives. Israel is free to employ all munitions, tactics, equipment, and personnel in her arsenal to defend herself against such outlaw organizations as Hamas, whose stated goal is nothing less than
the entire eradication of the Israeli people, and the establishment of an Islamic state in Israel's place. Hamas is an 'entity', not a recognized combatent, and is therefore not entitled to any special protection under any laws of war of the Geneva Conventions. Short of the intentional targeting and murder of truly uninvolved civilians, Israel can, and should, operate as freely as she desires to protect her territorial sovereignty and the lives of her citizens. Israel had every right to bomb Gaza and use artillary fire. And when
its tactics called for the use of smoke obscurants it proved an effective means of balancing between operational and humanitarian considerations, because their use often prevented the need to use explosive munitions with a considerably more dangerous collateral impact.

Adam B.

Carl, is anyone from Hamas guilty of war crimes? You know, the same antisemitic terror organization Hamas for which you have expressed admiration on this site?

Adam B.

Isaac Bickerstaff, it was Hamas which declared that the ceasefire was over, as Israel publicly offered to renew it.

Do you think Hamas are a reasonable bunch of guys?

Adam B.

Maggie, which of the facts attributed to Hamas' behaviour do you believe to be untrue?

manuel escott

The Goldstone Report on the Gaza assault(I hesitate to call it a war) called on both Hamas and Israel to establish independent ,impartial inquiries into the report's a;;egations that both sides committed war crimes.. One did not xpec Hamas to comply with the request. Israel's response was to let the IDF conuct its inquiry, which i rather like sending an arsonist to put out a fire. The IDF has a history of spinning past reports into abuses by soldiers. This report follows past form. One egregious example of its "impartiality" was its insistence inn the report that Gaza's only operaing flour mill was hit by a tank shell because Hamas fighters were fighting there. The Goldstone report accused Israel of deliberately targettin the mill in an air strike, a war crime since it was aimed to deprive civilians of a food source. A U.N. team and a Guardian reporter found bomb fragments inn the mill wreckage, large enough to identify its make and origin, clear evidence of an air attack. If he IDF clearly misled on this major allegation, how trustworthy is the rest of its findings. Israel has don its international reputation seriousdamage with th Gaza assault and now this travesty of a independent inquiry. Nothing short of a new tribunal of supreme court judges and perhaps some leading academics will dispel perceptions that there is real substance to the Goldstone charges. Manuel Escott,Toronto

Pro-Zionist

Cannot the IDF or the officers in question sue Haaretz for defamation?

Carl

Adam B - I'm not sure how you can turn an understanding of what Hamas do into admiration for them.
I hope that you can join me in condemning the Israeli use of artillery against unarmed civilians.

Adam B.

Manuel Escott, your allegation that Israel misled on the incident you describe makes no sense. Did Israel deny hitting the mill, and was the mill indeed being used by Hamas as a firing position?

Also, you say "no-one" expected Hamas to respond and carry out an independent investigation.

Why does the UN ask for it then?

boxermk

A girl was buried alive in Turkey the other day.

The Iranian regime is turturing and murdering its own people.

A teenage girl was whipped in Saudi Arabia for bringing a cell phone into class.

Suicide bombers are still blowing up fellow Muslims on a weekly basis.

Poor Hamas. Poor, poor, poor Hamas.

Linda Smith

Carl - do you "understand" this as well:

Younis Astal, MP:

“"Soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, like Constantinople was conquered, according to the prophecy of our Prophet Muhammad. Their capital will be the first post of the Islamic conquests that will spread all over Europe then it will turn to the two Americas and even to eastern Europe... In this mission of saving humanity from the Fire [of Hell], of which they are on the brink."
(Al-Aqsa (Hamas) TV, April 11 2008)

From special Palestinian Media Watch report presented in the Italian Parliament last week

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1635

eh-oop

Manuel Escott - as you should know by now, the mill's roof was unholed, whereas the walls were holed by tank fire. Since bombs drop from above, it's reasonable to draw the conclusion that the bomb fragments were brought-in from elsewhere and hoisted up from below. But reasonable conclusions are not what one would expect from your named sources when it comes to Israel.

Ed

Linda Smith - Do you understand that every religious zealot since the dawn of time has dreamed of their faith dominating the globe to the exclusion of all others. This is hardly a shocking revelation is it? "Religious zealot wants their religion to dominate the globe" - who would have thunk it?

Derek

Linda Smith

An interesting link - thank you. What would now be useful would be for someone to set up a similar site to monitor what is being said in the muslim community in England - especially by the preachers in the country's mosques.

Adam B.

No Carl, I won't join with you because Israel did no such thing. Israel does not target civilians, Hamas does (and indeed rejoices at the deaths of Israeli civilians).

You have expressed admiration for the antisemitic terror group Hamas in the past. Now apparently you merely "understand" the antisemitic terror group Hamas.

Well that's OK then.

Ben

Under the laws of war, an act is disproportionate if the military advantage gained from it is insignificant compared to the damage caused by it. This is a specialised meaning of the word disproportionate, which is very different from the meaning given to the word in regular discourse. In most other contexts, an act is disproportionate if the damage caused by it is much greater than the damage that provoked it.

C. Gee

Ed:

You are ill-informed on religion. There are non-proselytizing religions, non-breeding religions, some advocating seclusion, self-abnegation and the rejection of all manner of worldly goods and other people. Islam is the only religion I am aware of seeking, by its own terms, world domination.

Generally, the suggestion that Islamic zealots are the same as zealots of other religions does not hold up to scrutiny. But even if all zealots were the same, the Islamic variety are still a menace, and should be resisted.

Carl

Derek - you make a very good point. After all, the Second Coming is hardly about peace and love for all is it?

Derek

Carl

I am not sure that I was making any "point". What is yours?

In the meantime, I note that the Syrian Foreign Minister, speaking for the Assad family interests, is threatening Israel's population centres with attack. I am sure that you would agree that if any representatives of these hooligans dare set foot into the civilised world, they must be arrested and tried for plotting war crimes. Perhaps you could start in London with the Syrian Ambassador to the Court of St. James?

Derek BLADES

Shaun Harbord, February 4th, wrote "Isaac Bickerstaff, well said - but you are a voice in the wilderness on this site."

Not entirely. Carl and now Maggie also try to bring some balance to these discussions. I do too but I am so often denied access by Ms Phillip's censors that I will soon call it a day.

solemnman

How can the continued use of deadly weapons, in waging war, be justified when perfectly safe, non lethal, tazer guns and tranquilizer darts are freely available?

ahad ha'amoratsim

So tell me, maggie, if this is all unsubstantiated propaganda, exactly what does a Hamas uniform look like?

Philo

We have here exhaustive consideration of why it was wrong to report that the IDF considers phosphorous inappropriate to drop on cities; yet silence on reports of a change to IDF rules of engagement allowing fire to be directed at anything that moved in areas the IDF believed had combatants in them. I would have thought both sets of reports relevant to the debate there ought to be about how high tech armies should behave when attacking rag-tag resistance fighters in civilian populations.

Adam B.

Philo, Hamas are not "resistance fighters", they are a well financed, antisemitic racist terror group, which target civilians because they are Jewish.

Derek

Adam

Philo could also have been informed that Hamas is to all intents and purposes an arm of the Iranian state and an extension of Iranian foreign policy. As Philo does not appear to be yet aware of this, although he could have read the following, for example, exactly a year ago -

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/the_iran_hamas_connection.html

- one would have to conclude that he has either not been doing his homework, in which case he really should not be commenting on this blog, or that he is a supporter of the authoritarian reactionaries in Tehran, in which case no more need be said.

Isaac Bickerstaff

How few and how threadbare the excuses put forward to evade negotiation. Contempt for your enemy is not sufficient reason. Israel evades serious talks because it believes that, with the backing of the US, it can get everything it wants. With the backing of the US, it is free to continue its oppression, killing and maiming until it gets all it wants.

Philo

Derek,
"American Thinker"!

No more need be said.

Si, N

Derek, cites American Thinker as a credible source? Give us a break.

One would have to conclude that he has not been doing his homework.

Derek

Si, N, Philo

I assure you that it was with the greatest reluctance that I decided to risk confusing you with the facts, but fortunately you seem to have avoided the danger

Si, N

It’s a fact; during the Gaza massacre none of the people directing the combatants bothered about civilian casualties.

The rocket fire from Gaza is common currency on this blog - the testimony of serving Israeli combatants snide cash. Nevertheless {moderator permitting}, their voices will be heard here.

Arik Dubnov of the reconnaissance company of a reserve brigade, has testified clearly:

‘[f]rom the first briefings before going in, it was clear that the army had changed its entire mindset. Instead of getting the usual precautions on not harming civilians, we were told about the need to make a very aggressive entry…[s]ome of us were very uncomfortable with these orders, others were pleased that finally the IDF was taking off the kid gloves’.

These ‘new’ {actually the only novelty is Arik et al speaking out about the disregard for Palestinian civilians} ‘rules of engagement’ are of a piece with Matan Vilnai threatening the Gazans with a ‘bigger shoah’ back in February 2008.

Elsewhere, Israeli combatants have spoken frankly about the need to dehumanise the 'other side', and there being no distinction between civilian and combatant:

‘[the] demonization of the other side. it turns the other side as a generality into “sons of darkness” while we become “sons of light.” There is no differentiation which we would expect to find between civilians and others’.

And using Palestinians as human shields:

‘the method used has a new name now - no longer “'neighbor procedure”…now people are called
“Johnnie”, they're palestinian civilians, and they're called Johnnies…we send the neighbor in, the Johnnie…'

'...sometimes the force would enter while placing rifle barrels on a civilian's shoulder, advancing into a house and using him as a human shield. Commanders said these were the instructions and we had to do it’.

(http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/oferet/index_e.asp)

See also, 'Shooting and Crying', Amos Harel, 28 April 2009.

See also, the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (The Goldstone Report, pp. 499-885): http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf

See also, the Amnesty International report, ‘Israel/Gaza: Operation "Cast Lead": 22 days of death and destruction’: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/021/2009/en/eeeff3af-ace9-4ff2-845a-a8eca2ae1ad4/mde150212009eng.pdf

See also, the Human Rights Watch report, ‘White Flags of Death’: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/08/13/white-flag-deaths-0

See also, the Human Rights Watch report, ’Precisely Wrong’: http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/06/30/precisely-wrong-0

See also, the press release by B’tselem, ‘Siege on Gaza gravely harms civilians and prevents reconstruction after Operation Cast Lead’ (27 December 2009): http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20091227.asp

Adam B.

Sin attacks Derek for citing American Thinker, but then quotes from HRW, (remember their fundraising campaign in Saudi, where they flaunted their anti-Israel credentials to get more money in that beacon of human rights?) Amnesty (which has now been criticized by its founder for being obsessively biased against Israel), Btselem (a group with its own leftist political agenda) - as if these groups are somehow impartial and to be trusted.

Adam B.

Sin, are you happy with the way Hamas conducts itself? Are you happy with its philosphy?

Augustus

Si,N states that the rocket fire from Gaza is common currency on this blog. But even Hamas leaders claimed at the time that they were intending to harm civilians. Hundreds of rockets rained down on areas where no military installations were located. Israel embarked on a serious investigation of any possible wrongdoing and took action in some cases. On the other hand, all the Palestinians can do is exploit the one-sided Goldstone Report for propaganda purposes, and with no intention of bringing any Hamas terrorists to account for their numerous violations of international law. Israel's investigative system is entirely impartial and independent. That's why it is able to take disciplinary action
against two top officers for permitting artillary fire near a UN compound, despite evidence that the firing came from Hamas units targeting Israeli troops with anti-tank missiles and other weaponry.

Philo

Derek,

AmericanThinker asserts...

And "IranianBigot.con" asserts in its turn that Israel is simply an instrument for furthering the strategic interests of the US, and cites in evidence the fact that the US finances Israel, supplies it with all the latest weaponry, supports its diplomacy of rejectionism...

As another contributor has said, how tawdry the excuses for avoiding negotiation.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Philo
"February 7th, 2010 8:25pm
We have here exhaustive consideration of why it was wrong to report that the IDF considers phosphorous inappropriate to drop on cities; yet silence on reports of a change to IDF rules of engagement allowing fire to be directed at anything that moved in areas the IDF believed had combatants in them. I would have thought both sets of reports relevant to the debate there ought to be about how high tech armies should behave when attacking rag-tag resistance fighters in civilian populations."

Luckily, Philo, Iran and Syria are not "high tech" armies and Syria has not armed Hizbollah with, for example, Fateh 110 missiles. Rag tag...You're havin' a laugh, amte.

You are a lame propagandist, Philo. Noone buys your faux seriousness on Middle East issues.

War will come soon..we all know that..and your pathetic adjunct to the normal frenzy of Arab rhetoric will cement the path to more bloodshed.

Stop speaking for the Palestinian people. Rather, bunker down..and enjoy your just deserts.

Adam B.

Derek

Indeed. They are more concerned with attacking the source than the substance.

I think your latter hypothesis is the accurate one.

Si, N

Adam B., it’s good that you accept the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict – thing is, it concurs with the reports from the Agencies that you attempt to smear. (btw, you’ve got your stock vilifications of Amnesty/HRW a bit muddled up – instead of regurgitating the drivel you’re spoonfed with, why don’t you digest the actual reports and do some reflecting)

‘[A]re you happy with the way Hamas conducts itself? ‘[H]appy’ is a very peculiar word to use when the whole thing is a tragedy don’t you reckon? Though something of a gleeful note is discerned in Hanna’s American Thinker article:

‘Palestinians have taken a pounding unlike anything they have experienced since the war of 1948’.

Hanna goes on to fantasize:

‘[o[ne of the most critical of the questions is whether Tehran was behind Hamas' escalation leading to the Israeli retaliation’.

Wtf! We knew on 6 November 2008 precisely why Hamas (observant of the June 2008 ceasefire so it wasn’t an ‘escalation’) resumed fire - because Israeli forces made an incursion into Gaza and killed 6 Hamas operatives on 5 November 2008. Remember, throughout the ceasefire Israel failed to meet the conditions by refusing to ease (just a little) the economic siege on Gaza.

Hanna isn’t dealing in ‘the facts’ – I’m amazed that you seem to believe he is. Be honest, the ‘article’ is nothing but a poorly executed attempt to delegitimise the Palestinian struggle and drum-up support for the next bout of ME mayhem and murder.

Si, N

Augustus, I did say that ‘none of the people directing the combatants bothered about civilian casualties’. And with respect, the Goldstone Report appears ‘one-sided’ because it accurately reports what happened during the massacre. If you don’t like what the Goldstone Report says I suggest you complain about the perpetrators of such massacres, not the people reporting the incidents.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Si, N: I admire your forensic knowledge of the Cast Lead operation. It is consummately balanced and without prejudice. You do seem a dogged warrior for Justice. In short, I salute you.

What I don not understand, however, is what difference you would like your Judicial crusading against Israel and theIDF to make in terms of the political future of the region.

Do you, for example, believe, that if there had been no Cast Lead, Israel and/or the IDF, would be any less reprehensible?

If one goes back in time - to the pre '67 Armistice Lines, when Gaza was ruled by the Egyptians, the West Bank, including the Old City of Jerusalem, by Jordan - do you believe that Israel and/or the IDF was any less reprehensible then?

Going back further, to November 1947, when the jews accepted resolution 181 and the Arabs rejected it, do you believe the Jews and/or the Haganah/irgun/ Stern gang etc were any less reprehensible then?

Let's go even further back - to the Arab Revolt of '36 or even further back - to the Arab revolt of '22...what are your thoughts re the Jews in Palestine then?

My point is simple this: are the merits of your case about Israel and the IDF re it's MO during Cast Lead - in terms of the ethics of war - in any way useful, in the light of your political view of the merits and demerits of Jewish presence in Palestine? Are they not simply redundant or do they serve merely to bolster that political opinion which you would hold regardless of Goldstone et al?

If you think that Israel and the jews are unjust by virtue of them wanting to develop and maintain a state in the Levant at all, then why should we even bother discussing Cast Lead in terms of specific Justice, when general Justice is a moot point - in the context of this conflict?

Clearly, if a state justly feels that it has neighbors who have vowed to destroy it...and this avowed position is rooted in a long and continuous history - there is no doubt that violent conflict would always be close to break out point...and we know that armed conflict is notoriously likely to yield cases which make lawyers - especially International Lawyers - twitchy.

Whatever side of the political divide you may be on, there is no doubt that any state in the world in Israel's position would behave in a similar if not far more aggressive fashion...and most likely make the task of the Goldstones and the Hague, far simpler.

Si, N

'Si, N…I salute you'. Cheers JOHN.

Caution though - you speak of Jews in general - I don't.

You ask, 'what difference you would like your Judicial crusading against Israel and the IDF to make in terms of the political future of the region'. A positive starting point would be for Israel to accept the criticism clearly outlined in the many reports - such as those cited above - produced in the wake of Cast Lead (you speak of the 'ethics of war' - it wasn't a 'war' it was a massacre). Also, I'd like to see Israel adopting, instead of resolutely blocking, the Internationally agreed consensus on the just resolution of the conflict - including a 2 state solution based on the pre-June 1967 borders.

Btw, you speak of my 'case about Israel and the IDF' - to be clear, it's not my case - it is the opinion of the International Community and the findings of numerous Human Rights agencies.

Adam B.

Sin, I have not smeared those organizations, they have managed to do that all by themselves. Human Rights Watch, in case you have forgotten, went on a fundraising spree in Saudi Arabia. To sell itself to the Saudis (a country which indulges in public beheadings), it presented itself as being a fierce critic of Israel. Yes, true impartiality (and a love of human rights!) at work. You may be interested to read this:

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001047.html

Do you deny what Robert Bernstein said about HRW? His points, if you bother to read them, apply equally to other NGO's such as Amnesty. And what about the Nazi fetishist who held a senior post in that organization?

Nice dodge about the nature of Hamas, which you don't address. John is of course right, you are against Israel even existing at all, (you have demonstrated this clearly in your previous posts) and if you were honest you would lay your cards on the table, instead of huffing and puffing about this report or that report. Come on, out with it!

Isaac Bickerstaff

Are we to disbelieve everything B'Tselem, Amnesty etc. say, for example, when they report crimes committed by Palestinians? Or are we to disbelieve them only when they report Israel's crimes?

Why is the IDF alone among the world's armies (indeed among all government organizations anywhere) to be allowed to investigate itself and have its findings implicitly believed?

Why is it said of anyone who criticizes Israel that they secretly believe that Israel should not exist?

Augustus

Si,N - Why do you think it is that both Hezbollah and Hamas use the Nazi salute? It is no coincidence, it is because that is where their roots lie. The seething hatred by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad for the Jews all has its origin in the collaboration between Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hadj Mohammed Amin al-Husayni during WW2. The 1936-39 Arab revolt in Palestine was funded by Nazis from 1937 when Hitler asked the Mufti to fight against the Jewish immigration and the creation of a Jewish state. Husayni had the same aim as Hitler: The annihilation of the Jews, as well as any Arabs who were against him. The Mufti
(an uncle of Arafat) fought for Hitler, not only in Palestine, but also in the Balkans where a Muslim SS division was created in Bosnia. It was during the war, after the Mufti had emigrated to Berlin in 1941, that he called all Muslims via shortwave radio broadcasts in Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, to unite in hatred against Britain and the Jews. Anti-Semitic propaganda was heard in countless bazaars and coffee houses throughout the ME
mixed with Arabian music and citations from the Koran. He was in fact the driving force in translating Western anti-Semitism into an Islamic one: Islamic anti-Semitism.

After the war, in 1946, France, who held the Mufti in captivity, allowed him to escape
and when the press announced that fact flags and bunting and the great man's portrait was to be seen in Jerusalem and every Arabic town and village. You cannot divorce jihad, the compulsory Muslim hatred of Jews from the state of Israel. It is certainly a declared war by Muslims, History proves that it is. And anyone who believes that Muslims will somehow change and truly accomodate a peaceful solution is guilty of wishful thinking.

Adam B.

Isaac, a couple of points.
1. The organizations you name have a very clear political view of the conflict - indeed, Btselem openly campaigns on a political basis. Consequently, it is hardly surprising that they have a long record of attacking Israel, whilst condemnations of other neighbouring regimes, whilst they may exist, are neither as numerous nor as vociferous as their reports about Israel. In short, it is a skewed picture.
2. Israel "allowed" to investigate itself? What do you mean? It is unique that it does indeed investigate itself - how many other nations in conflict conduct investigations at all? I would be most interested to learn of examples (any Nato countries in Afghanistan, or UK forces in Iraq?) Can you seriously imagine any of Israel's neighbours conducting investigations into themselves?

Philo

Can I suggest that it may be that Adam B. is trying to say something both interesting and controversial when he implies that the IDF is Israel and Israel is the IDF.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Si, N
February 9th, 2010 11:38am
“'Si, N…I salute you'. Cheers JOHN.”

Pleasure. I hasten to add, it would not be a Hams salute☺

“Caution though - you speak of Jews in general - I don't.”

I do, yes, in relation to the Mandate period. What should I call the Jews of Palestine – “Jewlestinians”?? Don’t be concerned. I am sensitive to the nuances of the distinctions between anti Zionists and anti Semites and respect your possible sensitivities re same:)

“You ask, 'what difference you would like your Judicial crusading against Israel and the IDF to make in terms of the political future of the region'. A positive starting point would be for Israel to accept the criticism clearly outlined in the many reports - such as those cited above - produced in the wake of Cast Lead (you speak of the 'ethics of war' - it wasn't a 'war' it was a massacre).”

The point is: what difference would that make if the agenda is to rid the Middle East of the State of Israel – which is certainly the consensus amongst most, if not all, Arab/Moslem forces currently reigned against Israel?

“Also, I'd like to see Israel adopting, instead of resolutely blocking, the Internationally agreed consensus on the just resolution of the conflict - including a 2 state solution based on the pre-June 1967 borders.”

Yes, wouldn’t that be nice. Oh, that it were all so simple and one-sided. Have you not read Augustus’s excellent post above? Don’t you think you may be ignoring the Jihadi agenda and the effect of that on Israel policy-making? Minor detail, to be sure, but perhaps worth considering. Or perhaps you think Israel is imagining the salient desire of its enemies to roll back history to some halcyon era when the Jews had no power in Palestine (to put it politely)?. If you think the international community can indeed guarantee Israel’s genuine security within the Green Line (there are no formally recognized boarders of Israel with the West bank etc, as you surely know) - in spite of all - of course things may change.

“Btw, you speak of my 'case about Israel and the IDF' - to be clear, it's not my case - it is the opinion of the International Community and the findings of numerous Human Rights agencies.”

So, not yours, then? Do you share the “opinion of the international Community and the findings of numerous Human Rights agencies” or are you merely slavishly following it because you think the Law is the Law? I am not saying whether the Law should or shouldn’t be followed, but I am interested to know what you think and why and to understand your punctilious critique of Israel’s egregiously “illegal” way of conducting warfare in the context of your view of Israel’s right to exist at all, its history vis a vis its enemies etc, rather than in vacuo. After all, if it were the case - say - that Israel could not be accused of illegal action against Gaza but, even then, it would make no difference to your or its enemies’ view of it - how could we ever hope to pursue peace in the region..and how, then, could we ever find a way to understanding if peace is possible? Unless we understand what the Arab/moslems really feel towards Israel and, therefore, what Israel really has to be made feel secure about, how can we have any confidence in the International community’s assurances to Israel re secure boarders etc..?

We live in dangerous times. It would be remiss of us all - unless we do indeed wish to destroy Israel – not understand the nature of the thinking on both sides. In the light of the actions of the current regime in Iran, particularly, this may be more about preserving the region – if not further afield – from unthinkable violence – than resolving the Palestinian conflict.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Adam B.
I can only assume you mistake what I say deliberately. But then what is the point?

Adam B.

Isaac, make yourself clearer then.

Isaac Bickerstaff

"Adam B.
I can only assume you mistake what I say DELIBERATELY..."

"Adam B.
February 10th, 2010 4:15pm
Isaac, make yourself clearer then." ??

This exchange seems to indicate incredibly enough that your misinterpretations are not deliberate, but...

I asked:
Are we to believe B'Tselem et al. when they report Palestinian crimes, and disbelieve them only (and always)when they report Israeli crimes?
Is the IDF, uniquely, to be trusted to investigate charges of its own wrongdoing?
Why are those who criticize Israel accused of wanting to do away with it?

Adam B.

Isaac, I made my views about Btselem and similarly minded NGO's clear - that whilst they may cite examples of palestinian wrongdoing, they have obsessive and politically driven reasons to attack Israel, and the condemnations are more vociferous and more numerous. I don't believe this reflects reality. Personally, I would never quote from such a source.

If you don't trust the IDF investigations, fine. My point to you, obviously lost, was that Israel is fairly unique in investigating its own army at all. I wondered if you could cite me other examples of other nations doing the same in similar circumstances?

Your last question is meaningless without context - of course not all critics of Israeli policy want to do away with the country, (who has said they do?) but I believe many of them do; indeed, for many, it is the motivation of the "criticism" in the first place.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Adam B.
The organizations we are talking about take the trouble to look at the evidence and talk to witnesses. You cannot simply dismiss their reports out of hand because they are "driven by politics" (in this instance a wish that illegal violence should cease and, I suspect, that the solution the international community has long advocated be implemented). You should take the trouble to study the voluminous and readily available evidence of what has happened and continues to happen in the West Bank and Gaza. Deliberate ignorance is not an excuse. I note that you are happy to repeat what the Israeli authorities assert without demur despite the severe restrictions on independent corroboration.

You are simply mistaken in saying that no other army would investigate allegations against itself. It is also wrong to say that no army would allow an independent investigation. Similarly with other government agencies. As Chilcot illustrates, such investigations by the "Establishment" tend to be carefully stage-managed, with the appointment of sympathetic investigators. Nevertheless, information does on occasion leak out (often when the authorities are forced to concede what organizations such as Amnesty et al. have reported). It is not enough simply to boast that the IDF is so very virtuous that it even investigates allegations of its own wrong-doing. It has a long history of less than forthcoming reports.

I have followed the discussions here for some time and have yet to find anyone who has said that Israel should cease to exist. I have noticed you and others repeating the accusation with surprising frequency.

Adam B.

Isaac, your assertion that I should take reports authored by agencies who are intrinsically hostile to the Jewish state is surprising. Their reports may indeed be voluminous, but they are, without any doubt whatsoever, skewed to a particular narrative. One only has to investigate the background of the authors (and this has been done ad nauseam on other threads) to see that there is an agenda. Of course, this doesn't make everything they claim incorrect, but the idea that these reports are impartial is, frankly, absurd.

You say you don't know anyone on these threads who advocates the end of Israel. Carl has expressed open admiration for Hamas, which in turn advocates the extermination of Israel and all Jews. Make of that what you will. Don't you see that even amongst the mere "critics", the total absence of any bad word about such groups as Hamas, Hizbollah, the antisemitic regime in Tehran - doesn't this absence tell you something? It should.

Finally, you say you're not impressed with Israel investigating its own actions. Fine. But I still await an example, which you claim to be numerous, of another country investigating the conduct of its armed forces as a whole, in a situation of war. Any at all?

Isaac Bickerstaff

Adam B.
The organizations in question are not intrinsically hostile to Israel. They criticize it in one particular respect where its behaviour is illegal. To itemize incidents of illegality is not to impose a narrative. To assert that someone has a political agenda is not sufficient to allow you to ignore their reports of crimes. The government of Israel has an agenda: this does not mean we should ignore its reports of crimes by Hamas. Your excuse for ignoring reports of Israel's crimes is without merit.

It would appear that you have not found anyone who says Israel should cease to exist. Your one attempt at a citation requires an unsupported inference. You say Carl supports Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. I will not speak for Carl, but I would hazard a guess that he does not endorse everything that anyone who speaks for Hamas has ever said, but rather supports Hamas as a resistance movement, which it undoubtedly is (just as many supported the ANC despite qualms about its “military wing”, because its paltry “military wing” was up against a military machine that killed thousands). I would hazard a guess that he does not endorse its charter's call for the destruction of Israel; that he has a fairly accurate estimate of the probability of such a call being successfully acted upon; and that he is aware that Hamas has repeatedly called on Israel to negotiate on the 1967 boundaries. You have yet to show that your slur has any foundation other than your imaginings.

You continue to identify Israel with the IDF and the IDF with Israel, which is curious. You also slip in the erroneous assertion that Israel was at war when it assaulted Gaza. We should not get fixated on the instances of armies or other government agencies allowing independent investigations of their activities in war or peace: I think we can agree that most of these bodies are as self-serving as the IDF and prefer to investigate their alleged wrong-doings themselves and exonerate themselves, and that most independent investigations are independent in the same sense as Chilcott, Butler, Hutton, Scott etc., or become exorbitantly expensive in pursuit of truth like the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Some rare inquires do better. However, I suggest we return to the question that I in fact asked you: why should the IDF, uniquely, be trusted implicitly when it reports its findings on its own alleged crimes? You dismiss out of hand whatever B'Tselem et al say about these alleged crimes because they “have an agenda”; and you accept without question what the IDF says despite its having an “agenda” and despite its long history of disingenuous investigations and reports. Why?
You have yet to provide an answer that addresses the question.

Adam B.

Isaac, do you assert that these NGO's are indeed impartial, or that they're not impartial but I should take their "findings" seriously anyway?

If you honestly think that all those who endlessly and obsessively condemn Israel on this blog aren't against the Jewish state existing, you are more naive than I thought. I'll tell you what - why don't you ask them when they appear again - I trust you will be interested to know.

And I'm still waiting for your example of a country investigating its armed forces as a whole during a time of war.

Do you not understand that in most cases, such criticism, which is now part of a global campaign, is really simply an attempt to delegitimize Israel altogether? How else do you explain the singling out of Israel, to the detriment of other conflicts?

Isaac Bickerstaff

Adam B.
I note how what you say changes subtly and not so subtly to allow you to maintain the belligerent tone while avoiding the questions actually put to you.

Now it's, Are they partial or impartial? - Try to read what was written.

Now it's, So you think they don't want Israel to cease to exist, why don't you ask them - you mean you yourself haven't? - Why then the confident assertion that they do want Israel to cease to exist?

Now it's, So give me an example of a country investigating its armed forces AS A WHOLE and in time of war. - Despite your elegant editing of your question, the point remains the same: you seem to believe that we should all believe the IDF implicitly, no questions asked.

Like so many before me, I have begun to realise that your purpose is to stonewall, to avoid the necessity of addressing legitimate criticism of Israel (an example in miniature of Israel's own strategy of avoiding negotiation until it has got what it wants, however many people have to be impoverished, wounded or killed in the process). Like so many before me, I have begun to understand the futility of trying to engage you in rational debate on a matter of life and death importance.

Si, N

Adam B., you keep missing the salient point.

The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (Goldstone Report), which you accept – you’ve not yet attempted to dismiss it - concurs with the reports from the organisations you unreasonably attempt but fail to discredit. Along with those from HRW, Amnesty, Oxfam, CAFOD, Physicians for Human Rights, B’tselem etc, the Goldstone Report mostly reports Israeli misdemeanours because Israel is the greater offender.

UN special rapporteur Richard Falk has argued that a new nomenclature is required to describe Israel’s treatment of the Gazans: when a modern military machine aided and abetted by The superpower imprisons a population of 1.5 million people (50% below age 18) – over a period of 6 years it terrorises that population from land, sea and sky with hi-tech weaponry inflicting death and cruel trauma on all the children – laying merciless siege it brings that population to near starvation - then in blatant defiance of a ceasefire it engages in a 28 day massacre killing 1,400 people, sending the remainder of the population back to the ‘mud age’ while the world looks on. All of it carefully laid out in the perfectly credible reports cited above.

For all that, Israel’s ‘Investigation of itself’ yields a laughably mild rebuke to a couple of military men – in short, nothing but the most cursory lip-service. Yet for some that miraculously trumps everything else. And then to speak of bias?

As Norman Finkelstein said, beyond chutzpah.

Adam B.

Isaac, I refute that utterly. Of course the IDF is not beyond analysis or criticism. I do believe the vast bulk of that criticism to be flawed (I have seen too many accusations turn out to be lies) and politically motivated (yes Sin the Goldstone report is a sick joke, authored by individuals who declared their minds before investigations even began). However, I do refuse to take part in a forum which holds the IDF to a standard which is either ignored or excused with others - the point you simply don't get is that such criticism is, in most cases, motivated by a wish to delegitimize the entire Jewish state. If you can't or won't understand this, I have nothing further to say to you.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Si, N: it seems that you are obsessed with having your claims about Israel's venality vindicated. That seems honorable enough if there is no ulterior motive and your interests in State venality - generally - extends to all states etc..

However, you clearly do have another agenda and this maks your concerns somewhat spurious, if not far worse.

Your agenda is to vilify a state which you would vilify whether or not Goldstone found against it; whether or not Cast Lead ever occurred; whether or not a separation wall existed; whether Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza or not; whether Israel existed within the Armistice lines or not.

To put it simply: you are a rabid anti Zionist and, by virute of its mere existence as a state, Israel can do no right in your eyes.

This view has no place in the Peace process and should be judged as contributing to the public opinion which helps preclude peace. In fact it is the antithesis of any peace process; and those who pillory Israel in order to deligitmise it are, therefore , crucially to blame for the state of affairs that currenty affects Arabs and israelis in the conflict zone.On the one hand, therefore, you talk of justice and the stopping of violence. On the other you deliberately work to undermine it

Your attitude will harden th Israeli seige mentality and worsen, thereby, the destitution of the Palestinian Arabs - significantly, though not recognised by you, by enabling the likes of Hamas to manipulate and abuse its own people - and hold them to ransom, as the Arab regimes have consistently and deplorably done in the past.

Hamas is an Islamo Fascist regime, just as Hizbollah and Ahmedinijad's regime are. There is no room in your view for any vilification of these groups, because this would undermine, in your eyes, your obessive hatred of israel.

You are, therefore, not only a mendacious supporter of violence but you have the moral burden on your shoulders - as much as anyone- of aiding and abetting the perpetuation of this general tragedy.

Time you had a chat with Goldstone, I suspect.

However,

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Isaac Bickerstaff wrote:"I have followed the discussions here for some time and have yet to find anyone who has said that Israel should cease to exist. I have noticed you and others repeating the accusation with surprising frequency."

Don't be surprised. Just change your reading specs,..

There are numerous posters here who are absolutely anti Israel's right to exist. It is the common attitude underlying all the apparent glorification of International law, human rights etc.

..and do not think for one second that I mean necessarily to defend any transgressions of International Law etc..but I take exception to the lying and deceit of those who want us to believe they really care but actually encourage those who want to continue violence till Israel is finally defeated. The talk of concessions and the crap about Peace based on Res 242 is all part of a digest of tactics within the old strategy of wanting Israel defeated. Nothing less . I have yet to see any of those fighting for Palestinian "rights" approach peace with any seriousness whatsoever...

The Palestinian leadership will NEVER voluntarily seek a full and final settlement of the conflict with Israel simply because they do not want to recognise this state. They never have and nothing has changed. The continuity in Palestinian history - to this extent - has remarkable continuity.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Adam B.
To say that you "refute" an argument means that you have shown it to be invalid or a conclusion to be false. You have yet to address any of the arguments and so cannot be said to have refuted them. You yourself rely on bare assertion, which is no argument at all.

Adam B.

Isaac, why don't you ask Sin if he thinks the Jewish state has the right to exist, in security? I think John has put the case very well.

I think you're being disingenuous. Surely you can't be so naive that you think all the Israel bashers accept Israel? For your part, you asserted with confidence that other countries investigate the actions of their own armed forces, but have failed to provide one single instance.

Si, N

Should Israel cease to exist – in view of the appalling rate of Palestinian death at the IDF hand and the continuing theft of Palestinian land for the ever expanding Israeli state – the fulminating about Israel ceasing to exist must be meant in a cataclysmic sense - the thought of it is monstrous. Ironically, Mr B., JR, Augustus and Hanna: with their devils & Hitlers to fight – those bigger foes to smite in the wider ME; they pose a larger threat than they know to Israel’s continued existence.

A not so wise man once said, ‘[w]e live in dangerous times…this may be more about preserving the region – if not further afield – from unthinkable violence – than resolving the Palestinian conflict’. So now we’re being advised to ignore the incalculable suffering and agro resultant from the ‘Palestinian conflict’ and go ‘further afield (Iran, particularly)’? So no ‘unthinkable violence’ there then? Presumably just 'ignorable violence' – the type you see in the credible reports cited above, but ignore – because it’s your violence. So you ignite the whole ME - does Israel then become less likely to cease to exist - do you really think?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Si, N wrote: “Should Israel cease to exist – in view of the appalling rate of Palestinian death at the IDF hand and the continuing theft of Palestinian land for the ever expanding Israeli state – the fulminating about Israel ceasing to exist must be meant in a cataclysmic sense - the thought of it is monstrous.”
Mmm…....let me get my head round that sentence…What are you trying to say? Please try and explain what you feel is acceptable to Hamas and Fatah – right now – and what Iran and Hizbollah would accept, for example. Let’s stop all the bullshit and get down to detail.

Are you seriously suggesting it is simply paranoid of Israel (i.e it is intoxicated by some “cataclysmic sense”) to hold the conviction that the Arab Moslem would in general and Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran, Syria in particular have an interest in a model for Peace which recognizes Israel’s right to exist within secure boarders? If so , you are a fool or a liar or an unholy combination of the two.
What is so nauseating about you is that you feel you monopolise a sensitivity towards Human Rights and you can use pontificating about them so cynically – to mask a far more insidious agenda. It’s a sham and if it’s not a sham, tell us what you feel should happen and – above all - what is realistic.
“Ironically, Mr B., JR, Augustus and Hanna: with their devils & Hitlers to fight – those bigger foes to smite in the wider ME; they pose a larger threat than they know to Israel’s continued existence.”
This is also so much crapola. The pretence you perpetuate only garners misplaced support for Islamic extremism which knows that you and your ilk will be the unwitting flag bearers of its politics of preclusion and violence. You and your thinking – bolstering at every turn the holy grail of anti Zionism - is doing infinitely more to destabilize international relations than Zionism is. You remind me of the hype and glory days of the Nasserite Pan Arabist era – when every Arab states had to conform to the violence of its rhetoric against Israel – preparing for the final showdown with the Jews …This rhetoric – which you love so much – shared by fascists like Ahmedinejad and Nisrallah – will do more to ignite a war in the region that any settlements in East Jerusalem. More to the point, that rhetoric wont stop even if the settlements do; even if they are all disbanded. You know this – which makes your lying that much more repugnant. Your yet another champion of the fateful politics of “be careful what you wish for”. You have learned nothing from the nabka of ’67 or ’73 or ’48…
“A not so wise man once said, ‘[w]e live in dangerous times…this may be more about preserving the region – if not further afield – from unthinkable violence – than resolving the Palestinian conflict’. So now we’re being advised to ignore the incalculable suffering and agro resultant from the ‘Palestinian conflict’ and go ‘further afield (Iran, particularly)’?”
No you’re not. Liar. You’re being unmasked as a rabid anti Zionist masquerading as someone concerned only with Gazans and their rights. You’re not. This your tactic in a wider strategy of anti Zionism which posits that the fight should not end till Israel is destroyed. This is at the heart of what the ArabMoslem leaders compete over for the hearts and minds of the Aran Moslem masses which they maintain as downtrodden – and, in the case of Gazans - as cannon fodder, in persuit of this appalling ageenda.
The Gazan conflict could be stopped over night by the ArabMoslem leadership, if it so wished. It doesn’t. It never has.
“So no ‘unthinkable violence’ there then? Presumably just 'ignorable violence' – the type you see in the credible reports cited above, but ignore – because it’s your violence. So you ignite the whole ME - does Israel then become less likely to cease to exist - do you really think?”
No we don’t think..and you “breath the lies”,as an Egyptian I know once accuse the Lebanese of doing (funny that). Stop this “you want violence/we want justice” crap, and come out with what your real strategy is. Spit it out!

Isaac Bickerstaff

Adam B.
I know there is little to be gained, but I will ask one last time: why do you always address what wasn't said and ignore what was said? It allows you to evade questioning, but it doesn't advance your case.

Nor does your other tactic, the endless repetition of the only two points you seem able to make (although not argue for):

"Whatever Israel does is right (although of course Israel, like any other paragon of liberal democracy, is no doubt open to some criticism in some respect, although not that you can think of)"

"Anyone who criticizes Israel wants to see it destroyed (although of course there may be some who criticize Israel for acceptable reasons, no doubt unaware that they are giving succour to anti-Zionist anti-Semites who favour a Final Solution... you have just never come across them - any critics you have come across are...anti-Zionist anti-Semites etc)."

Other than shouting down legitimate criticism and stonewalling, what is the point?

Adam B.

Isaac, your tactic is to put words in my mouth. I never said what you attribute to me, anywhere, at any time.

However, YOU ignore the point which has been made to you by John as well as I that the criticism emanating from people like Sin is no longer about specific reports, specific complaints, alleged incidents - it is motivated by the desire to see Israel destroyed. I have had two posts to you censored so far, so I hope this gets through.

What do you make of Sin's last impenetrable post? What does it tell you? Furthermore, you confidently asserted that other nations carry out investigations into their armed forces - the kind being asked of Israel. Name one.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Isaac bickertaff: "Other than shouting down legitimate criticism and stonewalling, what is the point?"

That's a bit lame, isn't it?

You position seems to be only this: Israel wants to evade negotiations at all costs because it has no other motive than to kill women and children and conquer more Arab land.

Ok. Could be right. Could be patly right. Could be horribly wrong. Whatever it is, in any Peace negotiation and iscusion thereof, it behoves one to shed light on the motives/agendas of all the adversaries.

What is the motive of the Palestinian leadership; Hizbollah; Iran; Syria. I have seen nothing in your posts about that.

You continue t viify israel for wanting no peace without explorng for us what any of the players want and how that may or may not influence how Israel behaves.

Whatever your motives - and I believe the verdict has still to be out on those - your postion is fatuous without any semblance of an attempt to understand what could make what you want us to believe concerns you vaguely possible.

All shibboleths - no substance.

Richard

Have posted an email to the foreign news editor at Times Online requesting a correction and providing him/her with relevant links to investigate.