'Peace convoy'? This was an Islamist terror ambush

Nectarinia

You are right Mel,

But this is still a PR and propaganda disaster for Israel, which was probably the purpose of the flotilla in the first place.

GaryO

A predictable response to a predictable provocation. Israel has every right to protect its borders.

JEW

Thank god!
May there will be much like you!

porkbelly

And what exactly would Turkey's reaction have been to a boatload of Israelis attempting to land aid to the PKK? This is just another performance of the long-running Islamist Passion Play that the BBC never tires of.

Ricky

Melanie - as a friend of Israel and a supporter of Israel's legitimate right to exist in peace and in secure borders - I am puzzled as to why on earth they keep plunging headlong into such PR disasters. If it is true, as you argue that the flotilla was a provocative Islamist set piece, please explain why the Israeli's fell for it - way outside their own territorial waters? As with Lebanon, Operation Cast Lead and the passport debacle, the enemies of Israel at the BBC and the crooked UN will now have a field day fuelling the feeding frenzy of the judeophobic commentariat at what appears to be yet another disproportionate blunder.

Surely the Israeli authorities need to get a grip and think long term and more strategically before they act in future? The chattering classes on board will let no one forget this incident and the long term consequence of media immediacy will have their lasting effect.

The Israeli's really have to learn to start out thinking their enemies - who do have a right to disagree with them without losing their lives.

Straight Talk

Have British Muslims been out protesting against the suffering of these Palestinians ? Why do you think it is that British muslims have not been very vocal and visible about this incident?. Why are muslims so selective in their moral hysterics about Palestine ?

"Hamas destroys dozens of homes in southern Gaza"

RAFAH, Gaza Strip (AP) - Hamas police wielding clubs beat and pushed residents out of dozens of homes in the southern Gaza town of Rafah on Sunday before knocking the buildings down with bulldozers, residents said.

Gaza's militant Hamas rulers said the homes were built illegally on government land. Newly homeless residents were furious over Palestinians on bulldozers razing Palestinian homes.... "

http://www.bbcbias.co.uk/

Michael

Gary O...

The flotilla was in international waters though, correct?

Peter T

I weep for Israel. The Jews have many positive points but they do not appear able to counter the propaganda war being waged against them. Why this is so I do not know but in this present confontation with the so called peace activists manning the flotilla it must be obvious that the whole intention of their journey was to provoke a confrontation with the IDF. How can this message be broadcast around the world when the Press will not listen. How can the propaganda regarding the so called blockade of Gaza be countered when Gaza has one border with Egypt and masses of Aid croses the Israeli/Gaza Borders. Again the Press does not report this. The treaqtment of many Palestinians in the Hospitals of Israel is also not reported and the impression left in the world at large is of a reluctance by Israel to assist.

Israel needs to direct greater attention to its own propaganda endeavors for it is an essential factor in countering the outright lies disseminated from their opponents.

George

Michael,

You are correct, the flotilla was in international waters. However, consider the following:

1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea. (Examples: USA blockaded Cuba, UK blockaded The Falklands, the EU blockaded Yugoslavia)

3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.

5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.

6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.

7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

8. A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.

9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.

10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.

11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.

12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.

Bruce

But don't you think that a more successful result for Israel would have been to just laugh at these people and let them sail to Gaza? And, if not that, then deploy a massive sea force so dense that the "humanitarians" would have been blocked by. Once again this stupid Israeli government proves its incompetence at protecting Israel's reputation.

alan stoddart

Turkey has a lot to explain in its support for this provocation and support for Hamas.

The BBC persist in saying Turkish relations with Israel were damaged by Cast Lead....but the reason for Turkey's recent antagonism is the rise of Islamism in Turkey and its Islamist ruling party.

Shame the BBC don't admit that this is all about Islam....and that Jordan is the real Palestinian homeland now, not Israel.

Strange how little media outrage about the killings in Pakistan of 'infidels', again and again, in a country that was created at the same time, in the same way, as Israel....Pakistan...an Islamic Zion.

Michael

Interesting stuff George! I happen to think that Israel has abused international law in regards to Gaza for some time, and completely counter-productively.

I am no apologist for the enemies of the state of Israel, I cannot fathom any redeemable logic in the vitriolic outpourings of bile and hatred that are representative of the views of many of the would be opponents of Israel. They are abhorrent and racist nonsense.

That said, I do, wonder, however, why Israel seeks to abdicate its responsibility for the welfare of Gaza at the same time as refusing the possibility of assistance to it from those willing to try and help alleviate a situation in which people are suffering? (although Ms Phillips appears to believe the place is some kind of fruit ridden nirvana, where you can't move for gourmet meals and everyone skips to school and gets a lovely tan by the seaside)

I suppose the answer runs something along the lines of 'oh well, they're all terrorists anyway'. Clearly actions like this and similar undertakings will continue to engender an environment where the radicalisation of an isolated populace continues apace, and so on and on we shall go.

Beulah Israel

With regards to comment about Israel's continuing "PR disasters"...it is a case of damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Whatever Israel does, will be twisted and corrupted into spin and lies.

I wager that the BBC are popping champagne bottles today for managing to get their anti-Israel propaganda onto front page news, after many months of just column inches to keep the momentum of anti-semitic rhetoric ..

Thanks Melanie for this side of the story. I dearly hope for the day when Israel will be vindicated.

Donna Edmunds

thank you for reporting the alternative viewpoint on this. We could sorely do with a bit of balance when it comes to reporting on Israel in this country.

Martyn Rowe

Michael - spot on!

GaryO

@Michael

During the Falklands war, Britain employed a blockade of this island that was beyond its international borders. This is a standard practice by countries that are at war. US coastal guards often intercepts drug boats well before they reach US waters. Israel gave plenty of warnings and gave the organisers an option to dock in Israeli port. Israel had no option but to treat this flotilla as hostile.

Terry, Eilat - Israel

Once again I have to say that facts don't matter. No one cares about the truth - despite the excellent efforts of people like Melanie Phillips to present them. Those that hate Israel & Jews will just rant & rave, the usual Orwellian slogans to obscure reality, this is like a lynching, nothing more, and those that support Israel will have their voices drowned out by the mob.

Ronnie

Another fantastic post from the one person of independent mind who sees things as they realy are.

Sharp, concise and brimming with facts. If only the rest of the world would wait for Melanie's balanced reports on these regular incidents before rushing into the void with their lies and smears.

How can everyone else be so out of step and just plain wrong?

George

Michael,

Why should Israel bear any responsibility for the welfare of the people of Gaza? Does France have responsibility for the welfare of Belgium? To all intents and purposes, Gaza is an independent state. Israel left there in 2005.
Having said that, Israel still provides most of Gaza's electricity and water, allows through daily shipments of food, clothes and fuel and allows Palestinians into Israel for medical treatment (usually provided free). What Israel seeks to avoid is the import to Gaza of materiel which can be used by Hamas in its war effort against Israel. Also, don't forget that Gaza also has a border with Egypt - a border that the Egyptians keep closed hermetically. Obviously they feel no responsibility for their Arab brethren. This is not really surprising - Sadat was offered Gaza as part of the peace treaty signed by Israel and Egypt in 1979. He refused.

John Richardson

Some time ago on this blog I pointed out how dangeroue the Liberal Media had become.

I asked you why it was you continued to appear on the BBC (the most dangerous) and still supported the BBC financially with your owe Fee contributions ?

What on Earth will it take for you to stop supporting the BBC ?
When does it begin to be your own fault ?
When do you actually decide to regulate the propaganda you are exposed to ?
Why do you decide to continue to provide financial support ?
What is wrong with you ?
Outraged whining is boring.
Further, it does not seem to be working does it ?

Pathetic.

Perhaps, if we all pay the Fee to the BBC and moan even louder; then they will behave decently....oh...that IS the tactic.
I see.

AY

"..the report on Radio Four’s World at One was fair and balanced.."

Oh come on. Only their "Government in Tel Aviv" worth a lot.

But even Israeli press isn't better. E.g.Haaretz: "left-wing activist":

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.293313.1275312330!/image/577873088.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_474/577873088.jpg

Joshua

How come every man and his dog is suddenly an expert in "international law"? How come "international law" is only ever invoked when it comes to Israel?

And don't you find those people who preface their remarks with an "I've always been a friend of Israel, BUT...." really rather tedious? They put me in mind of the people who always begin their anti-Jewish attacks with the time-worn "Some of my best friends our Jewish, BUT..."

S

Reading your article gave made me feel a little better. As an Israeli and an Israeli soldier I feel helpless when i see all the hatred toward my country. As mamy people here say - it doesn;t matter what we do - it somehow always backfires and we are to blame. people seem to forget that Hamas are shooting missiles towards "Sderot" in attempt to hurt civilian and see only us as the enemy. The so called "peace activists" on those ships knew what we are going to do- and they still chose to react the way they did.

Ronnie

GaryO.

'US coastal guards often intercepts drug boats well before they reach US waters.'

Yes Gary, because the occupants of the 'drug boats' are engaged in internationally recognised illegal activity. Find yourself a more useful analogy.

Joe Strummer

It is irrelevant what Israel does to legitimately defend itself from terrorist actions as the Left-wing Western media will ensure it alone is solely blamed for any deaths or injuries incurred in incidents like these. I've seen the same sad scenario for nearly 30 years during The Troubles in Northern Ireland where armed IRA fascists who attempted to overthrow democracy by bomb and gun in the Province were glorified by the same media outlets now demonising Israel.

sleeping dolls

Yes Melanie, you're right again. Another triumph for Israel, sadly misinterpreted by liars and supporters of terrorism.

Michael

George - thanks for your reply, you are clearly well versed in the matter at hand!

I take your point, although there is always room for semantic manoeuvre on the question of Israeli disengagement in Gaza, surely?

However, leaving that to one side.... .Israel quite rightly seeks to prevent the shipment of arms into Gaza by sea. You point out Israel's humanitarian involvement with the territory as evidence of a more benevolent approach.

I can only wonder then what Israel was thinking in attacking a collection of ships bringing a well rehearsed political message and aid for the Gazans? Seemingly this contradicts the role you say Israel appears to have adopted in the case of the Gaza strip.

Dom Collier

Ronnie, I'd go further, and say that Melanie should actually be made President of Israel. And the UK. Hell, why not the world? It's become clear to me over the years that only the most enormous conspiracy against her is preventing her appointment as Global Strategic Leader of the Universe. Lucid, balanced, cool, calm and credible, sometimes to a fault, the unaccountable failure of every single right thinking person in the world to elevate her, forcibly if necessary, to the all-powerful status she clearly deserves, is probably the single greatest failure of modern civilisation.

Jim Blaisdell

Melanie:

The mistake the Israeli forces made was not going aboard prepared to use deadly force at the outset if that were to prove necessary. That actually might has avoided such a violent outcome.

That said Israel has every right to defend itself. Period!

Rip Van Winkle

It's going to get worse, much worse. Cease the status quo, declare open hostilities - all jews worldwide should enter the fray. This non jewish ex soldier of the British Empire is awaiting the call.

Remember Masada.

Jamie

Maritime law clearly states that maritime blockades muct not extend into international waters.

By attacking these ships in international waters the Israeli government has commited an act of piracy.

Also,it matters not if their soldiers were attacked.Being in international waters means the people onboard had a right to defend themselves from being borded.

If they were in Israeli waters then the soldiers had a right to open fire.But they weren't.So they didn't.

John W

John Richardson, the BBC is the only reliable, unbiased source of news in this country.

Who would you rather get your news from? Australian/American or Channel Islands tax exiles? No thank you.

The licence fee is worth every penny. More power to the BBC.

Joshua

"Remember Masada."

No need to go back that far. The White Paper of 1939 is quite good enough.

AY

Those commenters spreading that self-righteous snobbish anti-Israeli champ - save your efforts.

The next time, when jihadi mob with knifes rods and bats comes for you - champ some more about how you always hated Israel. Maybe you'll earn a status of senior slave.

Fabio P.Barbieri

You cannot count on the Western media doing anything decent or correct. So the bottom line is this: the enemy lay a trap for Israel - and Israel fell into it. End of story.

Alex

Bravo Israel, proud and nuclear idf defeated the invasion force. Israel is saved, once again.
Reality is, that the highly trained idf commandos were badly beaten by a bunch of so called peace activists, what if these were real terorists?

Baron Pippin II

John W @ 7.22:

You blind and deaf, I take it. I pity you.

Baron

Michael @ 5.23, Martyn Rowe @ 5.50 and other admirers of Hamas:

Have made this suggestion on a blog next door, feel you are men of the right caliber, too. Here’s the idea you may like to follow.

Go to any Israeli city, stand on a street corner and shout ‘down with Likud’ or such like. Then move to Gaza, stand on any street corner you fancy and shout ‘down with Hamas’. If you make it from Gaza, we’ll talk.

Manuel Callavera

Great article. If one could only apply the same reasoning as in this article retro actively to the German U-Boat attack on the Lusitania and call all the Americans that were killed terrorists. But what's the harm really? Not that Israel will have to face any consequences. If you can get away with murder it would be a shame not to use this privilige.

Jez

john W.

You are exceptionally misinformed- or you're not actually telling the truth.

Which ever it is, today has been a disaster for the Israelis.

From a legal perspective; it wasn't in Israeli waters- so legitimacy in the eyes of the international community is lost.

From a practical viewpoint;

This has a striking similarity to the 'Black Hawk Down' operation in Mogadishu, 1993.... except the soldiers / country of the operation are having a leathal mauling at the hands of the slanted international media this time- instead of AK47's and RPG's back then.

What people think here is relevant. But the main importance is the region itself.

The closest a friendly state would now be Southern Cyprus, Crete and Greece. The latter is teetering on a pretty far-Left takeover. Which, being a far left entity traditionally wouldn't in theory be too sympathetic to an independant Israeli state.

When Israel crashes into these scenario's (many not of their making- and quite legitimate, as an opinion) it's like a raging bull in a china shop.

Kafir Harby

Well done Melanie. The Leftist Church is blind nowadays. And it is about time to punch Erdogan on the nose, it is this POS who is behind this jihadi flotilla.

Michael

Baron - where can you point to any evidence to support your claim that I am an admirer of Hamas?

Woody

The Palestinians achieved what they sailed out to do - get biased world-wide coverage against Israel. How many dead? A drop in the ocean compared with the number of Muslim versus Muslim murders every day.

Ronnie

'They're all jihadis. They had bats (just as small children have catapults). It's the fault of the western media, crammed as they are with useful idiots. It is only right that this small but special country be allowed to attack anything that moves, anywhere on earth. International law surely does not, cannot indeed must not apply here. And so on and so forth...'

If these are supposed to be rational comments in support of Israel then God help Israel.

This has been an episode rich in dreadful stupidity and crass, murderous misjudgement. I'd like to think that these events could act as a wake-up call, that the government of Israel might realise that they actually do need friends in an extremely hostile real world. But, as I listen to the absurd excuses leaking from the bottom of the barrel I realise that they can't hear the alarm clock.

That the forces once led by Moshe Dyan have allowed themselves to be reduced to such a level by their craven and brainless politicians is truly, truly sad.

Baron

Michael, my apology, it should have been Ronnie @ 5.55. Will you forgive me?

Roger

Ronnie
May 31st, 2010 6:32pm
GaryO.

'US coastal guards often intercepts drug boats well before they reach US waters.'

Yes Gary, because the occupants of the 'drug boats' are engaged in internationally recognised illegal activity. Find yourself a more useful analogy

US Coastguards own figures. 82% of shipping stopped and searched in international waters contain no contraband or illegal weapons.
Doesn`t that make the searches illegal under your criteria. Or does it only apply if you are Israeli?

Danielle

Why is William Hague so ready to take the side of the Islamists? It's so obvious that this is clear provocation of the Israelis. The IDF gave them warnings and a perfectly acceptable way of getting their so called aid into Gaza through Ashod. The people on board wanted a confrontation. Unfortunately the media mindset and coverage is so anti Israel, it's so deeply ingrained, they don't even wait for the facts. People need to understand Israel is fighting for it's very survival it cannot afford western style appeasement. The problem is Melanie the extremists make it very easy to support them with all their propaganda and various groups, I support Israel 100%, even though I am not Jewish, yet there are no equivalent groups/networks set up for non-Jews to support Israel. Or if there are I have never heard of them.

DaveP

Israel is at war. In war, Israel has the right, indeed the obligation to take action to defend itself.

These pro-Islamic blockade busters had made clear that they intended to dock in Gaza. Therefore Israel had the right to interdict them wherever it chose.

There are numerous examples where a state has taken action against an enemy that has openly stated its intent.
In war, we sank the Belgrano, even though it was outside the exclusion zone. The US interdicted Russia ships in international waters as they headed towards Cuba.

And what if this ship had been allowed to proceed towards Israel, and then did something truly horrific. The people of Israel would have rightly demanded why their leaders had allowed an open enemy in a large ships, to get so close to Israel.

The only criticism I have of Israel, is that it has been browbeaten into weak gestures against its open enemies. This only encourages such acts. Can anyone imagine of doing this lark against the Chinese. All of them would be fish food by now.

Jerry

Re Peter T: "I weep for Israel. The Jews have many positive points but they do not appear able to counter the propaganda war being waged against them. Why this is so I do not know..."

Peter, Europe is heading down the road to economic collapse, cultural revolution, depopulation, and existential depression. If you accept any one of these characterizations, then Israel in defense of its population is an example to be envied to the point of irrational jealousy and hatred. Europeans cannot and will not do what Israel has and will do to defend its population. That is why Israel is losing the propaganda war. Self-defense is not popular and indeed must be condemned so as not to be tarred with the epithet of fellow-traveler.

Peter, things will change. Examples of Israel's attempts at self-defense will remain in both the present reality and future works of history and will be studied and called upon by the children of those who currently wish her only ill. As always, the children will know better than the parents, having the insights of hindsight. Usually, the winner writes the history. Win or lose, the Jews write their own history. May you live long enough to see it!

Jamie

I fail to see how anyone can support the Israeli government for what they did.

A trap was set,they walked into it.And they did so in international waters.Which means,as i've already stated,under maritime law they commited an act of piracy.

If you are in international waters and your ship is borded,then you have a right to defend yourself.

Israel has well and truly shot itself in the foot.

They've also forgot their history.They don't remember the story of the Exodus ship in 1947.The British Mandate authorities imposed a blockade on the shores ofthe land of Israel and Jewish leaders believed it was their right and their duty to break it. The Jewish immigrants on the Exodus decided to forcefully oppose every attempt to stop them. The Jewish leadership wanted to arouse the world's conscience and gain a victory in the
battle for international sympathy.

It seems so unlike Israel to lead such a bungled operation.Logic dictates that they wait for the ships to actually break the blockade.

They could also have sabotaged the ships while in port,as they did in 1988,when the PLO organized a ship named "The Return" to be sent to Israel with Palestinian refugees.

They could also have done what they did during Ehud Olmert's term as prime minister.Israel permitted a lone aid ship filled with supplies and activists to enter Gaza.

Instead they chose the worst possible option.Which was,i shall say again for those that don't seem to understand the political implications,to board a humanitarian aid ship in international waters;outside of their jurisdiction.An act of piracy under maritime international law.

Steph

Don't forget Turkey's role in all of this. The real provocateur, spoiling for a fight, the real cause of all this, is Turkey. It was a Turkish boat with armed men that caused this. And remember, this flotilla of thugs and fools sailed from Turkey. Turkey is spoiling for a bigger fight with Israel. It's ugly and I fear will get uglier.

Jamie

DaveP...An exclusion zone is not the same as a blockade.The former is for the benefit of neutral vessels and the latter is to stop everyone getting through.

Plus,the flotilla heading to Israel was 40 nautical miles(64 km) out at sea.Territorial waters are only 12 nautical miles(22 km)out,and the contiguous zone is up to 24 nautical miles(44 km) out.

JamesC

Thanks melanie, reading your book 'The world turned upside down'. What is fact, what is fiction and what is a lie. That is why we need writers like You.

alan calder

Just watched the bbc reports - nothing that biased they're trying to be objective its a pity most of you making comments are not - I'm happy to pay my licence fee but concerned no peace in prospect sadly. I'm sure its exactly the same on other side.

Reis R. Kash

Mel is right, of course. As a 21 year soldier and 16 year US Marshal I've been involved in many riots, disturbances, and armed conflicts so I can say with authority, Israel acted with extreme restraint in a situation designed to be a no win-no win for them. To me, they still won.

wonderer

Danielle
May 31st, 2010 9:40pm you ask a good question.

One non-Jewish pro-Israel organisation is: http://www.anglicanfriendsofisrael.com/

There is also http://www.scottishfriendsofisrael.org/index.html but I don't know whether they are mainly Jewish or not.

Archie

Indeed so, Miss Phillips, and for my own part I heard two or three news reports on LBC - so as not to be contaminated by al-Beebeera bias -and formed exactly the same conclusion. This never was nor was intended to be a "peace mission"

kent

I have some questions about your account.

(1) Did the "terrorists" on board the flotilla know in advance that the Israelis would be armed with paintball guns?

(2) Did they know that Israel would attack them in international waters?

Assuming that they did not know these things: what exactly, were these "terrorists" trying to accomplish? They were effectively unarmed -- certainly compared to the weaponry they should have assumed the IDF would be carrying -- so they were not going to kill any soldiers. They could not count on any propaganda coup, since all Israel had to do (to avoid stepping into the propaganda nightmare) was not apprehend the ship in international waters.

Yet another case of the underpants gnomes.

Step 1: Send flotilla to Gaza.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: International condemnation of Israel and brilliant propaganda coup for Islamic terrorists.

Step 2 can only be "hope for Israel to do something unbelievably stupid." Not much of a terrorist plot, if it can only work if the other guys are complete morons.

Toni

Manuel Callavera, Lusitania was deliberately sent to run a blocade with civilians and armaments on board to be sunk and thus give the US government an excuse to enter WWI. Since Germans lost that war, the victors wrote their own version of history.
Here, the terror supporting groups -leftists and Islamic created that flotilla for a specific purpose, as well -- if Israelis stop them, they will cause an incident and blame Israel for attacking 'peaceful civil rights activists', if Israelis let them go through, however, the next ships will carry rockets.
The fault lies with the people like you, for this productions was created solely for your benefit. If you wouldn't eat it up, they wouldn't bother with this flotilla nonsense since there is no hunger in Gaza.

Wary Assp

I have read many reports condeming the israeli action and soem like these defending the action. My opinion is murder is murder doesnt matter who commits it. However that is what motivated me to commetn on here. I was chuckling at all the pats on the back (metphorically speaking thats our great freind melphillips the zionist apologist is getting lol.. she must be really chuffed at her article. Once again I blieve the truth is some where in the middle.

FaustiesBlog

George, blockades might very well be legal, but this blockade was not - it was expressly declared to be illegal.

Mike Hawke

The DOS attack was most definitely to stop "balanced coverage"...

maddy

If you live in any muslim country you will get used to Orwellian truthspeak! This is gradually being introduced into the western democracies by default and often with the tactic support of certain individuals.

manuel

i cannot understand how a country atacked everyday by his neighbour is suplying it of all goods.
im from spain and if portugal starts thowing missils, the first thing i do its to cut the water and electricity i suply them

ratchett

This article is so true. This was no PEACE FLOTILLA, and the Israelis had every right to protect themselves. Even the MSM has joined in the idiotic chorus since the Chicago Thug became president.

MGB

It is a top accurate & effective measure to stablish a blockade of the Gaza Strip. And the BBC is allways going to side with the terrorist. This is not very avoidable: What is not acceptable is that BHObama sides with the BBC as he probably is considering the posibility to do.

mgbstmnt

I do care about the truth. It is the only thing I care about. And it is the only thing that people cares about. And that is Israel strength and what is going to keep us alive.
So do not dismiss truth.

imp

Okay, so a boat full of relief supplies is now a terror attack.

Just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Ronnie

Baron.

Where can you point to any evidence to support your claim that I am an admirer of Hamas?

Ronnie

Roger.

'US Coastguards own figures. 82% of shipping stopped and searched in international waters contain no contraband or illegal weapons.
Doesn`t that make the searches illegal under your criteria. Or does it only apply if you are Israeli?'

Oh go on then, Roger.

How many bat-waving civilians has the US Coastguard shot and killed while searching ships that did not contain contraband or illegal weapons? You can use their own figures if you like.

For the record. I believe that Israel has a right to search ships approaching Gaza for weapons. Israel would be mad not to.

I do not believe Israel, or any other country, has a right to shoot and kill people armed with bats, particularly in international waters. Contrary to some opinion, the state of Israel is not exempt from international law. That is because the state of Israel is actually a fully and properly constituted member of the international community. Although various members of its political elite seem to be doing their best to undermine that hard-won status.

I think this particular operation, along with a number of others we've seen in the last 15 years, was conducted with a staggering degree of incompetence. I find that very, very frustrating.

If it is indeed the case that the a trap was set by some on these vessels then I have to ask why the Israeli military allowed themselves to fall into it headlong. The answers I come up with have a lot to do with complacency, arrogance and once again - incompetence.

Baron.

Despite the complexity of this request, please try to note that I have not mentioned Hamas in this or any other post on this issue. Your previous assumption is as banal and pointless as many of your other contributions here.

Did you hit your ass on the way out?

The rhetoric of failure.
Ben, the next time you want to tell us Canadian's a story, give us some time to practice pretending we like what you have to say. This will give us enough time while you continue to babble-on, to slowly getaway.

wonderer

@imp
June 1st, 2010 8:23am
"a boat full of relief supplies"?

In rejecting a request to intercede with Hamas for the Red Cross to be allowed to visit Shalit, a spokesperson for one of the organisers said the the objective was not humanitarian relief but to break the blockade of Gaza.

Edward Jarrold

Anyone looking objectively at the available video footage will see the truth of the matter. Only who looks objectively at things to do with Israel? It's time that Israel woke up and told the rest of the world what's going on. It seems that only Mark Rothko amongst its spokesmen actually speaks English. All others were apparently educated in Moscow and hardly speak English and certainly no one that does will empathize with them. Most palestinien spokespeople have been educated in the States or the uk. Turkey should be in the dock for sponsoring an armed invasion of Israel. Perhaps PORKBELLY also remembers the last time the Israeli Military landed in Turkey. Israel was the first to react and send assistance to the major Turkish Earthquake some years ago. Israel needs a real PR company to advise its government. Almost the worst scene on TV was the idiot in Ashdod screaming at two young Arab Israeli women. He should have been arrested and seen to have been arrested.

Bec B

finally a factual piece o journalism. Well done! Keep it coming!

Daniel

How embarrsing for Israels Commandos to be beaten up a bunch of dumb protestors.

Arent they supposed to be elte?

Richard

If Gaza were an independent state, Israel's assaults would be illegal aggression. Since Gaza is under belligerent occupation (and the Israeli Supreme Court cannot change international law by fiat), Israel is in dereliction of its duties as occupier. We have had the laws of war as they refer to naval actions enumerated. They are irrelevant. Israel's blockade is illegal. Its actions on the high seas are piracy.

Rip Van Winkle

Michael @ 8:38pm

WE trackers have spotted the evidential track and have noted towards where it is "heading".

Bill Baker

Israel warned them to pull into a port to check the authenticity of the cargo and even the Egyptians offered them a port to go into but they refused. The fault of this are with the Jihadists on the boats themselves. Why do I call them Jihadists you may ask, well look at the footage of them singing anti Israeli songs before the IDF boarded the boats and then understand why

Peter Capotosto

A security guard gets into your cab on the street (International waters) and points an unloaded gun at you. You have a gun. You shoot first.
The security guard says "She ambushed me"
Yeah right. Tell that to the court of international opinion.
That IS what this is all about, international opinion, and Israel blew it bigtime.
Just admit it.

George

Michael,

Israel offered to allow the flotilla to dock in Ashdod, have the cargo checked and then to truck the cargo (at Israel's expense) to Gaza. This was refused.

Richard,

Please explain to me exactly how Gaza is under belligerent occupation. Please cite chapter and verse of the appropriate law.

DavidSI

Richard, it’s clear that you don’t like Israel and you don’t think that it should have taken any action – incompetently managed or otherwise (!) - to address the import of weaponry into Gaza. Fine, but I wanted to take you up on a number of your points:
“Gaza is under belligerent occupation” (No, it isn’t!)
”The Israeli Supreme Court cannot change international law by fiat” (Has it tried to?).
“Israel is in dereliction of its duties as occupier” (It doesn’t occupy Gaza; What “occupier duties” are you referring to?)
“We have had the laws of war as they refer to naval actions enumerated. They are irrelevant” (I cannot fathom your point at all. Are you referring to the Geneva Convention? If so, how do they relate to “naval actions”? What is irrelevant?)
“Israel’s blockade is illegal” (What specific ‘law’ has been broken? In addition, given that Hamas fired some 8,000 rockets into Israel, do you consider it wrong for Israel to try to limit the weaponry that Gaza imports?)
“Its actions on the high seas are piracy” (No, they’re not! The whole point of of piracy is financial gain which clearly isn’t applicable to this situation).

Linda Smith

Wary Assp posted: "My opinion is murder is murder doesn't matter who commits it."

Legal definition of murder: The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

Self defence is not "murder".

Linda Smith

imp: Okay, so a boat full of relief supplies is now a terror attack. Just want to make sure we're clear on that."

So there were no people on board the boat? It was found drifting, loaded with relief supplies, no human beings on board, rather like the Marie Celeste?

Just want to make sure we're clear on that.

If we're not absolutely accurate and clear on all the facts, we are unable to have an honest and truthful discussion.

shaz khan

Bizare what exactly where Israel protecting, 40 million Inncocent Palistinians anexed into an area of 40km squared, deprived of basic human neccesities. What a sick world we live in. Seems to be a lot of paranoa here, since when has sending aid ever been a PR exercise. Shame on you.

Linda Smith

Western governments are busy "condemning" Israel because they are scared shitless of having Muslim riots on their soil if they don't,

They also want to keep the Arab states, particularly Saudi, onside against Iran.

Just a load of diplomatic posturing

Golda

At last, some journalist who speaks the truth. Thanks you!

Bruce

Ronnie, you said: "I do not believe Israel, or any other country, has a right to shoot and kill people armed with bats, particularly in international waters...."

Either you are being obtuse or have no experience in close-quarter combat, or both.

Where I come from, there is a thing called the "twenty foot rule".

This, put simply, means that, if you are in a situation involving a potential physical threat, other than a firearm, the threat is twenty feet or less away, and you do not have your own weapon drawn and ready, YOU ARE IN TROUBLE.

Try it: unless you are lightning-fast, you WILL be hit by a fit assailant running that distance, before you can draw a knife, baton or gun in defence.

If that assailant is armed with a blade or club, you WILL be seriously injured or killed on the spot.

No ifs, buts or maybes: this is just the way it is and my regular conversations with high-level martial arts instructors confirm it.

Golda

Shaz khan – please! You obviously need to get your facts right. 40 Million people over a 40KM square? There are less than 3 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, a square that is much bigger than 40KM.
Israel supplies Gaza with aid, electricity and water on a daily basis, there is no "humanitarian crises" in Gaza. Any group of people who's willing to send aid to that area is wildly welcome, and Israel has offered the ships to dock to the Ashdod port so it can check its aid, seeing it is clean out of weapons, the aid would have been sent to Gaza. The activists purpose wasn't solely to send aid; humanitarian activists who only care for the Palestinians won't carry weapon, attacking and trying to kill soldiers.
It was clearly a PR exercise that was meant to provoke the Israeli government, presenting it in a bad light. If someone here should be ashamed, it's only you pal.

Peter Story

This was a well planned provocation by Hamas and Turkey that unfortunately Israel stepped right into. Everybody could foresee what was going to happen and the organizers of the shipment could have just avoided the bloodshed. Israel must investigate any shipment going into Gaza since in the past there were missiles and weapon smuggling attempts by "humanitarian organisations.

The lost of lives is horrible, but yet again, the organizers can only blame themselves.

I also feel that there was a cynical misuse of the good intentions of many of those who joined the cruise. The few swedes on board were obviously trying to do good. Too bad they have jumped on the wrong ship that had an rather different agenda than just supply aid.

Mr. Mankell should stick to writing mediocre deckare novels or research his humanitarian voyages a little better and not fall into the hands of extremists and their interests. I bet he is going to come back home as a hero, go on every news program and scream murder. Maybe he's even going to write a book about it.

All this ship and this crew had to do was board on the Ashdod port and have the ship inspected. There are over 15 tons of aid delivered after inspection each week to Gaza.

It's horrible that people had to die when it was so simple to avoid it. You wanted a provocation - this is how it ends. Sad for Palestinians, sad for Israelis and sad for those that thought they were just there to help out.

Tom Dennen

Whatever happened to pre-emptive strategy?

Those 'humanitarian' terrorists should all have been shot before they embarked.

Then, all this would have been avoided.

Until next time, of course, so Israel must allow the concept 'pre-emptive' to go much further back in time, to when these terrorists were children.

wonderer

@Shaz Khan "40 million Inncocent Palistinians"?!

Even by Pallywood standards, that number should go into the Hyperbole section of the Guinness Book of Records.

DaveP

Apart from the motive to create a propaganda hype for Palestinians, the other reason could be that Turkey wished to set a precedent - that any and all shipping, including from Syria, Iran and other such states, can send their ships directly to Gaza (Hamas) without going through a weapons check by Israel.

If it transpires that the Turkish government financed this operation, then it should be seen as an act of war.

Yet one more reason that an increasingly Islamified Turkey should not be in NATO or in the EU.

Southsea Expat

Thank you for this article Melanie. You state that: "Gaza’s markets are full of produce, thousands of tons of supplies are travelling into Gaza every week through the Israeli-controlled border crossings, and there is no starvation or humanitarian crisis." Can you please amplify on this, with links etc?

phil

Ronnie
June 1st, 2010 9:09am I am sure you know I am often supportive of your right to express your opinions ,even when I disagree with them ,and I do not believe you are anti Israel either ,but in this case I do believe you are being rather naive .Those activists were very obviously intent on causing an incident and well aware of the press that Israel would receive,You surely have seen the videos of the commandos descending on ropes and being immediately attacked ,would you not defend yourself ? The other ships were detained without harm ,so you need to think again why 700 went to carry "aid" and what would be the purpose of Israel getting involved in a fracas like this ?If you believe that the Israelis should allow any kind of package to go to Gaza without inspection in the present circumstances ,then I am sorry Ronnie we are going to have to disagree .

Richard

George
June 1st, 2010 12:10pm
Israel controls all entry and exit points, airspace, and territorial waters. Israel launches military assaults, fires rockets, indulges in sonic booms, declares no-go zones. It controls the population registry. It controls humanitarian access. It blockades and limits fishing zones. It controls food, fuel and electricity. It determines the means of exchange (i.e. the currency) and controls taxes and custom dues. The standard test to determine whether a territory is occupied is not permanent military presence but effective control. The UN has said that Gaza is occupied territory that will form part of any Palestinian state. This is why it is the overwhelming consensus among international jurists that Israel is the occupying power. As you will know from your extensive and detailed knowledge of the laws of war, the occupying power has certain duties and responsibilities. Israel is in breach of its obligations. Indeed its assaults upon Gaza and its collective punishment of the population are strictly and unambiguously illegal.

phil

Peter Story
June 1st, 2010 1:34pm -- in nutshell Peter !!!

Richard

DavidSI
June 1st, 2010 12:22pm
You are quite right. It is not "piracy" - that is just completely wrong. It is state terrorism.

You seem able to infer an awful lot about my opinions, but not the obvious - I believe Israel should observe the international law it purports to uphold.

As to the laws of war as they refer to naval blockade, I suggest you read the comments by George, who went into great detail.

DaveP

Dr. Jaques Gautier: Who Owns Jerusalem?

http://thewestislamandsharia.blogspot.com/2010/05/who-owns-jerusalem.html

Eventually, it all boils down to Jerusalem.

This is a fairly long YouTube split in 5 parts. The 4th is particularly good, when Dr Gautier is asked what Israel needs to do to improve reconciliation.

Rip Van Winkle

George @ 12:10pm

Regarding your 2nd query; (Denotes a shrug)you'll get the run around.

Rip Van Winkle

DavidSI @ 12:22pm

Ditto my remark to George @ 12:10pm

Raymond in DC

imp writes, "Okay, so a boat full of relief supplies is now a terror attack." imp - like so many others - misses the irony in this statement.

Of the six ships in this convoy, five responded to IDF instructions to dock in Israeli ports and no one suffered so much as a scratch. Those boats carried supplies.

The sixth was not carrying supplies, but rather 500 or so terror supporters and useful idiots, haters of Israel all. And what a motley bunch they were - IHH and Hamas associates, ex-Israelis, and few Arab Israelis, a USS Liberty survivor, a Holocaust survivor, Turkish Islamists, et.al. A rather useful cross-section for what was, from the outset, intended as terror theater.

But this is not the end of it. The ship "Rachel Corrie" (talk about a useful idiot) and a companion ship are due to arrive shortly. And Turkey is threatening another convoy accompanied by Turkish warships.

Jonathan Levy

Ronnie, you said: "I do not believe Israel, or any other country, has a right to shoot and kill people armed with bats, particularly in international waters...."

Is that a fair description of what Israel did? "Shoot people armed with bats?" Is there no other fact which should be considered when passing judgement? Are the actions of these bat-armed people irrelevant to the question? Were they asleep in their bunks? Doing Yoga? Singing "Let it be"?

Sadly, no. They were not merely bat-armed, they were also bat-wielding, attacking the soldiers with murderous glee. Have you watched the videos? The soldiers' lives were at risk, and they had to open fire to save themselves - otherwise some Turkish Jihadi would be dancing in a window showing off their blood on his hands, just like the lynch in Ramallah.

As to those decisions which put the soldiers in such an untenable position, 'gross incompetence' seems a fair description. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20.

actsnow

We have the same boarder problem here in the US only we can't protect our boarder,whats next? The Turkish navy will protect the next Flotilla and the Mexican military will escort the drug cartels and Islamist,communist into the US,we are being attack from every corner now.

Jonathan Levy

Richard
June 1st, 2010 2:00pm

"Israel controls all entry and exit points, airspace, and territorial waters."

Well, no. There is a border with Egypt, you know. Also, by this criteria of yours, the Vatican is occupied by Italy, San Marino is also occupied by Italy, West Berlin was occupied by East Germany for fourty-odd years, etc.

"Israel launches military assaults, fires rockets, indulges in sonic booms, declares no-go zones. "

Gaza launches Kassam rockets, sends terrorists to infiltrate in tunnels, in containers,
disguised as patients. These are acts of war, not criteria to determine who is occupying whom.

"It controls the population registry."

The Hamas government of Gaza is welcome to create its own registry. The fact that Israel still maintains one for them, and that they prefer to use it rather than create their own, does not mean they are being occupied. I recognize this talking point. Amira Hess tends to bring it up each time.

"It controls humanitarian access. It blockades and limits fishing zones. It controls food, fuel and electricity."

This is just a repetition of the entry and exit points you made earlier.

"It determines the means of exchange (i.e. the currency) and controls taxes and custom dues."

Hamas is welcome to print its own currency. The fact that they continue to use the shekel does not mean they are occupied by Israel. If they were to switch to the Egyptian Dinar, would Egypt suddenly become an occupying power? As for the taxes and customs, there is an agreement between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority. There is no agreement with the Hamas.

"The standard test to determine whether a territory is occupied is not permanent military presence but effective control."

No. The standard test is: who is performing the functions of government? This is Hamas.
From the 4th Geneva convention, article 6: "In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory..."

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

"The UN has said that Gaza is occupied territory that will form part of any Palestinian state. "

Abba Eben said it best: "If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions."

"This is why it is the overwhelming consensus among international jurists that Israel is the occupying power. As you will know from your extensive and detailed knowledge of the laws of war, the occupying power has certain duties and responsibilities. Israel is in breach of its obligations. "

Israel is not occupying Gaza. Israel has no responsibilities or obligations towards Gaza.

"Indeed its assaults upon Gaza and its collective punishment of the population are strictly and unambiguously illegal."

I have a challenge for you, Richard, if you are willing to undertake it. Come up with a policy that is both legal in your opinion, and that will preserve Israel's security. No wishful thinking allowed.

colin smith

" The soldiers used non-lethal measures to disperse the crowd"

10 are dead - says it all for me.

Without bias.

Rebellion

Forcefully boarding ships in international waters is called piracy and should be treated as such. Israel had no right to exist in the first place, but now that it existed already I think it should at least respect the law.

Ronnie

Jonathan Levy.

'As to those decisions which put the soldiers in such an untenable position, 'gross incompetence' seems a fair description.'

Exactly. That is my general point.

Mike

First turkey does not support hamas you dumb ass fools and second why would they enter a ship while it was on international waters in the first place and second let me see u guys starve to death and kill innocent children and you know what this means plain genocide. Answer this question what would u guys do if your kids or family was starving to death and needs medical attention and u weren't allowed to and imagine that someone come to your home and take it away from you what would you do say just go ahead please you guys would do worst then what they do so next time you guys comment about something read the news well and put yourself in there shoes which no one can because none of u guys suffer they way the gaza people did.

James Hodson

@FaustiesBlog: "... but this blockade was not - it was expressly declared to be illegal".

Declared to be expressly illegal by whom?

David Catleugh

The more we learn about this incident, the more obvious it is that the IDF actions were entirely justified. They were left with no option but to board the ship, and once on board, quite properly defended themselves.

friends,
i humnbly beg to remind you: the jews were very bad at PR even during Hitler's & Goering Der Stirmer.

as the say goes: plus cá change plus ce la meme chose

dear Mrs Philips, this an hour of aloneness of Israel and its people and we are very very grateful for your stunch support thank and bless you
bruria rimoni
Israel

Stephen

Interesting that Egypt is also blockading Gaza...but rarely mentioned-or challenged.
Thanks again Melanie.

Augustus

Mike (u guys) - I think that the Israelis have the right to point out that every week they allow tons of medicine and food into Gaza, and that the situation in Gaza is therefore not at dire for most people as you make out. The very fact that
the activists amongst the Palestinians are determined not to compromise shows clearly that
material aid is not really their main priority at all.

Bread and Butter

The Israelis will ALWAYS be guilty, do it well or do badly. Not good. Then they can not take the risk.

As the others, "it is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

The main problem of this imbroglio, in my view, is the growing conflict between Israel and Turkey. But perhaps this just the plan.

Jamie

Stephen...interesting that people who mention this do not understand that the Egypt blockade was part of the agreement made between Israel & Egypt after the war between them.Egypt have no other choice.

Hairynoddy

The bias in the media is blatant and becoming worse. Even Sky are loading their coverage with bilious comments from liberal useful idiots and terrorist sympathisers. What's the cause of this? I know the Saudis increased their investment in Fox in the US, are they buying out the UK media and dictating terms here too?

Archie

FaustiesBlog: and declared illegal by whom, exactly?

Isabel Mowlem

Some of this footage is horrifying. Brits tend to favour the underdog - so because we believe the Israeli Army is hyper-efficient and its Mossad supremely well-informed, there's an awful tendency to forget these are just normal human beings working for organisations only seeking to keep their country safe. If the international community helped Israel stay safe, then young Israelis wouldn't be thrust into the midst of vicious attackers on a daily basis. Their being under orders not to shoot reminds me of the British Army in Northern Ireland being sniped at from within crowds and being forbidden to retaliate.

Rob-NY

North Korea sinks a South Korean ship which is an act of war; Iran at the brink of being a nuclear power with threats to destroy Israel and the pathetic and morally perverted United Nations jumps on the bash Israel bandwagon yet again with an indifferent US President obsessed with only vanity and his own power.
I sense a perfect storm brewing.

Omri

As for intl. law, it is legal for a nation to stop an invasion into thier own waters or blockade in intl. waters, if it is clear that their intention is to perpetrate it. In our case the invaders were clearly warned and also replied that they will continue going anyways.

JohnAnt

"the BBC report accompanying that footage, in which the voiceover appears to be claiming, perversely, that the people in masks were Israeli soldiers."
I watched that report with mounting incredulity: it is a disgrace that trained BBC journalists should (twice) mistake an islamist militant in a black-and-white islamic-flag mask and green Hamas-coloured neckerchief (wearing spectacles and without a helmet, and wearing the activists' life jacket) for an IDF commando.

Augustus

This 'humanitarian' organization
Insani Yardim Vakfi or IHH, who organized the Gaza flotilla, really is a bad egg. And so is its leader Bulent Yildirim, who was notorious for recruiting jihadis during the 1990s from
Algeria, Bosnia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechnya, using the status of NGO as a cover-up.
Yildirim also played a key role in anti-Western incitement among
Turkish Muslims.

IHH purchased three of the nine ships in the flotilla, the Marvi
Mamaris and two cargo ships (one named Gaza). On April 7th
Yildirim held a press conference
in Istanbul and said that the flotilla would be a 'test' for Israel. He said that should Israel oppose the flotilla in any way it would be considered a 'declaration of war' on the countries whose activists were on board. This whole exercise was pure provocation by a very nasty group masquerading as do-gooders and setting a trap for a nation all too ready to be taken in by such malevolence.

Scott

I saw a comment that jeered Mel for thinking that Gaza is a fruit ridden paradise. While that may not be true what is true is that the Gaza Strip receives more aid per capita than ANY nation on earth!! But that's not enough is it? They need unfettered shipping so they can send in weapons.....I know and so does every other logical person on earth!!

Adam B.

Rebellion What "right" do you have to exist?

The Royal Navy boards ships in international waters. It is not illegal in the circumstances.

Get educated.

Richard

Jonathan Levy
June 1st, 2010 3:09pm
Thank you for your thought-provoking comments. You will not be surprised that we do not agree. But let me start with what we can agree on. Gaza does not have control of the points of entry and exit, and thus of its supply of food, fuel and virtually all other supplies necessary for subsistence; it is unable to maintain the basic amenities; it does not control its airspace or territorial waters; it has no effective defences; its fiscal powers are confined by poverty and by Israel's control of taxes and customs to muscling in on black marketeers; it has no monetary powers (it would require a modicum of autonomy for such powers to be worth the cost, but their absence leaves it at Israel's mercy). To touch on two points we disagree on: You mock the registry, and, given the lack of all other powers, it does indeed seem of little importance, except that Israel loves administrative and legal nicety - if it is to deny someone the right to return home, or if it is to split a family up, or expropriate yet more land, it has to be because its victims lack the requisite bit of paper, and population registries, like land registries, have been invaluable in allowing Israel to indulge this foible. You also try to extract something from the Palestinians' attempts at armed resistance. I think you will find that, having once occupied Gaza, Israel cannot use such resistance as a pretext for the plea of self-defence nor as exculpation for its use of overwhelming force. Clearly this brings us to the crux, namely whether Israel has ceased to be the occupying power. We could engage in an escalating citation war, but I think this can be avoided, because what we agree on is sufficient to settle the question: the "functions of government" cannot be exercised without effective control - and we have just agreed that the people of Gaza have effective control over next to nothing. A people who have no control of their borders, airspace, territorial waters, defence, supply of all necessaries of life and all amenities, monetary or fiscal powers, control over who is and who is not allowed to be resident etc. etc. does not have the effective control required for self-government. The claim to the contrary is, to put it very mildly, disingenuous, and, given what it is used to excuse, it is a great deal worse than disingenuous.

If I could just mention two minor irritants: are you serious in raising Egypt's connivance as a reason to excuse Israel? and can I suggest that the urbane Abba Eban is famous for witty untruths.

You ask what policy is better than illegal military assaults and collective punishments. Both short-term and long-term alternatives have been evident for some time, neither particularly abstruse. To take 2008 as an example of what can be done in the short run, there was a ceasefire which the Israeli security services said Hamas was observing (even although Israel was not); Hamas offered to negotiate an extension, to which Israel's response was a military incursion. In the long term, a solution has been available for the last several decades, and it has taken all the ingenuity of the US and Israel to sustain the "peace process" to avoid accepting that solution, because it would require concessions from Israel that Israel is not willing to make. The solution is of course the "two state" solution outlined in 242. I agree that Israel's extension of the "facts on the ground" strategy that has worked so well in the territories conquered in 1948 to the West Bank has now rendered a two-state solution more or less unviable in any but the Lieberman sense of scattered ghettoes for the Palestinians which they can call a state if they wish. In Israel plus the occupied territories, the ratio of Jewish Israelis to Palestinians is 1:1. I don't think a Lieberman two-state solution is sustainable. The only other solution is the currently unthinkable one-state solution - and goodness knows how that would work. So, in the short-run, the solutions are obvious and workable. In the long-run, they require Israel to make some painful compromises.

Noah

GOOD !!! IDF needs to keep this up. It is about time a serious action was taken. The world is nuts if they don't agree that this was the correct response for Israel. I am VERY proud !!!

phil

ronnie ---????????????????

Eliot

Thank you for this clear analysis. At least one person is calling the kettle black.

Henry123

This sad story emphasizes the role the media has taken on in the world. The main evil in all this is the media. It seems that truth means nothing - only what is reported by the media. With this, Israel and the USA etc... cannot win. The media sells stories/makes money on other peoples' misfortunes. So, the fact that the world is watching means that the media will blow this all out of proportion. The oil spill in the gulf is the 'worst disaster'; global warming will destroy the earth; Israel and the flotilla .... well they are milking both sides of that story.
So ... how to combat this? I wish I knew the answer. But ... at least let's stop giving them more ammunition.
-------------------------------
So ... boycott all newspapers/television news ?
------------------
I wish I knew what the answer is.

Calev

It is disgusting that countries sabotage other countries to whack people with lead pipes and clubs and stab people with bloody knives. Knowing the UN it will probably go in the militias favour.

Marina

Why did Israel attack the boat in INTERNATIONAL WATERS? Bringing this upon itself...If the raid was in Israeli waters things would be different.

Jonathan Levy

Richard
June 1st, 2010 10:07pm

Thank you for your equally thought-provoking reply. We seem to be diverging into two separate threads of conversation, so I will address each in a separate post.

First - on the question of whether Gaza is occupied or not, I suppose we should clarify what is meant by 'the functions of government'.

Who collects the taxes in Gaza? Hamas. Who passes legislation? Hamas. Who controls the armed forces? Hamas. Who controls the police? Hamas. Who pays the teachers and civil servants? Hamas, and to a certain extent
the Palestinian Authority, which is loath to admit that has lost control. Who appoints the judges? Hamas. Who controls the distribution of food and money from international organizations? Hamas.

If you will recall, there was a bloody takeover of the Gaza strip by Hamas in 2007, with a few hundred casualties, mostly PA supporters. I'm sure that poor Palestinian who was tossed from the top of a tall building would have been surprised to learn that Israel was still occupying Gaza. This fact alone is sufficient to disprove
the canard of occupation - while Israel was in Gaza, such a coup was not possible. Only once Israel left, did it become possible.

As for the specific points you mentioned:

"Gaza does not have control of the points of entry and exit, and thus of its supply of food,
fuel and virtually all other supplies necessary for subsistence;"

This shows that Gaza is blockaded. There is an important distinction between a
blockade and an occupation, which Palestinian propaganda always tries to confound.
West Berlin also did not control any of these things. Yet many East Berliners died
trying to get there. Evidently, they did not think West Berlin was occupied, and were willing to risk their lives on that belief.

"it is unable to maintain the basic amenities; it does not control its airspace or
territorial waters; it has no effective defences"

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was in a similar position from 1991 to 2003. America instituted
a no-fly zone, and trade was largely cut off except for oil-for-food. Did you also
describe Iraq as occupied by the USA during this time? Did anyone?

" its fiscal powers are confined by poverty and by Israel's control of taxes and customs to muscling in on black marketeers; it has no monetary powers (it would require a modicum of autonomy for such powers to be worth the cost, but their absence leaves it at Israel's mercy). "

Many states are poor without being occupied. Hamas receives income from its charities
abroad, from Iran, and from taxes it levies on the local population, including 'smugglers'
(hardly the best word, since they are recognized and taxed by the governing power, but still - ). Israel does not levy taxes in Gaza. If Hamas does not produce its own currency, it is because it does not choose to do so, not because it is unable to. Let me put it another way -
if Hamas tomorrow started minting a Palestinian Pound, Israel could do nothing to stop it.

"You mock the registry, and, given the lack of all other powers, it does indeed seem of little importance, except that Israel loves administrative and legal nicety - if it is to deny someone the right to return home, or if it is to split a family up, or expropriate yet more land, it has to be because its victims lack the requisite bit of paper, and population registries, like land
registries, have been invaluable in allowing Israel to indulge this foible"

Are you suggesting that leaving the registry in Israel's hand is necessary to prevent Israel
from expropriating land in Gaza? Israel has left Gaza. Israel abandoned all the land it possessed in Gaza, uprooting its people who were living on it. There has been no attempt to annex land in Gaza since Israel left, and this is not because the registry has been carefully contrived to be left in Israel's hands.

Are you suggesting that it is necessary to leave the registry in Israel's hand in order to
enable Gazan residents to return after visiting Israel? This makes no sense. Do you think that Israel is trying to force Gazans to stay in Israel? Or in the West Bank? Israel has no such desire. Israel would be quite happy to leave every Gazan in Gaza forever. The only reason Gazans are allowed into Israel is for humanitarian reasons. We shed no tears when they return to Gaza, believe me.

"A people who have no control of their borders, airspace, territorial waters, defence, supply of all necessaries of life and all amenities, monetary or fiscal powers, control over who is
and who is not allowed to be resident etc. etc. does not have the effective control required for self-government."

The question is not whether the people control their borders/airspace/etc, but whether the government controls its populace - these are the functions of government. Half the states in Africa have no control of their borders, airspace, waters, or their economies. Are they also occupied? No. They are merely weaker than their neighbors. This is not the proper criteria.

I would provide two examples to illustrate my point. In late 1944 Germany was being bombed
every day, had no control of its airspace, and was under a naval blockade by Britain.
The government had instituted a rationing system, and hunger was a serious threat. Nonetheless, the German government was in full control of its population, and Germany was in no sense occupied. I am not bringing this example to compare Hamas and Hitler - merely to demonstrate the true meaning of 'the functions of government'.

Another example. Consider Israel in 1949. The British Mandate was over, the Arab armies which tried to destroy us had been beaten off. There was no air force, except for one or two planes. There was no navy. Hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees were pouring in from Europe and the Middle East. Infiltrators were crossing the porous borders every day.
What did Israel do? Complain that we were still occupied by Britain because we were using
the British Pound and had no civil registry? Did we vow to keep fighting no matter what
until the West Bank and Gaza were liberated? No. We printed the Israeli Pound. We made our own civil registry. We instituted rationing for several years, until we had built up our own economy. We absorbed our refugees, and now their sons grace the highest offices of state.

Hamas could do the same, if it wanted to. But that's not what it wants, is it? It wants to destroy Israel more than it wants to build Gaza. I am sure you will not agree with that last statement, but before you dispute it, please tell me - have you read Hamas' charter?

joe

As usual the Arab terrorists hide them selves behind children and babies shield this is their way of work. there is no reason that this baby suffer the see trip. no humanity

Jonathan Levy

Richard
June 1st, 2010 10:07pm

This is the second part of my reply, addressing the points you brought up in response to my challenge, to provide an alternative policy for Israel.
I must express my appreciation for you, in taking the time to write a thoughtfully considered and eloquent reply.

"To take 2008 as an example of what can be done in the short run, there was a ceasefire which the Israeli security services said Hamas was observing (even although Israel was not); Hamas offered to negotiate an extension, to which Israel's response was a military incursion."

This short sentence packs inside it the crux of our disagreement, so I will
address it at length. I suspect that we will quickly find ourselves in an
argument over facts - when this happens, I suggest that we compare the sources from which we learn about the conflict, rather than trying to disprove
each others interpretations.

As for the view you have expressed here, let me first say that it contains no statement I consider to be a lie. I consider it to be a biased interpretation of a well-chosen subset of the true facts. Let me explain.

In 2008 there was indeed a cease-fire. Hamas was indeed observing it. Israel did
acknowledge this. Occasionally, another group (e.g. Islamic Jihad) would fire
a few rockets. To this, Israel would retaliate.

So you see, it is strictly true that Hamas was observing the cease fire, whereas Israel occasionally did attack Gaza. However, by omitting the attacks by other groups, the true meaning of events is distorted. I do not consider this omission to be a deliberate act on your part - these attacks are usually mentioned in paragraph 8 of the news article, as a claim by the army, not as an undisputed
fact.

"Hamas offered to negotiate an extension, to which Israel's response was a military
incursion."

There was a difference in interpretation of the cease-fire. Hamas' view was that the
cease-fire expired after half a year. Israel's view was that the cease-fire had not
expired. Hamas wanted to renegotiate better terms, and started firing missiles
into Israeli territory, to apply pressure. The number of rockets continued to climb
for two-three weeks, until Operation Cast Lead started. I remember quite well reading about these missiles during that time, because I have family in range. I remember very well the uncertainty of how we ought to react, and the fear that this was going to turn out like the second Lebanon war.

So again, your statement is strictly true - but by omitting the fact that Israel
considered the cease-fire to still be in effect, and the fact that Hamas negotiated
by firing missiles, the sense of events is again inverted.

I live in Israel. I follow the news in Ha'aretz, (the most left-wing newspaper),
to which I have a subscription, and on ynet (more right-wing) on the internet, plus the occasional news broadcast and foreign blog. Which sources do you follow to learn about the
Middle East?

As for the two-state solution as outlined in 242, I presume you mean a full withdrawal
from the West Bank, including the uprooting of settlements. Let us imagine that this were to happen. What would be the outcome? We already have a precedent in Gaza. Hamas would rebuild its strength. A few years later, it would take over
the West Bank in another bloody coup. At worst, there would be a long civil war between Palestinian groups, as in Lebanon. People like you - forgive me - would start explaining that Israel is actually still occupying the West Bank, and that further concessions are necessary. Hamas would build up an arsenal of weapons, like Hezbollah has in Lebanon, and threaten to use them if no more concessions were forthcoming. A new
war would be at our doorstep, more vicious and bloody than any previous one. It might almost be as bad as Black September, when Jordanian troops slaughtered some
ten or twenty thousand Palestinians. This is why there is no appetite in Israel for further withdrawals, and why the peace party has gone electorally bankrupt.

phil

Richard and Jonathan -there is so much of interest in your educated debate ,but none of this would be necessary if the two sides could make peace ,all those niceties could be confined to history and both peoples could look to the future for themselves and their children if only there was the will for that elusive peace -Jonathan lives in Israel and I have family there ,I know who wants that peace ! I can only speak I suppose for my family who constantly tell of their desire to live in peace with the Palestinians but they despair of the lack of reciprocation.Every time Israel has withdrawn from territory they have been attacked ,when they left Gaza a huge amount of infrastructure was left for the benefit of the Palestinians ,and it was immediately destroyed -rockets arrived instead of peace overtures ,at best a hudna was offered ,one that would allow hamas to regroup ,awaiting a further set of attacks .Although a peace will not be simple ,a concept of peace certainly is ,and if and when hamas change their charter calling for the destruction of Israel and Jews it may be achieved -Forget the paragraphs and sub paragraphs of who has what rights and what is an occupation ,the children are not interested they want to eat and play and learn in peace .regards to you both

Richard

Jonathan Levy
June 2nd, 2010 7:52am
A good riposte. You will be surprised (no doubt) that I disagree. It would take too long to do what you say justice (the editor would say). I will focus on the main point at issue: what constitutes occupation.

First, note that the Israeli Disengagement Plan of 2004 in draft form had the explicit assertion that disengagement "terminated occupation". This was dropped from the final version.

The relevant law derives originally from the Hague Regulations of 1907. There was then no air war, and mobilisation was slow, so occupation was assumed to require ground forces in situ. No longer. The Israeli Supreme Court in 1983 ruled that actual control of the territory and population was not required, only the potential to control. The ICJ ruled that Uganda was deemed to be occupying Congolese territory even although it had not established a structured military administration. The Yugoslav Tribunal ruled that what was required was sufficient force present or the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt (one thinks of Gaza in 2006 and 2008). The IAF has said "our vision of air control zeroes in on the notion of control. We're looking at how you control a city or territory from the air when it is no longer legitimate (!) to hold or occupy the territory on the ground."

That Gaza is under belligerent occupation is not a canard, it is international law.

I will comment briefly on some of your other points (not because I think they can be briefly dismissed).

Most of the powers you include in your criteria of statehood are frequently devolved. They are clearly not necessary or sufficient.

Your account of 2007 is incomplete: Hamas won an election insisted upon by the US against Israel's better judgement - the hope was to give the US/Israeli stooges in Fatah an air of legitimacy; when Hamas won, Israel and the US encouraged and facilitated a coup by elements of Fatah; Hamas responded with a counter-coup; Israel imposed its blockade. The events of 2006 and 2007 are surely evidence of Israel's continuing close control.

There is without doubt a difference between a blockade as an act of war and what Israel is doing to Gaza, but "blockade" is the word now successfully inserted into public discourse.

Berlin is not a good analogy (we don't have space to say more). Iraq I do not know how to characterise. The US was certainly steadily dismantling it. Whether that counts as occupation or not I couldn't tell.

The immiseration of Gaza is not simply the result of history, geography, or other economic forces. It is a consequence of deliberate policy by Israel as the occupying power over decades (and chronicled in detail). That there is no point in creating or adopting another currency is a consequence of Israel's stranglehold on Gaza's economy.

The registry for Gaza and the West Bank is indeed a minor point: Israel's exercise of power over people and property is arbitrary, the registry provides simply a veneer of legality which Israel appears to crave. You mistake its use in Gaza: Israel is keen to allow out those with skills and equally keen not to allow their return.

To use as an analogy what is unambiguously a state in the throes of war does nothing to further your cause.

We should not get into the history of Israel's foundation. We are likely to disagree. We can agree that it was pretty damned heroic whatever else one thinks of it. It does not contribute to your case. It is not credible to assert that Gaza is in a position to emulate Israel.

Hamas leaders have repeatedly over the years indicated that they will negotiate on the 1967 borders. The (admittedly poisonous) charter is not the final word.

EFoster

It is only a PR win if Europeans allow it to be by buying such drivel. If leaders and the overall populace presented a united front and spoke out against the activists and their real motives, this PR stunt would lose much of its power.

Ronnie

Yes Phil?

Ronnie

Jonathan Levy.

Leaving the maze of occupation and associated issues aside for the moment.

I think everyone should recognise that Israel is more than justified in preventing weapons reaching Gaza. Do you think it is worthwhile to consider a role for NATO in policing such an embargo in international waters? I do not see why Israel should have to do this alone and I believe that such an arrangement would be one way in which much needed bridge-building could begin.

I am, of course, aware that Turkey is a member of NATO and their participation in such an operation is clearly open for discussion. Particularly as they are looking to NATO to support them under the terms of the treaty. However, the shouting has to stop at some point and concrete solutions proposed and implemented.

Israel is under extreme pressure and should not be left alone to deal with this situation.

phil

Just another,s view--- consider the following: 1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea. 2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea. (Examples: USA blockaded Cuba, UK blockaded The Falklands, the EU blockaded Yugoslavia) 3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States. 4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade. 5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect. 6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above. 7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels. 8. A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade. 9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law. 10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade. 11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade. 12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defence to fend off such attacks.

Prof. B C Cohney

The present disaster for us is that even our so called friendly countries are quick to condem. Is there going to be a special meeting of the UN re the treatment of the Dafur people, all 2million of them. World hypocracy is reaching its Zenith.

phil

Ronnie I was referring to my post
phil
June 1st, 2010 1:59pm
you usually reply ?

Ronnie

Yes Phil, all of that is fine and I have no issue with your point from an 'academic' standpoint. My issue is that it ignores the all of the real local and international political issues of the wider situation.

If people think that is a good idea then fair enough. I think we can do better than that because no-one, not even the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, can think it a good idea to endlessly loose the propaganda war to a gang of murdering thugs like Hamas.

The arms blockade is perfectly reasonable, turning it into something that seems unreasonable, through a lack of immagination, is not a good result.

Jonathan Levy

Ronnie
June 2nd, 2010 12:12pm

"Do you think it is worthwhile to consider a role for NATO in policing such an embargo in international waters? I do not see why Israel should have to
do this alone and I believe that such an arrangement would be one way in which much needed bridge-building could begin."

I do not think that giving NATO a role will do any good, and it might do much harm. Consider the failure of UNIFIL in Lebanon. It's called a
peacekeeping force, but in practice its only objective is to avoid casualties to its own forces. For this reason it quickly reaches an
accomodation with the only people who are likely to target it - the terrorist groups it is supposed to be opposing. Casualties to the forces will be blamed on Israel, who is benefitting from their presence,
not on the terrorists who do the deed. There will be no willingness in any of the countries who send troops to suffer casualties for Israel's
sake.

For this reason, Israel has always taken its own security into its own hands. I believe it was Elie Wiesel who said that you should believe
the threats of your enemies more than the promises of your friends.

Pamela Levene

Our Paintball heroes! Embarrassing as it might seem to admit that our top commando unit was sent to take over a hostile boat with Paintball rifles, I am none-the-less very proud of them. They so clearly did not want any kind of violence and were still innocent enough to believe in the basic decency of people claiming to be humanitarian activists!

What appalls me is the disgraceful way the world has attacked the defenders and defended the attackers.

Sadly I don't think our naive young warriors will ever be so trusting again.

Ronnie

Phil.

Ah, I see. Sorry I missed it.

Well, as I've written elsewhere, I think that the Israeli military and government should have expected what happened and, actually, I wonder if they did but preferred to send their troops in ill-prepared for whatever reason.

Frankly I think this could have been avoided and it irritates me greatly that it wasn't.

An extreme interpretation of events would be that Israel wanted to ensure the failure of the 'arms length' pre-talk, exploratory, indirect peace talks that were just starting. But who knows and I've said before that any 'talks' at the moment lack real credibility for a number of reasons.

I actually don't think you and I disagree here, I'm just not as personally involved and so I'm a bit colder and more cynical in certain aspects of the drama.

Best wishes.

Pamela Levene

Melanie,

Please follow up this fair and informative article with the even more important facts that are now emerging.

On that boat filled with hundreds of "humanitarian activistss" were an enormous collection of knives, iron bars, explosives and other weaponry.

What it was NOT filled with was supplies for so called needy people. Israel has already packed up and sent on those "supplies". I believe they needed about a half dozen lorries to transport the lot!

Please also follow up with information about the true living standards in most of Gaza.

As over FOUR MILLION TONS of goods went into Gaza via Israel last year, one has to ask where it is all going if not to the Palestinian people?

Many places are thriving, plentiful food and basic materials every-where - of course subject to not being stolen by Hamas.

Ed P

This is a major reason why Turkey cannot be allowed to join the EU.

Jonathan Levy

Richard
June 2nd, 2010 11:11am

I agree that our discussion is getting unwieldly, so I will follow your format of addressing the main subject, and then addressing minor points briefly.

The disengagement plan went through various changes before it was implemented. There was much debate, for example, as to whether an Israeli presence should be maintained in the Philadelphi corridor by the Egyptian border. It is hardly
surprising that different drafts reflect that. What matters is the reality
on the ground. I'm sure you meant this only as a minor point.

As for the various examples you quoted, the brevity of your reference makes it difficult for me to be sure of your precise meaning, so my response may be quite off, but I will do my best.
Uganda and Congo - when Uganda did not establish an administration in Congo,
did Uganda also not have troops on the ground in Congo? If not, then this analogy is not valid.
Yugoslav Tribunal & Supreme court from 1983 - the criteria you describe is sufficient
force to make the authority of the power felt. Israel may have a lot of force, but
it has no authority at all in Gaza. Can Israel extradite even one of those who are
wanted terrorists in its eyes? Can it subpoena a single one of its residents for trial in Israel (say, to pay a minor debt owed to an Israeli citizen)? Can it obtain the release of Gilad Shalit? Can it put up a new traffic light?
Can it force Hamas to do any of these out of fear for of Israel's power? Israel
has the power to destroy a lot of things in Gaza. But this is not occupation. The USA has the power to destroy a lot of things in Iran. The USA is also
enforcing some meager sanctions on Iran. The same goes for almost any country in the world, come to think of it. This is not occupation.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you. Can you provide a link for me to read?

As for the quotation from the air force, I believe you have taken it out of context.
The context there seems to be a question of tactical intelligence and ability
to strike quickly. I.E. when fighting in a built-up area we will know all the time
where the enemy is, and not be surprised. This has nothing to do with political occupation.

Gaza under occupation is a propaganda claim pushed by the Palestinians to their
advantage. Hamas will claim to be under occupation until it has broken the blockade;
It will use the occupation to justify internal repression and to take over the west bank.
Then it will claim to be under occupation to arm itself until it reaches military parity with Israel. Then it will use the occupation as a casus belli. Hamas will only stop saying it's under occupation if Israel is destroyed.

As for the minor points:

The powers I quoted are the powers of government. What do you mean by 'devolved'?
How can they be not necessary? I'm afraid you must make your meaning clearer. Collecting taxes is not necessary? Passing laws? The American war of independence broke out precisely on these issues.

My description was of 2008, not 2007. I was countering your presentation of the Gaza war as an action decided on by Israel for no good reason, in the face of offers of peace by Hamas. Unfortunately, you have not addressed my points, or
listed the sources of your information as I hoped you would.

Instead, you present the Hamas takeover of 2007 - which was the worst-case scenario as
far as Israel was concerned - as proof of Israel's control of Gaza. I cannot understand
this.

Other minor points:

"You mistake its use in Gaza: Israel is keen to allow out those with skills and equally keen not to allow their return."

Where did you read this? Where do these Gazans go? The border with Israel has been pretty much sealed since 2007, except for humanitarian cases, and they're supposed to go right back into Gaza afterwards.

"To use as an analogy what is unambiguously a state in the throes of war does nothing
to further your cause."

I think this statement may reflect the fundamental controversy. Israel is, in fact, at war, being attacked by the followers of an extreme fundamentalist ideology which has established bases in Gaza and in Lebanon, and is funded from Iran. You see an Israel
which would be living happily at peace if only it did not keep attacking its poor hapless
neighbors. So I am curious to know - which sources do you read/watch which led you to
this conclusion?

"Hamas leaders have repeatedly over the years indicated that they will negotiate on the
1967 borders. The (admittedly poisonous) charter is not the final word."

Do Hamas leaders indicate that they are willing to make peace, fully recognizing Israel, and having no further claims? Or do they say that they are willing to accept a state on the '67 borders, with no committment on their part? Sometimes they are willing to grant a 10-year truce (hudna) as long as it allows them to re-arm? Perhaps the charter is, in fact, the final word, and the negotiations are merely a means?

I have also heard Hamas leaders mention the 1967 borders, and it's never in the context
of recognizing Israel and making peace. Perhaps you have a link?

Anwar Suleiman

I cannot think of any other nation that has acted with such restraint.
ASife from the military aspect, all ships are subject to check by customs worldwide.
There should be no exception for Gaza.

Ronnie

Thank you Richard.

I take all your points and cannot disagree with any of them as made.

However, it seems to me that the structure of what is being done at the moment is not really working and action must be taken which reduces Israel's isolation and involves more friendly countries working actively by her side. I believe this would be good for all concerned.

As Israel stands alone at the moment, she is an easy target on all fronts.

phil

Ronnie thanks for the replies .but why would you think Israel would not want peace ?What an incredible difference it would make to their lives let alone the budget and their safety -It surely is the hamas /hesbollah connection that do not want peace ,they just want the Jews out ,so they sabotage every attempt -peace, budgets, lifestyle, are of no consequence to them -a distortion of their religion and the pursuit of power and prestige is what they are after -regards phil-wow I have had a busy day here :)
have a look at this -flotilla explanation --Ronnie thanks for the replies .but why would you think Israel would not want peace ?What an incredible difference it would make to their lives let alone the budget and their safety -It surely is the hamas /hesbollah connection that do not want peace ,they just want the Jews out ,so they sabotage every attempt -peace, budgets, lifestyle, are of no consequence to them -a distortion of their religion and the pursuit of power and prestige is what they are after -regards phil-wow I have had a busy day here :)

Ronnie

Richard.

Sorry, I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to Jonathan to whom I also apologise.

I do hope that is clear.

Ronnie

Phil.

I do not think Israel does not want peace per se.

However I do think that Israel sees no-one to realistically discuss peace with at the moment, so why waste time.

They will be asked to make more concessions to two groups of people that they don't trust and I don't see that as a good option for them at the moment.

The US government wants peace but it is not Israel that has initiated any of the talks-about-talks, as far as I can see. And, as I have said before, I don't blame them.

Amanda Lee Harig

"Propaganda" and the "defense of borders" and "right to protect themselves."

Okay, I'll bite.

I didn't know International Waters are called 'borders' and cement, mobile hospitals and food qualified as terrorist funding.

What I do know is that one of the most effective ways to win a war is to cut off the supply routes of the enemy. I know that the act of Piracy committed by Israel was nothing short of a desperate attempt to maintain control. I know the definition of 'occupied territories' and I know that the Jewish settlements are in complete and utter lockdown, fully equipped by turrets and security details.

Now, perhaps I'm nuts. It's a real possibility. But I've always wondered -- who would be crazy enough to attack a gun with a man attached to it unless you have no other choice -- much less with sling shots, planks and steel pipes.

Linda Smith

Phil, I don't know why you say Hamas distort Islam. Islam is Islam. There is no moderate Islam, just believers and non-believers. Unfortunately, whereas religious Jews believe God gave them dominion over the whole of Israel including Judea and Samaria, religious Muslims believe God gave them dominion over the whole world.

Jonathan Levy

Ronnie
June 2nd, 2010 4:04pm

I understand. It's very easy to get us confused :)

Richard

Jonathan Levy
June 2nd, 2010 8:21am
I'm falling behind! This is my response to yours about ceasefires and solutions.

On the ceasefire, as I understand it,the Israeli security services acknowledged both that Hamas itself was observing the ceasefire, and that it was making credible (and succesful) efforts to persuade other groups.

(As an aside, a careful look at the record makes it difficult to sustain the assumption that the IDF only ever retaliates.)

In saying that Israel did not observe the terms of the ceasefire, I was not referring to its continued military attacks, but its refusal to open the border crossings as agreed.

You say that Israel did not understand the ceasefire to be for six months only. I have seen this nowhere else. It sits oddly with Israel's behaviour - it launched a raid into Gaza. Hamas responded (like idiots). Both sides continued to say that they would seek to extend the ceasefire. However, the intermdiary reports that Hamas made an offer (a ceasefire conditional on Israel opening the border crossings and a proposal to extend the truce to the West Bank)and Israel failed to respond. Israel launched another raid into Gaza and Hamas launched more rockets. I agree that we will have to wait for more blabbing to the press and for state papers to get any closer than this to the truth.

However, this is a distraction: the IDF was not able to launch Cast Lead without long preparation. I do not mean the preparation that goes into writing war plans for every foreseeable contingency. I mean the planning and mobilisation for an actual campaign that began in June when the ceasefire was first agreed and that carried on until Israel launched raids into Gaza and neglected to reply to the offer made by Hamas. You do not mobilise on this scale without intending to use the mobilised forces. At the very least, this is prima facie evidence in support of the speculation (admittedly) that Israel was looking for a pretext, and the shenanigans over the ceasefire (and the idiocy of Hamas) provided that pretext. Something similar occurred in 2006, when the IDF happened to be fully mobilised for an assault on Gaza and an assault on the Lebanon.

It is a distraction in another sense: if Gaza is occupied as I argue, then Israel has no legal grounds for its assault. But set that aside as the point in dispute. If we assume for the sake of argument that Gaza is an independent state, then Israel still has no legal grounds for its assault. The right to self-defence, which Israel has every right to invoke, does not allow force (and certainly not overwhelming force) until all other options have been exhausted. In this instance, all other options had certainly not been exhausted - Hamas had observed the ceasefire and was offering another.

On solutions, you asked what I thought better than continued military assaults and collective punishments.

It is clear from my response that I do not have an answer. The obvious answer (242) gets more and more implausible with every new build and outpost. It gets more implausible because of Israel's long-standing "facts on the ground" strategy of expropriation and its equally long-standing "divide and rule" strategy for crushing Palestinian resistance to its expropriations, a strategy that has allowed it to cut Gaza off from the West Bank and splinter the West Bank into a series of ghettoes easily cut off from each other. I have no answer, but I do think I have identified the crux: there are two peoples in one land. This self-evident truth is denied (astonishingly) by Israel, and you seem to go along with this.

You offer one argument, that Palestinian militias and politicos have behaved atrociously in exile and under occupation (a premiss it is difficult to deny), and therefore will behave atrociously when the Palestinians achieve statehood in their homeland. Although the conclusion clearly doesn't follow from the premiss, it is nevertheless a distinct possibility. But step back briefly. Israel is the 4th or 5th strongest military power in the world and is backed by the US. Just as its existence and its prosperity, and, for the bulk of the citizens, its security were never threatened by Palestinians kept in poverty in exile and under occupation, so its existence etc. will not be threatened by Palestinians living in prosperity (relative to their current misery). The stakes are not that high for Israel. What holds Israel back is the need to concede territory it wants for itself (and the essential water supply it contains). And, again, while militias and politicos have behaved badly, the millions of civilians have not. Are they to remain as hostages indefinitely in the off-chance that the unsavoury choice of leaders they are left with prove not just bad but wholly irrational? And, while Israelis may with justification be chary of such neighbours,think of the Palestinians and Lebanese who have to live beside a mad dog that indulges in periodic slaughter to keep the population sufficiently cowed.

As far as I can see, your response is to continue with the military assaults and collective punishments and keep 50% of the population imprisoned within what will eventually be not much more than 10% of the land.

I had expected something better, something more constructive, more hopeful from someone like you. That is not intended to be snide, but to reflect the high opinion your comments warrant.

sophie

Bless you Melanie for having the courage to tell the truth. I support Israel who is fighting for survival.Im ashamed of Britain who are cowardly siding with so called peace activists who set out to provoke Israel.

Linda Smith

Richard, the Palestinians and the Lebanese live with mad dogs, Hamas and Hezbollah. The Israelis are not going to let them out of their kennels any time soon. That way lies suicide.

phil

Linda Smith I have friends who are Muslims
June 2nd, 2010 4:31pm --I have friends who are Muslims and they are moderate people-I eat in their home from time to time and sadly I have met others who are filled with hate -One lot actually told me that it was the Israelis who flew the planes into the twin towers -my friends consider them idiots -so you tell me are they all the same ?

Ronnie

Linda Smith.

Why do you say 'religious Muslims' ?

I thought there were only Muslims; Muslims are Muslims. Are you saying there are non-religious Muslims?

Eddie

Israel lost my support the day they illegally stole British passports to use in their covert operations.

It's not a 'PR disaster' -- it's simply idiocy.

Jonathan Levy

Richard
June 2nd, 2010 5:08pm

I will address what you consider to be the main point first, and then the distractions.

"However, this is a distraction: the IDF was not able to launch Cast Lead without long preparation. I do not mean the preparation that goes into writing war plans for every foreseeable contingency. I mean the planning and mobilisation for an actual campaign that began in June when the ceasefire was first agreed and that carried on until Israel launched
raids into Gaza and neglected to reply to the offer made by Hamas. You do not mobilise on this scale without intending to use the mobilised forces. At the very least, this is prima facie evidence in support of the speculation (admittedly) that Israel was looking for a pretext, and the shenanigans over the ceasefire (and the idiocy of Hamas) provided that pretext. Something similar occurred in 2006, when the IDF happened to be fully mobilised
for an assault on Gaza and an assault on the Lebanon. "

Forgive me for quoting in bulk, but if I have understood you correctly, then this paragraph contains statements which I will boldly attempt to disprove even to your satisfaction (no easy task, given our divergent starting points), and which ought to be evident to anyone familiar with the IDF, and the aftermath of the second Lebanese war in Israel. I am desperately curious to know whether you have reached these conclusions yourself, or have read them somewhere. I beg you to indulge me in this matter.

First: You seem to be implying that Israel mobilized her reserves in June, and held them ready until December, when a pretext was finally found to attack Gaza. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the structure of the Israeli army. The Israeli army consists of the regular units (mostly conscripts aged 18-21).
These are always guarding the borders or training, and are available on very short notice. The reserves consist of Israeli civilians, which can be called up in an emergency on 24-48 hours' notice. These are men with jobs and families,
and cannot be held in service for long periods of time, for both legal and practical
reasons. Holding them for half a year is completely out of the question. If the media you follow led you to suppose that reserves were mobilized
in June until December, I suggest you supplement them with sources from the Israeli
side.

Second: You say that "in 2006 the IDF happened to be fully mobilized for an assault on Gaza and an assault on Lebanon." This is also quite false. For months Israeli newspapers were filled with shocking stories of reservists who reached their units and found the emergency storerooms locked, or emptied, or
filled with the wrong equipment, and wound up scrounging for rations from civilians. After the war some reservists organized themselves into a protest movement to
demand the resignation of Halutz, Peretz and Olmert. I personally participated
in some of these protests, and I remember hearing first-hand accounts of soldiers who were sent to capture a few outlying houses, and discovered that
their maps were 10 years out of date and the outlying houses were now a large neighborhood. One of the main tasks of the Winograd commission was to
discover exactly how it came to pass that the reserves were so woefully unready. Halutz and Peretz eventually had to resign as a result of this criticism.
The report is available online. If you read it, there will be no doubt in your mind that Israel was taken by surprise in 2006.

Given all this, how did you come to believe that the army was prepared ahead of time for the second Lebanon war? And if you believe this, how can you
understand anything that happened in Israel since then?

The failure in 2006 was a watershed moment in Israel. The army was not ready for Lebanon because we deceived ourselves into thinking
that since we had left Lebanon, Hizbollah would not attack us - precisely the same advice which you offer on Gaza today. The hard lesson from that war was that the reserves must be kept in readiness at all times. Since 2006, every year,
the army conducts training exercises for the reserves for a few weeks in the summer.
Afterwards they are sent home. Perhaps you mistook the exercises in the summer
of 2008 for the beginning of the six-month mobilization which you described, in
which the army was supposedly sitting around waiting for a pretext to attack Gaza.

Palestinian propagandists always like to describe every Israeli attack as something deliberately and lovingly planned, to gratify an insatiable thirst for blood. When people with little knowledge of Israel read this, they are unable to see through its manifest flaws and accept it as true.

Richard - if you address nothing else, I beg you to answer: Which newspapers do you habitually read? Which news channels do you watch? You are obviously an intelligent fellow. I am curious to know how you formed your opinions, so different from mine. I beg you to indulge me in this.

Jonathan Levy

Amanda Lee Harig
June 2nd, 2010 4:19pm

"Now, perhaps I'm nuts. It's a real possibility. But I've always wondered --
who would be crazy enough to attack a gun with a man attached to it unless
you have no other choice -- much less with sling shots, planks and steel pipes."

A person who desires paradise, and believes that killing Jews as an act of Jihad is the best way to do it. The safe and pampered west does not
really believe such people exist, even after September 11th and the tube bombings in London. Were there such people on the Gaza flotilla?

Follow the links and judge for yourself:

http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2489.htm
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4265.htm

Fred

Why are Isrealis so scared of non jews that they always want to kill them? Infact they are even scared of jews that disagree with them as can be proven by not allowing Noam Chomsky to speak in their universities, they probably think hes an undercover Islamic Jihadi terrorist! All the pathetic arguments Isreali sympathizers are raising for this bloodshed can be answered by reading Mark Steels article in the independent. Enjoy
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-of-course-they-were-asking-for-it-1988684.html

Linda Smith

phil: Islam is a religious ideology. Because a person identifies himself as a Muslim due to his family background, it is not necessarily the case that he believes the religous doctrine. I have heard many people say they enjoy going to Church or synagogue for the social aspect. They like the company, the music, the food - but they don't believe the theology. Some people believe, some don't, but the theology never changes.

I should be obliged if you would set out the basis on which you assert re hamas/hesbollah "a distortion of their religion and the pursuit of power and prestige is what they are after". What "distortion"? Please answer with regard to Islamic theology and doctrine, ie the Koran as written and taught to Muslims.

youdontknowjack

The agenda was to hurt the relationship between Turkey and Israel. There had to be a confrontation to meet this goal.
To hell with those that supposedly need the aid we are delivering. Wow! The depth of depravity and delusion are beyond belief. What can we expect from yokels who think it is honorable in any fashion to blow themselves up for their "God."

Richard

Jonathan Levy
June 2nd, 2010 2:17pmI think I'm not keeping up, am I?

The more I study the legal cases and judgements, the more I realize that I can't arrive at an opinion of my own, but must rely on authority. I accept the authority of the international courts and the vast majority of international jurists. I do admire the ingenuity of Israel in maintaining effective control while insisting that it is legally permitted to impose collective punishment and slaughter. It is like the population registry on a grand scale. (A study of Israel's attitude to UN rulings since its inception and to international law in general would be as interesting as one of the US.)

Given that the IAF quote is from the head of military intelligence, your interpretation may well be correct.

"Then it will claim to be under occupation to arm itself until it reaches military parity with Israel." - This is so unlikely that I feel confident in asserting that it is wholly unrealistic.

"Hamas will only stop saying it's under occupation if Israel is destroyed." - Hamas has frequently indicated that there will be peace if Israel returns to the 1967 borders, most recently in the Guardian, but also on British television, and elsewhere.

"The powers I quoted are the powers of government. What do you mean by 'devolved'?" - most of the powers you mention have been devolved to a lower authority in one or another state.

"My description was of 2008, not 2007." - One of us is out of synch, probably me. I was responding to: "If you will recall, there was a bloody takeover of the Gaza strip by Hamas in 2007..."

"... you present the Hamas takeover of 2007 - which was the worst-case scenario as
far as Israel was concerned - as proof of Israel's control of Gaza." - This is a very good argument for your position. My only response is that it is curious that it is for the US to insist that there should be an election and for Israel to acquiesce (very much against its better judgement). The internal political system of a sovereign state is not for others to determine. I suppose once the wrong party won (which is not what is meant to happen in an election), and the coup instigated by the US and Israel had been thwarted, to effect "regime change" in any other way would have exposed Gaza's independence as a sham - as for instance by reducing the population to beggary and launching an overwhelming military assault to persuade the population to withdraw support from their chosen representatives.

Israel habitually refuses returning Palestinians e.g. students studying abroad.

"Israel is, in fact, at war, being attacked..." "You see an Israel
which would be living happily at peace if only it did not keep attacking its poor hapless
neighbors." This is indeed curious. Hizballah arose to defend the people of Southern Lebanon from Israel's brutal occupation. Hamas arose to defend the Palestinians from Israel's brutal occupation. The right to resist is enshrined in the UN charter. The history of the conflict does not allow Israel to present itself credibly as a peace-loving nation simply trying to defend what is its.

I can provide you with one or two representative examples of statements by Hamas on a two-state solution, but they should not be hard to find.

I see you have already replied to my previous effort. I will do my best to respond.

phil

Linda Smith
June 3rd, 2010 4:15am -LINDA , I am sure you know that I admire your defence of the Israeli cause ,but I am afraid you are being in this case blinkered -we are not at war with every Muslim on this planet ,and condemning them in this way does not recognise those that want to live in peace with us ,whilst conforming to how they see their religion .Many attend their mosques and pray as we do for peace -do you really think I would have a friendship with those who pray for our doom ?

Linda Smith

phil, you're avoiding my question. On what basis do you repeatedly assert Hamas (and other Muslims who do not concur with your personal Judeo-based philosophy of life) "distorts" Islam?

Answer the question and stop behaving like a politician.

Ronnie

Linda Smith.

You haven't answered my question.

You are in danger of being obliged to sit at the front.

Richard

Jonathan Levy
June 2nd, 2010 10:22pm
I was relieved to find tht I had not said that reservists were mobilised for six months. In June 2008, as the ceasefire was being negotiated, Ehud Barak ordered a plan for an all-out assault on Gaza -intelligence gathering, target selection, force requirements, logistics, strategy, tactics etc. The plan was signed off in November. The operation, a highly complex one involving all three services, went off in December - not something you throw together overnight. This story was in all the major news media. I believe it originated with Haaretz.

You make much of the IDF's disarray. I accept the point. Remember, it is normal in any military operation. The British term is SNAFU, the American FUBAR.

You think that your account of reservists should persuade me that the assault on Gaza was not planned but a response to events - it doesn't; you think the SNAFU in 2006 should persuade me the same about the assault on the Lebanon - it does, but not entirely.

Hezbollah is explicit about what it wants: "We do not need a regional war to regain occupied land; we just need to liberate Lebanese occupied territory and free our remaining prisoners of war." Nasrallah in Middle East Report Winter 2005.

The capture of two Israeli soldiers, the latest in the tit-for-tat, was intended for a prisoner swap. Israel knew this.

After its hot pursuit failed, Israel's response was not about rescuing the two soldiers. A senior military officer told Haaretz that the point of the destruction was not to rescue the soldiers but to weaken Hezbollah. Haaretz 25 April 2007. Dan Halutz was reported in the Guardian 13 July 2007, and elsewhere, explaining that the purpose was to "turn the clock back twenty years in Lebanon." Maj. Gen. Gadi Eisenkott said the purpose was "to launch a massive strike on Hezbollah targets...and to return the territory to Lebanese sovereignty." Haaretz (I think - I can't read my own writing.) We will pass over the absurdity of turning the clock back twenty years in Lebanon in order to return it to Lebanese sovereignty. Maj. Gen. Eisenkott's explanation agrees with what Seymour Hersh (New Yorker) was told by US administration officials, who were closely involved in this stage of the plan (as in the subsequent stages that came to nothing). The US wanted Hezbollah weakened so that their client Fuad Siniora could assert Lebanese army control in the south.

Turning the clock back twenty years in Lebanon is not something you can effect overnight in response to a border incident. (In passing, nor is a border incident the sort of thing that international law allows as a casus belli, certainly not as a pretext to "destroy Lebanon".)

There is evidence of a plan in addition to the sheer implausibility of the lack of a plan. I will not detail all the evidence. The first source is what Seymour Hersh was told by US and Israeli officials (New Yorker, various editions 2006-2007). The second source is a report in the San Francisco Chronicle in July 2006: "More than a year ago a senior Israeli army officer gave off-the-record briefings to US diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the operation in the Lebanon in revealing detail...the officer described a three week campaign. The first week concentrated on destroying Hezbollah's heavier long-range missiles, bombing its command and control centres, and disrupting transportation and communications. In the second week, the focus shifted to attacks on individual sites of rocket launchers or weapons stores. In the third week, ground forces in large numbers would be introduced..." In corroboration, here is a quote in Haaretz from a senior army officer,"I am not sure if Olmert was familiar with the details of the plan, but everyone knew that the IDF ahd a ground operation ready for implementation." Why did they not get as far as introducing ground forces? - I think they balked at it after the failure of the first two stages. The third source of evidence is what Olmert and others said after the fiasco in trying to exonerate themselves. Olmert said he discussed the plan with the military in January 2006, and again in March in more detail about drawing up definite plans. If you read what Gen. Malka and a member of the war cabinet, Elezier, said to the Winograd Committee, you might be more inclined to agree with Ze'ev Schiff (Haaretz May 2007), "the army dominates in its relationship with the government." The plan for the Lebanon was part of a more elaborate plan that the US approved and was keen to see implemented. It is likely that such a plan had been drawn up in Sharon's time and the IDF gradually revealed its contents to the Prime Minister as and when he needed to know.

Why did the operation go off half-cock? Again, there is evidence. Symour Hersh was told by a number of sources that the operation was planned for late autumn. Hizballah report that they too heard, a few days into the fighting, that Israel had planned an attack for September or October. In other words, they were not properly prepared and would not have been for two to three months after the operation in fact began. "American pressure and the Israeli desire to achieve success...were factors which made them rush into battle" - Nasrallah's deputy quoted in the Beirut press. (Note that an American official told Hersh that Israel had promised "a cheap war with many benefits.") My guess is that Hizbollah's reckless provocation prompted Israel to go early out of sheer over-confidence.

Briefly, there is more to be said about Israeli strategy. I will not dredge up the references, since this is openly talked about by the military. Israel relies for its security on its overwhelming preponderance of power, the deterrent effect of which depends on others believing that Israel will use it. This is part of the logic of deterrence. This "mad dog" strategy has long been part of US military doctrine - they have to believe we're capable of anything. It has also long been part of Israeli doctrine. The IDF every so often does something grotesquely OTT just as a reminder. When Lebanon 2006 back-fired, the military worried out loud about the damage done to Israel's deterrent, and about the need to put this right at the first opportunity. It has been said that Gaza provided that opportunity (by officers of the IDF - I'm sorry, I have lost the references, but I'm sure you can dig them out).

phil

Linda Smith
June 3rd, 2010 2:15pm LINDA you are not asking a question you are making statements ,and I do not agree with them ,nor do I see them as in any way helpful to anybody ,so you are in this case going to have to accept what I have said as I do not intend to get involved in this type of conversation .If you believe all Muslims are evil I am sad for you -I obviously do not .I have already said I admire your stoic defence of the people I was born too,but I like to believe in the inherent goodness of even those,not all, with whom I may disagree.

phil

Just a reminder
phil
June 2nd, 2010 11:10am

Richard and Jonathan I addressed you both and as you both seem to be polite ,I did think at least one of you would
have considered what I said to you .Each of you I am sure are enjoying your learned essays ,Richard particularly ,but have either of you considered how to make the peace that is so sorely needed -
----------
Richard in particular quotes from so many sources and sadly some that beggar belief ,do I believe that Israeli army personnel would give away their battle plans ? Come on Richard lets get real here.Both your education and diligence is impressive but I prefer the old guy on the market who says " lets cut to the quick ,how much missus " :)

wonderer

@Richard June 3rd, 2010 5:22pm. You say Hizbullah is explicit in what it wants, quoting Nasrallah in Middle East Report Winter 2005:-

"We do not need a regional war to regain occupied land; we just need to liberate Lebanese occupied territory and free our remaining prisoners of war."

Statements in his speech on al-Quds day in June 2008 are equally explicit, eg:-

'Speaking in Beirut in honor of al-Quds Day, Hizbullah secretary-general says, `"No one has the authority to concede a grain of earth, wall or stone of the holy land"`; adds his organization will continue resistance against Israel. `"Today more can be done than ever before,` Jerusalem and Palestine, from the sea to the river, belong to the Palestinian people, the Arabs and the Muslims, and no one has the authority to concede a grain of earth, wall or stone from the holy land," Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah said Friday evening.'

For fuller details see:-
http://www.arabeuropean.org/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=1

So how do you reconcile these statements? Alternatively, if you were advising the Israelis, which one would you tell them to believe?

btw the speech mentions a comment by Khomeini that Israel was a "tumour". No doubt Ahmedinejad is familiar with it. Is he planning to administer a dose of radiotherapy?

wtd

Ricky @ 4:31pm asked Melanie - - I am puzzled as to why on earth they keep plunging headlong into such PR disasters. If it is true, as you argue that the flotilla was a provocative Islamist set piece, please explain why the Israeli's fell for it - way outside their own territorial waters?

Turkey's growing ties with Iran are also something to ponder: Turkey agreed to take 1200 grams of Iranâ™s â˜surplusâ™ uranium for enrichment. Perhaps Israel considered the distance necessary if 'surplus' was to be delivered via dirty bomb.

Jonathan Levy

Richard
June 3rd, 2010 5:22pm

I am confused. On June 2nd you said:

"I do not mean the preparation that goes into writing war plans for every foreseeable contingency. I mean the planning and mobilisation"

On June 3rd you said:

"I was relieved to find tht I had not said that reservists were mobilised for six months. In June 2008, as the ceasefire was being negotiated, Ehud
Barak ordered a plan for an all-out assault on Gaza -intelligence gathering,
target selection, force requirements, logistics, strategy, tactics etc."

However, the items you specified (intelligence gathering, target selection,
force requirements) are precisely those which are routinely made for forseeable contingencies. Syria has such a plan for Israel. Israel has such a plan for Syria. Peru has such a plan for Bolivia. The preparation of such a plan does not indicate that the planner has resolved to execute it. Given the situation in the summer of 2008, it was only to be expected that the general staff would prepare for the possibility that the cease-fire would break down. Especially since Hamas insisted that it was only valid for 6 months, and even more so after the failure in Lebanon 2 years earlier.

Israel made a routine (and in retrospect wise) decision to plan for the possibility that the cease-fire would break down. Hamas doubtless
planned for the same contingency. However, in your eyes, Israel's preparations
are proof of nefarious intent, whereas Hamas' are so a reasonable precaution that they go unmentioned.

"Hezbollah is explicit about what it wants: "We do not need a regional war to regain occupied land; we just need to liberate Lebanese occupied territory and free our remaining prisoners of war." Nasrallah in Middle East Report Winter 2005"

In Arabic, Hezbollah is explicit about what it wants. In English, it is dissembling and deceitful. See Nasrallah's speech on Feb 2005 (MEMRI translation):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WK3HbXwN0k&feature=player_embedded

Nasrallah: "Israel is our enemy. This is an aggressive, illegal, and illegitimate
entity which has no future in our land. Its destiny is manifested in our blood and
in our motto: Death to Israel!

Crowd: Death to Israel! Death to Israel! Death to Israel!

We listen to what Nasrallah says in Arabic. You listen to what Nasrallah says in English. This is why Israel's actions always seem disproportionate to you. This is why Israel always seems intransigent to you. Listen to what Arab leaders say to their people in Arabic, and you will understand better.

"There is evidence of a plan in addition to the sheer implausibility of the lack of a
plan. I will not detail all the evidence. "

A lack of a plan is hardly implausible if there is a preconceived notion that
there will be no war. Such a notion lead to a much greater fiasco in 1973. As for said evidence, it is quite evident from public sources that there was no clear objective to the war, let alone a comprehensive plan. Government officials
vacillated between 'rescue the soldiers', 'deter future attacks', 'revenge!', 'stop the missiles' (which by now were being fired at civilian targets), 'weaken
Hizbollah' so Lebanon would take over the south and 'destroy Hizbollah completely'.
One of the main criticisms of the Winograd report was that there were no clear objectives. And yet you believe that not only was there a master plan (as opposed
to tactical plans, such as target lists), it was scheduled to be executed a month later regardless of any action by Hizbollah.

This notion needs an additional refutation. The idea that any Israeli politician could have sat in his office thinking "Hm, should I attack Lebanon
in November or in October? Better ring up the chief of staff to see when he'll
be ready" is completely ridiculous. Israel abandoned Lebanon in 2000. Lebanon is
considered cursed ground to a generation of Israelis. You seem to conceive of the Israeli public as an bored gang of mercenaries, idly waiting for their leaders to find some battle for them. Had Olmert tried to start a war on his own
initiative, his coalition would have collapsed in an hour. The public would have rebelled, the reservists would not have come. You have uncritically swallowed the notion that Olmert planned this war from the start without even considering the local political scene and the popular support that would require.

The kidnapping of a soldier - hard on the heels of Shalit's kidnapping - is probably
the only thing that could have given Olmert the support he then squandered.

wonderer

Richard
June 3rd, 2010 5:22pm

My last effort a few hours ago was blockaded, so I'll try again.

You say Hizbullah is explicit in what it wants, quoting Nasrallah in Middle East Report Winter 2005:-

"We do not need a regional war to regain occupied land; we just need to liberate Lebanese occupied territory and free our remaining prisoners of war."

Statements in his speech on al-Quds day in June 2008 are equally explicit but different, eg:-

'Speaking in Beirut in honor of al-Quds Day, Hizbullah secretary-general says, `"No one has the authority to concede a grain of earth, wall or stone of the holy land"`; adds his organization will continue resistance against Israel. `"Today more can be done than ever before,` Jerusalem and Palestine, from the sea to the river, belong to the Palestinian people, the Arabs and the Muslims, and no one has the authority to concede a grain of earth, wall or stone from the holy land," Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah said Friday evening.'

For fuller details see:-
http://www.arabeuropean.org/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=1

So how do you reconcile these statements? Alternatively, if you were advising the Israelis, which one would you tell them to believe?

btw the speech mentions a comment by Khomeini that Israel was a "tumour". No doubt Ahmedinejad is familiar with it. Is he planning to administer radiotherapy, chemotherapy or the knife?

Jonathan Levy

phil
June 3rd, 2010 6:33pm

Hi Phil

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. I can only plead that replying to Richard is so
exhausting that everything else becomes a blur. Upon re-reading your post from June 2nd I find that I may have not replied simply because I agreed with almost everything you
said.

As to your question - how to make peace - I believe that it cannot be done. This is the the last station on a grim road which I have traveled, along with much of the Israeli public. In 1993 I watched starry-eyed as the Oslo accords were signed.
In 1996 I was very worried by the first suicide bombings, but voted Peres, and was
horrified to wake up with Netanyahu the next day. In 1999 I voted Barak, and was
hopeful once again when he won.

But in 2000 the second intifada started. Barak went to Camp David again and to Sharm-e-sheikh, offered more than Yossi Beilin ever dreamed of giving away, and returned with
no agreement. Sharon replaced him, and the situation kept deteriorating. In April/May 2002 we had a bombing almost every other day. 100 killed in just over a month. All the
leftist papers said there was no military solution. Sharon sent the army in anyway, and the bombings dropped. They started to build the fence, and they kept dropping. Military force did the job after all, after years of being told it was
useless. Who would have believed it.

Then we were attacked from Lebanon, and had another war with Hizbollah. Then we withdrew from Gaza, Hamas took over, and we had another war. Nasrallah kept very very quiet
during the war in Gaza. Sometimes another group would fire one or two missiles from
Lebanon, and Hizbollah would rush to reassure us that it wasn't them. So for all its
failures, the 2006 war in Lebanon did deter Nasrallah after all.

So what about peace? Concessions will not bring peace. They will only bring more war. A tide of fanaticism is engulfing the region, from Pakistan to Morocco. Every 20 years there will rise another generation that has not tried its strength against us, and
there will be another war. Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. If you want peace,
prepare for war.

The West Bank is stuck like a bone in our throats. It would be much better if they had their own state, living at peace with us. Idle wishes. If we pull out the army,
Hamas will take over, and things will get worse. If we pull out our civilians, it will only earn us new demands for concessions. The Fatah leaders are too weak to secure their own position against Hamas, and too weak to compromise with Israel on anything that Arafat held back. They are always very reasonable and prgamatic
in Hebrew and English interviews, but in Arabic they endorse their Right of Return, which means the dismantling of the Jewish state. So they manage their own internal affairs to a large extent, and we provide security for ourselves and a safety net for them.
Roadblocks are periodically removed and restored. Shootings and bombings occur sporadically. This situation is not good. But the alternatives seem worse to me. Perhaps it will blow up in our faces tomorrow and I will regret these words.

The future is grim, but there is hope for those with courage and nerve. In 10 or 20 years, demography and immigration may well cause Europeans to envy our current situation. Should that come to pass, you can be sure that the methods they will use will exceed anything Israel has done. But they will not take back their harsh condemnations. Rather, they will blame us for having brought their crisis to pass. Jeremiah was the most reviled of prophets.

Ian Hills

I hope we get a decent government one day, with a decent Director of Public Prosecutions. Any number of BBC employees should be prosecuted for the the crime of Incitement to Violence. For decades, the corporation has propagandised in favour of terrorists and against their victims. It used to be Sinn Fein, with the BBC condemning the largely peaceful loyalists. Now the focus is on Palestinian terrorists and their western allies, with the corporation fabricating the evidence to whip up hatred of Jews.
Other charges brought by a decent DPP could include Incitement to Murder, Incitement to Racial Hatred, and Incitement to Religious Hatred.
Or perhaps these BBC employees could be extradited to Israel to face similar charges there.
Truly, Britain has become a haven for terrorists and their supporters, with the BBC employing many of the latter, at the license-payers' expense.

Linda Smith

Phil, you repeatedly make a statement that Hamas etc "distort" Islam. When required to justify your statement, you duck and weave. Do not make statements you are unable to substantiate. If you do, you are no different than the Israel bashers. I have no doubt that Hitler loved his dog.

phil

Jonathan Levy
June 3rd, 2010 11:02pm -Thanks for the reply -I have been saying here for a long time that soon enough it will be our turn in the west.We are turning out more and more left wing young people who think they know what makes the world go round .They are indoctrinated with pro Palestinian propaganda and are never able to see that the small democracy in the ME has been under attack for more than 60 years -Your friend quotes from every place he can find an argument against you ,but in truth he knows only what he has read or chooses to read -You live there as do some of my family and I know what they tell me as their uncle -they have no reason to lie to me .They tell me without the wall they could not live in their town ,without the IDF nobody could .Meanwhile which Arab state can honestly say they live in fear of an unprovoked attack by Israel -let Richard explain any of this away -the little guy on the market has it right every time -shalom.

Ronnie

Thank you Jonathan.

Your post of 11:02 on 3 June was excellent. Not just because I agree with a lot of what you say but because it clearly sets out a rational position that I imagine (but of course don't know) many Israelis share.

Perhaps the Spectator could ask you to comment more often because the person in charge of putting the Israeli case here, at the moment, is only interested in creating heat instead of light.

Jonathan Levy

wonderer
June 3rd, 2010 10:28pm

"My last effort a few hours ago was blockaded, so I'll try again."

Blockaded, or besieged? ;)

phil

Ronnie
June 4th, 2010 8:03am -- I think you are being a little hard on Mel ,I occasionally find her a bit over the top ,but its hard to be perfect like us :).She stands up to be counted for the Jewish people and Israel in a currently very hostile world and I have enormous admiration for her education and courage .Those like Jonathan provide light in a very dark world and he does so with a politeness that I so admire .Recently as you have no doubt noticed I have had cause to disagree with some very obnoxious people who have nothing other than insults to write here so it is especially rewarding to hear from those who do have common sense and opinions even if I do not always agree with them -we can all learn ,but I am not taking lessons on commas from those like jolly? roger who never has an opinion :)--The ch wall is a place where real nutters have their space ,but here on Mels threads we are often rewarded with common sense and eloquence together with real researched posts -give the lady a chance Ronnie ,there is much to admire .

Brian Burr

Could one even IMAGIN a Jewish or Christian 'peace convoy' or peace demonstration of this nature ending with participants taking knives and pipes to police or others in control? Unimaginable. This is affair is but another manifestation of the same rabid, hateful ideology which has turned Lebanon, Nigeria, Somalia, and so many other nations into battlefields. It's the work of brainwashed automatons who are led to believe they must kill and be killed for a religion they see as good, and a god they have never spoken with. They are driven by dogmatic clerics, who promise them love, through hate.

Richard

Jonathan Levy
June 3rd, 2010 10:25pm

I say Israel had a plan. You make more of this than it warrants. There is a distinction, not difficult to understand. Germany had a plan for invading Russia, regularly updated and practised in exercises. It still took Hitler's High Command 6-8 months to translate it into an operational plan and put in place the forces necessary for its implementation.

"Israel made a routine decision..." Again you tacitly assume what has to be proved. There is nothing routine about what Israel planned, at least according to international law.

On plans, the same can be said of the invasion of Lebanon. The plan was no doubt a legacy from Sharon. It is apt to cite 1982. For the better part of a year, Israel tried to provoke the PLO into breaking the ceasefire. In the end, it had to use an entirely unrelated incident as its pretext. Again, we are to believe that the IDF responded within a matter of days, and only because Israel was under attack. And yet, whether the PM knew it or not, Sharon was indeed attempting to implement a plan, and a fairly grandiose one at that.

Israel does not just react to random events, nor just respond to others. Israel has its own strategic plans, as does any state, and seeks to further them whenever the opportunity arises.

You raise the same good question that Wonderer raised: should Israel act on the assumption that it should believe Nasrallah's demagoguery or his rational statements? Is it not standard in such instances to prepare for the former and test the latter? Israel has the 4th most powerful army in the world (at least) and is backed by the US. Hezbollah and Hamas are militias with limited resources. It is natural for the populace to fear and hate these militias (as I would in their place). It is not appropriate for their government to formulate its policy on the same basis.

You address your other comments to Phil, so it is not for me to respond. I have to say that they are truly dismal. They also present a very odd account of recent history. You asked me where I get my notions from. I have to ask you the same.

Richard

Wonderer,
I have to plead the same excuse as Mr. Levy. I must apologise - I have answered your excellent question first in a post to Mr. Levy when I should have replied first to you (your question thankfully managed to break the blockade).

Should Israel believe Nasrallah's demagoguery or his rational statements? My assertion is that it is standard in such circumstances to prepare for the former and test out the latter. Israel has one of the world's most awesomely powerful armies and it has the full backing of the US. Hezbollah and Hamas are militias. The Israeli people quite naturally fear and loathe these militias (as who wouldn't in their position?), but it is not appropriate for their government to formulate its policy on the same basis.

Jonathan Levy

Ronnie
June 4th, 2010 8:03am

Thank you for your kind words.

Here is another small point worth considering.

After the second Lebanese war, Nasrallah was quoted in an
interview as saying "Had we known that the kidnapping of the
soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not
have done it" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5291420.stm)

This interview reveals two noteworthy points:

1) The war did, in fact, have a deterrent effect on Nasrallah.

2) Nasrallah believes that the Israeli actions were a response
to his kidnapping, and not a premeditated Israeli plan. He does not use the convenient excuse "Oh, Israel was planning to attack anyway, all our kidnapping did was move the date up, which actually worked to our advantage since the Israelis were not ready".
In other words, in this interview he does not describe the events as unfolding as Richard described them, and he does not do it in precisely the context where he would be expected to grasp at even a flimsy excuse.

Michael

Melanie, your last paragraph, begining "It is becoming ever more clear.." should have been the first paragraph. This would allow readers to correlate the unfolding events as you report them, with their own recolection of how they felt seeing the media reports at the time. Clearly you are right - we were all taken for a ride with the assistance of the global media - led as always by the BBC.

Michael

Melanie,
Regarding Irael's use of Hebrew subtitles in defending itself to the worl media,please could you use whatever influence you have and whatever contacts you have, to bring this mindless approach to PR to the attention of those in a position to shake things up - but really shake things up. No professional media person in his right mind, carrying the burden of defending his country from libel of the worst kind, could have thrown away an opportunity of this magnitude - clear video of the perpetrtors - by using incomprehensible subtitles. What was he/she smoking?

Thomas

Brian Burr
June 4th, 2010 11:33am
Have you ever watched footage of Israeli settlers protesting at the impertinence of Palestinians living on their ancestral lands? - lands which the settlers want.

phil

Ronnie
June 4th, 2010 8:03am -- I think you are being a little hard on Mel ,I occasionally find her a bit over the top ,but its hard to be perfect like us :).She stands up to be counted for the Jewish people and Israel in a currently very hostile world and I have enormous admiration for her education and courage .Those like Jonathan provide light in a very dark world and he does so with a politeness that I so admire .Recently as you have no doubt noticed I have had cause to disagree with some very obnoxious people who have nothing other than insults to write here so it is especially rewarding to hear from those who do have common sense and opinions even if I do not always agree with them -we can all learn ,but I am not taking lessons on commas from those like jolly? roger who never has an opinion :)--The ch wall is a place where real nutters have their space ,but here on Mels threads we are often rewarded with common sense and eloquence together with real researched posts -give the lady a chance Ronnie ,there is much to admire .

phil

Linda Smith
June 3rd, 2010 11:45pm -
Linda I know you mean well but your stubbornness can become exhausting-You need to know you are not the Pope ,you are not infallible and your views on Muslims are right of Atilla the Hun-You well know I despise militant Islam ,but do you need to tar every Muslim with your brush .I still harbour the hope that one day we will be reconciled with the Muslim world and your stance does not help one bit .I admitted the other day to "an American" that I was wrong about Obama ,its time you showed a little humility and admitted that you too can be mistaken .

Thomas

Jonathan Levy
June 4th, 2010 1:09pm
I've followed the debate as best I can. This last appears to be a falling off.

That Nasrallah, with Lebanon devastated, should say he wouldn't've attempted a prisoner exchange if he thought it would lead to this is somehow proof that he didn't think Israel had a plan? More likely as a Lebanese politician he wanted to avoid saying that for the sake of a few of his comrades he had got the country demolished - whether or not he knew about an Israeli plan before the event, and whether or not he'd've gone ahead anyway. - "I just thought it was business as usual: They buzz our villages and fire at the odd civilian. We capture the odd soldier. If I'd known they were going to do this, o'course I wouldn't've done it, would I?"

I followed up some of the references given earlier.

Read "Watching Lebanon" in the New Yorker 14/08/06. In summary, after talks between the USAF and IAF in the Spring, Israeli officials went to Washington in late June to get the "green light" for an attack on Lebanon.

Also, "The Redirection" in the New Yorker 03/03/07. Very interesting to learn the US runs Sunni jihadis in Lebanon. But the point here is that it has an interview with Nasrallah in which he gives his understanding of the US/Israeli strategic plan (that the invasion, and the jihadis etc. are intended to further) - partition of Syria and Lebanon into ethnic and religious fiefdoms, the sort of fragmentation achieved in Iraq - no doubt with the Shiites displaced, perhaps persuaded they're safer in southern Iraq - and Israel left as the only power in the region, surrounded by small pacified states - of course, all this goes hand in hand with somehow neutering Iran as well.

Funny thing is, this chimes with the strategy set out in the 1980s by Ariel Sharon and Oded Yinon. And interestingly taken up again by Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post during the Bush years.

Jonathan Levy

Richard
June 4th, 2010 12:54pm

"I say Israel had a plan. You make more of this than it warrants. There is a distinction, not difficult to understand. Germany had a plan for invading Russia, regularly updated and practised in exercises. It still took Hitler's High Command 6-8 months to translate it into
an operational plan and put in place the forces necessary for its implementation."

Operation Barbarossa comprised about 150 divisions over thousands of miles of front. This is why it took 6-8 months to prepare logistically. The second Lebanese war comprised perhaps the equivalent of 4 divisions, at the very most, and ground operations only began in the second or third week of the war. Cast Lead comprised even fewer forces - it was hardly necessary
to call up reserves. It does not take six months to make logistical preparations for these types of operations. It is therefore unwarrented to conclude that Israel's action must have been resolved upon so many months in advance.

Israel is tiny. In the Yom Kippur war, one of my wife's uncles was a tank commander in a force stationed in the Jerusalem area. When it became evident that King Hussein was going to sit that war out, the tanks drove on their treads (no tank carriers were available) all day to the Golan Heights,
refueled at a civilian gas station, and counterattacked the Syrians on their southern flank in the evening. (He told me this story when we visited them in Eilat after our wedding.)

Perhaps this action was also diabolically planned months in advance, with frantic logistical preparations going on behind the scenes? Using
this reasoning, we can conclude that the Yom Kippur war was actually planned by Israel, and the Syrians and Egyptians were merely inept enough to provide a pretext.

I should also note that both Hizbollah and Hamas (to different degrees) made
many logistical preparations before these wars, preparing missiles, underground bunkers, mines, etc. Yet for some reason only Israel's supposed preparations, doubtfully inferred by one or two reporters, constitute proof of Israel's intent. None of Hamas' or Hizbollah's clear and evident preparations for war even raise the suspicion in your mind that they were looking for a fight. I am not saying that proof of preparation is always proof of intent. But I think it is suggestive that, in your mind, Israel's preparations are proof, and the Arabs' go unmentioned.

"Israel has its own strategic plans, as does any state, and seeks to further them
whenever the opportunity arises."

With this I agree completely. I'm glad we finally found something!

"You raise the same good question that Wonderer raised: should Israel act on the assumption that it should believe Nasrallah's demagoguery or his rational statements?"

In this, I fear, you reveal a certain projection bias. Permit me to break down the reasoning that lies behind your statement.
1) Nasrallah has made statements in English.
2) Nasrallah had made contradictory statements in Arabic.
3) Nasrallah's statements in English reflect values with which Richard agrees
(peace, independence, compromise).
4) Nasrallah's statements in Arabic reflect values with which Richard does not agree
(Jihad, Honor, war-mongering).
5) Therefore, Richard concludes that Nasrallah's statements in English are rational, and that his statements in Arabic are irrational, and should be dismissed as demagoguery.

But what if Nasrallah's statements in Arabic sound rational to Nasrallah?
What if they sound rational to the tens of thousands who shouted back "Death to Israel"?

Let us evaluate his statements using a different frame of reference. Nasrallah is the head of a big organization. He needs to recruit followers, get funding from Iran and other sources, maintain popularity with his constituency, and maneuver vis-a-vis other factions in Lebanon. He has now stood in front of tens of thousands of people and committed himself to destroying Israel. On this basis some will join his group, donate money, and vote for his party. He has publicly bound himself to a course of action. And he has done so many times, not just once. Everyone knows
what he stands for. If he backs off, or is seen to back off, he will be despised
as a coward. His followers will melt away, his funding from Iran will dry up, he will be replaced by a more extreme underling, or his group
will fracture into factions. At worst e will be castigated as a traitor to the Arab cause,
and be murdered like Sadat. He knows this. He knows what he's doing. If he said his motto is "Death to Israel", it's because he really meant it. And now that he's said it, he can't back down.

As for Hizbollah's limited resources, its resources were sufficient to keep a few hundred thousand Israelis in their bomb shelters for a month. This sad fact barely received mention in the internation press. But now in 2010 they have more missiles than in 2006. They need to be taken seriously. This is why
Israel takes the blockade on Gaza seriously. If we don't, they'll also have 10,000 Katyusha rockets pointed at us, instead of 1,000 Kassams.

"You asked me where I get my notions from. I have to ask you the same."

I have already listed my sources, but I don't mind repeating the answer. I've been following the news since I was of an age to comprehend events. I've had a subscription to Ha'aretz for the last 10 years. During the day I stay up-to-date mainly with ynet. I read blogs online, mostly from the
right-wing, but primarily to read about stuff other than Israel. Ha'aretz gives a perspective from the left. ynet sticks to the center, politically, perhaps leaning to the right. But left and right depend on geography. I've
been getting the feeling that in England, Ha'aretz counts as center-right, at best, and the left in Europe leaves even Israel's Arab parties far to its right.

For Historical perspectives, I've read a few books on the matter, but my main historical interests are in other periods. On the left, I've read a couple of books by Benny Morris, and one by Avi Shlaim. On the right, a dozn by Israeli authors who are less well known outside of Israel. "Eshkol, give the order!" by Ami Gluska was a fascinating look into the decision-making process behind
the six-day war. Unfortunately, it seems to be available only in Hebrew, which
is too bad - I think you might find it interesting, Richard, though distressingly
lacking in trigger-happy generals checking each other's nostrils for an excuse to attack their neighbors. Perhaps it will be translated soon.

So what are your sources? You've mentioned the New Yorker, and the San
Francisco Chronicle (I think), but only in specific instances, not as long-term sources.

wonderer, phil, Ronnie, and others - I'd like to throw this question open to everyone, if I may be so bold. Please weigh in!

phil

JONATHAN .You live on site and you knowledge on this matter is far greater than mine ,but as far as Nasrullah is concerned it matters not so much what he says but it does matter what he does ,and we have all seen that .Richard writes long essays ,I do not know, maybe he just plays the devils advocate what on earth Barbarossa has to do with this debate is a new one on me .What he does need to know is real history for instance who started the wars 48.67,73 ,need I continue -Lebanon was never any real problem either for them or the Israelis until nasrullahs crazies got involved -My source ?real Lebanese friends (Muslim if it matters ),They described it as the Paris of the ME and who ruined it ?Nasrullah and his Syrian pals .
----
Who has wound the Palestinians in GAZA into this frenzy -Hamas -In whose interest is a real peace -both the Palestinians and Israel, and who is stopping it -HAMAS AND HESBOLLAH -May I suggest that Richard puts his mind to what I have just said rather than these endless tomes and quotes because I suspect that most do not even read them and for those that do probably cannot see what the point of them are .The Hamas charter makes Israel the target for destruction ,so does Richard think any sane government will be able to negotiate with lunatics who think like that -Let Richard think about the here and now and forget the battle of Kursk -it is the children of today that need help ,and fascinating though his essays may be they are useless for those that need that help now .
---
Well you asked Jonathan :)

Trajan

I see this is a 'preach to the converted' website as my earlier contrary opinion never found its way to a posting.

To the commentators on this site aligned with the Israeli spin, does sociopathy ring a bell?

Richard

Jonathan Levy
June 4th, 2010 10:29pm
You concentrate only on the point where you think me weakest, which is no doubt good polemics, but otherwise not constructive.

On Barbarossa, to illustrate a distinction you said you had difficulty seeing I chose as extreme an instance as I could think of on the spur of the moment. Clearly a mistake.

I remain sceptical that the IDF could mount the assaults on Gaza and the Lebanon in 2006 and 2008 on the spur of the moment.

To repeat the facts, as reported and not denied: in June 2006, Ehud Barak ordered a plan to be drawn up to assault Gaza; the plan was signed off in November and implemented in December.

You try to get some mileage out of preparations by Hamas and Hezbollah. Feel free. It appears they even prove my bias against Israel. (Just to be clear, I think it possible to criticise the actions of the state of Israel without hostility to Israelis; similarly, to believe that the Palestinians deserve better, without thereby condoning Hamas.)

You do know that the rockets from Gaza, criminal though they are, cannot justify what Israel planned; and that most of the preparations are in anticipation of Israel's (frequent) assaults. You do know that Nasrallah warned Israel that, if it killed Lebanese civilians, Hizbollah would retaliate. (There was a rocket attack as part of the capture of the Israeli soldiers, which the IDF characterized as "diversionary". Apart from that, no rockets were fired until the IAF had killed many Lebanese civilians.) The rockets that menace the north of Israel are generally understood to be intended chiefly as a deterrent, both for Lebanon's Shiites and for Iran.

A detailed log of border incidents should dispel the notion that Good Israel only ever responds to aggression from Bad Arabs (and vice versa, of course).

In talking about Nasrallah's conflicting comments, you appear to have been overcome by the urge to condescend to me, and neglected what I said.

As far as I can tell, you are not disputing that Israel has one of the most powerful armies in the world and is backed by the US, whereas Hizbollah is a militia with no possiblity of ever threatening the existence of Israel or the security of the vast majority of its population.

You appear not to have noticed that the source I quoted most often was a paper you read regularly.

The other week another contributor gave a list of references, most of which I would also recommend, on the principle that it is educational to read scholars across the spectrum. If you cannot find it, I will happily bore the pants off anyone still following this thread by listing some of them. I would appreciate details of the 5-6 books you mentioned (if they are not all to be found only in Hebrew.)

We have probably got beyond useful debate and into stubborn reiteration. But thank you for an educational discussion (which I don't claim to have won, but don't think I have lost).

Augustus

Trajan - Who are you calling sociopaths? Could it be the passengers on board the Mavi Marmara who, in response to the Israeli Navy's radio warning that they were approaching a naval blockade shouted:
"Shut up! Go back to Auschwitz"
and, " We're helping Arabs go against the US, don't forget
9/11."

And you talk of sociopaths here.
Shame on you!

phil

richard 24/6 "--You do know that the rockets from Gaza, criminal though they are, cannot justify what Israel planned; "----WHY?--Are you one who believes in proportional responses ?,and do you really think someone who is attacked with stones should only reply with similar weapons-should a person missing a penalty at the world cup ask his opponents to do the same? should incompetence be responded to with a similar failure .Richard you write well but your logic is seriously flawed -Jonathan is far to easy on you -a real gent ,I am more pragmatic -I call tosh ,tosh ,I notice you never responded to my post to you both -was it too much to the point ?
I do believe you have every right to disagree with Israeli policy and I have no intention of abusing you for that ,all I ask is that you write common sense .keep to facts rather than suppositions and make it reasonably short -you write like a filibuster .

Cassandra king

Another great article by Melanie, well done and thanks!
The truth is coming out slowly despite the crushing dead hand of the media blackout and one sided presentation of lies and propaganda.
Bit by bit we are learning of the true nature of the hate flottila and its crew of jihadists and useful idiot colloborators.
A pre planned media offensive launched to cover the islamist sneak attack fooled us untill the facts started to come to light, I notice that as the truth comes out the various collection of hate enablers have started to run away and hide.

Jonathan Levy

Richard
June 5th, 2010 11:24am

"I remain sceptical that the IDF could mount the assaults on Gaza and the Lebanon in 2006 and 2008 on the spur of the moment."

The logistical mess which was revealed in 2006 is a strong indication that the decision to go to war was made very shortly beforehand. Gaza in 2008 went much better - but Hamas' expiration date for the
cease-fire was known for several months, and there was a 3-5 week period in which Hamas was firing rockets into Israel - plenty of time to complete all the necessary logistical preparations.

"To repeat the facts, as reported and not denied: in June 2006, Ehud Barak ordered a plan to be drawn up to assault Gaza; the plan was signed off in November and implemented in December."

Did you mean June 2008? In any case, these facts do not prove that a decision was made in June to go to war in Gaza. In a previous post you said "You do not mobilise on this scale without intending to use
the mobilised forces". But this list of "facts as reported and not denied" does not include any action unlikely to be taken unless a decision
to attack had already been made.

"A detailed log of border incidents should dispel the notion that Good Israel only ever responds to aggression from Bad Arabs (and vice versa,
of course)."

What usually happens is that Israel is subjected to a long series of pinpricks, most of which do little damage. At this stage Israel does not respond, and the attacks are not even reported in the west. After some time someone gets killed, and we start reacting with limited measures,
mainly aimed at the man holding the gun or firing the missile. This is only partially effective in stopping attacks,
and not at all effective in deterring them, as they are willing to endure the losses it causes them. At this stage Israel the world lectures on the futility of military force, and urges restraint. As our casualties slowly mount with no end in sight, Israel forms a plan to stop the attacks once
and for all, by engaging and defeating the terrorists' infrastructures. We know this will will cause collateral damage. But the attacks on our
civilians are increasing in scale. So Israel waits for a pretext, and then strikes back hard. The terrorists take heavy losses, retreat, hide until it's over, then come out and declare victory, but stop attacking us. At this stage the world condemns Israel for a disproportionate response.

This was pretty much the pattern in Defensive Shield (2002), Gaza (2008), and to a certain extent Lebanon until the retreat (2000), but not afterwards. It was also true for the six-month period which preceded the May crisis,
which led to the six-day war.

The alternative policy is to yield to their demands in the name of peace. This was tried in 1993 (Rabin at Oslo), 1996/8 (Netanyahu, Hebron and Wye),
and 2000 (Barak). It buys you some quiet, then you get a new set of demands, and more attacks.

"In talking about Nasrallah's conflicting comments, you appear to have been overcome by the urge to condescend to me, and neglected what I said"

This was absolutely not my intention. Upon re-reading my comments I see that they could easily be understood as demeaning, for which I humbly
apologize. It was rude of me to refer to you in the third person - I was was alternating between using "You", "we", and "the west", and made a poor choice, which I very much regret.

However, if you put aside my poor choice of words, I think you will find that I have not at all neglected what you said, but rather addressed it most seriously, as it reveals what I believe to be a very significant
point. The western media and leaders rarely hear what Arab
leaders say to their followers in public, and when they do they tend to dismiss it because it makes no sense at all in our world-view - and anyway, it contradicts what we have heard them say many times in English. We treat it in the same way we would treat it if a western leader made such
bombastic statements - we assume that he couldn't have meant it seriously, and that his hearers didn't take it seriously. I believe this
is our most serious mistake.

I did noticed you mention Ha'aretz. I read it for the left-wing perspective. Do you read it for the Israeli perspective? If so, you should always keep in mind that it is not at all representative, especially if the writer
is Gideon Levy or Amira Hass, as I suspect it may often be given the quotes you selected.
Barry Rubin and Caroline Glick present the Israeli center-right perspective very well, in English.

As for books, the list is headed by Ami Gluska's "Eshkol, give the order". I have not found it on amazon, so I suspect it is only in Hebrew. Tom Segev's "1967" is decent, but not as good as Gluska's. Mark Twain's "The Innocents Abroad" provides a perspective from the 19th century. "Zvika Force" is a personal memoir of one Tzvika Greengold, who with
one tank held off large forces of Syrian armor on the Golan Heights. "Because They Hate" is an interesting memoir by Brigitte Gabriel, Lebanese
Christian. On the leftier side, Benny Morris' "The birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem" was worth reading, as well as "Israel's border wars".
Avi Shlaim's biography of King Hussein was not.

I also agree that we are nearing the limit of beneficial debate on this thread. I hope that you will at least reply to accept my apology, and perhaps
recommend a book or two yourself, so we may come away with something tangible
from this discussion, in addition to the equal measures of pleasure and distress
which it has already given us (or at least, given me).

Respectfully yours,
Jonathan

Richard

phil
June 5th, 2010 1:03pm
What you say is "too much to the point": I simply cannot give it the response it deserves. - Of course, this implies that you think your comments more to the point than Mr. Levy's. Is this what you intend?

International law, which Israel says it observes, permits self-defence. It permits the use of violence in self-defence, but only if there is no other option and if the violence is demonstrably measured or proportionate (if children throw stones at you, you don't shoot them in the head, for example). In Gaza, violence was not the only option, as has been explained here many times. The violence Israel unleashed was intentionally excessive. The overwhelming majority of international jurists, other than those of the calibre of Mr. Dershowitz, are in agreement that Israel's use of force was not in compliance with the requirements of international law.

I would be grateful if you would point to where my logic is flawed.

Otherwise, I hope you will consider yourself answered.

Sonia

Just a question: will Israël extend the blockade to the international waters near the coasts of Greece, Spain and France as well? Hundreds of ships there that can carry weapons for Hamas! Is there an end to their 'jurisdiction'? If so, where is that written, and if not: who is going to protect us from the lunatic state?

phil

Richard
June 5th, 2010 2:44 You will not start a fight between Jonathan and me ,but yes I do believe he is too kind to you .we are being served with reams of obfuscation from you ,tosh if you prefer a shorter less erudite description but to the point .Using the word overwhelming without providing proof is easy but most unscientific ,dont you think ?The tactics you use with Jonathan are so similar to the litigation lawyers reaction when stumped .-"we need further and better particulars" and so the nonsense continues ad infinitum .
--
You cannot believe Israel launched cast lead to stop stone throwing ,or if you do we waste our time reading your words .Your yards of "history",your knowledge of the minds of Israeli generals and politicians are your fertile imagination gone wild -why not write a conspiracy book Moores style ,re-run Stalingrad if you like but please tell me what it has to do with Israel,s battle for survival-Perhaps you may think I should mind my own business ,but when those like you write these "learned" essays ,some are impressed by them and then we have another "peace" activist ready to spill their blood .I will continue to dispute your "truths"by getting to the point because Jonathan for all his hard work and knowledge gets nowhere with you -I wish he could .I told you earlier I am more in the school of the person on the market ."just tell me how much missus ,cut the crap"

For Jonathan ,I am very impressed with you but sorry you are wasting your time ,we have had writers like Richard here for years ,some perhaps well meaning ,stubborn is what comes across ,some are very rude too ,unlike Richard,but nevertheless from experience you will never get him to agree with you and your time will be better spent learning to make latkes :)----shalom to you both .

phil

Sonia
June 5th, 2010 3:25pm Rest easy on your sunbed sonia ,Greece Spain and France are not sending lunatics and or terrorists to try to smuggle arms into hamas governed territory -enjoy another gin, your person is safe from the Jews .

Richard

Jonathan Levy
June 5th, 2010 2:14pm
Yet another thought-provoking post!

Just to show that we have indeed reached the point of maximum stubborness:

I can acknowledge some of the force in much of what you have said about planning versus instant response, but I remain sceptical, partly because of the complexity of the Gaza operation and partly because of what Israeli and US officials have been reported as saying.

Your account of "what usually happens" does not tally with what the UN, organizations like B'Tselem, and journalists report. It would take an implausible amount of collusion for their reports to be false. Again, as I think I said, I do not allege that this is all one way. It would be helpful if officialdom in Israel and mainstream journalists could manage a similar acknowledgement.

"Yielding to demands in the name of peace". This is so close to the US/Israeli spin and so far from what appears to have happened at Oslo, Camp David etc. that I have to insist on remaining stubborn. Try Shlomo Ben-Ami, for a start, (a staunch Zionist, indeed, so staunch he felt able to instruct the Israeli police to fire on peaceful demonstrators). I do not agree with what he says, but in his book he seems to me a principled and rigourous defender of a realistic Israeli position.

Of course I accept your apology for any unintended condescension. I insist that you miss my point. I said prepare for the eventuality that the demagoguery is for real; test whether the words of reason are genuine. Israel has the overwhelming preponderance of power and is therefore well-placed to do this.

On sources, I try to read both Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post on specific subjects, as well as the British broadsheets, and articles in US papers.

I also look in on web sites that are rabid on either side: Daniel Pipes and Norman Finkelstein. (It seems that those who have the passion to maintain such sites do not do balance or reasonableness.)

I also read historians in either camp and neither. If I read Nur Masalha and Rashid Khalidi I also read Efraim Karsh. I have read Dershowitz and Gilbert, neither of whom I would recommend, although for different reasons. On 1948, I read Benny Morris (in his "left-wing" days and now his "right-wing") and Norman Rose, Tom Segev, and Ilan Pappe. Avi Shlaim's history of Israel's relations with Arab states is good (although I agree his infatuation with King Hussein is odd). On Zionism, I read Colin Shindler and Arno J. Mayer (too much an admirer of Buber et al.), as well as some short idiot guides by US scholars whose names I forget. On military history and doctrine, there is a distinguished scholar, Uri Milstein - if I am not confusing him with someone else, I have read some chunks, but I believe the bulk of his work is yet to be translated. There is also Zeev Maoz, who had a distinguished career in the IDF, but I believe is now considered something of a turncoat for daring to criticise it. On Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in Israel and in the occupied territories, it is unavoidable to use sources that have a clear bias (because Israel is intent on keeping what it does quiet): scholars like Sara Roy, Huseini etc.; journalists like Jonathan Cook, Tanya Reinhart etc.; organizations like the UN, the Red Cross, B'Tselem etc. In addition there are a number of histories by British and American scholars that attempt to be balanced.

I have to mention Mark Twain. He couldn't be trusted on the facts of his own life and his reports from abroad were inteded as entertainment. there are more credible sources for Ottoman times.

There is also a whole bibliography on the Mandate. But, enough!

Thank you again for a very stimulating discussion.

Very Best Wishes,
Richard.

Linda Smith

Phil, you falsely accused me of saying all Muslims are evil, which I did not. It is the Muslim belief that no territory, however small, should be conceded by Islam to be ruled by non-Muslims.

Read Ms Phillips latest post just online from which I quote:

"Moreover, despite the fact that what it has been facing for the past nine decades is at root not a war over land but a holy war, driven by the fanatical Islamic belief that not just the Jewish presence but the historical claim by the Jews to the land of Israel must be expunged altogether, Israel never presents itself as the victim of Islamic fanaticism, thus failing to drive home to the west the fact that Israel is the front line of the west’s own defences against the jihad."

phil

Linda Smith
June 5th, 2010 11:43pm - LINDA ,I have read your posts for years,you are a great defender of our cause but somewhat like the lady Anne who used to write here too ,you on occasion, in my opinion of course ,let your passions override your innate common sense . You tell me that "I accuse you" that alone is inflammatory and wrong ,I merely "said to you" not accused you.
--
Think again Linda and maybe you will see that you are being inclusive of all Muslims regardless of what they individually think ,as I for one have told you before, I know some who do not conform to your pattern.It is not my intention to be seen as the great defender of the Muslims either ,but if reconciliation is ever to be achieved ,balance must come first .

Linda Smith

Phil you wrote "Think again LInda and maybe you will see that you are being inclusive of all Muslims, regardless of what they individually think..."

Go back and read what I have posted on this thread. I am not being inclusive of all Muslims regardless of what they individually think. You are inverting what I wrote.

Jonathan Levy

Richard
June 5th, 2010 5:13pm

At the risk of over-extending a conversation which has come to an elegant and friendly conclusion, I will post a short addendum. This is not a worthy reply to the points you raised - it merely hopes to note some of those on which I disagree, and to indicate the direction a reply would take.

No collusion is necessary, a shared bias is sufficient. B'Tselem wants to bring Palestinian suffering to the Israeli side, not to produce a balanced picture - it assumes Israelis are familiar with their side. Foreign reporters usually rely on Arab stringers, and their editors expect a David vs. Goliath story, and only after Israel has reacted. No collusion was necessary to produce the 'Jenin Massacre' libel.

As for testing whether words of peace are genuine - if withdrawing from Lebanon and Gaza was not a sufficient test, then no test will ever be
sufficient.

As for the books - of Shlaim, I only read his biography of Hussein, but even there he never failed to interpret every Israeli action in the worst
possible way, even when Hussein himself (!) did not agree with him. He may have been born Israeli, but he thinks as a Palestinian.

And as for Mark Twain, well, remember that every one of the journalists both of us read ultimately writes for entertainment.

phil

Linda Smith
June 2nd, 2010 4:31pm

Phil, I don't know why you say Hamas distort Islam. Islam is Islam. There is no moderate Islam, just believers and non-believers. Unfortunately, whereas religious Jews believe God gave them dominion over the whole of Israel including Judea and Samaria, religious Muslims believe God gave them dominion over the whole world.
-----------------
Did an impostor write this Linda ?Are you intending to speak for EVERY Muslim -are there none who wish to live without either conflict or domination ? I do realise that passions are inflamed but you need to calm yours down otherwise I will have to come to the conclusion that you are in the grip of some strange compulsion which evolves into total stubbornness .

winston

Are you people kidding me?

Where is the problem. The ship was not just warned ahead of time, it was asked repeatedly to stop. Once it refused, the captain became responsible for the results of his law-breaking actions. Israel would have been within her legal rights to sink the ship at that point. Instead they sent their guys into that hell-hole of pipe-wielding angry people.

I am all for criticizing Israel when it breaks the law (i.e. settlements, ethnic cleansing, phosphorous, collective punishments, IDF abuses, etc) But in this case, Israel acted within her rights and authority.

Of course anyone with half a heart/brain would say, 'Okay they refuse to stop, let's follow them into Gaza's port and inspect it there and have more teams waiting there too. You dont send your guys into that shitstorm if you dont have to! It shows the arrogance of the military commanders.

But law-wise, Israel did nothing wrong, and actually saved lives by not sinking it.

Why not follow her to port? With weeks of planning and no one came up with that simple solution?
You need to take a look at your military decision-makers.

LInda Smith

Phil, you are unable to distinguish between "Islam" and "Muslim".

"Islam" is a religious ideology. Believers believe the Koran is God transmitted through their Prophet Mohammed.

A "Muslim" may identify himself as a "Muslim" due to family background, not necessarily because he believes in the religious ideology of "Islam".

A person may identify himself as Jewish because of his family background, but he can be an atheist or believe that Judaism is a human construct. Religious Jews believe Moses went up the mountain and God gave him the 10 Commandments and the Torah, including the bit forecasting Moses' own death. I know not all Jews believe that, because they have told me so.

In the same way, a person may describe himself as Muslim but not believe that the Koran is the word of God. etc.

RELIGIOUS Muslims cannot wish to live without conflict and domination because that would be going against the Koran, the word of God.

phil

LInda Smith
June 6th, 2010 5:31pm -You need to read your own posts ,I think you may find you have lost it ----"because they told me so " --are you having a joke ? I am out of here it may be catching -try something else as I usually agree with you :)

Linda Smith

OK, phil, cut to the chase. You're a Jew. Do you believe Moses went up the mountain and God gave him the 10 Commandments and the Torah, including the bit forecasting Moses' own death? I don't.

Lost it? I don't think so. You just can't handle the truth.

phil

Linda Smith
June 7th, 2010 11:09am Linda what relevance has that -if it helps you the answer is no ,but I DO believe that Moses was the leader and he wrote a set of rules for his tribe to follow ,What that has to do with our discussion is not apparent ,particularly whether one Muslim following his faith has a different interpretation than another.You are going down a blind alley ,so if your psychology teacher has taught you incorrectly I suggest you try an alternative .My lessons are free:) shalom my indomitable balabusta -(if you do not speak a little Yiddish that was a compliment).

General Zod

Melanie and hte other "Israel can do no wrong" posters won't like this, but the simple truth is that Israel made a very big mistake here.

Few reasonable observers doubt that last week's flotilla included anti-Israeli fantics alongside those with more honourable motivations (whether misguided or not). The flotilla should have stopped when ordered to do so. The Israelis, however, are amongst the most highly trained and skilled amed forces in the world and are eminently capable of dealing with such a rag-tag flotilla, armed with crude metal staves and knives without taking any serious injuries. That they faile dot do so and ended up killing nine people was a travesty.

Israel showed that it is capable of dealing efficiently with this kind of situation in its handling of the Rachel Corrie a few days later.

The news this morning about the killing of the four Palestininans in diving gear shows that Israel has remembered that it can still kill militants without attracting bad PR in the West.

It is time for Israel to acknowledge that it made a mistake. Pragmatism over propaganda and dogma.

Rafi

Thomas (June 4): Re "Ancestral lands". Jews have always lived in the area. In addition, and more specifically, Jews migrated to the former Turkish province of Palestine from the mid to late 19th century through the early 20th century. Economic activity followed. Jews bought land dunam by dunam and paid for it in transactions fully legal under Ottoman law. The Jewish National Fund bought land, legally with cash - dunam by dunam. More economic activity followed. Then there was another migration: Arabs from the surrounding countries migrated to the area. They came from Egypt, as well as the newly invented countries of Syria, Jordan (78% of Palestine, for Arabs only, no Jews allowed). They came from North African countries - Tunisia, Lybia. They came and swelled the ranks of the very few Arabs who had previously lived in the Turkish province of Palestine, very few of whom had any land (never mind "ancestral lands" of their own. They were tenant farmers of Turkish landowners. The new arrivals were also tenant farmers, or very often, itinerant merchants. Mark Twain visited in the nineteenth century and describes it vividly in his book. The entire place was largely desolate desolate. No Arab "ancestors" on the "lands." While Jerusalem had a fraction of today's population the early twentieth century census show a large Jewish majority.

After 1948 the United Nations organizations that have pumped money into maintaining the miserable satus of "refugees" determined that a "Palestinian" is anyone living in the area for more than twenty-four months (that's months). So much for "ancestral lands".

Richard

Jonathan Levy
June 6th, 2010 3:08pm

As a Post Scriptum, not to have the last word:

I like your comment about Mark Twain and the journalists. (There are however a few honourable exceptions among the journalists who do try to inform.)

There were a couple of writers I meant to mention, who give some idea of Israel's way with the Palestinians: Hussein Abu Hussein, a lawyer who worked in Israel, who has written a book called "Access Denied"; and Raja Shehadeh, a distinguished lawyer who worked in the West Bank (and was a legal advisor at the Madrid talks wrecked by Oslo), who has written memoirs and books about the land the Israelis and Palestinians live in.

On the Lebanon, let's not get started again. On the rationale for the withdrawal from Gaza, Dov Wiesglas gave a famously indiscreet interview (no doubt, to Haaretz).

Thomas

Rafi
June 7th, 2010 3:18pm

Oh dear God, not the Joan Peters hoax yet again. There is plenty of source material and academic research on Ottoman times (not Mark Twain or any other tourist passing through secure in their ignorance) that will give you some understanding of the position. You really should not have to rest your arguments on a hoax.

Whenever you feel the temptation coming upon you remember the words of the nineteenth century rabbis reporting back to the Zionists, "The bride is beautiful, but married to another"

"Ancestral lands": lands their ancestors lived on.

Tell me what per cent of the cultivated land was owned by Jewish immigrants by the time of the partition? - 5.8%. Most of the immigrants preferred to stay in the cities and towns. At the start of the Mandate, Paletinians accounted for 90% of the population. By the end of the Mandate, they were still two thirds.

Do not presume that you can win the argument with such drivel.

Linda Smith

Phil to me: "Linda what relevance has that -if it helps you the answer is no ,but I DO believe that Moses was the leader and he wrote a set of rules for his tribe to follow ,What that has to do with our discussion is not apparent ,particularly whether one Muslim following his faith has a different interpretation than another."

The precise relevance is that religious "FAITH" is not a matter of a person following a set of rules devised by a human leader. A Muslim following his FAITH, just as a Jew, or Christian, following his FAITH believes that the set of rules he follows are of divine origin. Jewish religious believers assert that the 10 Commandments and the Torah are the word of God communicated via Moses. Muslim religious believers assert that the rules set down in the Koran are the word of God communicated via his Prophet Mohammed and, as such, are immutable.

Your talk about "interpretation" in Islam is a load of hogwash.

"One can go on and on about the aggressive white-washing campaign on behalf of Mohammad and certain doctrinal aspects of the faith he promulgated. Harsh measures and misogynistic statements permeate Islamic scriptures: Men may take four wives and can have sex with their female slaves captured during jihad; a woman's witness in court is half that of a man; femailes inherit half of the male's inheritance; men have 'authority' over women and can beat them whenever they misbehave. All of these can be found in the Koran, which Muslims take as a doctrine of faith to be immutable and just as applicable today as in the seventh century."

http://article.nationalreview.com/325755/jesus-and-mohammad-version-20/raymond-ibrahim

Linda Smith

Phil, a further caution on the misapplication of the term "interpretation" when discussing Islam from Raymond Ibrahim, an American scholar:

"... none other than President Obama's top counter-terror adviser, John Brennan, has come to personify the approach I warned against, that is, the misguided phenomenon of westernizing Islamic concepts....

....Next, our counter-terror adviser evokes the perverse logic behind the administration's recent decision to censor words offensive to Muslims (which I closely explored here):

'Nor do we describe our enemy as "jihadists" or "Islamists" because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children."

Inasmuch as he is correct in the first clause of that sentence - "jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community" - he greatly errs in the latter clause, by projecting his own notions of what constitutes "holy", legitimate," and "innocent" onto Islam. In Islam, such terms are often antithetical to the Judeo-Christian/Western understanding. Indeed, the institution of jihad, according to every authoritative Muslim book on Islamic jursiprudence, is nothing less than offensive warfare to spread Sharia law, a cause seen as both "legitimate" and "holy" in Islam. As for "innocence," by simply being a non-Muslim infidel, one is already guilty in Islam. Brennan understands the definition of jihad; he just has no clue of its application. So he is left fumbling about with a square peg that simply refuses to pass through a round hole."

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7544/obamas-top-counterterror-advisers-inability-to

phil

General Zod
June 7th, 2010 2:44pm I dont know whether you are including me in the group ,but I am inclined to agree with your reasonable remarks, they probably did not react as they would have wished to,but can you honestly say what you or I would have done when our lives were under severe threat ?I am sure 99 percent at least of Israelis and Jews regret any loss of life to those with opposing views ,but when those views and actions are an immediate threat to ones own life who on earth is going to act calmly ?

Thomas

Mr. Levy,

A footnote.

"Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."

Who summarized Israel's strategy thus? Moshe Dayan.

phil

Linda this will be my last word to you on this subject as I can see that you will never either understand nor accept that many Muslims have moved on from what you believe is immutable ,just as Jews do not stick to some of the laws that are written in their earlier history -I have no intention to stoning anyone to death nor do I believe any punishment requiring burning will be carried out other than on a piece of toast ,so please stop battering me with this nonsense .Those MUSLIMS WHO GIVE ME GREAT JOY WITH CHICKEN JALFREZI have no intention of killing me -You can address the militants I will stick with the moderates -FEISTY ,IMPOSSIBLE ,BALABUSTA-?you certainly have me as confused as you are .

General Zod

Phil,

I haven't consciously included you, but I'll have to run through the thread and decide.

The point is that I (and I imagine you, unless you are a highly trained soldier) would react differently from the way a member of the IDF on this kind of mission should react. There are few military forces in the world as well trained and highly skilled as the IDF and these will have been the regulars.

P0TTER

Well done Melanie Phillips - Israel should have the right to protect her borders.
"Our friends and allies from Israel are the first ones endangered by Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but not the only ones... We should not forget that Iranian missiles can already reach the heart of Europe."
...the words of His Excellency Jose Maria Aznar, former Prime Minister of Spain at Geneva 27 May 2010.

Linda Smith

Phil, you may be confused, I am not.

You repeatedly assert that Hamas etc. distort Islam. They do not. If some Muslims do not believe that the rules set down in the Koran are of divine origin, or choose to ignore those rules, that is not evidence that "militant Islam" is a distortion of Islam..

I note that your emotional outbursts on these threads are devoid of any factual evidence for your assertions. I suggest you read a little more and emote a little less. Here is some evidence that seems to have escaped your notice from an article "Islamism or Islam? - Islamist or Islamic?":

"...Turkey’s current Prime Minister Erdogan, commenting in August, 2007 on the term “moderate Islam,” frequently used in the West to describe his ruling political party, the AKP, stated, “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” Erdogan’s displeasure is ironic, even somewhat humorous, given the contemporary Western apologetic obsession to recast the terms “Islamism,” and “Islamist,” to denote, exclusively, “radical” or “immoderate” Islam, and its adherents. But the irony of Erdogan’s ire aside, artificial distinctions between “Islamism” and Islam, “Islamist” and Islamic are logically incoherent, obfuscating irrefragable truths about living Islamic dogma, and its modern manifestations.

The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or “Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam”—not Islamism—was drafted and ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic—not Islamist—Conference (OIC), a 57 state collective including every Islamic nation on earth. The OIC, currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, thus represents the entire Muslim ummah (or global community), and is the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations.
Its preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC’s Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the US Bill of Rights. The preamble repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism, (Koran 3:110): “Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation…” The gravely negative implications of this Islamic Law (Shari’a)-based document (“There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’a”) are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, while articles 19 and 22 reiterate Shari’a principles stated throughout the document, which clearly apply to the “punishment”—death—for so-called “apostates” from Islam.
The Cairo Declaration—entirely consistent with Islamic Law—also introduces unacceptable discrimination against non-Muslims and women, while sanctioning the legitimacy of dehumanizing, Shari’a-compliant punishments, from flogging, to mutilation, and stoning.

And polling data from a rigorously conducted WorldPublicOpinion.org survey released April, 2007 demonstrate the Cairo Declaration’s Islamic Law principles—antithetical to Western formulations of human rights—are embraced by the preponderance of the world’s Muslims. Fully 2/3 of a representative sample of 4400 Muslims from Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia desired the ultimate jihad conquest imperatives: to re-create a unified supra-national Islamic state, or Caliphate, ruled by “strict application of Shari’a.”

Read the full article, also the one by Wafa Sultan: "The problem with people in the West is they do not want to understand Islam" here:
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/?s=radical+islam

Rafi

To Thomas, June 7: It is you who is talking drivel. You use the word "Palestinians" in quite a different way than the way it was used pre-1948. Jews were reffered to as "Palestinians" by the British. Arabs were reffered to as Arabs. Jewish Palestinians build a country on the tiny sliver of land allocated for the Jewish Palestinian State - the second time Palestine was divided. The first division of Palestine, after the San Remo conference of 1920, created the first Palestinian State, now called Jordan. At that same San Remo conference (called together to decide what to do with the allied land-grab in the middle-east), the most powerfull Arab representative of all the Arabs in the area - the Emire Feisal - wrote to the Jewish representative, Chaim Weizman, stating that he looked forward to the establishment of a Jewish state, and to the ceativity that would benefit all in the entire area. That is a historical document. You are the hoaxer. Israel HAS benefitted the entire area. Defense needs have been forced on Israel, at enourmous cost to her, and equally importantly, to the citizens of neighboring countries whose dictators impoverish them to maintain their power. That is the real hoax - and you, and half the world have fallen for it.(....Unless you are part of it.)

Thomas

Rafi
June 8th, 2010 4:02pm

Try to address the matter before us.

It has always struck me as odd that apologists for Israel's behaviour to the Palestinians think they have a killer response in pointing out how the reference of "Palestinian" has changed over time. I think we both know the reference of the term as I use it here. There is no ambiguity. There is no need for terminological nitpicking. It furthers the discussion not at all.

Try to remember what you said, and my response. Your latest has nothing to do with either.

When you feel able to engage in reasoned debate I will be happy to respond.

phil

Linda Smith
June 8th, 2010 1:50pm -Linda ,I said I would not get involved any further with your argument and I will not ,but out of what I hope is courtesy ,I began to read your last post.I stopped at the point when you began to be insulting ,as I realise that it is the point at which a debater realises that the debate is lost .Think what you like Linda we will not change the world as I have seen you try to do for the past few years.I have tried to be polite because I think your heart is in the right place ,but there is a limit to the stubbornness that I can put up with , and you have an insatiable desire to argue ,right or wrong , so vaya con dios y hasta luego.Nada mas por favor .

phil

Thomas
June 7th, 2010 4:32pm Thomas you seem intent on making a fool of yourself here and on other threads , bobbing about like a demented yo yo ,somewhat like lau zsu, why are you mocking Rafi who has given you a history lesson to which all you have is the ability to scoff .You pull ridiculous legal opinions from the ether and now arrive here to be silly -what is your point ,what do you really want to say ,come on man spit it out.it is getting very boring .
Linda I think this is a man for your professional skills .

Jon

Thank you for this even handed article. Israel is clearly not winning the PR war. It is shameful that Israel is pronounced guilty and vilified before the facts are scrutinized and before facts are sought. As a Jew, I recognize this as thinly veiled anti-semitism of the kind we have endured for many, many years.

Linda Smith

Phil to me "there is a limit to the stubbornness that I can put up with.."

Phil to Thomas: "why are you mocking Rafi who has given you a history lesson to which all you have is the ability to scoff......"

Phil, I have given you a fact based history lesson to which all you have is the ability to scoff.

When asked to justify your repeated assertion that militant Islam is a distortion of Islam, you bob about, jumping between citing personal anecdotes about Muslim friends who do not poison you and patronising me. Ultimately when faced with facts you cannot deny, you cut and run, pleading your feelings have been hurt, and castigating me for insisting on a rational debate based on fact not emotion.

I will not let you off the hook so easily. If you make assertions you cannot justify, you lay yourself open to legitimate criticism in the same way as those you legitimately criticise.

Behaving like a paterfamilias scolding his offspring is not the stuff of adult intellectual debate.

Rafi

To Thomas, June 8: The Fact remains: Palestinians are not the indigenous population of the area any more than are the Jews. The cenral difference is that Jews wish to co-exist while the Arabs (or rather their leadership does not. ) With regard to Gaza it is not only the leadership. The one and a half million Arabs their democratically voted for Hamas - a party whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and invokes Islamic scripture to glorify the killing of Jews. This is the wish of the people. It is not the wish of the people of Israel.If that displeases you, so be it. A declaration of war from Gaza is legally met with a blockade. Israel is in no way obliged to allow shipping to Gaza. Nor is it obliged to allow, as it does, the ten thousand tons of materiel into Gaza each week. John Kenedy was not obliged to allow the Soviet Union free shipping acces to Cuba in 1961. Margaret Thatcher was on very dubious legal ground when she put a two hundred mile sea blocade on the Falkland Islands - when there was no threat to Britain whatsoever.

phil

Linda Smith
June 9th, 2010 3:48pm Have you ever read "the taming of the shrew"
I suppose I should be flattered by the plagiarism you are using by quoting many of my phrases ,so I will continue to take it in good spirit -Asserting that one is right without pause for contemplation may well keep you happy and may persuade the foolish -I just hope I am not one of them.

Thomas

Rafi
June 9th, 2010 11:26pm

I did try to respond, but my response appears to have been lost.

"The Fact remains: Palestinians are not the indigenous population of the area any more than are the Jews."

I think I now get the purpose behind your previous comments. Are you sure this is what you want to say, though? It is to reject a large part of the Zionists' case.

Do you think the notion of "indigenous" should simply be dropped from the discussion? (I note someone earlier said that,if it is taken to its logical conclusion, the only indigenous people will be found to be a few in Africa.) If so, who, if anyone, is to have the right of self-determination? In the current instance, should it have been the population in 1918, 1922, 1937, 1947? Or do you think the notion of self-determination should also be dropped? Who then would determine who can live where? The "authorities"? And how would they be constituted and by whom?

We can go through the arguments about Gaza again, if you wish. It is a curious notion that those resisting occupation should be deemed to have declared war on the occupier.

phil

Thomas
June 11th, 2010 10:08am
------------------
They seek him here they seek him there but the fact twisting Thomas is everywhere ,have you lost your marbles Thomas ,what on earth is this nonsense --

you quote ----"We can go through the arguments about Gaza again, if you wish. It is a curious notion that those resisting occupation should be deemed to have declared war on the occupier."---
----------------
Are you really not aware of who declared war on whom ? Tel Aviv was bombed immediately on the declaration of independence ,but you knew that did you not ? Yet another perversion of the truth ,your nose is growing existentially Thomas ,it will touch your toes soon .
--
Rafi- you told him the truth something he is not interested in.

Thomas

Rafi
June 9th, 2010 11:26pm

I left out one obvious option: who should live where can continue as in the past to be determined by conquest. International law has evolved over the last century professedly to prevent that option.

Your comments about Israel wanting peaceful coexistence is a curiously one-sided version of history and a travesty of the current situation.

Linda Smith

But Phil, you play the same game as Thomas - fact twisting! A case of the pot calling the kettle black. You still haven't justified your assertion that Hamas distorts Islam.

Thomas

That I am accused of "fact twisting" by such an authority would fill me with hope were it not for the fact that it is alleged to be what Phil does as well.

phil

Linda Smith
June 11th, 2010 11:02pm Why not try a little NLT it may help you .

Jonathan Levy

Thomas
June 7th, 2010 5:38pm

As you said:

"'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.'

Who summarized Israel's strategy thus? Moshe Dayan."

Moshe Dayan's mad dog lies peacefully until it is bothered. When Israel was referred to as a 'Mad Dog' in this discussion, the implication was that it lashes out without provocation at its peaceful neighbors.

The two concepts are quite different, though they are referred to by the same words.

Jonathan Levy

winston
June 6th, 2010 5:10pm

"Of course anyone with half a heart/brain would say, 'Okay they refuse to stop, let's follow them into Gaza's port and inspect it there and have more teams waiting there too. You dont send your guys into that shitstorm if you dont have to!"

The port of Gaza is in the Gaza strip, which is under control of Hamas. It is not possible for Israel to inspect the cargo of a ship there, any more than it would have been possible for Britain during WWII to inspect a cargo ship bound for Germany in the port of Hamburg.

That said, I agree with you that mistakes were made in boarding the ship - evidently, Israel did not have proper intelligence as to what was waiting for her soldiers on deck. A strong water hose would have done the trick, without losing any lives.

Doubtless, though, Israel would have still been censured for using that water hose on peace activists who had taken no aggressive action. But even so, it obviously would have been much smarter. So much for hindsight.

Linda Smith

phil
June 12th, 2010 5:22pm Why not try answering the question.

Thomas

Jonathan Levy
June 12th, 2010 8:33pm

I followed your previous exchange with Richard, so I'm not surprised that your response is shrewd.

However, your interpretation would work better if Israel were in fact to "lie peacefully". Swallowing up the occupied territories does not count as such.

phil

Linda Smith
June 13th, 2010 1:48pm -Linda I do admire your tenacity ,if indeed that is what it is ,but to an amateur it does appear to be CSD ,anyway I never answer daft questions ,unlike Thomas who never answers anything .

Mitchell Hirsch

I want to organize a convoy to Turkish Kurdistan to give "humanitarian aid" to the Kurds there. I believe they are treated much worse than the Gazans. Of course I don't expect any inteference from Turke. No inspections, no roadblocks. After all, that is what they themselves were so upset about in the flotilla effort. Do you think Turkey will allow unfettered access? They, of course, wouldn't deploy soilders to intervene, would they? Naturally, we will refuse to stop.......Ha, they'd shoot right away and ask questions later