The alternative universe of the western left

Robin

I used to think that those who called the BBC the Biased Broadcasting Corporation were a touch biased. Probably a left-over attitude I used to have when I believed that you could rely on the Beeb.

After Andrew Marr's "show" this morning, I think that no more. What an utter load of twaddle. I wish we could get it into the BBC's corporate head that they are untrustworthy.

Can't they read the same sources of information as the rest of us?

Veracity

And now we are giving Gaza millions of pounds of British tax payers' money ( as a reward?), whilst we are struggling economically and remember this is an area that has receivecd more aid than anywhere else in the world.How Cameron has talked with a forked tongue. How do we ever believe anything he ever says again . Truly with friends like these... We see that the Clegg Liberal Democrat tail is truly wagging the Conservative dog into a frenzy of activity.

Terry, Eilat - Israel

Leftists have little choice but to retreat to an alternate universe, an imaginary world that exists only in rhetoric. Everything the Left has advocated, all it's ideas, all it's causes, are failures. If they faced reality, accepted facts & evidence, they couldn't be Leftists anymore.
Leftism has failed & the failure is becoming more & more apparant. The liberal/left paradigm is dying, losing support. The die-hards mouth the slogans but to a shrinking audience.
Not so long ago, Israel had a left-leaning majority. Years of failure eroded the Left into a marginalized group of irrational lunatics, despised & ridiculed. I think the same thing is happening in America.
I can't really say if Europe is waking up as well, perhaps it will take the upcoming bankruptcy of the EU to shock people into reality.

just Louise

Melanie, it's not only leftist journalists and politicians who have taken leave of reality to populate and scream propaganda from this alternative universe. An increasing number of universities are being infiltrated by such people, who include ex-Israelis spreading what I can only describe as poison. I never cease to be amazed at the grip these people are getting even on Jewish Studies departments in the western world. It's a very disturbing trend.

gary ashton

it is outstanding, the level of stupidity, the total denial and myopic vision at the situation. it's shocking and leaves me feeling like there is no hope, none. israel should cease sharing any intelligence with the uk and the us, it's wasted on them. let them get their oil and intelligence from their arab friends.

M.Bard

If any one has any doubts about the bias of the British media they should the English language Turkish newspaper - Hurriyet today, Sunday. Here there is a far more balanced debate with many voicing reservations about the Jihadist attitude of their government, the intentions of some on the flotilla, the backing of IHH; even from Fethullah Gulen, the inspiration behind the Erdogan government, says about the activists: “What I saw was not pretty… It was ugly" - adding that the organizers should have sought the permission of the Israeli authorities, rather than confrontation. The newspaper also shows restored photos from phone cards of Israeli soldiers badly beaten, dragged to the lower decks, threatening use of weapons etc. One activist appears to be trying to protect an already badly beaten soldier with a head injury from further assault, but he is alone in taking such an attitude, while someone else is taking a video the scene; another shows what looks like the same soldier falling, or having been pushed, down stairs. They are clearly distressed and under the control of a mob with brutal intent. Also it is noticeable that the soldiers have been stripped of their weapons and protective gear and are in an entirely vulnerable state. On the face of it, any reasonable person would conclude that the soldiers have been effectively kidnapped and violently held; it would not be far fetched to assume that their rescue, reasonable in circumstances of actual and current threat to their lives, led to a rapidly worsening situation. These photos should bury is any more humbug in the West, but of course that will not happen.

Rob-NY

Thank you Melanie for insisting on telling the truth about Gaza whilst others mindlessly repeat lies.

Joshua

It's isn't just the left. It has even affected the Spectator. Thus, for example we have this Spectator cartoon:

http://tinyurl.com/354vz9u

"Don't fire until you see the whites of their flags" - Caption

Lao Tzu

Notwithstanding your justified cynicism in today's blog, I found it very refreshing to hear David Miliband say what he REALLY thinks about the Middle East - he clearly has an informed and balanced view of the region, and has obviously been well educated in ethics and morality.

Now that he's left the Foreign Office, it seems his hands have been untied and he's free to speak out against injustice, regardless of the location that injustice may have occurred.

Graeme

It's about time the current Government forced the BBC to publish the Balen Report on the BBC bias against Israel as the bias against Israel seems to be quite profound.

confused

Why do my taxes go to a murderous regime? Why does the EU condemn Israel without waiting for information? Do these EU elites not know that in modern warfare that a video is made in every helicopter and and jet of every encounter? They are trying to distract from their own incompetence and corruption with a fable and hope us stiffs don't notice.

Blame the joos is a very convenient thing. Last time I checked I didn't find any homicide bomber that were jooos.

Am I missing something?

watttyler

Robin, I will write in response to you what I have written in response to others; the BBC know that they are untrustworthy. They don't need you to tell them. They have an agenda, and they KNOW that they need to lie to achieve it. It comes from the Leftist principle that the end justifies the means.

Now it is up to you whether you continue to support them in their vanguard role of global anti-semitism, or do you withold funds that otherwise would translate to death and destruction - not only to Jews, but innocent arabs too? Are you going to continue to be responsible for dead people in Israel?

On another note, I have seen anti-semites on this site and elsewhere rationalise that although the markets are full in Gaza, people can't afford the produce. If this is true, then I would ask where is the Gaza welfare system that could issue food stamps? Well, we know where it is don't we - invested in missiles and weapons with which to attack Israel instead. Gaza suffers for Hamas, not Israel.

And while our government denies that construct, and even helps to build it, we are all responsible in another way for death in Israel (I say we, I didn't vote for the Progressive/Marxist Tories - it was plain to me what they were all about).

Rob-NY

May all of my British friends have a reflective observance of D-Day which was the liberation of Western Europe from fascism and genocide. (They still teach that in the UK schools, right?)We need to be reminded of that sacrifice now more than ever.

alan stoddart

How soon Cameron and Hague forget the 500,000 deaths caused by their sanctions on Iraq, how soon Miliband forgets the 100's of thousands shot and bombed in Iraq by his forces...for why? I don't remember any Iraqi rockets coming over the british border, I don't see any bomb shelters, in our back gardens, I don't hear any 17 second rocket launch warnings.

What I do see is politicians selling out Israelis, Jews, for the Muslim vote.

300,000+ Jews in the UK, over 2 million Muslims. You do the maths...which group has the greatest voting power, which group is prepared to use violence to advance its cause?

The BBC just broadcast a programme about the D-Day landings at Omaha beach...calling it the most important day in our history...you have to ask why, when politicians are surrendering everything so hard fought for....and I'm not the only one to wonder...the men who did the fighting, who defeated fascism, only to find another form of tyranny turn up on their doorstep welcomed with open arms by gutless politicians:

'I sing no song for the once-proud country that spawned me,' wrote a sailor who fought the Japanese in the Far East, 'and I wonder why I ever tried.'

Gordon Brown wrote about 'our debt of dignity to the war generation'.
But the truth that emerges from these letters is that the survivors of that war generation have nothing but contempt for his government.
They feel, in a word that leaps out time and time again, 'betrayed'.

and it hasn't stopped with Brown's eviction.

transfattyacid

I don't understand why you are surprised at the BBC after all the head of the unit ensuring political impartiality recently stood as a Labour candidate in local elections - I'm less bothered they stood for Labour, than they stood at all, given their job.

Anywho...

I notice that life in Gaza is made intolerable because the Israelis refuse to allow among other things 'canned and dried fruit, fresh meat, coriander, ginger, nutmeg, cattle, newspapers, musical instruments.'

So one would imagine a desperate need for such things.

Therefore I am interested the 'aid convoys' were haphazardly laden with 100 electric wheelchairs and 100's of other wheelchairs - which cannot be distributed because Hamas refuses the coordination of such aid - out of date cough syrup of some kind, children's liquid paracetamol with an expiry date of July 2010, and an assortment of new and second hand shoes and clothes.

In total ammounting to some 60 or 70 trucks - or roughly 3/4 of what the Israelis allow in each day - which ammounts to some 80-100 trucks of aid.

It stricks me that if were a nutmeg loving mandolinist in Gaza hoping for a tin of pineapple chunks I would be less than pleased with the efforts of the peace activists.

George

Lao Tzu,

For you information, David Miliband has absolutely no idea whatsoever about the Middle East, and it would appear that you know even less.

Kiran

The major problem with BBC News and Current Affairs is that key figures in the organisation seem to have decided that balanced and informative reporting is no longer their responsibility. What they have opted for is a kind of campaigning journalism with a mission to educate the public to the 'correct' liberal left, Guardian approved, viewpoint. Is there no way of calling these people to account and preventing the BBC from presenting the liberal left world view as though it were the obvious and morally incontestable truth?

Orlando

Academia is institutionally leftist and will never support Israel or the west. A letter in the Telegraph on Saturday was signed by 6 people - all of whom gave addresses at Academic institutions in the UK. We are paying these people's salaries and these Marxists are teaching your kids more Marxist bullshit every day.
The only people that really see what is going on are people like Melanie, who have a clarity of vision that is wider than the narrow Marxist, PC dogma, and the under educated; who can see the facts staring them in the face e.g. Islamisation of the UK, etc.
There will be a civil war in the end, mark my words.

Augustus

Perhaps people like Andrew Marr should be interviewing the Gaza Flotilla's leader and organizer, Bulent Yildirim, to extract the truth. He has made it perfectly clear in a video made at a Hamas rally that the operation was no humanitarian effort, but
intended all along as part of a global jihad
to overthrow governments and install dictatorships. Yildirim represents the organization of a militarized group that started the violence (with total indifference to the loss of life that ensued) in order to achieve the intended result. "My brothers," he begins, "I have brought you the blessings of Saladin and Sultan Abd Al-Hamid, there are 70 million
Sultan Abd Al-Hamids in Turkey and they all support you. We congratulate you on your victory." Etc. Etc. He continues: "Allah
Akbar. Allah be praised. Allah Akbar...etc.
They have bombs, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, but we have our hearts, we have our courage, and we are not afraid of anyone but Allah." He also offered a direct pledge to Turkey's prime minister, Erdogan,
He concludes with: "let me tell you, oh my Palestinian brothers, who are guarded by Allah and the angels - I wish we could take you away from here to Istanbul, and bring Istanbul here to be hit by the bombs instead of you."

A very twisted individual indeed. Is Turkey really in the grip of such madmen?

An American

Melanie,
One thing you didn't mention is that to so-called aid was medicine out of date, useless, old machinery, etc...in short, junk. So much for all that much needed aid.

W. Smith

"And so Miliband – whose tenure at the Foreign Office was marked by a dramatic escalation in British government hostility and malice towards its ostensible ally in the Middle East – energetically took the opportunity to depart altogether from Planet Reality."

...Ah, Miliband, Miliband, and his sixth-form moustache.

Isaiah 3:4 puts it best.

Veracity

So the head of the unit ensuring BBC partiality recently stood as a Labour candidate? Why is he still in post ? All civil servants are not supposed to have political affiliations . When I began my teaching career 40 years ago it would have been more than my job was worth to have revealed my politican persuasions to my students. Why are Univsersity academics allowed to do so? They even use their status to reinforce their political points. Surely as public servants, paid by our taxes they should also not be allowed to show affiliation, At least not to their students nor publicly.

watttyler

Kiran, you wrote that the BBC

"have opted for... a kind of campaigning journalism with a mission to educate the public to the 'correct' liberal left, Guardian approved, viewpoint".

This is true. They have gambled that people are stupid, God-less creatures who value their gadgets more than they do the sanctity of human life, and the concept of liberty. They think that because we can't own a TV and receive broadcasts on it without a license, then our addiction to X-Factor or Eastenders means that we will suffer their out-in-the-open propoganda. They might convert a few people to their anti-semite cause in the meantime, but their main purpose is to demonstrate and flaunt their power over you.

You are right to question how they can be held accountable; you write:
"Is there no way of calling these people to account and preventing the BBC from presenting the liberal left world view as though it were the obvious and morally incontestable truth?"

The answer is no, there is no way to call them to account as such because recently our society has been operated on. Its flesh has been taken off of a Judeo Chritian skeleton, and placed on a Marxist one. The country is now a different looking animal, and the context from which the BBC operates is the norm. So, when you complain about the BBC, you are considered a criminal against their system.

However, all is not lost. Anything that is derived from the Marxist perspective is so anti-human that people are coerced into subsidising it. The BBC is the same, but the BBC Tax is the easiest to revolt against. If you don't own a TV, they can't tax you. Also, if you make it hard for the BBC to collect their tax from you, then you waste their resources, which is just as important as not paying them, and you don't break the law, of course - which I would never advise anyone to do.

So, no, we cannot bring the BBC to account it, but we can weaken it, and a thing that is weaker is closer to being killed.

An American

This is completely off the subject...but what do you Brits think of Sir Paul's recent statement at his White House performance and medal presentation?

From an American's perspective, I thought it was incredibly rude to bash a past United States president in America's White House. First of all, Laura Bush was a Librarian and her eight year agenda as first lady was promoting reading for American children. Bush was very well read...better read than Obama, who spends most of his free time on the golf course, basketball court or making his daily 2012 election stump speeches.

Poor old McCartney was not a class act..he has not only lost his voice, he now resembles his mam...its time to stop embarassing himself in public.

McCartney was defensive on behave of Obama...which must have irked the Messiah to see an over-the-hill singer taking up for him and his incredibly poor performance as US president.

Eve

I am a liberal Israeli who is a realist and always tries to get to the truth. I dont automatically accept everything the IDF says. After days of
reading and watching news and analysis its so clear to me that
the 9 Turks killed were not "peace activists" and the flotilla served the political agenda of Erdogan, Iran and Hamas (although there were non-violent people concerned about Gazans on some of the boats).
I remember the Israel-bashing at the time of the Jenin "massacre" This seems to me worse. Thank you Melanie
and keep up the good work!

Temu

my god the idiots are out today!
the BBC is the vanguard of antisemitism eh Wattyler? what utter bull!
and if it were true, as you believe, what does that mean for Ms Phillips standing in your eyes? after all she is on QT a fair-bit and moral maze etc.

Orlando:
As for academia being some sort of Marxist club, again a load of tosh! Why do so many foreign students come to the UK (thinking Indian and Chinese here) - to study business, finance, law, economics? it must be because lSE et al are teaching collectivisation of agriculture and state owned enterprises as optimal policies... or maybe our institutions teach cutting edge theories with top quality professors who have real business experience?!

Paul

"Really? Such as Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005? Such as the offer to Abbas last year by former Prime Minister Olmert of virtually all the disputed territories and half of Jerusalem? Ditto by Barak in 2000?"

Gaza is still blockaded by Israel and is thus an open prison, ruled by the brutal Hamas.

Olmert did make a real offer for peace and Abbas said there could be peace in two days if it could be implemented. Unfortunately Olmert was on the way out and the offer was withdrawn by the current Israeli government who then decided to invade Gaza. And that was that.

Barak's offer in 2000 was for a series of unsustainable Palestinian Bantustans surrounded by Israeli territory on all sides, with no Palestinian presence in Jerusalem. Have a look at this map and see if you would accept if you were the Palestinians (bearing in mind of course that legally all the occupied 1967 land is yours)

http://realwindow.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/map-of-peace-summit-at-camp-david-artoff2076.jpg

stern

If the guys on the boats were terrorists, why didn't they come properly armed for combat?
Iron bars and poles are usually found on boats of this size, particularly in the med.
As for the knives, didn't that boat have 600+ people on it? What were they gonna do for food, call for take-out?
Ask any chef how many knives you'd expect to find in a kitchen that serves 600+ people. Nuff said.
Yes, grenades, AK47's, rocket launchers and bombs, especially those of the suicide nature are the favoured tool of terrorists....so where were these real weapons?
The Israeli story isn't stacking up and i think the inevitable investigation into the events will show that.
Fighting back against armed men invading your boat in international waters doesn't make you a terrorist.
Well, not in the eyes of rational people and most of the world it seems anyway.
Even the Swedes are kicking off now!
And Melanie, on balance, would say it's been a good week or a bad week for Israel?

Kennybhoy

Graeme,

Regarding the Balen report.

Mossad should make it a priority to get it into the public domain.

Richard

Veracity:

"When I began my teaching career 40 years ago it would have been more than my job was worth to have revealed my politican persuasions to my students. Why are University academics allowed to do so? They even use their status to reinforce their political points. Surely as public servants, paid by our taxes they should also not be allowed to show affiliation, At least not to their students nor publicly."

University academics teach adults, and the general assumption in a liberal democracy is that adults are capable of evaluating political ideas and do not need to have politics hidden from them. If the political activities and sympathies of academics were kept hidden as you suggest, wouldn't that leave students more vulnerable to the covert pressures you fear, not less? Open, undisguised political advocacy is not something to fear in a democracy, though I agree that teachers of political ideas - which means teachers of most academic subjects, to varying degrees - have a duty to explore conscientiously the full range of political positions around any given subject, and the intellectual and moral objections to every position.

Dipper

Politics is about persuasion. If the world thinks Israel is in the wrong, then its Israeli politics and politicians that have failed, not the rest of the world.

Complaining that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong is just arrogant and lazy. Calling people dupes and questioning their motives when they see things differently to you is deeply insulting, and not appropriate in a dialogue of equals.

Edward McLaughlin

stern

You're right, the iron bar is a handy thing to have on a ship. But its not usually used by half a dozen men to stand in a circle beating someone who has been thrown to the deck.

The reason that 'conventional' weapons of terror were not employed is because these people know that bovine dupes like you are going to make such banal calculations, with no grasp whatever of how semiotics have worked on them their trick.

Suffolkbor

An American"
Re. Sir Paul Mcartney.

I would not pay too much heed to what he says if I were you as he has recently confessed to not remembering the words of the famous songs that he wrote /co wrote.

"Macca"has obviously forgotten his manners and that it is not the done thing to critisize your host.
I do not like to be disrespectful to those who have passed beyond but John Lennon was far more irritating and was known as the original rent-a cause during the horrible 1960,s .

I my,self prefer dear old Ringo who unfortunately bore an uncanny resemblance to Yasser Arafat.

It was reported in British newspapers in the 1970,s that Ringo would often be pinholed by reporters at international airports and questioned as to the latest developments in the middle east and tansversly ,
"Yasser" would be asked for his autograph and quizzed as to if the Beatles would ever get back together again for a concert.

phil

stern"Fighting back against armed men invading your boat in international waters doesn't make you a terrorist.•
----
no my son,but being a member of a terrororist organisation does ,and wishing to be a martyr doesnt help one,s cause ,does it 'Get real stern !!!

watttyler

Temu
June 6th, 2010 6:21pm

Firsly, I don't speak for Melanie Phillips.

Secondly, I am not an idiot, as you well know; this is why you called me it. This is a tactic that I could have told you that you would use. It doesn't work.

You refute my claim that the BBC is anti-semitic by exclaiming "utter bull". That is not an argument.

Anti-semetism is a prejudice and hostility against Jews upon which the Hamas has founded a charter of objectives. The BBC enable Hamas and anti-semitism by representing the Jews of Israel as bloodthirsty, and the agressor Hamas as victim, therefore the BBC are in the vanguard of global antisemitism.

You are on the wrong side of history, and your side will lose.

LucasHyde

Melanie, it angers me so much to read and hear all this anti Israel bias. What can we normal bods do to help?
Israel needs our help. I want to help.

Toni

Melanie, Britain and Europe haven't changed a bit since the times of Chamberlain.
"Its sovereign ability to protect its own security would be taken away by America, Britain and the EU, who would impose upon it (how?) a set of measures which would hand the final weapon to its would-be destroyers with which they could achieve their exterminatory aim – and worse,' apply to Israel, now the same way they applied to what happened to Czechoslovakia in 1938.
It doesn't really matter now that Gazans are not starving and Hamas wants to destroy Israel anymore than it mattered to Europe and the USA then that Sudeten Germans were not really mistreated by the Czechs, and Hitler wanted to occupy Czechoslovakia.
We haven't learned anything from history,.

An American

Suffolkbor,
Thank you putting some humor into the situation....I've always appreciated British wit. Now that you mention it, Ringo does look alot like Yasser...lol!

Anti-ranter

Edward McLaughlin
June 6th, 2010 9:40pm

The reason that 'conventional' weapons of terror were not employed is because these people know that bovine dupes like you are going to make such banal calculations, with no grasp whatever of how semiotics have worked on them their trick.

phil
June 6th, 2010 10:20pm

no my son,but being a member of a terrororist organisation does ,and wishing to be a martyr doesnt help one,s cause ,does it 'Get real stern !!!

Heavens, you apologists for Israeli actions must be desperate.

Follow link for member of 'Turkish terrorist flotilla' tending to Israeli commando: -

http://twitpic.com/1ui744

mairiT

I admit to being blunt and honest, and I know I am a thorn in the BBC's site. I am not racist in any shape or form but the evidence is a clear as the nose on my face (Roman) But I am at a loss to understand why our Leaders, The Media and The BBC are appeasing the true aggressors.......Just in case you don't know, Iran is now offering/threatening to send the Revolutionary Naval Guard as escorts plus that old Bafoon , George Galloway is back on the rant again. Needless to say I am ashamed that he is Scottish but I believe that most of Scotland has disowned him

Jonathan

Not only Miliband but Hague and Cameron make us all sick with their Israelphobia. I used to like and respect Hague, but over this Gaza business he has shown himself up to be as cowardly and unprincipled as any left wing politician trying at all costs to kiss up to the UK muslim community.

Sultan Geelani

The West would rather have Turkey in the leadership of Mideast & Central Asia than Iran. Hence the chorus of denouncing Israel. This is a permanent shift which will shape the new mideast. Israel now suffers every disadvantage and cannot last long under the weight of cumulative disadvantages, from the ideological to the geopolitical.

Etc.
Sultan Geelani

wendy

Brilliant expose.
See this link for Michael Mansfield's latest outburst:

http://www.aqsa.org.uk/HOME/tabid/36/ctl/Details/mid/427/ItemID/3095/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Ablaze with self righteous ire and he wants the British navy to protect Us from the dastardly Israelis.
No thank you, Mr Mansfieldd.

Miranda Rose Smith

I have mixed, very mixed, feelings about what we all know will happen to these people if they ever get their wish and Israel is, G-d forbid, destroyed. If Israel is destroyed, Europe is next on the Islamofascist hit list, and I don't think the European Union Army could fight off a brownie troop armed with plastic baseball bats. So, in all probability, the Arabs will rampage through Europe, behaving like Arabs, a lot of these people will suffer HIDEOUSLY, UNSPEAKABLY. I have times when I'm glad of that and also times when I say to myself "No, it's wrong to wish that kind of hideous suffering on anyone, even a left-liberal, sucker-for-propaganda, anti-Israel useful idiot."

Daibhiadh

As Ronald Reagan said of liberals: 'They tell us things that ain't so.'

zkharya

'The West would rather have Turkey in the leadership of Mideast & Central Asia than Iran. Hence the chorus of denouncing Israel. '

Except Erdogan has set his political reputation on breaking the blockade. If he fails, or drags Turkey into a war, I doubt

a) the military will be that keen to back him up

b) NATO will be keen to support him.

Erdogan's vying for dominance/prominance in the Islamic world by speaking and acting aggressively towards Israel recalls that of Nasser. Unfortunately he may be talking himself into the same predicament.

zkharya

'2. Last week, ahead of the Marmara incident, Erdogan began deploying at the Turkish end of Cyprus air, naval and marine units, holding them ready to combat Israeli takeovers of Gaza-bound vessels. He was only restrained from sending them into action by the last-minute intervention of President Barack Obama's NSA James Jones and President Nicolas Sarkozy's chef de bureau who, according to DEBKAfile's Washington and Paris sources, threatened him with isolation in NATO and Europe if he went ahead.'

http://debka.com/article/8838/

Will NATO help Erdogan in his domestic political ratings war?

Does NATO believe that Erdogan's Turkey is anything other than really lost?

john Norman

Not British Bias Corporation. More accurately, the British Bigotry Corporation.

just Louise

One of the most insidious developments based on the alternative view of reality is the increasing support for what Isi Leibler in the Jerusalem Post has called bogus pro-peace organisations which in fact undermine Israel's security.
Bogus 'pro peace' organizations undermine Israel
by Isi Leibler
May 28, 2010
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2209

In a worrying trend, some Jewish opinion-makers including academics, well-meaning but gullible, seem to be pushing the merits of such groups.

ExposeTheLies

Israel Withdraws Islamophobic Claim that Flotilla Linked to Terrorists

www.loonwatch.com/2010/06/israel-withdraws-islamophobic-claims/

Under Scrutiny, IDF Retracts Claims About Flotilla’s Al Qaeda Links

maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/

Thomas

Apologists for Israel will have to decide whether their blockade has brought prosperity and plenty, or has put the people of Gaza "on a diet" as intended.

They will have to decide whether the Hamas official was thanking Israel for its generosity in making Gaza a land of plenty by blockading it, or whether he was saying that the international aid effort is just about enough to stave off the hunger that would otherwise be rife.

They will have to study the economics of shortages and the black market before exclaiming at the variety of goods on sale.

They will have to decide whether to believe anecdotes or comprehensive statistics.

Derek Pasquill

One of the most disturbing clips over the weekend was the one of an Israeli spokesman [former ambassador to the UN?] alluding to Israel's allies.

It is not only Miliband who inhabits a parallel universe.

DavidSI

Dipper, if politics is about persuasion as you claim, then my advice to you is not to invest any of your time in it.

Kiwi

"LONDON (AFP) – Britain announced Sunday it was giving £19 million for refugees in Gaza and repeated calls for Israel to lift its blockade of the territory."

The almost bankrupt British government, by donating 'aid' (£19 million of taxpayers money) and calling for the perfectly legitimate blockade of Gaza to be lifted, puts itself firmly in the same camp as IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi), the Turkish-based terrorist group linked to al Qaeda and Hamas.
Want to see who the British government, the BBC, IHH, and all those peace-loving anti –Israel activists are supporting, take a look at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiQAi-_53h8&feature=player_embedded

Can only be money well spent - We’re all Hamas now, whether we like it or not!

Harold

How many more slurs and falsehoods (all obediently retailed here) will Israel be forced to withdraw? How many more jolly japes (all found hilariously funny here) will it have to apologise for? Jihadi terror convoy!

Isabella

On a number of occasions I have wanted to throw both my tele and radio out of the window when I hear "interviewers" totally mislead viewers about the actions and motives of Israel, never more so than when I watched Jon Snow (Channel 4 News) make an idiot of himself haranguing and Israli representative and getting his facts completely wrong. Mr. Milliband surely must have seen with his own eyes, as we all did, the intention of the would be blockade breakers. Thank goodness for Israel and its courage in holding fast in such a dangerous and hateful situation. The BBC prove time and time again they are incapable of giving us unbiased, objective news.

Michael

Where were the weapons Israel was after? Seen them about anywhere?

Bob, son of Bob

Temu - Do you mind if I ask if you acquired your debating skills, which include a lot of shouting ('my god the idiots are out today!', 'what utter bull!' and 'a load of tosh!'), on one of the courses that teaches Marxism which Orlando refers to above? Maybe you are still on the course, lapping it all up? If you are a product of one of these courses, I suggest you keep a copy of your contributions to this debate and present them in a portfolio to the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation if you ever want to work there - you are just the type they are looking for and you should go far in their organisation.
As for Melanie Phillips appearing on QT, no one is claiming the BBC has achieved 100% bias on the subject of Israel, although they did boast about abandoning their charter of impartiality a few years ago on the subject of the previous country before Israel to sit at the top of their hate-list – white S.Africa. Christopher Booker mentions it this week in his column.

No, on the subject of Israel, the bias level is currently at a measly 96%. If they allow Melanie Phillips on QT whilst an Israel question on the convoy of peace and hate has to be included, their bias level will be reduced, and as she is a good speaker it will take them down about five bias points for each minute she is allowed to speak, so she could reduce it from 96% to 91% before Dimbleby interrupts on behalf of the Blatant Bias Corporation. So she cannot be allowed to appear again until the convoy of peace and hate has sailed off out of the news.

Watttyler - I agree that most viewers are stupid. An intelligent ten year old child can see the peace convoy is a hate convoy, and when they start mentioning the cargo of wheelchairs and medicines with a tear in their eye (they forgot to add ‘for new-born babies and young children’), it is so laughable and unsubtle that it shows they have realised that the mental age of the average viewer is even lower than an intelligent ten year old - about seven or eight perhaps.

Bob, son of Bob

Does anyone know the figure for how much each Gazan or Palestinian has received over the years per capita in foreign aid, including the latest £19 million from Britain? And how much of that came from oil-rich Arab countries?
I hope the Gazans realise that if they get what they want, the left will immediately lose interest in them and their ‘rights’, like the left soon forgot about the rights of the blacks in S.Rhodesia once Mugabe was installed.

Roy

Great to see some reasonable people. Thanks for the support, Roy, Israel.

Augustus

'The alternative universe of the Western Left.' How very true. Yet when people like Melanie speak out against Islamic practices they are immediately branded extreme right-wing by so many. Instead,
they should praise her for her extreme dedication to the defense of civilized principles.
It appears to be quite acceptable to allow the general public to be lied to, rather than to shake them into reality.
When someone points to the dangers, the critical ghost of left-wing prejudice wields the racist card, like a censorious
black knight attacking the the defenders of the enightenment;
such as individual rights, free speech, and Western laws that should apply to Islamic minorities in the West. This allows the Sharia a psychological victory and places it in a position beyond
criticism, even to the point where critics and non-believers
must either convert, submit, or die. This is in direct conflict with all democratic ideals and with all liberal religious practices as they have developed through centuries of
bloodshed. Now the Western Left have conceded without even a shot being fired. All that was necessary was the threat of outbreaks of violence and the ever-present atmosphere of intimidation.

(Another) Paul

"University academics teach adults"

...The best laugh I've had all day.

"...and the general assumption in a liberal democracy is that adults are capable of evaluating political ideas and do not need to have politics hidden from them."

The assumption you gloss over here is that university entrants are adults in any sense other than the biological and the legal. They are amazingly green, as anyone who's ever taught at a university knows. And what a way with words you have: browbeating teenagers with one's political viewpoint is made to appear positively enlightened. You're not an academic yourself, by any chance?

Personal politics in the classroom --- despite being ethically dubious, since it's on the students' own time and dollar --- might be tolerable if it's very clearly flagged as such. It is certainly not acceptable when a political position is passed off as being all but indisputable. ...Though that never happens, of course, does it?

Brian Moshe

Thanks Melanie, you're as always doing a great job and the Israeli government ought to be getting advice from you on a daily basis to improve its dreadful lack of PR skills.

I was watching the Andrew Marr show yesterday morning and wanted to throw the TV set out of the window (or something to vent my anger).

When Miliband said Israel must lift its blockade of Gaza but weapons mustn't be allowed to be delivered I waited for Marr to ask how this extraordinary feat was going to be achieved?, but with his usual elisions when interviewing people he agrees with, Marr left Miliband's fantasy unchallenged.

It is an utter Alice in Wonderland world Britain inhabits when the Anti-Terrorist arm of the Security Services are going to have £10 million cut from their coming annual budget and the armed forces are facing cuts despite the on-going wars yet the government is quick to announce that £19 million will be allocated to Gaza (i.e. to Hamas).

Liz

One thing's for certain, it's completely pointless trying to apply logic to this vicious and completely unbalanced loathing of Israel. Israel has simply become the "justification" for anti-Semites to "respectably" ply their opinions. As for David Milipede, there's no-one more dangerous for Jews than a Jew hating Jew.

An American

Michael,
Once they break the blockade, you can bet there will be plenty of weapons in the future...that is what this all about...destroying Israel.

BTW, How would you like to be a Jew in Israel today?

phil

I wonder whether messrs Cameron ,Hague and even Milliband understand what they are doing when blaming Israel for defending itself ,and that is precisely what they are doing ,clumsily maybe and with a lack of deviousness regarding the propaganda war ,even a lack of planning perhaps .Nevertheless(C,H and M) they are encouraging both Iran to embolden its threats to sail into the blockade and Turkey too ,where without doubt they will be met with the full force of Israel's defence .

---------

.Do they not see that Armageddon approaches due to either their naivety or more likely their desperate need to play into the arms of Militant Islam ,hoping against hope that they will not also suffer the inevitable onslaught of a savage idea from the middle ages ?.Do they wish to see their wives wearing burquas and their children having to live in a land ruled by Sharia ?.Is it not obvious to anyone with a brain who are the aggressors and which state have been attacked at every opportunity since 1948 ?.Why does Israel continue to defend itself with vigour ?,I will tell you ,because it has no trust that anyone will ever come to it,s help ,other than the Christian USA ,and never again will Jews walk into death camps without either a fight and consequences for others .This world needs to awake to what it is doing to itself by in some cases racism ,but mostly naivety.

---

I am truly surprised at William Hague ,who in the past has defended Israel,s necessity to defend itself ,has his mind been overwhelmed by this strange coalition and ,now in power ,the always anti Israel foreign office .Did ernest bevin not do enough to ensure the slaughter of so many Jews -Not for one moment do I think that Mr Hague would want that to happen -I still believe in his inherent decency ,but how he came to the conclusion that Israel would ever want to be involved either in war or the killing of innocents is beyond me .What possible advantage could it be for them ?

---

I have just returned from lunch with a friend who has been brainwashed by the press into believing Israel was to blame ,certain of his correct assumption ,but with no knowledge of either history ,cause or events ,thankfully balanced by a very astute young American who has a mind of her own ,both Catholics btw -not Jewish .It has become fashionable to blame Israel and too many are joining in ,they are being led like lemmings to their own doom ,where they will arrive in a camp where destruction will be their only reward -I so hope I am wrong for all of us .

wonderer

@"ExposeTheLies" Whatever may or may not have been found on the flotilla, no less an authority than Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, who for nearly 20 years led the French counter-Islamist-terrorism effort, has gone on record that IHH was connected with al Qaeda: http://thewestislamandsharia.blogspot.com/2010/06/jean-louis-bruguiere-turkish-aid-group.html

Harold

Israel confiscated all recording equipment so that only its account of what happened would be aired. And then it had to admit that its version was doctored. If there is nothing to hide...

Edgar Davidson

To get a feel for the extent of the anti-Israel media bias, Sky News (and other UK media outlets) are currently running today's story of a major foiled terrorist attack (Israel intercepted and killed a team of heavily armed Hamas men on their way to an attack in Israel a dinghy as if four harmless palestinians out diving were murdered. The headline I am watching now says "Israeli raid kills four palestinian divers". The brief report made no mention at all that these were heavily armed terrorists. The report was genuinely trying to convince viewers that this was an unprovoked Israeli 'crime'. What makes this remarkable is that Hamas has already recognised this was their men on a 'mission' and the Sky news website does at least give part of the Israeli story (albeit the story is deeply hidden on their site). Yet someone in the television news studio - and it is only th TV news that anyone actualy sees - is mounting a deliberate smear/cover up here.

For the real tory see:

http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=177704

Edgar Davidson

http://edgar1981.blogspot.com/

Richard

(Another) Paul,

I don't know whether we disagree or not, really. I hope I made it quite clear that I'm not in favour of passing off any view as all but indisputable. That would be very bad teaching, at least in Humanities subjects. It would be the opposite of everything I want to do in teaching. What I try to teach is the process of argument and the necessity of questioning all views. I make it as clear as I can to students that I want them to disagree with me, if that's what their reasoning and sympathy tells them to do - as long as they produce evidence and attempt to engage intellectually with all sides of the argument. Such disagreement is the energy of the classroom.

A society that made its university teachers hide their political sympathies and activities would be a very repressive one, in which debate was forbidden. The prohibition would be no protection against covert indoctrination; in fact it would make this more likely. If you know that your teacher holds certain views, you will see the teaching in that context and be wary.

Part of an academic's work is the writing of scholarly and critical books. How could they do that, if they weren't allowed to express any controversial views in public? A society that made this prohibition would in practice be insisting that a single orthodoxy - whether Right or Left, religious or secular - should go unquestioned.

Dipper

DavidSI - eh? what's your point?

I notice Israel killed 4 Hamas members today, and there's no protests. So the world does not object to Israel killing armed men attacking it.

C. Gee

Harold:

You seem to be relishing the idea the the IDF is hiding or flasifying the truth. Perhaps you are basing this on Stern's link to Max Blumenthal's site.

Max noted that the IDF had changed a headline explicitly stating links with Al Qaeda to one stating that the people on board the Marmara were without documents.

Did this mean that there were no links to Al Qaeda? No. The June 6 headline reads:
"Specific Flotilla Passengers are Active terror Operatives linked to Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and other Organizations."

The IDF press release site is updated frequently. The information is sourced. The IDF is responsive to questions. It will provide evidence and update its conclusions accordingly.

Do visit that site.

Meanwhile, you should take the Reuters photographs of the incident with the same skepticism you hold for the IDF.

Poor old Max does his bit to discredit the IDF, but is always having the wind taken out of his sails.

He attempted to discredit the transmissions of flotilla passengers saying "Go back to Auschwitz" as being "doctored". See for yourself whether he was successful in proving that such sentiments were not expressed by humanitarians somewhere in that convoy.

I have not noticed that Max corrects himself in light of additional evidence. But even if he did, would people like Stern bother to follow-up and place a correction here?

C. Gee

Correction to my last:

Replace references to Stern with "ExposeThelies", who cited Max Blumenthal.

Stern is an expert on "real" weapons and how they identify terrorists. A model of a modern armchair general.

wonderer

@Harold
June 7th, 2010 6:51pm
That is no doubt one version of events. On the other hand, the Israeli government has complained that Reuters cropped photos taken by the "activists" to exclude the knives they were holding.

(see http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177749)

And, in passing, you might like to read Edgar Davidson's comment immediately after yours.

wonderer

Edgar Davidson, when you wrote, "For the real tory see", was that a Freudian?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Paul wrote:"Unfortunately Olmert was on the way out and the offer was withdrawn by the current Israeli government who then decided to invade Gaza. And that was that."

So, the current Israeli Government decided to invade Gaza, huh? Mmm..I thin perhaps that's a factual booboo, Paul..

Augustus

Temu - Yes, Melanie is on QT a fair bit, and the way things are going in this country it won't be long before she will be
compelled to sit there wearing a bulletproof vest. Does that make you think?

Thomas

Here's an interesting legal opinion:

In the aftermath of Israel's 31 May attack on the Freedom Flotilla that left nine dead and scores wounded, each side claimed their actions were protected under international law. While the Israelis cited self-defense, and the Flotilla passengers reiterated that they were peace activists on a humanitarian mission that were attacked in international waters where neither Israel (nor any other state) has any claim. This has caused some confusion, especially in light of the extensive airtime given to Israeli officials by most mainstream media outlets. However, it must be known that under established rules of international law, Israel had no right to attack a peaceful convoy on international waters; and indeed such an attack constitutes an international crime or even an act of war.

The Israeli argument is predicated on the assumption that the blockade of Gaza is justified, that "there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza," and therefore, as Israel is at war with Hamas, intercepting the Flotilla was justified. What is cited is the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, which under Section II states that a blockade is a legitimate method of warfare. In an Al-Jazeera interview, Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stated that "Israel is at war with Hamas." Based on a very selective reading of the San Remo Manual, Israel considered the Flotilla to be breaching the blockade, and under Article 98 is therefore entitled to seize the ships. But is it really as clear-cut?

To know that, we must ascertain whether the blockade was indeed a legitimate means, as Israel states, to defend itself against Hamas. Under Article 102 of the San Remo Manual, it states that a blockade is prohibited if the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the military advantage. A 2009 report by the UN Human Rights Council showed that Israel's restrictions of both imports to and exports from Gaza were unclear and often inconsistent, denying the civilian population adequate nutrition. Such arbitrary items that were barred include sage, cardamom, ginger, jam, fresh meat, fishing rods, among other items. Although there is much aid available, Israel was not allowing a sufficient amount to enter Gaza. This amounts to a breach of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits collective punishment. Nothing could be clearer than Israel's Security Cabinet's declaration in 2007 that as it viewed the whole of Gaza as "hostile territory," they would restrict the flow of people and goods, effectively harming the livelihoods of ordinary civilians. In March 2009, 65 percent of the population was living under the poverty line, with 37 percent living in extreme poverty. The UN report states that "In so far as it constitutes collective punishment of all persons in Gaza, including the civilian population, the blockade is itself a violation of international humanitarian law."

Considering that the blockade itself is illegal, and indeed the UN has asked Israel to lift the blockade, the San Remo Manual is not applicable since it only applies to legal blockades. Only if a blockade is legal does Article 103 of the Manual become effective, which states that if the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided for, the blockading party must allow free passage of foodstuffs and essential goods, but has a right to inspect them. The reality of the matter is that Israeli is imposing the insufferable conditions.

In actual fact, since Israel is exercising "effective control" over Gaza, it is still the occupying power. Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations states that "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army" and this imposes on Israel several responsibilities towards the civilian population, which as we have seen above, have not been fulfilled. Article 55 of the Geneva Conventions specifically provides that the occupying power must provide food and medical supplies at an adequate level, and reports by both the UN and several human rights organizations have shown this not to be the case. Grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Conventions are war crimes. Under Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions each state "shall bring such persons [who committed grave breaches of the convention], regardless of their nationality, before its own courts." Thus, those responsible in the Israeli government are liable to be tried for war crimes in any state.

Israel invoked the right to self-defense against what it said was attacks by passengers of the ships. However, it was Israel that intercepted the ship on the high seas. Under Article 87 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the high seas are open to all states and have certain freedoms, including the freedom of navigation. By intercepting the ship, Israel has breached this freedom. A war ship may only intercept a merchant vessel on the high seas if that vessel is engaged in piracy, the slave trade or is the same nationality as the warship (under the Law of the Sea as well as the Geneva High Seas Convention). In this case, there was no reasonable basis for this suspicion, and Israel did not claim any of these exceptions.

Furthermore, under the Law of the Sea, the flag state is to enforce its municipal laws as well as international law on its ship. That is, the ship is an extension of the flag state's territory. In the case of the Turkish ship, in which Israeli forces forcefully entered, killed and wounded civilians, those Israelis are subject to Turkish law and are liable to be tried in a Turkish court for their actions. The civilians on the boat were entitled to self-defense limited by the principle of proportionality. As has been reported, the Israelis boarded the ship with firearms bearing live ammunition as well as anti-riot weapons and ordinance, while the civilians used sharp objects and sticks. What we know from the eye-witness accounts on board the Mavi Marmara was that a passenger was shot first.

The case would be simpler had it been Israeli civilians, or at least an unauthorized attack by Israeli military personnel. In actual fact, the matter is more complicated because this was an authorized action by the Israeli military, thus rendering it an act of war on Turkey. Even in a situation of war, civilians are not to be attacked. The Flotilla was clearly carrying civilians who were not carrying weapons (and this was confirmed before the ships left port and after the cargo was inspected by Israel) from the ages of one year old to 89 years old. Under Article 6 of the Charter Provisions of the Nuremburg Trials, murder or any other inhumane act against a civilian population is tantamount to crimes against humanity.

Israel not only has to answer to Turkey for attacking its vessel, but as Israel is Party to the 1988 International Maritime Organization's Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, it has breached Article 3 which prohibits seizing a ship by force or any other form of intimidation, or to commit any acts of violence against the people on the ship.

What can be concluded is that Israel's reliance on the Articles in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea to defend its actions against the Flotilla are invalidated by the fact that the blockade itself is illegal. In that case, Israel's use of force against the Turkish vessel, the murder of civilians and its seizure of the other vessels constitute breaches of several Conventions to which Israel is a party to, a possible act of war against Turkey as well as crimes against humanity and war crimes, to which Israel must be held accountable.

(Another) Paul

"A society that made its university teachers hide their political sympathies and activities would be a very repressive one, in which debate was forbidden."

Leaving aside the final clause (which is surely a non sequitur --- unless debate within a society takes place only when university teachers speak...), I think that yes, perhaps we do agree. I was not for one instant suggesting that society should force *anyone* to "hide their political sympathies and activities". Teachers should be as free outside the classroom to engage openly in political activism as anyone else, without having to hide it --- indeed, as you say, if it's *known*, then all the better (I feel much the same about the speech-codes on "hate" which are being pushed by certain vocal groups: one doesn't cease holding a viewpoint simply because one has been pressured into silence about it --- if anything, one holds it all the more tenaciously).

But activism in the classroom is another matter. There is a qualitative difference between the classroom and the debating hall (pace Socratics), and between teacher and pupil. The former has vastly greater experience of life in general and argument in particular than the latter --- it is extremely unrealistic to expect the typical undergraduate to be able to defend his corner against an erudite and ideologically driven rhetorician.

"The prohibition would be no protection against covert indoctrination; in fact it would make this more likely."

How so? Where would this "covert indoctrination" take place? Are you saying that if, as I suggest, teachers are compelled either to leave their political bias outside the classroom or, alternatively, to flag it very clearly during the lesson, then this would somehow result in *more* indoctrination?

Finally, I wrote only because the conflation of ideology with teaching has become a very serious problem in the West --- a problem which many academics are trying to dismiss. Perhaps, as you say, we are of a similar mind in all this. I don't know.

Kennybhoy

Something to cheer us up..

http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3117

Bob, son of Bob

Phil 5:34 says "I am truly surprised at William Hague, who in the past has defended Israel's necessity to defend itself"
- Probably one day W.Hague will regret that he has abandoned his principles and given in to the pressure from the left. Clegg is the true left and obviously will never regret what he has done. As for Cameron - he is merely plastic and can mould himself into any shape of opinion so he too will have no regrets, unless it somehow makes him unpopular or out of office.

Julie

Just heard on the news that Iran is planning to attmpt to breakthrough the Israeli sea blockade. This sounds like an act of war, one which will conveniently be ignored by the Obama administration who will say they're busy with the oil spill and can't spare a moment to condemn Ahmadinejad. I'm wondering if Iran is further along in its nuclear progress than previously supposed, giving it confidence to attack Israel in this way.

Richard

(Another)Paul,

You're right about the non sequitur, I suppose, though I don't see how this prohibition could in practice be restricted to university teachers. A society that did that to its places of education and learning would scarcely be likely to refrain from doing it elsewhere as well.

My difference from you, I suspect, is that I don't think the conflation of teaching with ideology is especially new; the two have always been difficult to keep apart, and comparatively few societies have had a strong concept of keeping them apart. I'd be interested to know why you think (if you do) that the teaching of 'political correctness' now is more ideological than, say, the teaching of patriotism in Edwardian classrooms. What makes you think that attempts at classroom indoctrination are more common now than in the past? I really can't see any evidence for that.

I've known some extremely articulate, well-informed and eloquent undergraduates, and I have many times had to go away and rethink my views because of arguments put to me by undergraduates. I'm sure this is true of many teachers. But, yes, the teacher is in a position of authority and power, and that position can be used for what you called 'browbeating'. There are ways of teaching that help one avoid doing this - the most simple is to talk about the danger directly, and always encourage students to question and challenge. The students academics grumble about, in my experience, are the passive students who merely want to be told what to write, not the active ones who argue. The latter are the ones who make it interesting.

DaveP

The £19m is very likely money that has already been announced - very likely by the prudent ex-chancellor Brown. This is a common trick that politicians play to pacify a hysteric group.

C. Gee

Thomas:

That whole legal edifice depends on whether the blockade is legal. UN resolutions against it do not make it illegal. Even Security Council resolutions do not have the force of law, unless they are issued under certain procedural rules. But given the UN's bias against Israel, even a SC order has dubious legitimacy, especially when the UN cites to its own "humanitarian law" - produced by its Human Rights Committee - and relies on its own investigative reports (long and costly as they may be.)

The San Remo Manual is the relevant law. Israel is not in breach of its proscriptions against harming the civilian population. Patching together complaints about lack of cilantro and jam and quoting sad statistics (comparable to other nations not under blockade), do not make a legal case.

As always when I see Nuremberg Trial laws cited, I note the irony that the long-term beneficiaries of those nonce laws are not the Jews - justice for whom was the laws' legitimating principle.

Truthtriumphs

Thomas.
Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to the treatment of Gilad Shalit, kidnapped by Hamas from Israeli territory more than 4 years ago, and whether the laws and conventions governing the treatment of pows have been adhered to by Hamas in this case, or any case?
Has not Hamas ignored the Geneva conventions , and denied the basic requirement of allowing visits by the Red Cross, against all the norms of civilised behaviour?
Perhaps you would like to quote chapter and verse of the Geneva Convention governing treatment of pows, just so that we are not misled into thinking that Hamas comprises a bunch of murderous thugs.

phil

Thomas
June 7th, 2010 10:10pm -and whose opinion may I ask is that thomas -forgetting of course that Israel had every right to intercept the flotilla and you should read the post I SENT LAST WEEK.

phil

here you are thomas in case you cannot find it ------
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.
---
is that a little clearer for you thomas ?

---

James Hodson

Re the BBC: Robin Aitken (a former and long-serving BBC journalist) explains in his book "Can We Trust The BBC?" that in the late 1980s News and Current Affairs were amalgamated.

This lead to the organization not merely reporting the facts in their bulletins but also putting a 'spin' on the stories.

Confusion all around and plenty of scope for bias.

A. J. Brimmell

New Labour really is an infantile disorder. I hold no particular flame for Israel but it must be allowed to protect itself from its enemies that are all to real. The Left's problem is that where there is a determined enemy it sees only a plucky freedom fighter and in our own country New Labour gave up the government's power to deport our own enemies.

New Labour has never taken the threat of jihadist Islam seriously so it comes as no surprise to see the contemptuous Millinband patronise Israel.

As for Andrew 'The Face of the BBC' Marr, does anyone take his political journalism seriously anymore?

Derek BLADES

I was intrigued by the photos that accompany this latest piece by Ms Phillips and the conclusions she draws from it.

The first picture (at the top) apparently shows a shop assistant arranging fruit in a display stand. Although there are lots of fruit on view there are no customers. The second shows people walking down a street at nightime. I am not sure what we are expected to conclude from this. The third one again shows a lot or produce on offer but a distinct shortage of customers. The threer pictures at the bottom show a similar story - stuff on offer but not many buyers

As I have remarked before, home videos and holiday snaps are one thing but hard statistics are quite another. Ms Phillips would do well to take a look at the CIA World Factbook to get the true story about Gaza and the West Bank. The CIA is not usually regarded as a hotbed of left wingers and its Factbook has a worldwide reputation for impartial statistics.

Paul

JOHN ROOSEVELT, yes you are quite right, my bad. It was Olmert's government in its dying days wasn't it? But the new Government did withdraw the Olmert offer and that ended that.

Harold

Israel released footage of the radio conversation between one of their officers and the TERROR convoy. It appeared to run in real time. The officer warned the TERROR convoy and received no reply. He repeated his warning, and received no reply.

Israel later released another version. This time the picture of the officer was for some reason just a still. This time there were replies from the TERROR convoy, oddly from a variety of voices whose messages were all anti-Semitic.

Edward in the USA

Derek Blades, another image I have yet to see is the starving, anemia afflicted palestinian children, the distended bellies as we have seen in Africa, the stunted children as we have seen in Romanian orphanages.

None of it.

Perhaps Zionists photoshoped them out as Reuters cropped out the knives from the pictures of the wounded Israeli captive on the "peace" ship.

Thomas

Truthtriumphs
June 8th, 2010 12:55am

If this is intended as an argument, it is a very odd one: that Israel should be allowed to flout international law because Hamas does. Or are you simply saying that they do it too, so don't tell us off. Hamas could use similar arguments given the hundreds of Palestinians abducted by Israel and left to rot in illegal detention (indeed, what happened to the two abducted in the days before Shalit was taken?)

Thomas

phil
June 8th, 2010 1:28am

We are both performing a service, are we not, posting other people's arguments.

You will note, however, that yours starts from the assumption that the blockade is legal, which is what has to be demonstrated. It is therefore not to the purpose.

mwiti

Israel is God,s people and God will always protect them. whether we fight them or fight for them

Gareth

"Thus in Miliband’s alternative moral universe, Israel is to be punished for defending itself against attack."

He'd fit right into the home office with an attitude like that.

Truthtriumphs

Thomas.
So, according to you, every Palestinian prisoner is in "illegal detention".
And of course, you have irrefutable evidence for that.
I think you will find that they are there for involvement with terrorism.
As to them "rotting in Israeli jails", I wouldn't describe having access to TV, computers, newspapers, family visits and being able to pursue a university degree as "rotting".
When did you last visit a prison in any Muslim state?

As to the mantra of Israel flouting international law, that is always the default position of those who have no clue about the law, international or otherwise, but deploy that "argument" because it gives their hate-filled agenda a degree of legitimacy, or so they think.

Thomas

C. Gee
June 8th, 2010 12:34am

I did reply, but it appears to have been lost.

It is an odd notion that you can choose what laws to recognize as such and what laws to obey.

I would suggest that it is morally obtuse to insist that the blockade of Gaza is not having its intended effect of "putting the Palestinians on a diet".

It is indeed the San Marino criteria that Israel fails to meet.

Thomas

Truthtriumphs
June 8th, 2010 1:26pm

It is odd that you fail to clarify your argument that Hamas breaks the law so we should not condemn Israel for breaking the law. Instead, you seek to refute an assertion that was not made, namely that every Palestinian in Israeli detention is detained illegally. I am sure there are Palestinians living in Israel who are in prison for the usual assortment of criminal offences. In the occupied territories, the occupier has very clearly defined powers and responsibilities, which Israel does not feel obliged to observe. There are a large number of detainees subject to what might laughingly be called the justice of Israel's military courts. There is a large number who simply disappear into jails acknowledged and unacknowledged. In any event, your point, such as it is, has no bearing on Israel's actions on the high seas.

Your argument about international law is similarly odd. Your opponent points out that Israel is in breach of international law, therefore, you assert, they know nothing about international law. For this to be other than an impotent harrumph of rage, you have to address the points of law that were raised.

phil

Thomas
June 8th, 2010 2:56pm -You have addressed both TT and myself ,you have pulled a quote on a subject you obviously are not educated in and is immensely biased ,not only that ,it is wrong .May I suggest in future you only write what you know about rather than plucking pieces from the ether ,maybe you can tell us about the world cup or real ale or in fact anything you may be an expert in ,but please spare us from the nonsense -That blockade is legal ,the outcome debatable .I do not require an answer it would be pointless .

C. Gee

Thomas:

The Dov Weisglass "diet" metaphor for the Gaza blockade is not the moral and political outrage you - and so many, many others - pretend it to be.

It is not "an odd notion that you can choose what laws to recognize as such and what laws to obey." You mistake the very basis and character of international law, where nations do just that.

Entry into bilateral or multilateral treaties is voluntary, except for the surrendering party in a war. Unilateral abrogation happens frequently - as national self-interest dictates. What the other nation or nations do about the "breach" establishes the enforceability of the law. If the breaching party is coerced at the point of a victorious gun to abide by the terms of the treaty, only at that point does it have no choice as to whether to obey the law - and for only as long as the gun is pointed.

A discussion (without advocacy, applying the same standards of compliance and tests for violation), of nations in "breach" of international law, especially humanitarian law, would be welcome for its theoretical interest.

Israel's enemies know beyond certainty that Israel is immoral and illegitimate. Quaintly, those in the West (particularly Brits who have in the past professed a respect for the "rule of law") also want to substantiate Israel's metaphorical criminality by pretending it has broken actual laws. The nonsense that is spouted about international law - including by international human rights courts - is part of the propaganda campaign which aims to place Israel as a pariah state.

There is International Law. There is also International Law of Ex Post Facto Bills of Attainder for Israel, a school of legal philosophy legitimizing special treatment for one nation. Evidently, you are a scholar therein.

Adam B.

Harold, the passengers on the "peace" (Islamist hate)convoy can also be seen chanting antisemitic slogans before embarkation. They are members of the jihadist IHH, who chartered three of the ships (including the one where there was violence).

phil

C. Gee
June 8th, 2010 6:39pm-- wonderful I so wish I could express myself as well as that-my compliments :)

John Richardson

Richard 11:55pm.

Simple question.
No tricks.

Do you think that any academic in the UK would ever dare look at the clear and consistent relationship between
race and I.Q. ?

Just asking.

Thomas

phil
June 8th, 2010 5:34pm

You notice that I replied, which is something. Yet you say nothing about the content of my reply. Let me remind you. I said that we can both claim to be doing a service by passing on the comments of others, but that the comment you quoted assumed what it was meant to prove, namely, that the blockade is legal. Your response is to do the same again, which suggests that you do not understand that to demonstrate the truth of a proposition it is not enough simply to assert it. If you have an argument in support of the assertion that the blockade is legal, please share it.

Thomas

C. Gee
June 8th, 2010 6:39pm

"The Dov Weisglass "diet" metaphor for the Gaza blockade is not the moral and political outrage you - and so many, many others - pretend it to be."

First of all, I think I simply pointed out that if the purpose of the blockade is as Dov Weisglass described then it is obtuse to pretend that it is not succeeding - the supply of food and other necessaries has been cut and the population is not starving only because of an international aid effort, for all the talk of high-class restaurants and olympic pools.

But what did he say? "It is like an appointment with the dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won't die." I am always puzzled how he knows there will not be deaths. But, setting that aside, what he is describing is the collective punishment of a population. You do not think this an outrage?

If I come to understand the rest of your comment, I may attempt an answer. After several readings, I am not there yet.

Truthtriumphs

Thomas.
The onus is on YOU to demonstrate that Israel is acting illegally, not the other way round.

If the Palestinians are starving, why do you and others of your viewpoint not ask why the Egyptians don't pour in aid across THEIR border with Gaza which is usually sealed?
And why don't you demand of Hamas where all the billions of dollars earmarked for aid from the EU, US, UN, aid agencies, and individual European countries have ended up?
Why is Hamas diverting these funds to spend on arms with which to terrorise Jewish chidren across the border in Israel in their "resistance" operations?
It's very simple.
Hamas stops sending thousands of rockets into Israel, then the sea blockade will end.

Oh and remember those lucrative greenhouses, paid for by Jewish donors, which were trashed by the Gazans in the wake of the Israeli pullout?
They could have provided for many of the "starving" Gazans.

Adam B.

Thomas, Gaza is run by a fascist antisemitic dictatorship called Hamas, an Islamist terror group which advocates the extermination of every Jew on earth, and the Islamification of the world. It rejects any notion of peace talks. It illegally fires indiscriminate weapons at Israeli civilians population centres. It says it is art war with Israel. Now you can dress this up however you like, but Israel has the right, both legally and morally, to close its borders to such an entity. Aid flows through to Gaza, thousands of palestinians receive free medical treatment in Israel (including the daughter of a Hamas commander a few weeks ago, although he couldn't bring himself to admit it publicly). Israel supplies power to Gaza, even though its governing body occasionally bombs the power station which supplies it. I know of no other country in the world which would supply power to an entitiy which is waging a genocidal war against it.

You don't like the fact that these ships were inspected? What mechanism would you propose to open the borders, but stop Grad missilies from coming in (as attempted by Iran on the Karine A)?

(Another) Paul

"You're right about the non sequitur, I suppose, though I don't see how this prohibition could in practice be restricted to university teachers. A society that did that to its places of education and learning would scarcely be likely to refrain from doing it elsewhere as well."

I don't know that this isn't another non sequitur. Are you seriously arguing that preventing teachers from politicising their courses is but the slippery slope to authoritarianism? You seem eager to frame this as a free speech issue when it is merely one of honest pedagogy. ...And the idea that taking personal politics out of classroom teaching would end academic publishing is ludicrous.

When a monolithic viewpoint prevails long enough in academia, it eventually gets absorbed by the wider society. This can be observed today in the West: for many decades, Leftist ideas have dominated in universities, to the point where far too many academics have become comfortable only with Left-wing perspectives, reacting with hostility to conservative ones. The debate that takes place is correspondingly ersatz, with disagreements amongst academics being disputes of the Left. The political centre of gravity of the wider society --- whose teachers, lawyers, social workers, politicians, clergy and bureaucrats are all products of the academy --- has over time moved Left, to the point where what is essentially a Left-wing viewpoint is no longer even recognised as being so, and where conservative ideas are now routinely dismissed as being fringe.

On the subject of ideology and education, it's a stretch (yet one made often in certain quarters) to class patriotism as an ideology --- the love of and desire to defend one's home patch of turf has its roots in nature rather than in any ideological system, although of course such sentiment can be wrought into a political ideology (at which point it would be better called nationalism). Thus placing patriotism on a par with, say, Marxism or even Libertarianism is rather misleading. However, on your broader point, I think that we may agree again: a school, college or university is of its very nature a kind of indoctrination centre --- only a naïf could argue that academia is an Elysium of free thought. The academy is (as it no doubt always was) more akin to a religious establishment, and has always had its orthodoxies and its heretics.

The problem arises when the orthodoxy becomes *too* comfortable; when, despite fine words about challenging ideas and questioning the status quo, discussions proceed along the same politicised course, with preferments and appointments falling in favour of the ideologically correct --- the resulting positive feedback loop in time altering the entire character of the academy. This is what has been taking place in Western universities, and I don't know how anyone (other than those who support it) can think it a small matter.

"There are ways of teaching that help one avoid doing this - the most simple is to talk about the danger directly, and always encourage students to question and challenge."

Unfortunately this approach is itself often used as a fig-leaf: the professor gives the students a noble-sounding admonitory speech about their need to question --- safe in the knowledge that most fear to cross swords with him. Any that dare to stray beyond the accepted limits and beard the lion in his den are --- the professor being a seasoned (and salaried) apologist for his worldview --- smilingly tied in knots, pour encourager les autres. Tell me, is your average student more interested in publicly holding their lecturer's assertions up to scrutiny or in avoiding embarrassment? (...Or just getting on with the lesson, or sleeping off last night's excess?) Do most students play the gadfly or are most generally passive? You know the answer as well as I do.

Teachers are no less vain and egocentric than the rest of the population, yet are always protesting the purity of their motives. It would be comical were it not so serious. For example, the more ideologically egalitarian of my colleagues have been amongst the most patronisingly paternalistic types I've ever met. And the attitude that end justifies means is endemic in the teaching world: many are so convinced of their own rightness that they can rationalise partiality every time.

Finally, to inject a little humour, I've personally yet to encounter anything quite so unsubtle (and unintelligent) as this egregious specimen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSwgerG34s0&feature=related

...yet the attitude of intellectuals is at heart often the same, albeit given expression in more seductive and entertaining form. And again, this frequently takes place within the framework of a class "debate". They'll deny it every time, and it is difficult to do anything much about it, but anyone with eyes and a desire for honesty can see it. Unfortunately the latter attribute is becoming a rare bird indeed in the circles in which I've moved, and will I daresay become rarer still as the progressive hegemon mops up the remaining pockets of resistance.

I've written three more posts than I'd intended. I shall (no doubt) leave the last word to you...

Richard

(Another) Paul,

That YouTube clip is certainly funny, mainly because the teacher seems quite sincerely convinced that she was being even-handed.

I suppose the question between us is whether the sort of conscientious teaching I describe is more or less typical than the lazy indoctrination and browbeating you describe. Both exist, I'm sure. The trouble is that a system designed defensively to prevent the latter would also intimidate and discourage the former. My own preference is for systems designed to encourage good practice rather than defend against bad, just as I want to adopt teaching methods aimed at the enthusiastic and intellectually-engaged students rather than the lazy and cynical ones.

To me it seems that more complicated shifts of consensus have taken place than the Leftward movement you describe. There is a feeling on both Left and Right that the other side has captured the terms of debate. All the complaints on this blog about the generalised 'Left' and its command of the media sound very similar to what Left-wing people feel about the dominance since the 1980s of neoliberal assumptions about economics, for example. I really get quite a culture-shock when I come on this blog and hear New Labour accused of being 'Left'. Most Old Labour sympathisers think we basically have three Centre-Right parties now.

In that respect, the 'centre of gravity' has moved Right, to the extent that no one in mainstream politics seems able to articulate any moral outrage about basic social services being cut because public funds were used to prop up bankers on unimaginably high salaries. In other ways, yes, the consensus has moved Leftwards - in matters of sexual morality and anti-discrimination policy, for example.

So I don't fully recognise the world you describe. But - if you meant it when you said that was your last word - I've enjoyed a good-humoured and interesting debate.

phil

doubting thomas has much to say here for one without original thought ,and he has got a lot of unwarranted attention-he quotes from who knows where, legal opinions that are patently wrong -doubts any others ,with no reason to doubt .I would say he is just argumentative for the sake of it -goodbye thomas

Marcus

If Israel cannot maintain the naval blockade it will have to militarily occupy Gaza,this time with soldiers instead of vegteble and flower growers like before.
Israel could fire upon enemy ships from populated areas , maybe the schools and hospitals in gaza ?....it seems to be a winning strategy!

Jarold Svejk

Take courage Thomas! It's a lot of work fighting single-handed against the israeli information ministry. :D
TruthTrimuphs? Yeah right...
Hasta la vittoria siempre!

Thomas

phil
June 9th, 2010 1:12am

I quoted an opinion that explained why the blockade should be considered illegal. You quoted an opinion which assumed the blockade is legal (i.e. it assumes what it purports to prove). You have so far only managed to repeat insistently that the blockade is legal. This is not sufficient to persuade anyone. You have to give reasons - something you seem unable to do.

Harold

Israel doctored the recording of its navy talking to the convoy. Israel showed a brief snippet of the assault, but not the moments before, when it is claimed they fired from above and below, and not after when their commandos started shooting people in the head. One of the "jihadis", it turns out, is a former US marine. He relates how he and others disarmed three commandos. He took the bullets from a pistol (to reduce the number of heads with holes in them) and the others threw rifles overboard. (Israel translated this into the suspicious discovery of ammo on board and suspicious reports of "jihadis" throwing their weapons overboard.) The three commandos were in fear of their lives, surrounded by over a hundred "jihadis", who inflicted on them - first aid. A few of those taken from the convoy were found to have no papers (suspicious enough). Why was this translated into the claim that they were al quaeda? The cargo, that was intended to threaten Israel's very existence and arm global jihad, has dwindled in its usefulness as propaganda. Now we hear simply that some of it is past its sell by date. And Israel has said it has dumped it all at the border with Gaza, where Hamas has refused it. (I believe Israel is aware how cumbersome and deliberately obstructive its procedures are for allowing goods into Gaza. Aid workers say they would be surprised if any gets through.) What happened on the high seas is unclear and in dispute. Israel has confiscated and destroyed any independent recordings of events. It has doctored its own evidence. The question here is not about hateful chants or paintballs, but why anyone should believe Israel's version of events.

phil

Harold
June 9th, 2010 3:19pm Shame on you .Why did you not tell the world that Israelis dressed as Guy Fawkes tried to burn down the houses of parliament? Surely you are aware that they are trained by members of the SS ,and are presently hiding an ageing hitler ,please do not leave out vital facts like that ,doctoring videos is one thing but lies by omission are much worse -shalom my son Israel wishes you well .

Thomas

C. Gee
June 8th, 2010 6:39pm

I confess that I cannot follow your line of argument.

You appear to want to revert to intrnational law as it was in the mid-nineteenth century. This is anachronistic.

You appear also to want to insist that Israel can recognize the force of international law (as it purports to do) and yet decide for itself which of its obligations under international law it will honour. This is an odd notion of law.

You also appear to want to say that anyone who disagrees with you is an enemy of Israel. This is paranoia.

Thomas

phil
June 9th, 2010 1:12am

It is really very very simple.

If you merely assert, "The moon is made of cheese", you give no-one any reason to believe you. You must produce arguments and evidence.

If you assert, "The blockade is legal", you give no-one any reason to believe you.

If you have any arguments or evidence, or anything other than a bare assertion of your belief, please tell us.

Otherwise your huffing and puffing is hot air.

C. Gee

Harold:

In the long history of false accusations against Israel and Jews, it is interesting that many of them are projections of what the accusers actually do or intend.

Doctoring photographs, faking video, staging scenes of violence, lying in interviews, are Palestinian standard operating procedures. One picture of a teddy bear on a pile of rubble is a lie worth a thousand dollars - which is why it is worth repeating, with the teddy bear replaced by a child's sandal, a Mickey Mouse doll, a toy...

The Paliwood industry has been thoroughly exposed, time and time again. Yet there are still people who believe each fresh fake outrage. And each fresh fake outrage revives dead ones.

The unsourced indictment against Israel is not worth rebutting further than I already have.

You clearly want to believe that Israel fakes evidence of hatred against it - and that that is justification for hating it.

No doubt you also believe: Israeli doctors created AIDS. Israelis send poison to make Palestinian girls infertile. Five hundred bodies are buried under the rubble at Jenin. Mohammed al Dura was shot in cold blood by the IDF. Israelis harvest Palestinian organs for sale.

Are you also a member of the Guardians against Zombies and Vampires?

Harold

C. Gee
June 9th, 2010 5:13pm

If we can detect a palpable hit by the absurdity of the response, I have scored a bull's-eye. Your response is longer than Phil's, but every bit as risible.

C. Gee

Thomas:

International Law of any century is clearly not your forte.

Suffice it to say, Israel will defend against the lawfare and warfare waged upon her, as she must.

How does the recognition of enemies of Israel (whether or not they agree with me) prove I am paranoid? And just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean Israel's enemies are not out to her.

phil

Thomas
June 9th, 2010 4:36pm

C. Gee
June 8th, 2010 6:39pm
-----------
Thomas says
"I confess that I cannot follow your line of argument."
---

Now that is the truth Thomas ,you cannot follow anything that is said to you ,you disparage everyone who takes the trouble to acknowledge you ,and yet all of us know you do not understand law ,particularly as by your own admission you plunder other,s works from the net,is that not how the 45 minute rule came about ? C.Gee is way ahead of you and no doubt is laughing at your comments .Why not cut to the chase and tell us as per your post, are you a friend or an enemy of Israel?,at least it will put all your stuff into context.
--
Oh just an afterthought I am sure you will find in spite of your legal opinions and those of your friends like blades ,Israel will continue to defend its citizens so long as the crazies continue to attack them ,just as you would defend your family ,or would you ? Don,t be shy Thomas make it all clear to us .I think we all deserve that as you are being allowed to post freely in spite of your quite objectionable comments .

phil

Harold
June 9th, 2010 8:25pm -of course you noted my comments were "risible" ,you are getting quicker ,but I fail to see where C Gees were anything but the truth.you are of course unable to answer ,not unexpected of naturally .You are of course free to write more or less what you like here harold but you will be put down every time ,you invent or tell lies .fair enough?

Adam B.

Harold, your post is a classic demonstration of how lies can become the new "truth" and how morality can become inverted through half baked reasoning.

There is real evidence of the racism of the flotilla. Look at the video of its passengers chanting "Khaybar, khaybar, oh Jew, the armies of Mohammed will return." This isn't from an Israeli source (can't trust those Jews, the jihadis are much more likely to be reasonable truth telling folk). And what about the role of the IHH? Is that to be swept under the carpet as well? The IHH is an Islamist front, supporting jihad in Chechnya, Bosnia, and yes, Afghanistan, where British soldiers are dying, fighting...jihadis. And of course you know that no-one on the flotilla told the Jewish sailors to "go back to Auschwitz"? I mean, it would be so out of character for a jihadi supporting "Khaybar" chanting person with the declared intent of becoming a shaheed to be an antisemitic racist scumbag, wouldn't it?

Thomas

phil
June 9th, 2010 10:21pm

It is really very very simple.

If you merely assert, "The moon is made of cheese", you give no-one any reason to believe you. You must produce arguments and evidence.

If you assert, "The blockade is legal", you give no-one any reason to believe you.

If you have any arguments or evidence, or anything other than a bare assertion of your belief, please tell us.

Otherwise your huffing and puffing is hot air.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas: I read your "interesting legal opinion" with - well, great interest, of course.

Do you also have an "interesting opinion" about Hamas and the role of islamic fundamentalism in the defining the Palestinian nationalist agenda; and the history of that agenda since the Arab rejection of the Partition Plan - and how that history has influenced the so-called "peace process" and will continue to do so?

Let's assume the Israelis are nothing but imperialist running dogs who want nothing more than to bath in the blood of Palestinians and, dare I say it, Turks? Let's assume they have no culture or humanitarianism worthy of the name - in stark contrast to the other esteemed "nations" and "freedom" fighters of the region. Would it matter at all, if this were the case, in the light of the influence of radical Islam on the political process and aspirations of Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, Syria etc?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas: You seem to be amongst so many, in the West, who claim if only Israel obeys International Law you will have no objexction to its foreign policy and all would be fine with the Palestinians and wider Arab and M moslem world.

..but, if you do believe that, on what grounds?

If not, who cares re all your "interesting opinions" for that will make no difference to what really counts in terms of Peace.

Richard

Here are three curious responses to messrs. Harold and Thomas.

We have the Dershowitz gambit. He pretends that there is no doubt that the blockade is legal. So there is no need to provide any arguments. (In this context, I know, the source of comments is not so important as their content, but I have to ask Phil, Are you really claiming authorship of the piece on the rules of naval blockade?)

Harold asked a question. If Israel has confiscated all other evidence, and doctored its own, why should it be believed? The answer, oddly enough, appears to be that there were bad men in the convoy. I confess that I am not sure quite how this answers the question, but we are to take it that it does.

And the answer on the question of law is another question, Why should Israel obey the law when others don't? If others commit murder, why should Israel not? Or, if others in resisting Israel, commit crimes, why should Israel not commit crimes. As one rabbi put it, if they kill one (in response to Israel's killings), Israel should kill ten, if ten is not enough to stop them, then a hundred, and if a hundred is not enough, then etc. I am not sure why anyone would find this a reasonable answer.

phil

Richard june 10 11.05
Richard -I have no intention of answering any questions you pose ,as you were unable or unwilling to answer mine on the peace convoy thread -Jonathan spent considerable time in a most gentlemanly way answering you ,and totally wasted his time -I will with the permission of the moderator reprint my last post to you and we will let the others posters evaluate your use here .
--
At least to me ,it is obvious you are here to denigrate Israel and their supporters in a more eloquent but snide way than our" friends "Harold and blades"-you may fool some but there are enough intelligent people here to see what is your purpose .Personally I have no hope whatsoever of changing the minds of those like you ,but I will ensure for those that are confused by you ,that the real truth is told ,and that the feelings of compassion and a desire for peace with justice for both sides is expressed here .
------
MY post on the peace convoy thread.

"
Phil
June 5th, 2010 3:46pm
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 ,don't 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 Moore's 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

logdon

North Korea torpedo's a South Korean ship in neutral waters, resulting in sinking and loss of life.

World outcry? A big collective Yawn.

Israel defends a legal blockade using the ludicrously minimal force of paintguns. Known militant activists attempt to kill the borders and kidnap IDF personnel. IDF responds in self defence, killing nine.

World outcry? Outrage and condemnation.

Compare the two and ask why the disparate reaction.

The west is either running scared of Islam or cosying up.

We have been infiltrated to such a degree by a fifth column of Muslims who refuse to integrate, insist that our western norms are upended in order to satisfy their 'religious requirements' and amongst that recalcitrent bunch there are those who wish to take the non cooperation to its ultimate stage.

That stage is killing the kuffar within the dar el harb.

In order to prevent that, rather than cracking down on subversives we concoct a theory that Israel is somehow to blame and must be declawed.

That once declawed, that state is ripe for extinction is wiped from the brain cells of these people. We get away with the posture and outrageous canard because we can. Jews will not bomb our towns and cities. Conversely Muslims, as evidenced time after time will.

We are being blackmailed and browbeaten by people who are using our own liberality and political correctness to back us into the ridiculous corner of rather than applauding our real allies, we reach for phoney condemnation.

For all the fine words of politicians from Obama, the UN right down to Hague its all spluttering and inane platitude.

It's classic deflection and projection.

By allowing massive immigration we have created the ultimate rod for our own backs. Whenever there's trouble we, rather than attacking the cause, throw money at it. Its the same here in Britain as it is in Gaza.

One way of putting that is 'buying them off'. There's never gratitude, just like the jizya its their right.
What happens when money is not enough and they demand a state?

Is Israel a mere bargaining chip? Thats how it looks to me.

logdon

Doh! boarders.

Thomas

phil
June 10th, 2010 12:00pm

You are proving tellingly coy about answering simple questions. The bluster is a bluff. I will add Richard's simple question to mine.

"Are you really claiming authorship of the piece on the rules of naval blockade?"

Can you really provide no reason to believe the blockade legal? Really? Then why so sure?

Thomas

phil
June 10th, 2010 12:00pm

Another simple question:

"the real truth is told ,and that the feelings of compassion and a desire for peace with justice for both sides is expressed here ."

Is that irony or stark insensibility?

Adam B.

Well Thomas, you certainly don't show any "sensibility" for the Israeli dilemma - open the borders and see the Grad missiles from Iran flow in.

Adam B.

Thomas, perhaps you could answer John Roosevelt instead of demanding answers from Phil?

Richard

I'd like to make it clear that there are two Richards on this thread. I'm the one who was arguing about university teaching, not the one questioning the legality of the Gaza blockade.

phil

Thomas
June 10th, 2010 3:43pm A more telling post could not have been dreamed up to show what an appalling mentality you display here .Apropos your other silly question,mimicking our smart Alec Richard -do you have any complaints with the legal opinion ? I do mean ones that could prove them wrong -the provenance of course has nothing to do with the correctness ,that cannot be beyond you can it?
--
As Adam B suggests ,you might try answering John R if you find me too difficult -I do not mind ,John is always most incisive ,but scares off those with nothing sensible to say .So I don't think he will be expecting a reply any time soon .

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Richard wrote:
June 10th, 2010 11:05am
"Here are three curious responses to messrs. Harold and Thomas.

We have the Dershowitz gambit. He pretends that there is no doubt that the blockade is legal. So there is no need to provide any arguments. (In this context, I know, the source of comments is not so important as their content, but I have to ask Phil, Are you really claiming authorship of the piece on the rules of naval blockade?)

Harold asked a question. If Israel has confiscated all other evidence, and doctored its own, why should it be believed? The answer, oddly enough, appears to be that there were bad men in the convoy. I confess that I am not sure quite how this answers the question, but we are to take it that it does.

And the answer on the question of law is another question, Why should Israel obey the law when others don't? If others commit murder, why should Israel not? Or, if others in resisting Israel, commit crimes, why should Israel not commit crimes. As one rabbi put it, if they kill one (in response to Israel's killings), Israel should kill ten, if ten is not enough to stop them, then a hundred, and if a hundred is not enough, then etc. I am not sure why anyone would find this a reasonable answer."

Curious indeed, Thomas..but..what's your point?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas wrote: "Can you really provide no reason to believe the blockade legal? Really? Then why so sure?"

Thomas, clearly there will be some serious disputation about the legality of the blockade, but surely you think it necessary to block any arms flow to Hamas - to be used against Israel..or do you condone that because you believe in Hamas's armed conflict against Israel?

Do you agree that Hezbollah's illegal rearming, after the last war with Israel is justified?

Or perhaps you feel that International ought to be applied and enforced equitably and consistently and as long as that is the case the conflict will be resolved?

Surely all this is most relevant with regard to how Peace can be attained in the region as opposed to the glories of successful disputation for its own sake?

Thomas

As Mr. Roosevelt may recall, I answered repeated questions from him (none of them particularly clearly or courteously expressed). I stopped once he made plain that he expects the Palestinians to acknowledge that their ethnic cleansing by Israel was legitimate, that Palestinians within Israel must accept permanent second-class status, and that only the Palestinians are to take steps to reduce mistrust - Israel can carry on as it wishes.

He has introduced one fresh question, about Hamas and Hizbollah acquiring weapons illegally. Now here is an interesting question. Israel makes illegal use of the weapons its buys from the world's arms traders. In most jurisdictions, this makes the sale of arms to Israel illegal - for example, the sale of arms by the US is illegal under US law. For as long as this is so, the question from Mr. Roosevelt will remain pure humbug. Indeed, if international law were being observed, the question would not arise.

Thomas

phil
June 10th, 2010 5:40pm

This "Phil" is contorting to the point of incoherence to avoid answering very very simple questions. Is it comic, or sad?

"do you have any complaints with the legal opinion?" - Yes, you silly man. Read again the legal opinion I quoted at the very outset, which gives a series of detailed reasons to object to the assertion that the blockade is legal. Have you not managed to read the last umpteen comments? The simple question is (again), Can you provide a reason to believe the blockade legal? If not, just say so, There is no shame in it.

"the provenance of course has nothing to do with the correctness " - It is a wonder to find you finally understanding and agreeing with something I said. I am still curious why you thought it a good idea to pretend to be the author of the comment you quoted (but it is an idle interest in the psychology of plagiarism).

"you might try answering John R if you find me too difficult" - You see, you can do funny, even if unintentionally.

Dunroamin

The average politician will take leave of his senses at the drop of a hat. That's if they ever had any to begin with, which neither Milibrother has. And let's not forget the old adage, the igger the lie, the more people believe it.

Harold

Is it not odd that such howls of outrage and shrieks of righteousness - TERROR! JIHAD! POGROM! - should have dwindled in the face of corrections and independent testimony to a mere whimper and the muttering of old familiar nostrums.

The MFA issues its press-release. The megaphone here takes up the cry. The acolytes respond. The megaphone moves on - the MFA has issued another press release - is it swimming pools, or markets groaning with food, or humourous spoofs of people getting a bullet in the head... Once broadcast, ever assumed to be true. Keep quiet about the corrections and independent testimony.

Adam B.

Harold, Arab sources show clearly that those on the flotilla were racist scumbags. No-one has disputed the involvement of the IHH, a jihadi terror supporting organization, which has inspired jihadis to kill in Chechnya, Bosnia and Afghanistan. These are facts.

Thomas, what a load of boorish and ill informed nonsense about Israel. If you want to see real apartheid, go to Gaza, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, in fact, iny of the despotic police states which surround Israel. And what about the ethnic cleansing of the Jews of Arab lands, refugees who outnumber Arab refugees? Forgot about them, did you?

Your comments make it clear that your gripe isn't about this policy or that incident, you just hate Israel and wish to delegitimize it. Do you want to see it and her inhabitants eliminated (or would you spare her inhabitants)?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas wrote: "As Mr. Roosevelt may recall, I answered repeated questions from him (none of them particularly clearly or courteously expressed). I stopped once he made plain that he expects the Palestinians to acknowledge that their ethnic cleansing by Israel was legitimate, that Palestinians within Israel must accept permanent second-class status, and that only the Palestinians are to take steps to reduce mistrust - Israel can carry on as it wishes.

He has introduced one fresh question, about Hamas and Hizbollah acquiring weapons illegally. Now here is an interesting question. Israel makes illegal use of the weapons its buys from the world's arms traders. In most jurisdictions, this makes the sale of arms to Israel illegal - for example, the sale of arms by the US is illegal under US law. For as long as this is so, the question from Mr. Roosevelt will remain pure humbug. Indeed, if international law were being observed, the question would not arise."

Thomas, mendaciousness will never help you achieve peace, as those you seem so rabidly to support know all too well.

Your position is - I am glad to say - now crystal clear - a tragic confirmation of why your obsessive conviction that International law and its transgressions are relevant uniquely to israel is spurious, and but another nail in the coffin of any hoped for solution.

You represent all that comprises the lie that the international law you claim to celebrate can ever be a basis for a full and final settlement in the Middle East.

The West must wake up to the fact that you are truly representative of the genuine opinion re peace of the preponderance of Arab and islamic opinion in the Middle East and this has been a consistent opinion even when the UN proposed a state for Palestine. That opinion uses international law as its plaything in its propaganda campaign, but it has no respect for it whatsoever. Your references to UN Resolutions - 242 or otherwise - nothing more than a part of sorry, tired old tactics in a strategy that would have the UN go the way of Israel and all non believers.

You can fool some of the people..

It's good that you have been outed as one who is happy, in the name of humanitarian rights for a 'nation" are prepared to condemn that nation to squalor and death - indefinitely.

Thomas

" mendaciousness will never help you achieve peace, as those you seem so rabidly to support know all too well."

"a tragic confirmation of why your obsessive conviction that International law and its transgressions are relevant uniquely to israel is spurious, and but another nail in the coffin of any hoped for solution."

"You represent all that comprises the lie that the international law you claim to celebrate can ever be a basis for a full and final settlement in the Middle East."

"The West must wake up to the fact that you are truly representative of the genuine opinion re peace of the preponderance of Arab and islamic opinion in the Middle East and this has been a consistent opinion even when the UN proposed a state for Palestine."

And so it goes on. Sounding phrases. But what on earth do any of them mean? Where among the verbiage is there an argument, a refutation, a reason, a shred of evidence, of rational discourse?

I know you disagree with me. Could you say what you disagree with, and why; and what you would agree with instead, and why.

phil

Thomas
June 10th, 2010 8:25pm You will have to forgive me if I laugh at your comments or are they better described as rage ?May I ask you where you saw my claim to having written the legal opinion ,certainly I cannot find it ,and calling me silly does nothing for your argument.You are giving much cause for amusement here, tempered of course by the seriousness of the problems many here are trying to discuss.Over the years we have had a few like you who come here to expel their hatred ,so you do not shock us ,but still they do cause sadness that those with opinions like yours still are trying to infect others

.No doubt you will have noticed that those who post like you harold and blades are dealt with in a way that emphasises the lack of respect we have for you ,whilst those that express themselves honestly and politely,even though they may be critical ,are answered respectfully ,something that cannot be afforded to you .

Thomas

phil
June 11th, 2010 1:10am

And still you can't answer a simple question.

phil

Thomas
June 11th, 2010 9:33am -At least you are continuing the amusement ,you require an answer -which question has not been answered for you ? The question about the blockade certainly has ,but where in fact did you pull your legal opinion from?-hopefully not one of those hate rags. This conversation is as useless now as it was from the start,you are not here to debate ,just to accuse ,and from the replies you receive it is obvious you are wasting our time .Truth is paramount here Thomas ,we are not here to practice typing .

Thomas

phil
June 11th, 2010 10:35am
Thomas
June 11th, 2010 9:33am "-At least you are continuing the amusement ,you require an answer -which question has not been answered for you ? The question about the blockade certainly has"

- Where? Who by? Not by you.

phil

Thomas
June 11th, 2010 10:56am -just look thomas -and answer questions when asked -There are so many answers to your blockade question that I am beginning to wonder if in fact you have a problem reading .Accusing 10/10-Avoiding 11/10-Understanding 0/10

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas wrote: "And so it goes on. Sounding phrases. But what on earth do any of them mean? Where among the verbiage is there an argument, a refutation, a reason, a shred of evidence, of rational discourse?"

Thomas, let me try and put my "sounding phrases" simply for you, in the hope that you may take the point:

I believe that you, like the overriding Arab and moslem leadership in the Middle East, does not want Israel to exist - under any circumstances.

You may not be a radical islamist but your view certainly coincides, in this instance, with its murderous position vis a vis Israel.

To predicate this position on the implied belief that International Law is sacrosanct for you is, therefore, redundant at best and, at worst, mendacious.

You vilify Israel for all sorts of things: transgression of International Law; racism; lack of democracy..as if you sincerely believe that those whose cause you support do not fall short with respect to these things - in equal measure, if not more so....as if the religious nationalism of a Hamas is somehow more tolerant, progressive or inclusivist than the culture of Israel. One is talking about general mores, ideology, here, not exceptions to a rule. The distinction you imply , therefore, is at best certainly unhelpful with regard to any discussion re how to resolve this conflict; at worst ..mendacious.

If you feel that Israel has no right to exist, and the UN - the claimed transgressions of whose resolutions you feel Israel should be condemned for - just made a silly mistake in resolving to partition Palestine and give the Palestinians a state as well as Israel; and, after the Arabs tried to wipe Israel off the map in '67, resolved to reach a full and final settlement of the conflict based on a formalisation of the '49 armistice lines etc - all well and good. However, like with the continually reaffirmed formal commitment of Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas to the destruction of Israel, you are merely inviting the very thing you seem to vilify Israel for - the maintenance of non realisation of the Palestinian nationalist aspirations and their continued "degradation".

Relative to the tragedy you encourage by your views, the issue of the legality of the blockade or whether or not the IDF was at fault in killing those trying to break the blockade - not only in support of so-called "humanitarian values' but also in support of Hamas - sworn to eliminate Israel and with whom Israel is at war - is, therefore, mendacious and cynical.

It is menadacious to claim that you are interested in Peace (though, to be sure, perhaps you have never actually claimed to be, come tot think of it, but my point is still worth making) with a state whist continuing to wage war in order to destroy it. Given that Israel will not willingly commit national suicide, your are thereby condemning the region to ongoing conflict and condemning the Palestinians to a fate which presently, even under the blockade of Gaza, may well seem relatively luxurious.

This is the insanity of the liberal/left the Islamist cause has managed to coopt and the lunacy of the position you clearly embrace.

Your are, of course - unlike women, gays, politcal dissenters or religious dissenters in Gaza, Teheran, or in the ranks of Hezbollah - perfectly entitled to your views here. However, I find them repugnant - not because I support Israel come what may (or any other state behavior for that matter), but because they directly enable the perpetuation of killing in the name of humanitarian principle. This is the most disgusting form of mendaciousness because it makes a mockery of the principle you would love us to believe you uphold, but which I, for one, genuinely hold very dear.

Dont hesitate to ask me or any other of the very literate posters on this thread for further clarification, if needs be.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas wrote: "Truthtriumphs
June 8th, 2010 12:55am

If this is intended as an argument, it is a very odd one: that Israel should be allowed to flout international law because Hamas does. Or are you simply saying that they do it too, so don't tell us off. Hamas could use similar arguments given the hundreds of Palestinians abducted by Israel and left to rot in illegal detention (indeed, what happened to the two abducted in the days before Shalit was taken?)"

Thomas, you seem to be answering a simple question by asserting that the question is, in fact, an 'argument".

Let me put the question to you again and confirm that I am not intending anything but the putting to you of a question to which a straight answer would suffice:

"Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to the treatment of Gilad Shalit, kidnapped by Hamas from Israeli territory more than 4 years ago, and whether the laws and conventions governing the treatment of pows have been adhered to by Hamas in this case, or any case?
Has not Hamas ignored the Geneva conventions , and denied the basic requirement of allowing visits by the Red Cross, against all the norms of civilised behaviour?
Perhaps you would like to quote chapter and verse of the Geneva Convention governing treatment of pows, just so that we are not misled into thinking that Hamas comprises a bunch of murderous thugs."

Thomas

phil
June 11th, 2010 11:49am

Just to be clear, you have given no answer whatsoever (which is unsurprising).

Others have said that the blockade is legal because Israel is at war. This is to beg precisely the same question about international law, and so advances the discussion not at all.

Here is your big chance to make a substantive contribution to one of the debates you buzz around so ineffectually:

What reason have you to believe that the blockade is legal?

Adam B.

Thomas, what reason do YOU have to believe it is illegal? (It isn't a blockade anyway). Under what law is Israel obliged to treat palestinians in hospital, provide power and electricity?

phil

Thomas
June 11th, 2010 3:19pm Why do I bother answering you ,because I enjoy seeing you make a fool of yourself ,not only with ever increasing displays of rage and insults but also by ignoring all requests for answers .JR has your number and like a fish is reeling you in ,you obviously will not or cannot answer me ,so I will leave you with JR who is degrading you post by post .Soon enough you will disappear in a puff of smoke ,shouting but! but ! but!-No buts Thomas your words are worthless .Read the legal opinion that I sent in -it will give you all the answers ,but you know that of course Thomas .

Thomas

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 11th, 2010 3:08pm

I will answer this one first, since it is the more straightforward.

The question was posed, not out of the blue, but as a response to the legal argument I quoted. I therefore attempted to take it seriously by trying to see in what way it could be considered an appropriate response.

The legal argument I quoted concluded that Israel's behaviour is illegal. The response was, What do you have to say about the illegal behaviour of Hamas?

Please note, what you seem to have missed, that the question from "Truthtriumphs" and my reply both proceed on the assumption that there is no dispute that the behaviour of Hamas is indeed illegal (clearly and unambiguously in respect of its indiscriminate firing of rockets).

To ask for this assumption to be made explicit for your benefit is fair enough, no doubt, but does not get us any further.

Thomas

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 11th, 2010 12:13pm

"I believe that you, like the overriding Arab and moslem leadership in the Middle East, does not want Israel to exist - under any circumstances."

As far as I can tell, your other assertions depend on this: if it is false, then they fail too.

It is false.

You have been given no reason to believe it or assert it from anything I have said.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas: "JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 11th, 2010 12:13pm

"I believe that you, like the overriding Arab and moslem leadership in the Middle East, does not want Israel to exist - under any circumstances."

As far as I can tell, your other assertions depend on this: if it is false, then they fail too.
It is false.
You have been given no reason to believe it or assert it from anything I have said"

Thomas, if this "assertion" is false, can you clarify if the opposite is true and on what basis you "assume" it to be so?

Thomas

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 12th, 2010 8:34am

Are you asking me on what basis I assume my belief to be my belief?

" if this "assertion" is false, can you clarify if the opposite is true". Let us assume that bivalence holds: if a proposition is not false, then it is true.

Thomas

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 12th, 2010 8:34am

My answer has been lost. It was this:

Are you asking me on what basis I "assume" that my belief is my belief?

" if this "assertion" is false, can you clarify if the opposite is true" - I took it that bivalence holds for the purposes of this exchange, that, if a statement is false, its negation is true.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas wrote: “Please note, what you seem to have missed, that the question from "Truthtriumphs" and my reply both proceed on the assumption that there is no dispute that the behaviour of Hamas is indeed illegal (clearly and unambiguously in respect of its indiscriminate firing of rockets).

To ask for this assumption to be made explicit for your benefit is fair enough, no doubt, but does not get us any further.”

Thomas, I never asked for any “assumption to be made explicit” – for my benefit or anyone else’s. I simply asked for a straight answer to my question…

Nevertheless, contrary to your lament that asking for this “assumption to (be) made explicit…does not get us any further”, I think it does.

A picture is beginning to emerge of the real nature of your position, as expressed in your posts, vis a vis Israel and the conflict in the Middle East, as we slowly manage to unbundle your thinking.

We know that Israel claims to have instituted a blockade against Gaza because Hamas is formally committed to destroying it, and has continually – over many years – pursued that aim with violence against Israel. We know that Israel claims that its action of stopping the flotilla from “breaking” that blockade is linked inextricably to this fact.

We also know that, at the very least, the “legality” of Israel’s action against the flotilla and, indeed, the blockade itself, is hotly disputed in the international legal fraternity. The best international lawyers in the world (many of them Israelis, of course) will no doubt be arguing this one for some time, yet.

As well as knowing, as mentioned, that Hamas is explicitly and formally committed to the destruction of Israel, we also know that, In contrast to the blockade and flotilla issues, even according to you there is no dispute about the explicit illegality of Hamas’s firing thousands of rockets into Israel, almost always knowingly endangering the lives of innocent civilians. Indeed, some prominent International lawyers, as you know, also maintain that this constitutes a “crime against humanity” and “war crime”.

We know that Israel’s “illegal” use of weapons is also hotly disputed. We also know, in contrast, that the sale of arms to Israel is not viewed - in any significant legal circles – as “illegal”.

We know that the supplying of arms to Hezbollah is explicitly in contravention of UN Security Council resolutions and, therefore, “explicitly illegal”.

In contrast, we know that the determination of the legality of the supplying of arms to Hezbollah is in no way predicated on the determination of whether or not Israel has used its weapons “illegally".

For those with a keen interest purely in the legalities of the Middle East conflict, we therefore clearly know that there is plenty to argue about, and that this "horn of Plenty", if you like, of disputation will no doubt feed many lawyers for years to come.

At this point, Thomas, I think it would be fare to ask if you are one who merely has a keen (if not perhaps somewhat fetishistic) interest in the technical aspects of Law, or you are, rather, or in addition, interested in the moral underpinnings of that Law and the moral issues of the Middle East conflict, in general, whether or not they fall within the purview of the Law – as it currently codified; or if, indeed, you think that Law might be in need of modification or embellishment, because it currently does not address some important issues at all or, if it does, not in a sufficiently morally correct way.

We know that you “assume” that Israel has been, and continues to be, hell bent on, if not guilty of, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians - despite the fact it does not seem that the international legal fraternity has formally accused Israel of this act. However, is it not reasonable to “assume”, also, that it is far from clear precisely what “ethnic cleansing” you are referring to? We can guess reasonably, I think, that you are not referring to the situation present today in the West Bank or Gaza – since, if anything, it is a historical fact that both territories have been “ethnically cleansed” not only of Israelis but – would you believe it (?) - also of Jews. Of course, you may not call this “ethnic cleansing”, but then you would surely need to define what actually constitutes “ethnic cleansing” - in the sense you are employing the term when condemn Israel for it – if your implied distinction is to be valid and/or useful i.e. you would need to indicate how Israel’s purported “cleansing” of Palestinians is any different and/or morally more to be condemned than that of the Arabs’ ‘cleansing” of Jews in Palestine – not to mention in the wider Arab and Moslem world.

Concerning Israel's "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians, I guess you might be referring to the “settlements”. Or, perhaps you agree with some Jewish revisionist historians, who would maintain that the Jews systematically expelled Palestinians from areas of Palestine during the onslaught of Arab armies against the Jews of Palestine after the Arab states rejected Resolution 181 in 1947 - though, again, the international fraternity does not seem to share this view or, at least, Israel has not and is not being held to account by international legal institutions for this purported “illicit” act.

So, here we have, finally, a clear hint of what might well be a salient part of your thinking that has nothing to do simply with the legal rights and wrongs of the conflict between Israel and its enemies. Can we safely “assume”, then, that you think Israel was morally wrong for its actions vis a vis the Palestinian arabs during its war for survival - since May 1948 and, likewise, the Jews since the Arab Legion attempted to annihilate them after Resolution 181 was adopted by the UN in November 1947 - despite no legal action have been taken against Israel or the Jews for such acts? If so, does your view of the immorality of Israel or the Jews mean that you think their very act of accepting UN recognized statehood (whilst the Arabs rejected statehood for Palestine at the same time) – and the Israelis fight to preserve that statehood - was morally (though clearly not ”legally”) wrong, also? If not, what do you feel WAS right morally in terms of what Israel and the Jews did in 1947/48 and how do you square your thinking with the International legal view of the same?

We know that you think Israel believes “that Palestinians within Israel must accept permanent second-class status and that only the Palestinians are to take steps to reduce mistrust - Israel can carry on as it wishes”. Is it not safe to infer from this assertion that Israel carrying “on as it wishes” means to you that Israel will carry on “ethnically cleansing” Palestinians and, at the same time, reinforcing its treatment of them within Israel as “second class citizens”?

We know that you think “Israel makes illegal use of the weapons it buys from the world's arms traders. In most jurisdictions, this makes the sale of arms to Israel illegal - for example, the sale of arms by the US is illegal under US law. For as long as this is so, the question from Mr. Roosevelt will remain pure humbug.” You go on to assert: “ Indeed, if international law were being observed, the question would not arise.” Are we to “assume” from this, that you believe that if Israel was not using weapons “illegally”, and therefore its suppliers of weapons were not thereby also breaking the law by this act, you would indeed consider the rearming of Hezbollah to be “explicitly illegal”? Or, are you saying, that it would, in this case, be “illegal” but it simply would not arise because Hezbollah would have no cause to arm themselves? If Hezbollah did, then arm themselves "illegally" and attack israel, would you could consider an Israel military response "legal" and therefore right?

Clearly, waters are beginning to look extremely murky here. We are not sure what, for you, constitutes Israel’s “illegal” use of weapons. Is it simply the accusation made against Israel for its use of weapons during Operation Cast Lead, or are you conflating that accusation with others which you have not made explicit? If the former, then it is safe to assume, is it not, that you would say Hezbollah would have had neither legal nor moral right – for rearming before Cast Lead…or they had every legal right, but no moral right, because before Cast Lead there was no UN Security Council Resolution pertaining to its rearmament; or, in fact, before Cast Lead, they would have enjoyed a happy coincidence of both moral and legal right, because Israel has always been sufficiently morally wrong – even though you have not made clear what “sufficient” would mean in this case; and, as long as you feel that this is the case, Hezbollah should have every right to arm themselves and use those arms when they see fit – against Israel. If the latter, then Hezbollah would have enjoyed both rights for an undefined period before Cast Lead, and on a basis which also remains undefined…but, then, you would have to define what rights others may enjoy if they deem themselves to be morally right but the Law, as in the case of Hezbollah’s moral world view, has no provisions for pronouncing on such. In short, under what circumstances, if any, would my allusion to the legality of Hezbollah’s rearmament, not to mention its general credo vis a vis Israel, not be considered by you as “humbug”?

..and so to the issue of “second class citizenship”: this is not an international legal issue at all, it seems, so we are compelled to believe that for you it is a uniquely moral one. For you, Israel treats its Arab citizens in an inferior way to its other citizens (by the way, is it safe to “assume” you mean Jewish citizens, since you have accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing” - or does this term “ethnic”, in your book, have nothing to do with religion but race and the two – for you – are absolutely distinct?). This, for you, it seems, is cause for moral outrage. Is it fare, then, to expect you to be equally outraged if the Governments of Gaza or the West Bank treat its Israeli or Jewish citizens in the same way or worse – or, for that matter, the Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Saudi, Yemeni, Emirati Governments (to name a few of those who are not real friends of Israel)..that is, if the Jews and Israelis in those countries have not already been “ethnically cleansed” or, simply, those countries actually have too few or no Israelis or Jews in their midst because they are not permitted to be so, let alone have citizenship - and, so, are no longer open to such outrage?

You see, Thomas, how we are indeed beginning “to get ourselves a little further” – how, by unbundling your thinking, bit by bit, we can at least start to understand how the Law is so often held up as the definitive and, thereby, relatively simple way, of judging right from wrong – in contrast to what people actually may believe to be right and wrong i.e. the extent to which the Law, alone, is not necessarily the only tool in the tool box of even those who appear slavishly to adhere to it – arguing with seemingly boundless persistence and energy re its finer, subtler points – actually used to distinguish between right and wrong – prepared, in fact, even to die for the latter, whilst normally justifying that action solely in terms of the former.

Your posts, Thomas, comprise one very graphic example of this truth…and this truth embraces those unwitting, though often well intentioned, people who only want good of Mankind, as well as those who are happy to employ obscurantism and mendaciousness in order to push a less lofty agenda - one that too often leads only to conflict, war and killing and maiming and destitution of the innocent as well as guilty

……and I take issue with you because I am most interested in the achievement of a peace between Israelis and Arabs that can stand a chance of genuinely holding, as opposed to winning merely the legal argument…and this, I hasten to add, is not to say that I disparage the Law in any way; nor that I think I would necessarily loose any legal argument.

..and here is precisely the point at which another, crucial question is begged, concerning the real motives underlying your posts: are you merely a slavish upholder of the Law if it serves your wider ideological purpose? Is the Law, for you, as it is with so many “freedom fighters” and their supporters, just to be used as a tactical weapon, so to speak, in your “fight” for the realisation of your strategic goals, and you actually care less if those goals are “illegal” i.e. in terms of International Law, or not?

Thomas, even in the light of what we have unbundled of your thinking so far, it is plain that you do not believe that the Law you would have us believe you celebrate - as it stands now - is sufficient to support fully your quest for any "justice".

You say that it is false that you, “like the overriding Arab and moslem leadership in the Middle East, does not want Israel to exist - under any circumstances." You also say I have given “no reason to believe it or assert it from anything (you) have said”. Well, Thomas, let me put it this way: in the circumstances I have now laid bare for you, if you have any genuine interest in the resolution of this conflict, to be taken seriously you do need to clarify the full extent of your grievances pertaining to Israel you want redressed; how that redress should happen given that the Law is not the definitive tool successively to bring this redress about you want us to believe you celebrate. You also need to clarify how that can translate into a situation that will not cause Israelis either to feel that is is not being treated equitably or that it its existence is and will continue to be threatened or its citizens continually the object of Arab and moslem violence.

…

Ian Hills

Recalling how unpopular the poll tax was, perhaps the extreme BBC bias (amounting to incitement to violence) against Israel will engender a strike against the BBC's very own poll tax, the license fee. Such an action might not be illegal - contract law states that if you don't get what you pay for (eg, impartiality), then you don't have to pay. The BBC swung to the left when Britain joined the EU - the corporation is a major beneficiary of the Commission's "Audio-visual" (ie propaganda) funding programme, which obviously accounted for the BBC's hate campaign against the eurosceptic Mrs Thatcher. Like all left wing outfits, the BBC champions terrorist groups like IRA/Sinn Fein and Hamas. It even helped set up al-Jazeera, using license-payers' money. And, like terrorist groups, there is massive corruption at the top, with senior executives' private film companies getting preference in the secretive BBC programme procurement process. Lastly, is it right that thousands of old folk, who cannot afford to pay their fuel bills, die each winter? Without the BBC poll tax to pay, many of them would live. It should GO.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas: "My answer has been lost. It was this:

Are you asking me on what basis I "assume" that my belief is my belief?

" if this "assertion" is false, can you clarify if the opposite is true" - I took it that bivalence holds for the purposes of this exchange, that, if a statement is false, its negation is true."

Thomas, you seem to have a penchant for play hopscotch 'round the mine field.

Since you seem to be in danger snuffing out your ability to come clean, let me rephrase my question to which your response is above:

You claim that my view that you, like,most of the Arab and Moslem governing class, not to mention those governed, believes Israel has no right to exist and is committed to Israel's destruction. If so, what is you think is your and their belief in this regard? Doyou think Israel does have a right to exist but only according on the basis of International Law..or some other basis?

Come on, Thomas, spit it out, man, everyone is just gagging to negotiate a Peace settlement! We need your help!!!

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Alas, methinks dear old Thomas is convinced "Hamas" is a construct of semiotics...

A word of advice, Thomas: meet a good jewish girl.

Adam B.

Ian Hills, the problem is, that the BBC rules on itself, and declares itself "impartial". So what can we do to get rid of this tax on watching TV? I resent paying for such anti-Israel hateful and inaccurate garbage from the BBC.

Thomas

John Roosevelt,

I have read your long, your very long comment.

You told me that I do not want Israel to exist under any circumstances.

I told you that you are mistaken. It is false that I do not want Israel to exist under any circumstances.

It is really that simple.

I quoted an article that sets out the legal opinion of the international community (the UN, the ICJ, international jurists).

The response was, What about Hamas and its illegal actions?

I still do not know what this response is for. Is it to persuade us that the only option open to Israel, to counter the illegal actions of Hamas, is to commit illegal actions of its own? not just directed at Hamas, but at the people of Gaza, not just at Hamas or Fatah or whoever, but the Palestinians (and likewise not just at Hezbollah, but the people of the Lebanon)? But it is simply false that this is the only option. (This way of framing the problem also takes as true what is clearly not true that the Palestinians started it all and Israel is simply trying to defend itself as any other state would).

So, I repeat, the response, What about Hamas and its illegal actions? is not one that gets us any further.

Indeed, this form of argument used by either side seems simply designed to block any progress.

Similarly, the refrain that Hamas (or Hezbollah) cannot be believed when they say the will negotiate (apparently because they can be believed when they say they will destroy Israel, even although there is no possibility that they will ever be able to achieve such a thing). (Whereas Israel is a credible partner in negotiation despite its propensity to ignore its obligations under any agreement it makes with the Palestinians.)

It is curious to maintain that you are interested in peace, but that peace is impossible because negotiation is impossible.

The peace you seek must presumably be the absolute surrender of one side. Presumably Israel will allow the Palestinians to squat in Gaza, in a string of ghettoes in the West Bank, and in camps around the region, sustained by humanitarian aid from the "international community", and possibly even allowed their own police force tasked with insuring that no Palestinian interferes with anything Israelis say is theirs. (This is only a guess, of course, since you never say what you think a peace settlement would look like. It is a guess based on opinions expressed by senior Israeli policy makers over the decades.)

If I find anything in your long, your very long comment that merits a reply, I will try to supply one.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas: you continue to pretend to answer my questions and rebut my arguments by insisting on inventing what they are and answering merely those inventions. You think rudeness and disingenuousness is getting you "further", it seems. On the contrary, it doesn't help.

You also avoid, at all costs, simply to state your case, which I asked you to do in my “very long post”. Perhaps you have ADS and missed that. Nevertheless, don’t hesitate to do so…Let us know , if you don’t believe that Israel should be destroyed, what you do believe and what you believe – in the current reality – a peace deal should look like. Let us know, also, if – unlike any current Arab Moslem party to negotiations – on what basis, if any, a “full and final settlement” can be achieved with Israel. Spit it out, if you have the gumption and integrity to do so.

You say: "It is curious to maintain that you are interested in peace, but that peace is impossible because negotiation is impossible."

It is equally, if not more, curious that you seem unable to make sense of language - albeit only of those who find your opinions sadly wanting - given your apparent enthusiasm for it in so many of your posts. Clearly, you believe obtuseness, is a substitute for understanding. It’s not.

Why is it curious to think I am interested in Peace even if I were to believe "peace is impossible because negotiations are impossible"? One with such a passion for the art of logic " - such as yourself…....Oh, you know what I mean, Thomas!

No, Thomas, you misunderstand, again, willfully or otherwise. Again, I think Peace is impossible only as long as the preponderance of Arab moslem players hold the view that there can be no “full and final settlement” with Israel unless, at the very least, that settlement contains fertile seeds of that state's very destruction. On the contrary, Thomas, I long for peace - like the overriding majority of Israelis, but based on an accommodation with Israel, not its immediate or eventual destruction. The guidelines for that accommodation have been clear for many years - and used in several negotiations since '67...but of course you know all this Thomas, don't you, being such a keen observer and lover of International Law. Just that ol' Thomas disingenuousness again...

Nor have I said that negotiations “ought” not to take place - in case this is what you mean (blimey, on what grounds could even a contorted logician like you infer that from my posts?). In fact, I think quite the opposite.

"The peace you seek must presumably be the absolute surrender of one side. Presumably Israel will allow the Palestinians to squat in Gaza, in a string of ghettoes in the West Bank, and in camps around the region, sustained by humanitarian aid from the "international community", and possibly even allowed their own police force tasked with insuring that no Palestinian interferes with anything Israelis say is theirs. (This is only a guess, of course, since you never say what you think a peace settlement would look like. It is a guess based on opinions expressed by senior Israeli policy makers over the decades.)"

I think it safer for your understanding of the world. perhaps, if you stop the presumptuousness, Thomas. It is, as you surely must know, "the mother of all f..ck ups". If your misunderstanding and misinterpretation is merely a cheap propaganda ruse, it doesn’t work.

I will reiterate a few points for you, in case there is a chink in your armour of amorality, and we can prevent you from indulging further your silliness:

International Law has already laid down what the parameters of the "full and final settlement" of the conflict should be. Given your heralding of the Law as the key to the peace, I think it must be the case, no, that you think Peace ought to be based on Resolution 242 i.e. this should comprise the guidelines for the end goals of negotiations, as they have been on several occasions already?

Gaza, I think you will find, was maintained in squalor, and on UN handouts, before Israel occupied it or withdrew from it. The West Bank, as you well know, is beginning to grow economically in a very significant way (even the BBC admits this) - with the help of Israel, not Hamas. The current PM is building the institutions of statehood with some success. By repeating this truth, I am not suggesting that a policy of blocking any reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas is a good policy. However, it is not easy to envisage that reconciliation knowing the political culture of Hamas and the way it has shown it is prepared to protect its power base.

Since the Arabs lost the war they waged in '67 against Israel - with the sole intention of exterminating it, the Palestinian arabs - for one - have never taken kindly to Israel's negotiating at all, even when it was close to the common interpretation of Resolution 242. This is very much consonant with the sentiment which informed the Khartoum Declaration – the famous “3 No’s”. In other words, there is a strong , historical continuity with regard to this thinking. Hence, Barak's offer was resoundingly rejected by Arafat and Olmert's by Abbas. Currently, Abbas is constrained to play the negotiations game, only, treading the tight rope between the Western support he needs for his survival and the danger to his future from the Arab “street” if he accepts any formal accommodation with Israel. He will continue to get out the jail of negotiations – one way or another – though continue to build the West Bank economically and in terms of its institutions.

You state: “"The peace you seek must presumably be the absolute surrender of one side. Presumably Israel will allow the Palestinians to squat in Gaza, in a string of ghettoes in the West Bank, and in camps around the region, sustained by humanitarian aid from the "international community", and possibly even allowed their own police force tasked with insuring that no Palestinian interferes with anything Israelis say is theirs. (This is only a guess, of course, since you never say what you think a peace settlement would look like. It is a guess based on opinions expressed by senior Israeli policy makers over the decades.)"

If you believe, as I'm sure must, that the attempts at negotiations by Barak and Olmert, were examples of what you cite, above i.e. of "opinions expressed by senior Israeli policy makers over the decades.)", are you suggesting that the peace settlement you envisage has nothing, then, to do with adherence to International Law - and Resolution 242, in fact, should not be the basis on which Peace is negotiated??

Anyway, Thomas, for what it's worth to you, my view on all this is pretty simple:

There will surely be no peace if the intention of the Arabs and moslems in the region is to roll back history - like some collective version of Dr. Who victimised by wishful thinking- to a time when Israel did not exist; before the key global International legal body resolved to institute a settlement of a two state solution, which was then rejected by all the Arabs states (just as the Grand Mufti rejected the Palestine Constitution, offered by Churchill and Herbert Samuel, which would have ensured Arab moslem domination over the Jews of Palestine - as far back as 1922; a time when the Arabs chose (legally?), instead, to wage a war of extermination against defenseless Jews - in 1947 - and then with a sovereign state - Israel - in 1948; before the Arabs, having lost that war, continued again and again to wage war of extermination against Israel - in '67 and '73 - wars which they also lost - to the profound shame of the entire Arab world; to a time when the Palestinians were “oppressed” by their own brothers - Egypt and Jordan - when they were ruled by those states after the great Nabka of '48/49.

This is not my prescription or version of events Thomas, but merely a statement of the obvious historical reality. You may long for Jews to go back to Poland, as the dear old White House correspondent said she did- the other day; you may think the UN is an anathema for being "manipulated" by the venal Jewish lobby in 1947; you may feel that Islam should expel ALL non believers from this world; or the cow jumped over the moon…for that matter… The fact remains (and, oh God, dear Thomas: THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE): that Israel will not accept national suicide; IT will not accept being dictated to by those who have waged endless war against it; and, given this glaring reality of Arab molsem intentions towards Israel - rooted in at least 100 years of israel's painful experience of it - you would need to be certifiable to believe it will suddenly now trust its enemies. Preadolescent fantasies of this kind have no place in the negotiations for Peace, I'm afraid.

...and Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran have done little to assuage israel's conviction that this is still the intention of a sufficiently powerful Arab moslem potential "spoiler" of any agreement, to change it mind in this regard. The reason is, these players have underscored the fundamentalist islamic component to the Palestinian nationalism issue. This component has been a significant one since the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem became the arab molsem "local hero" of Palestine. That thread can be traced from the Mufti and the formation of his Moslem Council, through to the early jihadis like Izz al_Din al Qassem and members his Young Men's Moslem Association of Haifa - to the birth of the PLO , formed in order to "attain the objective of liquidating israel" - to the Hamas, Hezbollah and the Ahmedinjad regime of today.

Point is: nothing much has changed with regard to Arab Moslem rejectionism of any accommodation with the Jews of Palestine – since 1992, at least. But, again, if you think this is NOT fact, please let us in on the truth as you see it (please don’t be bashful or misinterpret that request).

So, Thomas, it is pointless repeating the incantation that Israel does not want Peace or negotiations per se. It just does not want the Peace and negotiations which are exclusively based on these Arab moslem terms - terms , which you have not - for some mysterious reason - had the courage to state publicly and support; or, if you have another view of these terms, clarify that view for us and what terms what you and the Arabs and moslems would support – if both I and the Israelis have got it all wrong!!

As with Iran and its protestations that its nuclear intentions are "peaceful", if you believe that Israel has simply misunderstood the Arab moslem intentions towards it,and Hamas and Hezbollah's, in particular, why not employ some of your undoubted intellectual rigor and energy in disabusing it of this execrable misinterpretation? Shout it from the mountain tops. Get on to Press TV and even the BBC and scream it to the world ( but don't, I implore you, use your normal language of intellectual flip flopping. Doesn't make for effective propaganda or proselytising!). It may do wonders for the cause of enhancing mutual trust between the combatants and getting us "further down the road" - I mean towards Peace, of course.

Thomas

John Roosevelt,

I am intrigued by your understanding of the word "rudeness", in the context of your posts to me; and by your frequent recourse to the word "mendacious".

I have read what you have said, more than once, and I will read it again. I cannot see anything that I have not answered on this thread or on a previous one. You clearly think there are questions I have left unanswered, so I will look again.

Can I suggest that you curb your indignation sufficiently to avoid the frequent lapses into incoherence that have marred your comments so far. It might be less arduous for me to discern the points you wish me to address.

I would like to give you a satisfactory response. When I have a free moment, I will make a conscientious effort.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas: "I have read what you have said, more than once, and I will read it again. I cannot see anything that I have not answered on this thread or on a previous one. You clearly think there are questions I have left unanswered, so I will look again.

Can I suggest that you curb your indignation sufficiently to avoid the frequent lapses into incoherence that have marred your comments so far. It might be less arduous for me to discern the points you wish me to address."

You're havin' a laugh, mate...

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 13th, 2010 3:18pm

Your stuff may be easy to write, but it certainly isn't to read.

Simple sentences. Short paragraphs. None of the insults. So much easier.

Until you master this, I'd advise anyone to avoid replying.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 13th, 2010 3:18pm

Your stuff may be easy to write, but it certainly isn't to read.

Simple sentences. Short paragraphs. None of the insults. So much easier.

Until you master this, I'd advise anyone to avoid replying."

I guess "you're havin' a laugh" is not a simple enough sentence for you, Thomas. Perhaps you have overdone the semiotics. In any event, many, I'm sure, may well have an even simpler sentence to wirte to you - one which even you would certainly understand, but it may not pass the moderator.

Your advice, I'm sure, is warmly appreciated by all though remember that we know you are a mendacious, flip flopper of note, and a terrible measure of the pervasive difficulty in achieving any reasonable discussion on this subject, No wonder we have no peace in the region..

What a horror show.