'The only place where refugees drive Mercedes'

maddy1

We really need to know this will the real Gaza please stand up! Tinker, tailor, refugee camp, State, UN protectorate or terrorist stronghold.

Miranda Rose Smith

Off topic, but I wish all the religious Jews on this website, who are fasting tomorrow, an easy one.

Colin Cumner

Taxpayers' funds being poured into countries with spurious claims to being in dire straits? What's new about that? Time for the plug to be pulled on much of the massive overseas aid Britain pays out under directives of both the E.U. and the U.N. - both morally and financially bankrupt international bodies.
Millions in Britain need this money and charity always did - and does - begin at home.

Terry in Oz

Wouldn't waste your breath, Mel. Nowadays, what is important is the notion that although they are well fed and healthy in Gaza, if they weren't they'd be hungry and poverty stricken and it would be Israel's fault.

We live in a mad and increasingly bad world.

Terry Connolly

Tom Gross has got it.

Harold

The obvious question then is, What is the purpose of Israel's blockade on goods that "do not pose a security risk" - that is, the blockade that has been partially lifted but in the main continues as before?

I am sure the mechanics of gangster capitalism and of poverty amidst plenty have been explained here before, and yet still we get this stuff from the MFA.

Colin Cumner

Further to my earlier posting, can anyone tell me why the Coalition is not cutting overseas aid along with most everything else? Britons must tighten their belts and face up to massive cuts to services but not a penny is to be lopped off foreign aid. Methinks something is off kilter somewhere.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

However, Hamas doesn't like too much of a good thing, I assure you. As Ihab Ghussein, Hamas interior ministry spokesman, said in a statement released Sunday: "It is inappropriate for a woman to sit cross-legged and smoke in public. It harms the image of our people,"

All those flotilla lovelies planning a holiday in Gaza city be warned!

Mycroft

'Gaza's GDP is almost as high as Turkey's.' Actually Turkey's GDP is almost ten times as high as Gaza's! Although I have heard it said that life-expectancy there is higher than in Glasgow.

William Boyd

"Gaza’s GDP is almost as high as Turkey’s ...(Source CIA World Factbook)".

What alternative version of the Factbook (Facebook perhaps) is your source using?

Equally one can fairly ask if you *really* did imagine anything of the sort was possibly true or was simply blindly copying a source uncritically without reflection (because it suited a view you had already formed). I suggest neither reflects well on you Mel.

To set the record straight, the Factbook confirms Turkey's GDP at $863 billion against the West Bank's $13 billion (it doesn't provide a figure for Gaza and directs you to the West Bank instead). These are estimates based on Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) which is best used when comparing economies.

In terms of GDP per capita (PPP) the figure for the West Bank (again you are directed to the West Bank) is $2,900 and ranks 166th amongst the 227 listed countries and regions of the CIA fact book. This is about one fourth part of Turkey's $11,200. It is slightly more than the $2,600 of Pakistan and about a tenth part of Israel's $28,00. Of course it's still substantially greater than the less than $1,000 to be found in nations such as Afghanistan and Somalia and (as you remark) many African nations.

The Factbook does estimate that 70% of the Gaza population live below the poverty line against 46% in the West Bank and 17% in Turkey. For Israel, US and UK the figures quoted are 24%, 12%, and 14% respectively (I should add in fairness that in the case of Israel the Factbook inserts a remark suggesting that Israel calculates its figure differently from others).

Summing up Gaza's economy the Factbook says:

"High population density, limited land and sea access, continuing isolation, and strict internal and external security controls have degraded economic conditions in the Gaza Strip - the smaller of the two areas in the Palestinian Territories. Israeli-imposed crossings closures, which became more restrictive after HAMAS violently took over the territory in June 2007, and fighting between HAMAS and Israel during December 2008-January 2009, resulted in the near collapse of most of the private sector, extremely high unemployment, and high poverty rates. Shortages of many goods are met through the HAMAS-controlled black market tunnel trade that flourishes under the Gaza Strip's border with Egypt."

The Factbook confirms your figures for childhood mortality, life expectancy and illiteracy rates. I should imagine these are the consequence of international aid (including of course the vast somes of money originating from Saudi and the Middle East in general in the form of charitable donations). Of course the Palestinian diaspora is amongst the best (indeed I imagine the best by quite a long way but don't know of any source to confirm my impression) educated in the world.

I believe you are right to say that an overly bleak picture of Gaza is painted by the British media but on the other hand you paint an overly optimistic picture of their conditions on your part. The photograph you show of the shopping mall is of a sort with any of thousands of small cooperative ventures you can see throughout the Middle East (and a far cry from the luxe malls you see in cities such as Riyadh and Dhubai and amongst the most opulent in the world) and the concrete to build it no doubt smuggled in by Gaza's Hamas overlords (essentially what they have degenerated into in Gaza as a direct consequence of the misguided policy of isolation adopted by Israel and the Quartet) who would have been paid huge kickbacks to have it smuggled in furthering their illicit and terrorist activities.

Your colleague Rod Little expressed your problem with your depiction of Gaza very well:

"I am not absolutely sure that she commends her case to us all by continually insisting that Gaza City is a lovely, comfortably equipped mini-metropolis, overflowing with delicious fresh produce – a little like Sevenoaks on market day, people queuing up to get into Café Rouge and Loch Fyne ..." [blog 2nd June 2010]

Graeme

The more I read this kind of story, the more I realise that the Media is blatantly biased against Israel and not just an opinion, but hard concrete,raw fact.

Oflife

My home town is full of Champaign socialists, who whilst espousing liberal values, eat at the more expensive restaurants (>£17 for a pizza, just bread and a few bits of veg!), are happy to 'donate' to the lazy (as opposed to the vulnerable) and when you strip away the sparkle, are just popularists following a cause because it's cool to do so.

Our enemies are very very clever at manipulating the emotions of those who are well meaning. They are some of the most selfish people one could ever come across. Always complaining, no matter how much you try to help them. Take away the oil, and see how they fair. (The sooner the better!)

Bob, son of Bob

"..much higher than most of Africa that gets 1,000th of the aid per capita that Gaza gets from the West"

Except, of course when there is a political cause going on in Africa which the left wing of the west approves of, eg handing S.Rhodesia over to Mugabe.
Christian Aid were active there also.

Imshin

So much for the Palestinian boycott of Israeli goods. On the Arabic language website of the new mall in Gaza Tom Gross links to, they seem to be advertising Israeli men's trousers ("Bantaloon Eesraeeli"). http://www.gazamall.ps/index.php

Tancred

Recent muslim riots in Grenoble? I don't recall this being in the mainstream press.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80OZsubiPJE&feature=player_embedded

Europe 2029 ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F9YSxLthAg&feature=player_embedded

Every day this becomes more believable. I fear fro our future.

Meanwhile the Tories think that the burka is a matter of personal choice, whereas it is offensive, an affront to Western values and culture and statement of "separateness".

EC

"The Wabenzi" are everywhere.

Bob, son of Bob

These people of Gaza see that they are on to a good thing at present, but little do they know what fate awaits them if they ever get what they want. Look what happened to the blacks in S.Rhodesia. They would march outside indignantly to complain to a journalist or a BBC camera crew or a foreign aid official and then be amazed to find they have all gone, together with their VIP status.

Pricky Gayes

This article is fundamentally dishonest from the outset - they also drive them in Britain.

On a more serious note, if it's true that Sky also buy into this line, Coffee Housers should bear that in mind before they next argue that, if only 'Fox UK' could replace the BBC, all would be well.

rod liddle

Ok, head scratched - a valuable point and as ever very well made.

But doesn't it also suggest that despite adversity - you must agree they face adversity, even if it is self-generated - the Palestinians are doing rather a good job?

Barry

The Palestinian cause like the Green movement is not rational but a religion. Wherever anti-Semitism is involved by definition reason goes out of the window. good luck Melanie. Be strong Israel -the world cares nothing for your welfare.

GaryO

Adversity of their own making though, wouldn't you say?

It's like me chopping off one of my legs, then blame my neighbour for not being able to stand properly, lob stones and cat poo at his kids, demand money for a new leg(!) and then when I get a prosthetic made from largesse I get from his neighbour, I should be commended for the effort.

tiki

Why don't you tell this to your 'Baroness Ashton,(the European FM) who happens to be in the neighbourhood? This stupid woman might learn something. The EU TAXPAYER? They don't deserve any better....they are completely deaf/blind and plain stupid when it comes to GAZA and the 'Pals. There are NO problems anywhere in the world, no poverty, hunger, misery, abuse.... ONLY Gaza! Lately, when an Israeli doctors team (reconstructive surgery), went to Congo volontarily to HELP, they were 'shunned and verbaly attaqued' by the team of
"DOCTERS WITHOUT BORDERS", who were there. Instead of helping Congolese people without limbs, the 'docters felt the need to ventilate their biased opinions to the Israeli's. The world is so OBSESSED with the 'so called Palestinians/Arabs/Moslims, they DESERVE to be milked and taken advantage of. That's the ONLY way they (maybe) will learn whom they are dealing with.

Augustus

Yes, for a real luxury experience in Gaza the Cactus Roots Club is hard to beat. Log on to www.rootsclub.ps and see it all, and literally fall off your chair! I bet Hamas can't decide whether to blow the place up because of its decadent
Western-style luxury, or hold their next executive board meeting in one of the private dining rooms.

solemnman

It will take a while for Hamas to bring life expectancy down and the infant mortality up to normal middle east levels but -it will probably never reach the depth of 56 attained by super state Russia.I think Mellanie's figures probably include the deluge of love Israel's enemies money pouring in from the U.N.and the west

Martin C

Quote: "life expectancy and literacy rates are higher, and infant mortality rates are lower in Gaza than corresponding rates in Turkey". Actually for the figures given later in the article, the Gazan literacy, life-expectancy and infant mortality rates are rather better than parts of Glasgow. Why is it are we sending aid to Gaza again?

Harold

Augustus
July 19th, 2010 4:31pm

Ave.
Perhaps you can explain the purpose of the blockade if the net effect is luxury.

I know you have already ducked the question of why there is a blockade of goods that "pose no risk to security" if the purpose is to stop arms smuggling.

I also know that it has been explained to you how conspicuous affluence for the few can coexist with poverty for the many. You seem determined not to understand.

Raymond in DC

William Boyd writes, "The Factbook confirms your figures for childhood mortality, life expectancy and illiteracy rates. I should imagine these are the consequence of international aid (including of course the vast somes of money originating from Saudi and the Middle East in general in the form of charitable donations)."

This statement is wrong on two counts. First, most of those improvements in life span, infant mortality and literacy took place under ISRAELI occupation from 1967-1987 when there was virtually no foreign assistance beyond UNRWA. Gaza was broadly neglected during its years under Egyptian control. It was ISRAEL that built roads, schools and medical facilities, improved sewage, water and electricity infrastructure, and so on. Trade grew and jobs in Israel were plentiful. The result was one of the most dramatic improvements in GNP in the world at the time. (Then came the first intifada and Arafat's arrival, and everything went to hell.)

On the other hand, Arab contributions to Gaza's welfare have been sparse. By one accounting, 19 of the top 20 contributors to UNRWA are Western countries (I think Kuwait comes in at 20th). Libya's promise of $50 million as part of the deal to dock their "humanitarian aid" ship in El Arish is one of the first it's ever made. And Turkey, which made a big deal of their own humanitarian flotilla gives almost nothing in assistance to the Palestinians. One should also note that few of the pledges coming from rich Gulf countries on behalf of their Palestinian "brothers" are ever fufilled.

ReyaPhoenix

Tancred, regardless of whether the burqa is or is not a real choice, how about this?

Why don't all who are opposed to this antisocial custom declare a national or international "Hide Your Face" day?

Demonstrations, marches, etc, with all participants wearing full face balaclavas or paper bags with eye holes on their heads.

In our case it would be to prove to this crack pot government that to allow face covering is untenable for all sorts of reasons and to deprive those who choose it to put two fingers up to our social mores.

Failing a concerted protest, why not keep a full face balaclava in your pocket and put it on if ever you find yourself "face to face" with one of these disappeared women?

Beer Moth

Not the only place Mel. You been to Leeds lately?

ReyaPhoenix

Harold, I can only conclude from your post that you are either stupid or it is tongue in cheek.

If you have been awake over the past few years you would realise that southern Israel has been under shell fire from Gaza. The streets of northern Gaza (where the Hamas keeps the poor people in show camps to impress their distress upon people like you) have at times been swimming in excrement because Al-Aqsa has been deprived of pipes and other materials from which it makes kassams, and so it steals sewer pipes. (Don't forget, these people do not matter to Hamas, whose officials wine (and whine) and dine at Roots in Gaza city, unless they can be made by Hamas' actions to look as miserable as possible).

Yes of course conscious affluence for the many, it seems to me, can coexist with poverty, particularly stage-managed poverty as we see it in Gaza, but why are the rest of the world funding the most accomplished professional "victims" in the world because of mistakes from which they are utterly incapable of learning?

Perhaps as a card holding useful idiot for Islamism you could explain?

Augustus

"Meanwhile Western governments, misled by Western media, continue to pour more and more money into Gaza for people who don't need it..."

In the last few weeks alone the EU has sent them 40m euros, and the British Government has added a further £19m. That's over £52m of hard-earned taxpayers money. It's patently absurd.

Save the children from phosphorous bombs

Mercedes cars and luxury possessions are not really my thing but I would like one anyway. I'm off to Gaza it looks fantastic. I shall take some tinfoil to ward off the white phosphorous bombs. I shall take extra tinfoil for the children.

Harold

Here is an appreciation of Fadlallah to supplement the one provided here the other day:

The most senior Shiite cleric in Lebanon, Grand Ayatollah Fadlallah, has died. The intellectual guiding force of the Shiite Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, Fadlallah supported the armed fight against Israel but condemned Islamic terrorism. He also worked for the peaceful coexistence of the different denominations in Lebanon. This portrait by Stephan Rosiny
In the south of Beirut, right in the middle of Harat Hreik, or the “Hezbollah quarter”, stands a ten-storey hospital equipped with the most up-to-date modern equipment. Patients who have no money are also accepted here, those who cannot afford treatment in Lebanon’s private hospitals. It is part of an extensive network of social, religious, and educational institutions built by the high-ranking Shiite cleric Muhammad Husain Fadlallah, with the help of religious contributions from his followers. On 4th July 2010, after many years of illness, Muhammad Husain Fadlallah died in “his” Bahman Hospital.

Fadlallah was the highest religious authority of the Shiite community in Lebanon, a “Marja at-Taqlid” (”authority to be imitated”). His followers are found as far afield as Iraq, Iran, in the Gulf States, and in the West. Religious Shiites choose one of these authorities, like Fadlallah, to give their allegiance to; they then adopt his legal opinions and pay their religious duties to him. No one checks up on them or forces them to do so; they obey him of their own free will because they firmly believe that, as a wise religious scholar worthy of imitation, he will show them the way to live a godly life free from sin, one that will be pleasing in the sight of God.

“The Sayyid”, as Fadlallah’s followers respectfully called him, traced his ancestry back to al-Hasan, the second Imam and grandson of the Prophet. As a direct descendant of Muhammad he had the right to claim this honorary title, and to wear a black turban as the insignia of his lineage. As well as the charisma of his heritage, Fadlallah also had tremendous presence. He was highly regarded as a spiritual and worldly-wise cleric, a rationalistic and progressive thinker, a critical political analyst, and as an empathetic man with a good sense of humour.

Opposition to Saddam’s dictatorship

For some the deceased religious leader possessed the aura of a holy man, but for others his image was that of a dangerous terrorist, which is how he was portrayed by the United States for many years. Fadlallah lived in an age full of socio-political upheavals and violent conflicts: first in Iraq, where he was born in 1935 in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, later studying and teaching at the religious university there. Then from 1966 onwards he lived in Lebanon, where a bloody civil war broke out in 1975.

He was actively engaged in opposing the dictatorships in Iraq, co-founding the Hizb ad-Da’wa al-Islamiya (Party of the Call to Islam). Later, after moving to Lebanon, he continued to support the Iraqi opposition. Scarcely any other politician spoke out so clearly against Saddam Hussein: Fadlallah railed against him, calling him “the most bloodthirsty tyrant in the region”.

Nonetheless, Fadlallah was among the staunch opponents of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, as he rejected any form of interference by a foreign state. In his opinion the tyrant should have been toppled by the Iraqis themselves. In addition, he regarded the reasons given in justification of the intervention – weapons of mass destruction, Saddam’s alleged support for terrorism, and the desire to introduce freedom and democracy – as hypocritical.

Fadlallah pointed out that during the war with Iran the US had equipped Saddam with the very same weapons of mass destruction that it used as an excuse to invade in 2003. “The Iraqis will not forget who gave Saddam such power to oppress his people: America,” Fadlallah said.

No blind anti-Americanism

The Lebanese civil war from 1975-1990, the numerous wars with Israel, including the most recent one in the summer of 2006, as well as the Israeli occupation of the “Security Zone” in southern Lebanon from 1978-2000 all helped to create a sense of threat. Shiite Islamists responded to this by founding clandestine organizations and carrying out militant actions.

Fadlallah was an important intellectual leader and initiator of the Hezbollah movement, which was founded in 1982. However, he was never its leader, as he was sometimes described by the Western media. It is also unlikely that he “blessed” the two suicide bombers who blew up the headquarters of the American and French contingents of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Beirut on 23rd October 1983. This rumour was probably spread by Fadlallah’s opponents within Lebanon.

As a result, the CIA attempted to kill the cleric with a car bomb on a densely-populated street in Bi’r al-Abd on 8th March 1985. Nearly 100 people died and 200 were wounded. Fadlallah, however, had been delayed and, as if by a miracle, remained unhurt. Responding to the attack, he commented: “This is why we will no longer respect any admonitions by the Americans about human rights, the rejection of terrorism, freedom and such matters.”

Nonetheless, he did not lapse into blind anti-Americanism. He differentiated between the government and its people. Fadlallah was of the opinion that there were certainly things that could be learned from the West, particularly in the political realm. He praised party pluralism and democracy, for example, as well as the constitutional state and the accountability of politicians to their citizens.

Violence as “a surgical operation”

Fadlallah was a firm supporter of the armed resistance of Hezbollah against the Israeli occupation in southern Lebanon. This, he stressed, had nothing to do with anti-Semitism; it would be necessary to fight a war of liberation against Israel even if all of its citizens were Muslims, because it was not faith or race that made them the enemy, but solely the unlawful appropriation of land.

Fadlallah decreed that suicide bombings were permissible as a last resort, as a means of self-defence directed against military targets. Nevertheless, he called for the exercise of rigorous self-discipline, as “violence only suspends the problem, it does not eliminate or resolve it; in fact, it will make it more complicated”.

If the opponent refused to engage in dialogue, however, Fadlallah said that violence must be used; but “only in exceptional circumstances, using the most effective means available”. This, he believed, could stabilize the situation and lead to dialogue. According to him, violence was legitimate “as a kind of surgical operation that should only be resorted to after all other methods have been tried, and only when life is in danger”.

Rivalry with Ayatollah Khamene’i

Hezbollah’s change of strategy in the early 1990s, such as the renunciation of its plan to establish an Islamic republic, the release of the Western hostages, efforts to encourage ecumenicalism among Shiites, Sunnis and Christians, as well as the decision to take part in parliamentary elections can all in large part be traced back to his influence.

When Hezbollah decided to recognize Ali Khamene’i as its foremost legal scholar, tension arose in its relationship with Fadlallah | However, after Fadlallah put himself forward as a Marja in 1993, tension increasingly arose in his relationship with Hezbollah. The organization had recognized Ali Khamene’i as its foremost legal scholar, and now saw Fadlallah as his rival. For his part, Fadlallah was critical of the growing personality cult around Hezbollah’s general secretary, Hasan Nasrallah. The war in the summer of 2006, however, brought the two opposing Shiite leaders closer together. Their private houses were not far apart, and both were destroyed during the weeks of Israeli bombardment.

“Religion serves the people”

With his soft, warm voice and occasionally ironic manner, Fadlallah also drew secular people under his spell. He had an astonishing ability to describe religion in a rational, even materialistic way. One of his maxims was that religion served the people, not the other way around; that it altered according to the conditions of society, and moved with the social and scientific progress of humanity.

“Islam is everything that is of benefit to people,” said Fadlallah. He believed that inherent in everyone was a common core of values, and that this manifested itself in all religions, namely: equality, freedom, brotherhood, justice, and respect for the dignity and faith of others.

His legal opinions (fatwas) on the social equality of women, questions of medical ethics, dealings with those of other faiths and with unbelievers are more innovative than those of most Muslim reformers. They made an important contribution to reconciliation in Lebanese society in the aftermath of the civil war. Many of his students – some of them women – continue to spread his dynamic and modern understanding of Islam.

The next few years will show whether one of these students will manage to establish himself as an “authority to be imitated” and continue Fadlallah’s unfinished life’s work, promoting enlightened piety and a united Lebanon.

Stephan Rosiny

© Qantara.de 2010

Dr. Stephan Rosiny is a research fellow at the GIGA Institute of Middle East Studies in Hamburg. He is considered an expert on Hezbollah, and has published numerous monographs and essays, the main focus of which is Shiite Islam in Lebanon

Harold

And here's one on Netanyahu, the man of peace:

There is one video Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, must be praying never gets posted on YouTube with English subtitles. To date, the 10-minute segment has been broadcast only in Hebrew on Israel’s Channel 10.

Its contents, however, threaten to gravely embarrass not only Mr Netanyahu but also the US administration of Barack Obama.

The film was shot, apparently without Mr Netanyahu’s knowledge, nine years ago, when the government of Ariel Sharon had started reinvading the main cities of the West Bank to crush Palestinian resistance in the early stages of the second intifada.

At the time Mr Netanyahu had taken a short break from politics but was soon to join Mr Sharon’s government as finance minister.

On a visit to a home in the settlement of Ofra in the West Bank to pay condolences to the family of a man killed in a Palestinian shooting attack, he makes a series of unguarded admissions about his first period as prime minister, from 1996 to 1999.

Seated on a sofa in the house, he tells the family that he deceived the US president of the time, Bill Clinton, into believing he was helping implement the Oslo accords, the US-sponsored peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, by making minor withdrawals from the West Bank while actually entrenching the occupation. He boasts that he thereby destroyed the Oslo process.

He dismisses the US as “easily moved to the right direction” and calls high levels of popular American support for Israel “absurd”.

He also suggests that, far from being defensive, Israel’s harsh military repression of the Palestinian uprising was designed chiefly to crush the Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat so that it could be made more pliable for Israeli diktats.

All of these claims have obvious parallels with the current situation, when Mr Netanyahu is again Israel’s prime minister facing off with a White House trying to draw him into a peace process that runs counter to his political agenda.

As before, he has ostensibly made public concessions to the US administration – chiefly by agreeing in principle to the creation of a Palestinian state, consenting to indirect talks with the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, and implementing a temporary freeze on settlement building.

But he has also enlisted the powerful pro-Israel lobby to exert pressure on the White House, which appears to have relented on its most important stipulations.

The contemptuous view of Washington Mr Netanyahu demonstrates in the film will confirm the suspicions of many observers – including Palestinian leaders – that his current professions of good faith should not be taken seriously.

Critics have already pointed out that his gestures have been extracted only after heavy arm-twisting from the US administration.

More significantly, he has so far avoided engaging meaningfully in the limited talks the White House is promoting with the Palestinians while the pace of settlement building in the West Bank has been barely affected by the 10-month freeze, due to end in September.

In the meantime, planning officials have repeatedly approved large new housing projects in East Jerusalem and the West Bank that have undercut the negotiations and will make the establishment of a Palestinian state – viable or otherwise – far less likely.

In the film, Mr Netanyahu says Israel must inflict “blows [on the Palestinians] that are so painful the price will be too heavy to be borne … A broad attack on the Palestinian Authority, to bring them to the point of being afraid that everything is collapsing”.

When asked if the US will object, he responds: “America is something that can be easily moved. Moved to the right direction … They won’t get in our way … Eighty per cent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd.”

He then recounts how he dealt with President Clinton, whom he refers to as “extremely pro-Palestinian”. “I wasn’t afraid to manoeuvre there. I was not afraid to clash with Clinton.”

His approach to White House demands to withdraw from Palestinian territory under the Oslo accords, he says, drew on his grandfather’s philosophy: “It would be better to give two per cent than to give 100 per cent.”

He therefore signed the 1997 agreement to pull the Israeli army back from much of Hebron, the last Palestinian city under direct occupation, as a way to avoid conceding more territory.

“The trick,” he says, “is not to be there [in the occupied territories] and be broken; the trick is to be there and pay a minimal price.”

The “trick” that stopped further withdrawals, Mr Netanyahu adds, was to redefine what parts of the occupied territories counted as a “specified military site” under the Oslo accords. He wanted the White House to approve in writing the classification of the Jordan Valley, a large area of the West Bank, as such a military site.

“Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give [them] the Hebron Agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: ‘I’m not signing.’ Only when the letter came … did I sign the Hebron Agreement. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo accord.”

Last week, after meeting Mr Obama in Washington, the Israeli prime minister gave an interview to Fox News in which he appeared to be in no hurry to make concessions: “Can we have a negotiated peace? Yes. Can it be implemented by 2012? I think it’s going to take longer than that,” he said.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wonders why there is a blockade of goods which may not be construed - at least by some - as posing a risk to Israel's security. Mmmm..is this genuine naivite or is this guy havin' a laugh (it's usually the later, so I guess we can say I'm being rhetorical here)?

The last time I looked, guys like harold were maintaining that Hamas is the "democratically elected" govt of Gaza. Now read the Hamas Charter...and spend a few nights in Southern Israel...

Then phone Harold and say you have a bald patch from scratching your head - from fathoming why on earth Israel is loath to do that Govt any favours - or the people who elected it, oh so democratically.

Now, of course, Israel might be balmy. It might be a mystery of the universe! It might be 100% like the Nazis and apartheid South Africa. Nay, even worse!!!! It might even be of the nature of the genocidal regime in Rawanda or Sri Lanka when it massacred thousands of Tamil civilians, or that of Russia in South Ossetia or Chechniya, or Syria when it massacred the so-called Moslem Brotherhood, or Jordan when it massacred up to 40,000.00 Palestinians (so they say), or Iraq - presently with various groups blowing up civilians by the flotilla load ....But, jeez, Harold...um...No, you can't be that stooopid...

Jonathan Karmi

In response to Harold’s comments on the Netanyahu video, I don’t think that video would surprise many Israelis and quite many would be sympathetic. The recording was made in 2001 and Netanyahu was talking about his first term as Prime Minister from 1996 to 1999, over eleven years ago. In 2001, Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority was actively sponsoring the Second Intifada, a wave of violence by the Palestinian armed factions both in Israel and across the occupied territories that was to last four-and-a-half years. He was speaking with the family of a victim of one such attack.

I’m no fan of Netanyahu, far from it, but in retrospect his stance towards Arafat was correct. President Clinton unambiguously blamed Arafat for the failure of the Camp David summit with Ehud Barak in 2000. Arafat and the other veteran members of the Palestinian team did not negotiate in good faith. As the Israeli Foreign Minister and historian, Shlomo Ben-Ami, subsequently observed, Arafat was never a statesman. He was intent on preserving the myth of Arafat, the leader of a national liberation movement. He could never lead his people to make the compromises needed for peace and a Palestinian state. Instead he initiated the Second Intifada, which cost thousands of Palestinians and Israelis their lives. The duplicity of Arafat at that time dwarfed that of Netanyahu.

The situation now is slightly different. Arafat has departed the scene and the Israelis are now dealing with Mahmoud Abbas who is perceived as a relatively weak and enigmatic leader. I hope I’m proven wrong, but I don’t believe he can deliver the necessary compromises either. He doesn’t have sufficient backing amongst his own people. So chances are we’ve gone full circle to where we were twelve years ago, which means people will just have to be patient. Netanyahu’s government is not the sturdiest and so long as the Palestinians don’t launch a third Intifada, it’s feasible that a second Kadima-led coalition will come to power. They would negotiate in a more proactive fashion. Whether the Palestinians will sort their act out is another matter.

revolution

This Gaza sounds like a tourist hot spot when Israel lifts the blockade?
You will be telling us next the Blair's are taking freebee holidays there?

Miranda Rose Smith

But when was the last time a foreign journalist based in Israel left the pampered lounge bars and restaurants of the King David and American Colony hotels in Jerusalem and went to check out the slum-like areas of southern Tel Aviv? Or the hard-hit Negev towns of Netivot or Rahat?

Or central Tel Aviv, around Shuk HaCarmelit, where you can see people sleeping in the streets, as you can in London?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Have I missed something here? What on earth is there to stop the Palestinians - whatever they may think Bibi's intentions are - coming out and expressing an ardent desire for peace to negotiate based on whatever vision of this peace they deem fit? If they feel the US holds the cards i.e. can constrain Israel politically and economically, surely this would a massively effective tool in their armory?

But they don't. All they do is scream that Israel doesn't want their peace so they refuse to negotiate at all: "You dont want to give me everything I want before negotiations begin. , therefore you're not serious about peace, therefore I wont talk to you!!". Sounds like a demented child!!

They cannot propsoe negotiations because they cannot let the dream, as expressed time and time and time again by their leaders, of reversing the nabka of '47-49, drop. This is for many reasons, not least that all these elites have a vested interest in maintaining the conflict at varying degrees of intensity, depending on their own political status at any given time. Nothing too weird about that, but certainly undermines the notion that if only Israel genuinely wanted peace so would the Arab and moslem leaders. It's complete poppycock, of course, and anyone who believes that the road to peace is in the direction of simply buying into the propaganda, they need a visit to the therapist...or two...or three..

...and why on earth would Israel NOT want peace? Oh yes, it's because they are ruled by Jewish fundamentalists who believe in the restoration of ancient Israel's "boarders" - right up to the walls of Rome..oh no..wrong religion, sorry...

Harold

ReyaPhoenix
July 19th, 2010 8:21pm
Israel has told us that the blockade is not intended to affect the population but to prevent Hamas importing arms (thus to prevent the rocket attacks you helpfully remind me of). Of course, an official did indiscreetly admit that the intention was to put the population "on a diet", but Israel is usually more circumspect - it has signed up to the international law which lays down that, whatever happened in the past, it is no longer legal or acceptable to punish a population for the actions of its government or militias in its midst or however yu wish to characterise the resistance in Gaza. So the questions remain: if the blockade is producing luxury and plenty, why persist; and if the blockade is to prevent the import of arms, why goods that are no security risk?

If you want an example of what would not be a sensible reply, read John Roosevelt.

Harold

Jonathan Karmi
July 20th, 2010 12:32am
I think there is more detail available on Camp David. President Clinton was of the opinion that Ehud Barak was seeking an agreement that no Palestinian could accept. Shlomo Ben Ami was rightly critical of Arafat but also of Barak. Whatever the spin put on it at the time, Israel's security chiefs were aware that Arafat did not instigate the intifada, but once it began felt he had to support it or become irrelevant. The intifada was an uprising of a population exasperated that they had been conned at Oslo (by Israel and by Fatah), as confirmed by Netanyahu in the video, and that the generous offer at Camp David was a final settlement that confined them to ghettoes. Further negotiations took place after Camp David and made considerable progress. These negotiations were terminated by Barak. The detail of what Barak offered at Camp David were revealed in a briefing document for Ehud Olmert that found its way into the newspapers.

Oliver Rivers

The observation that "Gaza's GDP is almost as high as Turkey's", particularly given the claim that its source is the CIA World Factbook, is so egregiously wrong that I think it must be a genuine error rather than a deliberate lie.

First off: there is no economic data on Gaza in the CIA Wolrd Factbook; the relevant bit of the Gaza entry simply says "see West Bank."

The West Bank's GDP is $12.79 bn; Turkey's is $863 bn.

The West Bank's GDP per capita is $2,900; Turkey's is $11,200.

Since Gross & Phillips seem to think the World Factbook is a trusted source, it's worth noting what that source says about Gaza's economy:

"High population density, limited land and sea access, continuing isolation, and strict internal and external security controls have degraded economic conditions in the Gaza Strip - the smaller of the two areas in the Palestinian Territories. Israeli-imposed crossings closures, which became more restrictive after HAMAS violently took over the territory in June 2007, and fighting between HAMAS and Israel during December 2008-January 2009, resulted in the near collapse of most of the private sector, extremely high unemployment, and high poverty rates. Shortages of many goods are met through the HAMAS-controlled black market tunnel trade that flourishes under the Gaza Strip's border with Egypt."

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold: "The intifada was an uprising of a population exasperated that they had been conned at Oslo (by Israel and by Fatah), as confirmed by Netanyahu in the video, and that the generous offer at Camp David was a final settlement that confined them to ghettoes."

How do you know this, dear harold?

Besides, you really think the arbas and moslems needed barak, Clinton, Bibi to find a reason to murder Jews? Did they in '47? Did they in '67? Did they in '73?

You're cynically disingenuous, Harold.

It doesn't matter who you think is right or wrong. All we need to understand is where the line is that Israel will not cross whatever we would like. Simple.

The reality is, harold, that NO negotiations at all will yield nothing. The questions is : what do the Arabs and moslems really have to loose in negotiating?If Israel is the venalspoiler, uniquley dedicated to the voracious conquest of land that is not theirs and the murder of those who dont fit their racial profiling, CALL ITS BLUFF AND NEGOTIATE. It's where the smart money for peac is banked, I suspect.

..but of course you wont...

John Richardson

William Boyd
July 19th, 2010 11:05am

You deserve some sort of award.

I am not the only person who has noticed how hard it is to get any honest appraisal of Melanie Philip's analysis posted on this blog...

So well done with your fact checking and original source checking and stuff.

I wonder if I will read you here again ?

Andrew

Harold raises the question of international law. I'm reminded of the comments of the then head of the IDF's legal department (yes, the IDF has a department to ensure it observes the law!). He was talking about targetted asassinations, which are illegal under international law and which the Israeli courts have judged to be judicial murder. He said the IDF gets round the law simply by breaking it again and again until everyone somehow comes to accept it as normal. Of course, this only works for Israel so long as the law-breaking is acceptable (indeed practised, by the US).

Augustus

Oliver Rivers - What IS a trusted source are the many photos and videos coming out of Gaza showing shops and markets full of goods, and the total lack of photos of hungry children with pot bellies and matchstick arms like those we've seen from African countries. As the article says, that doesn't mean there isn't some poverty, and a shortage of certain products, but that's also the case in a number of Mediterranean and Eastern European countries. But those countries don't receive billions in international aid. And the argument that poverty there is because of the blockade
and therefore because of Israeli
cruelty is nonsense. How many more trucks than the present one hundred per day would cross the border if there wasn't a blockade? Even then the UN would
decide on priorities, and there is a limit anyway to the amount that one can process and distribute on a daily basis. There might be more building materials let in, and if Hamas had any say in the matter, weapons and concrete with which to build bunkers. But Gaza isn't any poorer than other Arabic countries, and people there aren't any more starving than they are in Cairo or Amman.

Harold

When Barak "blew up" the negotiations (Dr. Moshe Amirav, his advisor on Jerusalem), he authorized Sharon's parade on Temple Mount, despite warnings from Arafat, the head of the Jerusalem police, Yair Yitzhaki, and US officials that it was a provocation that would cause trouble. The visit went off wih only skirmishes. However, Barak and Ben Ami prepared for a showdown when Muslims arrived for Friday prayers. They deployed a large number of police and anti-terror snipers. When Palestinians threw stones, the police opened fire with rubber bullets and live ammunition. Israel's police chief, Yehuda Wilk, confirmed that snipers fired on the crowd. As for the notion that Arafat planned the intifada, General Amos Malka, the then head of Israeli Military Intelligence, revealed in 2004 that there was no intelligence to that effect. It was simply the hunch of his subordinate, Amos Gilad, who fed it to the military and political leaders. This is confirmed by Ephraim Lavie, whose job was to supply Gilad with the intelligence. Lavie also said that the intifada "began from below, as a result of rage that had accumulated toward Israel, Arafat and the PA." Mark Steinberg, Shin Bet's chief advisor on the Palestinians, said he had reached the same conclusion: "The intifada did not result from a decision reached up above; it stemmed from a mood that swept through the Palestinian public. The Palestinians felt as though they had reached a dead end due to the failure of the Camp David summit." Steinberg said that Arafat shared the Palestinian public's view that,in agreeing to forgo their claims to most of their historic homeland, they were making a supreme compromise that should be reciprocated by Israel. More generally, he said, "Under conditions of an asymmetric confrontation, one in which Israel is many times stronger than the Palestinians, we have decisive influence on the course of events. Hence, a mistaken assessment on the stronger side's part (such as Gilad's) creates reality; it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy...Whoever upholds such a position has concluded that there is no possibility of attaining an agreement with the Palestinians. This approach dictates just one choice to the Palestinians: either surrender to Israel's dictates, or rise up against the dictates at all costs...The Palestinian public has come to feel that it has nothing to lose. That's the background to the emergence of a culture of suicide bombers."

Gilad's "mistaken" assessment cost the Palestinians dear. As Reuven Pedatzur said in Haaretz at the time, "This explains why the IDF used such massive firepower when the Palestinian uprising broke out, why over a million bullets were fired in the first few days, even although there was no operational justification. The intent was to score a winning blow on the Palestinians, especially on their consciousness. This was not a war on terror, but on teh Palestinian people." This is confirmed by the general in charge of the military operation, General Moshe Ya'alon, "The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people."

This ought to be enough to silence the humbug and hypocrisy of such as John Roosevelt, but I doubt it will.

Niels C

'Gaza and the West Bank are the only places in the world where I have seen refugees drive Mercedes.’
Nah, some also do in Denmark, but they prefer AUDI or BMW.

Augustus

Harold - What's all this intifada and Arafat nonsense on a blog about present day conditions in Gaza all about? It almost seems as if you hold yourself indirectly responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. All your raving and ranting, however, is a useless ploy to try to paint Israeli policy as black as possible. May I remind you that,
even if the experience of the Holocaust helped prompt the United Nations to proceed in favour of the foundation of a Jewish state in 1947, it equally
at the same time resolved to create an Arab Palestinian state. But it was the Arabs from the outset who hated the Zionists, and their modern way of life. And every attempt has been made by them ever since to
overthrow that two state proposal. You are deadlocked in the past, and like in a maze, you are running round in circles.

wonderer

@Harold July 20th, 2010 2:26pm: "The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people."

At the risk of mixing metaphors, your canard is a perfect millipede.

CAMERA, the Campaign for
Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, proved it to be inauthentic, and retractions were published in the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune: for example
http://tinyurl.com/cgym55 and http://tinyurl.com/cypv6z (see Editors Note
on that page).

A fuller refutation by Jason
Maoz was published online Commentary Magazine (see
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/maoz/49921 ).

Harold

wonderer
July 20th, 2010 5:18pm
You are quite right. I regret that I perpetuated the canard. It was wrong of me to lift a quote without at least doing as you did and consulting wikipedia.

It is also a matter for regret that I thereby allowed you to ignore every point of substance.

In response to the question, Do you have a definition of victory, what is Israel's goal in this war? I believe what Ya'alon said was (you will correct me if I am wrong): "I defined it from the beginning of the confrontation: the very deep internalization by the Palestinians that terrorism and violence will not defeat us, will not make us fold. If that deep internalization does not exist at the end of the confrontation, we will have a strategic problem with an existential threat to Israel. If that [lesson] is not burned into the Palestinian and Arab consciousness, there will be no end to their demands of us…".

Responding to a follow-up question, Yaalon elaborated:

"…The facts that are being determined in this confrontation–in terms of what will be burned into the Palestinian consciousness–are fateful. If we end the confrontation in a way that makes it clear to every Palestinian that terrorism does not lead to agreements, that will improve our strategic position. On the other hand, if their feeling at the end of the confrontation is that they can defeat us by means of terrorism, our situation will become more and more difficult. Therefore, I say that we must not blur the weighty meaning of this confrontation. When you grasp the essence, it’s clear to you what you have to do. You have to fight for your life."

The transcript of a speech he gave at the same time was published in Yediot Aharanot: "It is imperative that we win this conflict in such a way that the Palestinian side will burn into its consciousness that here is no chance of achieving goals by means of terror."

It is clear he says not that the Palestinians must understand that they are a defeated people but that they cannot win by "terrorism". I was quite clearly wrong and careless to pick up the quote without checking back to Ha'aretz.

But now put what he did say side by side with what Mark Steinberg said. Essentially the message is the same. Camp David had just demonstrated yet again that the Palestinians were not going to get anything by compromise and negotiation. And Moshe Ya'alon is saying it must be burned into their psyche that they will not get anything by resistance ("terrorism").

So perhaps now you can address the substance.

Harold

Augustus
July 20th, 2010 3:37pm
Isn't it curious that now when I address you, you don't reply; but when I don't address you, you do.

Regardless of the route the reply takes, it is, as ever, pleasingly to no purpose. It addresses neither my question to you about Gaza nor the wider question of Israel's attitude to "negotiation".

Harold

Augustus
July 20th, 2010 1:24pm
I know I shouldn't ask you of all people, oh pontificator maximus, for clarification of what you say. Nevertheless...

I have some old figures. By 2008, Israel had reduced the number of basic commodities it allowed into Gaza from 9000 before the election of Hamas to just 20. It also reduced the amount of each such commodity. For example, Gaza needs 340 tons of flour each day. By 2007, Israel had cut it to 90 tons. No doubt you can give me more up-to-date figures.

You seem to suggest that lifting the blockade would cause logistical problems in Gaza. Is it then out of consideration that Israel persists?

If as you say the blockade is not having any effect on life in Gaza, why does Israel persist? What is the blockade that has no effect for?

Are you saying everything is okay in Gaza because the international community is running a large aid programme (i.e. Israel's blockade is having a deleterious effect on the population, but luckily everyone else is pitching in to ensure they don't starve?)? Or are you saying that everything is okay, so the aid programme is not needed? The blockade is somehow merely symbolic?

Are you saying that everything is okay, because there is no malnutrition anywhere near as gross as in many parts of Africa? So the people of Gaza should be grateful for their good fortune?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

harold bangs on about how the Israelis really responded badly to the intafada. The miltary really took it out on the Palestinian people. They were premeditatedly ..well...dare I say it..downright nasty..

Mmm..Now that is certainly a hard one to fathom after 90 years or so of Jews being attacked by Arabs...A true mystery of the universe...aaahhh...mmm..yep...a mystery..I think...

I know it's wrong. You know it's wrong. The Israelis and Jews (or both?) are a heartless bunch. Blood lust, I think they call it..sacrificing of Christian babies etc...but, you know, 90 years of death and fighting...not a recipe for niceness and trust, is it, Harold?

What does our dear Harold expect?

He has spoken of the Jews..sorry, Israelis... being the stronger side (or was that lyndsay..they seem so similar) and, therefore, should now be magnanimous. He seems to think that this is the way forward..

DONT BE A MASTER TWIT , harold!!!
This will never be whether you or I or Avneri, Pappe, Benvenisiti - you name 'em - want it or not! Just not the way of the real world, matie!

WAKIE WAKIE, harold!!! The Palestinian leadership is not trusted in any way. Like it or not, this is the problem. The Jews may be the evil ones and the arabs just poorly understood, but this is the reality.

Sorry....I am..deeply...deeply...sorry, dear boy....

PS: RESPOND TO THE BRILLIANT LINDA SMITH!!!!

Adam B.

Harold, why should Israel give anything to Gaza? What does Gaza give to Israel, except rockets and suicide bombers?

I think Israel is mistaken to supply power, thousands of tonnes of goods and free medical treatment to thousands of Gazans, when Israelis know full well that if the tables were turned, the Gazans would not reciprocate - indeed, would exploit the situation and destroy Israel. As it is, Gaza receives more aid than any sub-Saharan African country, despite the need not being nearly as great.

What does Egypt give Gaza? Why don't the Palestinians fire rockets into Egypt?

You're a sucker for a victim complex.

Augustus

Harold - I am certainly not pontificating on the sea blockade of Gaza - you are. And I have no idea whatsoever about the whys and wherefores about the imports of cummin seeds, or flour, or any other specific commodity. But you know perfectly well what the naval blockade is for, it is intended to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. And one factor apparently overlooked by all you 'me too' enthusiastic blockade busters is that Gaza's port is not large enough to accomodate cargo ships, Even before Israel imposed a naval blockade on Gaza, no cargo ships sailed there. Historically
all goods that have entered the Gaza strip in bulk did so by land. Anyway, recently Israel has again looked at the possiblity of the international community monitoring Gaza bound ships. But it would be right to be sceptical about such a proposal, as the multinational force placed by the UN Security Council along the Lebanese border has not been able to prevent weapons smuggling there,
so there is little reason to believe such an agency would be
any more successful at sea.

David Guy

Tom Gross misses an important point. Everywhere else a refugee stops being a refugee when he returns to his country or settles elsewhere. For Palestinians refugee status is an inherited asset. The degree of fear of persecution is irrelevant.

The solution: REPLACE UNWRA WITH UNHCR!

BTW transport in Gaza ranges from donkeys throgh bikes, old cars often stolen from Israel to Mercedes, BMW and Audi. It all depends how high one is on the corruption ladder.

Harold

Augustus
July 21st, 2010 12:33am

...You don't know why Israel blockades goods that are not a security risk.

...You guess it is just the logistical problems of coping with too many lorries or ships.

Augustus

Harold, 21/7, 9.31am -

Pontificate - Remember?
(To talk in a dogmatic and pompous manner) - Suits you to a tee!

Harold

Adam B.
July 20th, 2010 11:07pm
It is odd you should run away from our previous conversation, yet address me again here.

It is odd you should ask your question as if you do not know the answer, which has been given to you several times by several different contributors: belligerent occupation.

Harold

P. Augustus, P. Max.
July 21st, 2010 12:01pm

Such a characteristic response, avoiding the subject.

You genuinely have no idea what the blockade of goods that "present no security risk" is for?

You have heard nothing of "putting the Palestinians on a diet that will not kill them (?) but will certainly make them thinner"? You have heard nothing? or pretend to ignorance to allow you in good conscience (?) to continue as you have in this thread?

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
July 20th, 2010 10:29pm
There is nothing here requires response, just one clinical observation: when you can think of nothing to say, a slur always floats to the surface of what we might call your mind.

You asked me to substantiate what I said about the al Aqsa Intifada. I did (from sources in the Israeli police, Israeli Military Intelligence and Shin Bet). Your response? - evasion.

You ask me yet again to respond to the "brilliant etc." Yet you know I responded fully before. Your response was that life is too short to try to determine what happened in the past. Why ask?

Stan-dup

Thank you for the truth, I thought I was going mad because when I tell people about the mansions and huge houses in the so called refugee camps, they say I am anti Arab, so once again wake up people and look at the truth its in front of you....

Miranda Rose Smith

These people of Gaza see that they are on to a good thing at present, but little do they know what fate awaits them if they ever get what they want. Look what happened to the blacks in S.Rhodesia. They would march outside indignantly to complain to a journalist or a BBC camera crew or a foreign aid official and then be amazed to find they have all gone, together with their VIP status.

I've been saying for years that the now-so-called "Palestinians," who are historically, culturally and liguistically ARABS, are in grave danger of genocide form their own genus.

Adam B.

Codswallop, Harold.

Someone should tell you Israel does not occupy Gaza.

There is no requirement, either legal or moral, for Isdrael to give Gaza anything.

Adam B.

If it's belligerancy you're after Harold, try looking at Hamas' charter, which calls for the extermination of every Jew on earth.

How...peaceful and enlightened.

Your defence of Hamas is disgusting.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold
July 21st, 2010 1:52pm

JOHN ROOSEVELT
July 20th, 2010 10:29pm
There is nothing here requires response,"

Why not?

"just one clinical observation: when you can think of nothing to say, a slur always floats to the surface of what we might call your mind."

Harold, you are such a bitch..and you ALWAYS do precisely what you accuse me of doing

"You asked me to substantiate what I said about the al Aqsa Intifada.I did (from sources in the Israeli police, Israeli Military Intelligence and Shin Bet). Your response? - evasion."

I have nothing to evade...

"You ask me yet again to respond to the "brilliant etc." Yet you know I responded fully before."

You haven't.

"Your response was that life is too short to try to determine what happened in the past."

No it isn't. I have merely said that your stratgem is predicated on the assumption that Israel can do not right and the Arabs, relatively, can do no wrong. It therefore gives you carte blanche to make endless demands of Israel whose failure to accept them brings your unharnessed vilification because no matter what it does - if it continues to exist at all - it can do no right.

You have have recalibrate your pernicious bonce, Harold. Realise Israel will set the agenda no matter what you think. I may think that a sorry state of affairs, as I am sure the Mufti did when he failed to get the Arab Legion to murder every last Jew in Palestine. Nevertheless, it is a reality. Your claim to a monopoly on historical truth matters nothing in the reality of the politics of the Middle East. Your pontifications and encouragement of those you support, who want nothing but the murder of Jews in the name of apparent self determination, will definitely end in war and, increasingly likely, a nuclear one.

I'm not sure how deep your armchair is, mate, but you will no doubt be immersed in cushion filler, however redundant that may be in your case, when one sees the state of your sorry brains from reading your dross.

Adam B.

JR, you're quite right.

Harold, what are the Arabs giving for peace? What concessions? Or do concessions only apply to the Jews?

Andrew

"what are the Arabs giving for peace? What concessions? Or do concessions only apply to the Jews?"

Comical. Or ignorant. Or cynical. Or naive and innocently stupid.

Adam B.

So Andrew, what's the answer?

Andrew

Adam B.
July 21st, 2010 10:44pm
I would say definitely comical and ignorant. I don't know about the rest - only you can tell.

Augustus

Harold - You have now entered the realm of misanthropic madness. Your "putting the Palestinians on a diet that does not kill them but will certainly make them thinner" makes no sense to me at all. I know nothing of this. Is this just another ploy to attack Israel for creating a 'humanitarian disaster' in an area which it does not occupy, and as far as I know has no intention of re-occupying? So, as is usual with your comments, you just delight in painting Israel as black and evil as possible.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Andrew
July 21st, 2010 9:33pm

"what are the Arabs giving for peace? What concessions? Or do concessions only apply to the Jews?"

Comical. Or ignorant. Or cynical. Or naive and innocently stupid."

Andrew, I guess, feels that given that the jews 'stole" the land of the Arabs, they can do no wrong and Israel - by virtue of its very existence, can do no right.

Well, if this is a consensus amongst Arab and moslem elites - at least a sufficient number of them, it will guarantee continuous conflict at one level or another and, likely, at some point soon, a major war - perhaps even nuclear.

Not even this can goad you into more than the offhand quip? Oh well. Perhaps you are a member of the HRC...Inspirational..

Miranda Rose Smith

What happened to Linseed Oil's posting? (Or maybe her name was "Linoleum?") She suggested that the Arab states demonstrate that they are more civilized than Israel. I needed to check the 2009 Heisman Trophy winner before I could respond to that: For the Arab states to demonstrate that they are more civilized than Israel would be like Noam Chomsky demonstrating that he is a better athlete than Mark Ingram, Jr.

C. Gee

Harold @ July 21st, 2010 1:46pm:

Do please stop the outrage at what you want the world to see as "collective punishment" of the Gazans by Israel's not letting through goods that pose no security risk.

Hamas was elected by the Gazans after Israel had evacuated it. Sure, the radical Islamists promised social services, but what every voter knew Hamas would deliver on was the commitment to war with Israel.

There is no obligation for a state to allow any goods through to its enemy. No people at war is entitled to peace-time open borders and business (or aid supply) as usual with the state it is waging war on.

Thousands of items allowed in before the Gazans voted for a genocidal government, 20 allowed in afterwards, not including coriander. That seems generous to me. Why should there be no cost to the people - poor as they may be - for opting for war? A "diet" for the Gazans is better than a complete blockade, which Israel would be legally entitled to enforce.

Do stop flapping your mawkishness over the Arabs of Gaza. You are embarrassing yourself.

Harold

Augustus
July 22nd, 2010 12:15am
"Putting them on a diet" etc. - Dov Weisglass, close adviser to Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert explaining the strategy in blockading Gaza.

Augustus

Harold - Thank you for the reference. I looked it up, and all I could find was an Observer article of April 2006 referring to the alleged statement by Weisglass earlier that year. But how is this relevant to the situation today?
The article went on to describe
the discomfort that citizens were experiencing under Hamas who hadn't even seized control by then. Since then, and since moderate voices have indeed been silenced, the Palestinians of Gaza, of whom far too many are registered as refugees anyhow, have only themselves to blame for their predicament.

keane

people think firstly innocent gaza people. which is most important? hamas or innocent people?

Captn P

Anyone else notice the references to Lauren Booth? Interesting family connection.

Adam B.

Andrew, how very droll.

Now perhaps you would answer the question - what are tha Arabs giving for peace? What concessions? Or is it only the Jews who have to make concessions?

Harold

Augustus
July 22nd, 2010 12:32pm
"Harold - Thank you for the reference. I looked it up, and all I could find was an Observer article of April 2006 referring to the alleged statement by Weisglass earlier that year. But how is this relevant to the situation today?"

First, an interview with Ha'aretz 19th February 2006.

Secondly, he is describing the policy that continues to this day. If it made them thin in 2006, think what it can do to them after five years.

Remember you were saying you had no idea why the blockade of goods that represent "no security risk"? Now at least you know. It is reassuring that you recognize that Israel keeps the Palestinians in "the realm of misanthropic madness".

I agree with you that it must heighten the pleasure of living in the Gazan riviera that Hamas are the only ones who can claim to be looking after the peoples' interests - with what success is clear to see. Interestingly, before Operation Kill Civilians in December 2008, opinion polls showed that support for Hamas had slumped among the people of Gaza. Opinion polls also show little support among them for Islamism or fundamentalist Islam (we'll be getting fewer such polls as Hamas continues to tighten its grip). So, the people of Gaza are caught in Israel's realm of misanthropic madness, governed by fundamentalist Islamists. And still you burble about busy markets and luxury goods.

Andrew

Adam B.
July 22nd, 2010 3:28pm
Shin Bet understands. So does Israeli Military Intelligence. So do government advisers. (Or am I misreading the quotes that have been provided above?) But not ultras like you who can say with a straight face "What have the Palestinians ever done for us in the way of compromise. We offer them 14% of their land and they refuse it - how can we negotiate with this rejectionism and ingratitude!"

Andrew

C. Gee
On what you said to Harold -

Let's withdraw our forces to the perimeter, says Israel, so we can control but deny we're occupying them (clever!). Let's allow them an election if the Americans insist (to make the whole thing more plausible, I suppose). If they continue to resist, invent a category new to international law and call them a "hostile entity" (it's a stretch to call them a "state" but "entity" sounds kind of official). If they continue to resist, say it's war. And say Israel is observing the laws of war - in the manner described by the head of the IDF's legal department, that is, break it often enough that everyone becomes used to it and doesn't bring it up any more.

So that's the politics sorted - they're nothing to do with Israel any more because, Humpty Dumpty like, Israel has redefined the meaning of belligerent occupation. And by the same trick, the security problem is sorted - they're an enemy, this is war, Israel can define its own laws of war, so can bomb them to oblivion regardless of what anyone else might say. Whatever is left is merely a humanitarian problem for the international community - and even that has been exaggerated because Palestinian children are unlike any other - they don't suffer, they only ever get what they deserve.

You must feel yourself to be admirable to express such tough-minded realism.

Andrew

JOHN ROOSEVELT
July 22nd, 2010 12:27am
"Andrew, I guess, feels that given that the jews 'stole" the land of the Arabs, they can do no wrong and Israel - by virtue of its very existence, can do no right."

- This is the usual demand to agree that Israel has a "right to exist" - or be condemned as genocidal (isn't it?). I always wonder what the nature of this "right" is - is it legal title or what? What is Israel's "right" to exist? In the hope of avoiding time-wasting frothing about me being a genocidal anti-semite or whatever, can I make it as clear as I possibly can that I think Israel should have full diplomatic recognition like any other state; it has the same rights and obligations; its citizens should have the same protection under international law as the citizens of any other state and have the same right as anyone else to live in peace etc. This is not a way of insinuating that Israel shouldn't exist. It is a question aobut what they mean who demand whether one accepts or not that Israel has a "right to exist".

Adam B.

Andrew, you haven't answered the question.

What, exactly (spell it out) are the Palestinians offering in terms of concessions?

And it is a complete lie to say they were offered 14%. Try over 90%. And it isn't all "their" land either - never was, either as a national entity nor as privately owned.

Drakken

Harold
Your defense of the indefensible shocks my senses to the core, but then Quislings like you shouldn't surprise me anymore. I was one of those Marines on Oct 23 83. Your defending of that scum of a so-called human being who blessed and condoned that attack on our barracks is reprehensible to the core. Unfortunatley I cannot tell you exactly what I think of you and your kind because the comment won't go through.

Adam B.

Isn't it funny how Harold, Andrew etc. manage to turn the indefensible into yet another ignorant and visceral attack on Israel. This thread is about the lies told about Gaza. How do they explain the new mall, the swimming pool, when there are supposedly no building materials?

How does this get explained away?

Harold

Drakken
July 22nd, 2010 6:01pm
If i could just quote again a couple of the relevant paragraphs in the obiruary:

"Fadlallah was an important intellectual leader and initiator of the Hezbollah movement, which was founded in 1982. However, he was never its leader, as he was sometimes described by the Western media. It is also unlikely that he “blessed” the two suicide bombers who blew up the headquarters of the American and French contingents of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Beirut on 23rd October 1983. This rumour was probably spread by Fadlallah’s opponents within Lebanon.

As a result, the CIA attempted to kill the cleric with a car bomb on a densely-populated street in Bi’r al-Abd on 8th March 1985. Nearly 100 people died and 200 were wounded. Fadlallah, however, had been delayed and, as if by a miracle, remained unhurt. Responding to the attack, he commented: “This is why we will no longer respect any admonitions by the Americans about human rights, the rejection of terrorism, freedom and such matters.”"

Adam B.

Drakken, my condolences for those you knew who were murdered by the fascist terrorists of Hizbollah.

Andrew

Adam B.
July 22nd, 2010 5:57pm
The show of truculent incomprehension about concessions, the deployment of the tired (false) gambit about Trans-Jordan, the studied ignorance of the treatment of native populations under international law, both at the time of the first ambiguous pledges to the Zionists and today...Comical. Or ignorant. Or cynical. Or naive and innocently stupid.

Harold

Adam B.
The families and friends of the US marines should certainly have the condolences of everyone, as should the families of those killed in the US navy's shelling of Beirut and the CIA's bombing, and of the US ally Israel's invasion of the Lebanon and slaughter of civilians, and Israel's ally the Phalange's killing spree...Your sympathy seems curiously one-sided, not to say stunted.

Adam B.

Andrew, just as I thought. You are left unable to name a single concession offered by the Palestinians for peace - which simply demonstrates your true agenda. Your subsequent verbose and incoherent ramblings do not act as an effective fig leaf for a lack of substance.

mostly harmless

Can we be next in line for one of these blockades please?

Adam B.

Harold, your obtuse inability to recognize the tragic loss of civilian life during warfare and the deliberate taergeting of civilians (or peacekeepers asin the case of the US barracks), and the celebrations surrounding the deaths of civilians, is characteristic and predictable. It is the staple diet of those who delight in moral relativism.

If Hizbollah is really the same for you as the US (in fact, you seem to think the US is a greater evil), then enjoy your life. I have nothing to say to you.

Andrew

Adam B.
July 23rd, 2010 5:32pm
"Harold, your obtuse inability to recognize the tragic loss of civilian life during warfare and the deliberate taergeting of civilians (or peacekeepers asin the case of the US barracks)"

Are you arguing that scattering cluster bombs on towns and villages is okay because it is not the deliberate targetting of civilians? Likewise, naval bombardment of a city? Likewise, encouraging militias to "search" refugee camps? The killing of innocent men, women,and children is just one of those things - a tragic fact of war, hey-ho? (Who would have thought dropping cluster bombs on people would lead to deaths?)

And "peacekeepers"? (Although, if they had by this stage in proceedings been genuine peacekeepers - as I imagine the marines understood themselves to be - it would be devoutly to be wished that Israel clearly understood them not to be UN peacekeepers and that Israel did not have their precise coordinates.)

(By the way, "Andrew, just as I thought. You are left unable to name a single concession offered by the Palestinians for peace etc. etc. etc." - Have you really and truly made no effort to read the documents relating to any of the many rounds of negotiations? Really and truly? And yet you feel able to come out with "etc. etc. etc."?)

Augustus

Harold alleges that Israel is deliberately trying to half starve Gazans, but I don't think there's much danger of that: Only days ago a new three story shopping mall was opened in central Gaza selling everthing under the sun. What is happening is that two Lebanese ships are heading towards Gaza with the aim of busting the sea blockade and supplying so-called humanitarian aid, whereas their real objective is just to provoke Israel and create further opprobrium against it from the international community. This is purely provocation against Israel which even the UN doesn't condone. If matters get out of hand, and Israel has to deal these busters a heavy blow, they will have only themselves to blame. These seafaring coalitions of stupid Western volunteers and Islamic radicals aren't really concerned about Gazan poverty, they are just playing a political game. No wonder Egypt quickly opened its border after the first 31st May
incident. Israel had to be seen as the only guilty party. And that's the whole objective of 'aid convoys', because if it was really about delivering goods organizations could easily
deliver these by land with Israel's help. But nice new confrontations at sea are a much more attractive undertaking.

gareth

Well said Adam B.

Harold and Andrew just hate Israel......because it's PC and the right thing to do!!
They probably listen to The Corrs and drink Chardonnay.

C.Gee

Andrew @ July 22nd, 2010 4:34pm:

That is utter rubbish. Amateur psychology, sophomoric politics and ill-educated history. It is also Protocol theatre of the sort popularized in TV dramas in Egypt: Jews plotting for no reason other than there love of murder. Shame on you. The old, old blood libel again. You are not even aware of your crassness.

If the Jewish state were motivated by murderousness and the urge to "control" as your drama suggests, given that they now have the means to obliterate their victims - or, as you say, bomb them to oblivion- what on earth is holding them back? You cannot at the same time believe Israel to be so clever, so stupid, so careless yet so careful of international moral norms, so devious yet so transparent.

Your machinating Israel reminds me of the story of two Jews in discussion about how to kill a flea. The first suggests catching the flea, taking a set of tiny tweezers, forcing open the flea's mouth and forcing it to swallow poison. The second is amazed and points out that if you have caught the flea - all you need to do is squash it. "Hmm", says the first, "that is also a way."

Evacuating Gaza was a bad error, not a Machiavellian triumph. Those devious Jews have succeeded only in shooting themselves in the foot, every day. Leaving Gaza to the Palestinians was a very costly means of demonstrating what the Palestinians really want - especially since much of the world will not see that reality.

Your pity for Palestinian children rings about as true as your Shylock-of-Malta-Fagin Jew act.

Harold

Augustus
July 23rd, 2010 10:53pm
"Harold alleges that Israel is deliberately trying to half starve Gazans" Now you are just being dishonest. It was Dov Weisglass explained the purpose of the blockade (which you otherwise professed to find inexplicable). His explanation you described as the realm of misanthropic madness - as is the practice explained.

The naval blockade is not legal just because Israel says it is. It is in fact illegal under the international law Israel professes to observe.

Andrew

C.Gee
July 24th, 2010 2:45am
I took the trouble to read up on the sayings of the Dov Weisglass referred to above. He said among other things that Sharon hoped to drag out the "peace process" for another twenty five years with a series of "interim agreements" (a strategy successful in the previous forty odd years). The Road Map, he said, would lead to a Palestinian state and terrorism. The answer, he said, was disengagement. "It is a bottle of formaldehyde wihtin which you place the President's formula so that it will be preserved for a very lengthy perios...It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians...The political process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. THe political process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen." Disengagement was part of the plan to ensure that the Road Map would not produce a viable Palestinian state, but a series of self-contained and easily containable cantons (this policy continues to be successful). It also fortuitously allowed Israel to wash its hands of some of the pesky Arabs in occupied territories who were such a demographic worry. And disengagement to the perimeter did not stop the IDF lobbing shells at will and practicing their sharpshooting and gave the IAF a perfect training area. And you expect the Palestinians not to resist? (Annoyingly, resistance is recognised by the UN as a legitimate response to occupation.) The Israeli government expected resistance. I doubt it was surprised the resistance came in the form of criminal acts - feeble, indiscriminate and occasionally lethal. It would clearly have preferred the corrupt and compromised Fatah (As in the West Bank where the US army and CIA are busy training Fatah thugs to ensure the acquiescence of the population). The US forced a blunder on Israel by insisting on elections. Dov Weisglass elucidated the Israeli response - the diet. The IDF and IAF provided the rest of the response - the target practice with live ammo and the occasional obliterating invasion.

Your intemperate reply is comical or distasetful, I can't decide which. Try reading the Israeli press once in a while (it still occasionally inadvertently publishes what is going on.)

Augustus

Harold - Sorry to disappoint you
about the legality of the sea blockade, but you are wrong to say that it is illegal. According to Gabriela Shalev, until recently UN Israeli ambassador, "Israel may, according to international law, use all possible means to stop such convoys." And she should know, she is a professor of law.
So there is no question about that. But what you and others cannot explain is why such goods
need to be expressly delivered by sending ship to Gaza in the first place, especially as its inhabitants are a good deal better of than those of many Arab nations.

Adam B.

Andrew, all your twisting and turning does not hide the fact that you have not provided a single example of the Palestinians offering concessions. I'll ask you again - what have the Palestinian Arabs offered by way of concessions in order to achieve peace?

Furthermore, your hysterical and ill-informed accusations do nothing to give you any credence. When people start using emotionally manipulative and hysterical language in thier posts, it usually hides a poor grip on facts. For example, Israel did NOT drop cluster munitions on towns - it is a complete falsehood to claim they did. As too are your claims about the UN (the compound was not hit as claimed, and past incidents have involved terrorists using UN sites from which to fire, as confirmed by Canadian troops). The rest of your moral relativism and playing fast and loose with the truth speaks for itself.

Harold

Augustus
July 24th, 2010 12:51pm
"Harold - Sorry to disappoint you about the legality of the sea blockade, but you are wrong to say that it is illegal. According to Gabriela Shalev, until recently UN Israeli ambassador, "Israel may, according to international law, use all possible means to stop such convoys." And she should know, she is a professor of law."

Oh, what larks! I suggest that Israel cannot decide for itself what is legal. Your riposte? The former Israeli ambassador to the UN says it's lawful, so it's lawful! Thank you for clearing that up for me.

I notice you have not corrected your mistake - I did not "allege" anything. I quoted what the Israeli government explained its policy to be. I think we can believe what was said, because they promptly put it into practice. And, as you so rightly said, what they put into practice was a realm of misanthropic madness - although,as you don't say, with a clear political purpose.

Augustus

Harold - your stupid parotting of everything other commenters say before you can get your head around trying to find a contradiction is boring in the extreme. People only have to scroll up if they want to read the original. So you set your self up above an international professor of law? Or is it just that this person happens to be Jewish? I suggest that you book yourself on a berth with the next ship which thinks it can run the blockade, and good luck!

Adam B.

Harold, Israel's partial blockade is not illegal. It is nonsense to claim that it is.

Egypt, for its part, operates a total blockade.

Wonder why.

Harold

Andrew,

A few hints on how to approach an Adam B.

First, on the question of Palestinian concessions. This is one of his ploys. He will repeat this question again and again. He will not take the trouble to do the homework that would render his question unnecessary. He will not accept any answer you are weak enough to give him. Do not be drawn in.

On his more-in-hypocrisy-than-in-sorrow shrug of "tragic things happen in war". Be careful not to be drawn into accepting the implicit assumption. Israel's invasion and occupation of the Lebanon was not war. It was unlawful aggression. Any act of violence perpetrated on the Lebanese by Israel was illegal.

On his favourite get-out-of- jail free gambit. He will say that you are an ethical abomination for not recognising that Israel killing civilians while pinpoint targetting terrorists with a blunderbuss is wholly different from terrorists attacking civilians deliberately. You can point out that the same defence would no doubt be equally successful if used by mafiosi who spray a busy cafe with machine gun fire because they have a hunch their target often has a drink there. He will not be shifted from his faith in the IDF's good intentions regardless of the testimony of victims and perpetrators.

On the question of cluster bombs. Do not give him a free gift. If, as seems likely, the bulk of the cluster bombs fell on the fields and roads between the towns and villages, and not on the towns and villages themselves, he will feel able to assert that their illegal use was okay.

Lindsay

What is it makes Israel's blockade of Gaza legal?

C.Gee

Andrew:

"And disengagement to the perimeter did not stop the IDF lobbing shells at will and practicing their sharpshooting and gave the IAF a perfect training area."

That is all you need to say. We understand your thinking perfectly. I was not incorrect - however "tasteless" you find it - in my assessment of the intellectual lineage of your views.

May I suggest you go to the trouble of reading Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post?

Augustus

Harold - Adam B. must really think that you are a nutter with those schoolboy 'hints' which you publish for young Andrew's guidance. Is it not war when somebody is out to destroy you? Hezbollah themselves spoke of the Zionist enemy. After Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 Hezbollah had set up more than 10,000 rockets (delivered by Iran via Syria) on the border, and frequently tried to kidnap Israeli soldiers, trying to barter them for Palestinian prisoners. And in 2004 Hezbollah managed to exchange 400 prisoners for three
dead Israelis and a kidnapped Jewish businessman. These Hezbollah 'successes' made them popular with the sunni Palestinians and formed the inspiration for the first and second intifadas in the Palestinian territories. You must have a very sinister and evil motive for siding with such anti-Semitic terrorists, who bombed the American embassy in Beirut and many other atrocities, and is financed by the sworn enemies of the West.

Adam B.

Harold, you can't simply make the law up as you go along. It is the most ridiculous hypocrisy to claim I haven't done my homework, when it is patently obvious that you know nothing at all about law. Yet you pontificate and make big sweeping legal judgments. To repeat, the partial blockade by Israel of Gaza is not illegal - no-one of any credibility claims it is (Egypt's total blockade is another matter) and Israel's use of cluster muntions, which were not targeted at towns, was not illegal. You can disagree with their use, but this does not constitute a legal argument.

It is noteworthy that neither you, nor Andrew, acn provide a single example of Paletinian concessions. Is that because they would look rather pathetic in comparison to what Israel is being asked to concede?

Go on, tell us - if you can.

Bluster.

Adam B.

Augustus, I don't mind nutters, but I do mind those who set out on a campaign to vilify and delegitimise the Jewish state, in order to halp pave the way to destroying it.

Let's be honest (even if they won't be), that's what Harold and Andrew would like to see.

Andrew

On cluster bombs, refer to the US Congressional investigation after the invasion of 1982, and the report "Cluster Munitions in Lebanon" by Landmine Action, or any number of other readily available sources. On the legality of the war see the report "Israel in Lebanon" by the international commission under Sean MacBride after 1982 or any reputable authority on international law. Of course, I should not have restricted my comment to cluster bombs. There is plenty of testimony and evidence of the illegal use of most other munitions available to Israel by land, sea and air. It only needs the will not to pretend (for political or idealogical reasons)the evidence isn't there - the pretence is no mean feat.

I note with some pleasure that, as predicted, Adam B. repeats his question yet again when the evidence is, again, very readily available to anyone who genuinely wants to know the answer.

And, C. Gee, I have had the misfortune to read Ms. Glick and to see some of her attempts at humour. Can I suggest in turn that you read a detailed log of incidents in Gaza over the last ten years. I won't ask yo to tell me what "Protocol theatre Jews" "plotting for no reason other than there love of murder" "the old, old blood libel again" "Shylock-of-Malta-Fagin Jew act" has to do with anything. I assume it is just a particularly virulent form of the standard way of trying to shut up critics of the state of Israel.

I had hoped for your response to Dov Weisglass, but perhaps it is easier to fling out insults, obsecene were they not ridiculous, rather than address what is actually going on.

Augustus

Adam B. I entirely agree. Again Andrew delights in writing about all the wrongs of Israel. Never mind that many countries use cluster bombs, but when the term 'cluster bomb' is mentioned
fingers must point to Israel. The fact remains, as you say, it is no myth that Israel's destruction is sought by many unsavoury factions, and these people cannot sincerely believe that Hamas et al would not follow that path if they could. Irael's use of cluster bombs during the Lebanon war is just another well-worn manifestation of their hatred. Israel is a plucky little state risen out of the ashes of a former persecuted people, and long may it assertively defend itself. To people like Harold and Andrew
it is a bloody occupier not listening to their twisted sentiments. Let them stew, I say.

Lindsay

And what is it makes Israel's aggression against Lebanon over the decades lawful acts of self-defense? (I mean in law, not what Israel's supporters feel.)

And as this is a blog in defence of Israel is it not an appropriate place to raise critisisms of Israel?

Adam B.

Andrew, "Landmine Action"? Yeah sure, they're coming at it with an impartial view (!) Hope you never get chosen to be on a jury, you'd swallow every partisan viewpoint as long as it tallies with yours. This does not constitute a legal argument.

Incidentally, every single Kassam rocket fired by Hamas and Islamic Jihad into Israel is indeed illegal, because they are indiscriminate weapons. Furthermore, the deliberate use of them on civilian towns and villages is also illegal - two illegal actions. No doubt this is fine by you - you who pretend to care about the law so much (if it suits).

The reason I keep asking you what concessions are being made by the Palestinians is simple - there aren't any. Neither you nor your US and Israel hating Hamas apologist friend can name a single concession. Research? You can't find what doesn't exist!

Fatah hasn't even recognized Israel as a Jewish state yet.

Adam B.

Lindsay, this precise blog is about the pretend humanitarian crisis in Gaza, manufactured as a propaganda weapon againt Israel. Building materials, which we are constantly told cannot be found in Gaza, suddenly materialize for a big shopping centre and an Olympic pool.

Why don't you talk about that?

Adam B.

You're right Augustus.

They enjoy their hatred - it is part of their identity.

Sad really.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Andrew et all will continue to predicate their arguments against Israel on the implied assumption that all they care about is the upholding of International Law.

Hogwash, of course, because as soon as International Law works in Israel's favour, they scramble - in panic mode - for another hook on which to hang this state.

Given that all these characters believe Israel was founded according to motives they construe as nefarious, nothing it can or will do - International Law or no International Law - will score brownie points with them.

Israel, on the other hand, will never be convinced that the basis for its existence is totally immoral. That is is just a fact of life, love it or hate it.

Accordingly, it is redundant to focus on elements of Israel foreign policy and, specifically military policy, if the hope is to convince anyone that by accepting the criticism we will move further down the road to peace.

Unless, of course, peace is not the objective..and, strangely, you never hear any of these worshipers of the Law mention it.Funny that.

In these circumstances, the likelihood of Israel ever trusting this kind of opinion, let alone the Islamism of the Hamas Charter or the public pronouncements of Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, Fatah - must be very slight.

Andrew and his merry Law worshipers know very well that there is a stark irony in the indubitable fact that the kind of debate they purport to want to engage in here would be absolutely impossible in the countries to whom they lend their support either by design or default i.e. Israel is the only one in which it would be permissable - the state that so many they avoid criticising at all want to destroy (we give them the benefit of the doubt and,so, let's just call these Law lovers ignoble, crass enablers..).

Guys, stop this claptrap. If your motives are honorable, you are certainly short on smarts when it comes to choosing a way of achieving anything. If they are not, you will merely enable more bloodshed...Either way, you are contributing little to anything of note.

Lindsay

Here's a thing. It is not allowed here that any body public or private that disagrees with Israel may judge of the legality of Israel's actions. Israel alone can judge of the legality of its actions. Israel has a very particular way of doing this, as described, for example, by the then head of the IDF's legal department (as was pointed out earlier, I think by Andrew). If there is something Israel wants to do, but which its law officers know to be illegal, then Israel does it anyway, often enough for everyone to get blase about it. The IDF lawyer was talking about judicial murder. The same pattern is to be observed again and again. For example, Israel's senior law officers confirmed in 1967 that settlement of the occupied territories was clearly and unambiguously illegal. The politicians went ahead anyway. Moshe Dayan explitly said, it is illegal, but we will do it anyway. Israel has been doing it ever since. Everyone expects it. (Of course this only works for Israel because its sponsor the US accepts it. If any other state tried it whom the US did not approve of that state would be bombed to oblivion.) The effect is that, where it matters enough to Israel to persevere in breaking the law, the law is in effect what Israel defines it to be. It is not good enough simply to say that Israel's lawlessness has no bearing on whether peace is possible. This is not an assertion that Israel's supporters would accept of the much smaller-scale law-breaking of the likes of Hamas and Hezballah. Organizations that lob rockets indiscriminately are terrorist organizations. States that bomb with little regard to law are terrorist states. Neither are contributing to the chances of peace by their terrorist actions (and the hypocrisy of calling the state actions anything else does not help either.)

Adam B.

Lindsay, your argument does not stand up, and your hypocrisy becomes more apparent. Instead of addressing the subject of this blog, which you had admonished others for not doing (and my point to you remains unanswered), you harp on yet again about your legal theories.

Israel is the MOST law abiding nation in the region. None of its neighbours - not a single one Lindsay, including the Palestinians in either the guise of Fatah or Hamas, observe international law or treaties on the subject on human rights. Neither do they operate an independent judiciary (all with government control to varying degrees).

Israel, by contrast, has an independent judiciary, including an independent Supreme Court. This is because Israel is a liberal democracy, with checks and balances in place. The Supreme Court has regularly voted against government intentions (too often, if you ask me).

Consequently, Israel cannot "invent the law" to suit its own purposes, as the law is independent of government.

The hypocrisy here is amazing. Andrew and lindsay go on about law only to the point where it suits their Israel bashing interests.

That is an abuse of law, and a cynical attempt to use it as politically inspired ammunition.

Disgraceful.

Augustus

Lindsay - Your long winded disapproval of Israel's legalities rather lost me after
'bombed to oblivion'. Well, there are countless examples of states breaking laws without be bombed at all, let alone 'to oblivion'. Mugabe in Zimbabwe driving white farmers off their own farms, and even murdering a lot of them, is just one example of many. You talk about
settlements after the six-day war, but well before that Arafat
had begun calling for war for the express purpose of eliminating Israel. You also mention that the US is Israel's 'sponsor'. Up to a point, and presidents have paid lip service to a kind of special relationship. But in reality, especially today, the US relationship with Israel is variable. The State Department tends to favour Arab states, and there is no definite reason to assume that the US will stand by commitments it has made to Israel if it decided it was inconvenient to do so.

Tim Rawlings

The really amusing thing about this vacuous rant is that this picture isn't even of a shopping centre in Gaza. Yet another Melanie Phillips propaganda fail on behalf of the apartheid state.

Lindsay

Adam B. and Augustus,
Okay, international law is beyond you. I will revert to the question asked by several here that has yet to get an answer: if Gaza lives in luxury (as the MFA through its various mouthpieces is keen to have us believe), what purpose is served by the blockade on goods that constitute no security risk?

Augustus

Tim Rawlings - Where is it then?

See: The Humanitarian Crisis of the Gaza Mall (video) on YouTube

Exactly the same place as in the photo above. Idiot!

Adam B.

Tim Rawlings...er, yes it is.

A typical example of the moronic and ignorant propaganda Israel faces. Well done for proving Melanie's point.

Adam B.

Seeing past Lindsay's self-admiration, perhaps this individual (who has a rather selective sensitivity to law, thus making it an ass) can explain why Egypt operates a TOTAL blockade, unlike Israel's partial one (and in circumstances where Hamas and Islamic Jihad fire no missiles into Egypt)?

And why are we fed lies that Gaza has no buildning materials, when this is patently false?

Augustus

Lindsay asks: 'What purpose is served by a blockade on goods that constitute no security risk?'

Well, I've been thinking really hard about this so very important question. Perhaps it is so the Israeli authorities can, in the dead of night, substitute these harmless products with that drug-laced bubble gum which they cleverly produced and designed to destroy the genetic system of Palestinian youth. Or then again, perhaps it is so that they can, again in the dead of night, replace those boxes of perfectly harmless goods with carciogenic food and fruits, very cleverly modified for
Palestinian consumption. But I admit, it's a difficult one.

Lindsay

The MFA and its faithful mouthpieces make great play of some building materials. However, it is not clear what they want us to make of it. Is it that there is enough concrete to build this famed swimming pool, so there is enough concrete to rebuild all the homes, hospitals etc. destroyed by Israel? Or is it that, if they are foolish enough to use scarce concrete on a swimming pool, they don't deserve the concrete to rebuild what Israel destroyed?

Similarly, who is it said that Gaza is suffering starvation such as is seen in Africa?

And who is it does not understand how the economy works in times of shortage, when the only market thriving is the black market?

And who is it seems to be incapable of explaining why Israel continues to embargo goods despite its claim that Gaza is prosperous (and is reduced to the saddest contortions to avoid attempting an answer)?

Who is it is dishonest here?

Adam B.

That's easy Lindsay - you are.

That's because Israel has not destroyed "all those hospitals" (perhaps you can name one single hospital which was destroyed?)

Many have departed from reality in characterizing difficulties in Gaza - Lauren Booth compared Gaza to Auschwitz (as have sevarl Palestinian spokespeople), and several aid agencies have spread the big lie that there is mass malnutrition and no building materials. It is also in the mindset of many Western governments, who have contributed more aid to Gaza than any sub-Saharan African country. Why Lindsay, does each Palestinian in Gaza receive 1,000 more aid per capita than sub-Saharan Africans, despite the need not being nearly as great?

It is also false to say the only market thriving is the black market - you can see from restaurants, leisutre facilities, and villas for Hamas officials who drive BMW's that this in not the case.

In short, Lindsay, your assertions are false. If Israel is withholding non-military goods (and you continue to ignore Egypt's role in imposing a TOTAL blockade, a point which you have refused to address at all - isn't that dishonest?), it doesn't seem to be doing a very good job at it.

This "humanitarian crisis" is manufactured. That you refuse to acknowledge this says more about your default prejudices than anything about the situation on the ground.

Lindsay

Adam B.
July 27th, 2010 12:35pm

Oh, what a liar I am! When I said, "enough concrete to rebuild all the homes, hospitals etc. destroyed by Israel?", surely to goodness I should have known this to be FALSE. I should have recalled that the hospitals weren't destroyed, just damaged, and therefore in no need of rebuilding! I think you should read a full list of the damage done, by the way. Or is the fact that I LIED and said the hospitals were destroyed instead of damaged mean that you can ignore all the other damage? - which is the only conclusion to draw from the great care with which you picked out hospitals (damaged, not destroyed) and remained resolutely silent on all the other extensive and widely documented damage.

"Many have departed from reality" is true enough - from which it does not follow, as I'm sure you know, and is not true, as you ought to know, that there is no widespread malnutrition, or severe shortages of building materials, among many other things (severely damaged sewage works and water supply etc. etc.).

I believe the broad assessment of the various aid agencies. You believe only what the MFA and its loyal mouthpieces say. Why is the MFA the more trustworthy?

Do you not know how the black market works? What do you think it is a market in? Economic illiteracy is not a good foundation for moral righteousness.

"If Israel is withholding non-military goods" - IF? - "it doesn't seem to be doing a very good job at it." Precisely. Do you not think you might be a little disingenuous here (and not just with the ludicrous "IF")? Either Gaza is thriving, and the blockade is pointless - so why maintain it and attract all the opprobrium of appearing to punish a population in defiance of international law? Or Gaza is not thriving, outside of the black market, and the blockade is working - so why maintain dishonestly that it is not having the intended effect?

Egypt's misbehaviour, criminal misbehaviour, appears to persuade you that Israel's misbehaviour is acceptable. It isn't. I can think of some reasons for Egypt's behaviour. I'm sure you can think of more. It does not want Israel's refugee problem shunted onto it. It does not want the plight of the Palestinians to become merely a "humanitarian" problem which it is expected to mop up, instead of the political struggle it so obviously is. It does not want to give any encouragement whatsoever to the Muslim Brotherhood, which, alarmingly enough, would win any free elections in Egypt. And Mubarak relies on his paymaster, the US, and dare not disobey.

"This "humanitarian crisis" is manufactured" In any other context, where your prejudices and bigotry were not on full blast, you would recognise this denial as shameful.

Adam B.

Lindsay, careful, you're beginning to sound a little hysterical.

Language is important. Thus your casual comment "destroyed" betrays an erroneous mentality that Israel engaged in wanton destruction in Cast Lead. This is indeed a lie. Despite all the hysterical accusations, it is clear that targets were selected for a reason, and yes, war is not a perfect art, and yes, civilians got killed, and the homes of innocents were wrecked. That is NOT to say that Israel's action was unjustified. Israel not only has a right, but a duty to take action to protect its citizens from terror attacks. It may have escaped your notice, but it recently emerged that UK forces have engaged in actions in Afghanistan which have resulted in civilian deaths. It is unaviodable, especially when fighting an enemy which is adept at propaganda and fights behind and from amongst its own population. Hamas have been very open about this tactic - the "double" victory - hence if Israel aborts a mission because of the presence of civilians (many mission were indeed aborted), it is a victory. If Israel doesn't abort the mission and civilians are indeed harmed, it is also a victory, because suckers in the West will lap up the narrative of Palestinian victimhood. This has worked well in your case.

My personal view is that Israel should operate a total blockade of Gaza - it owes Gaza and the Palestinians precisely nothing. Your excuses for Egypt are laughable - are missiles landing on Egypt? Egypt indeed was instrumental in creating the Palestinian refugee problem (and they aren't refugees after 62 years - perhaps you can explain why Palestinian Arabs, alone of all peoples on earth, are accorded a hereditary refugee status? It's like Jews in the UK calling themselves German or Russian refugees - utterly ridiculous.) So frankly, I couldn't care less about your question. Israel shouldn't let ANYTHING in. It is a war, and no-one else on earth would be expected to supply their enemy. Only the Jews are expected to help those bent on their destruction (read the antisemitic and racist genocidal Hamas charter recently?)

Incidentally, even though Israel supplies power to Gaza, Hamas has repeatedly hit the very power station in Ashkelon which provides it with electricity. What a farce.

You refuse to ask yourself why, if building materials are available, they are not used to rebuild people's homes, instead going to swimming pools and shopping malls. Do you think it could be, perhaps, that solving the problem is not in Hamas' interests?

You need to stop swallowing every slogan and staged propaganda piece and think. Your attempt to exonerate Hamas and Egypt, whilst spewing forth venom and bile on Israel, betrays another agenda. We are not having a discussion about the partial blockade, you simply hate the Jewish state. You should be honest and admit your agenda.

Adam B.

Incidentally, you may also like to know that the Hamas leadership spent Cast Lead in a bunker under Shifa hospital.

What a great bunch of guys.

You also ignore the 30,000+ Palestinians from Gaza who received free medical treatment in Israel last year. Don't worry , doesn't fit the narrative - so ignore it.

Lindsay

Adam B.
July 27th, 2010 5:44pm
Oh, dear! Read up on just what Israel did damage and destroy, and what it used to do so. Chicken farms? Sewage works? Water works? Electricity supply? Flour mills? Hospitals? Roads, the UN, homes, lots of homes? etc. etc. etc. "targets were selected for a reason, and yes, war is not a perfect art"! The IDF has the will to do the deed, but its apologists cannot bring themselves to admit the reason.

Israel does indeed have the right to defend its citizens. I can't recalll anyone here suggesting otherwise. It had a ceasefire. It had the offer of talks. By no stretch of the laws of war was what it did lawful. It was not war. It was aggression. Its blockade is not lawful. It is the illegal punishment of a civilian population. The refugees continue to have rights that are not extinguished by time. This much has been acknowledged by Israeli negotiators (although no doubt repudiated by subsequent politicians, whose understanding of international law is as I have described).

Excuses for Egypt? Attempts to "exonerate" Egypt and Hamas? What? Where?

"You refuse to ask yourself why, if building materials are available..." And you struggle to read what is written. So the option you choose is that there is more than enough building material to repair all the wanton damage wrought by Israel, but Hamas simply insists on using the material to build swimming pools etc. And your evidence for this (other than the efforts of the MFA and its willing mouthpieces)?

You have been very clear in expressing your contempt for Palestinians. You have failed utterly to provide any moral or legal excuse for the behaviour of Israel. (I do love the way criticism of Israel is never criticism but "venom" and "bile" - to go along with the ineffable C. Gee's pogroms and protocols.)

And we still have no explanation of why Israel is making such an effort to impose a blockade and to persuade the world that its blockade is useless.

Adam B.

Lindsay, even more hysterical nonsense. Indeed, your post proves my point. You seem to be under the naive impression that Hamas would never use any of the buildings you list from which to fight. It has been proven time and again (yes, indeed you need to dig deeper) that mosques were used for storing munitions, whilst other supposed targets were not hit at all (indeed, a Mk 82 bomb was placed inside one building and dutifully photographed by the press). Hence the double victort doctrine, which you ignore, as well as the medical aid etc. For you, Israel can do no right. Be honest - you just hate Israel - this is not a debate about this or that policy. Your language betrays your visceral and irrational hatred.

The aggression came from Hamas, which had launched missiles into Israel for 8 years. I think it was ridiculous that Israel waited 8 years, (the Uk wouldn't) to take action (pleas to the Un fell on deaf ears of course during that period). You still don't understand - it is amazing Israel gives Gaza anything at all - in the reverse situation, Hamas would simply commit genocide against the Jews.

Enjoy your hatred - it seems to define you. How sad.

Adam B.

What silly "logic" - because not enough building materials are available - so you claim (on what evidence?) - it makes sense that no building work gets carried out with materials that are available. Better to use them for swimming pools and shopping malls.

You couldn't make it up!

Lindsay

Adam B.
Your logic, and the IDF's terms of engagement, seem to be: - if it has ever been believed to have been used in the past, or could conceivably be used in the future, to harbour resistance fighters/terrorists/militiamen then bomb the bejeesus out of it and anything in it, and then investigate whether your hunch was correct. Or, to put it more soberly, if you read the IDF's descriptions of how it tries to ensure zero casualties amongst its personnel, and the IDF's descriptions of how the "Dahiya Doctrine" contributes to this end, and compare this to the rules of war as codified in international agreements to which Israel is a signatory, you will find that, even if it were a war, the Israeli way of war (like the British and American) is unlawful. And in any event it isn't war, but aggression (if we take international law seriously, which many apologists for Israel here seem to be in two minds about).

"The aggression came from Hamas, which had launched missiles into Israel for 8 years"...Apparently you CAN make it up.

" because not enough building materials are available - so you claim (on what evidence?) - it makes sense that no building work gets carried out with materials that are available. Better to use them for swimming pools and shopping malls." ...?...?... I'm going to regret asking no doubt, but what on earth...?...?...

When your fellow apologist Augustus floundered as embarrassingly as this, he wisely chose to retreat into silence. I suggest you do the same.

Adam B.

Lindsay.

1. Israel targeted buildings from which hostile fire came. It did not target buildings willy nilly - if it had, the sacle of the destruction would have been far greater. Indeed, Israel has the power to flatten every structure in Gaza, which is hardly what happened.
2. Israel observes international law, unlike Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who break two separate laws every time they fire a missile into Israel (by using indiscriminate weapons, and targeting civilian towns).
3. Your lack of logic is dictated by your over-emotionalism and hysteria. It makes no sense to claim that no buidlding work has been completed on people's homes because there isn't enough for every single home to be rebuilt - therefore you think it better that NO homes are rebuilt. You know this as well as I. Your excuses for the opening of an Olympic pool and shopping mall are wearing rather thin.

4. Missiles were fired at Israeli towns and villages for 8 consecutive years. That you seem to think this unrtue acts as further proof that you are a fantasist, motivated by an irrational and disturbing hatred.

Lindsay

Adam B.
July 28th, 2010 3:14pm
1. So says the IDF. The evidence says otherwise.
2. False, as is attested by inquiry after inquiry and court after court and jurist after jurist.
3. You have lumbered yourself with a truly bizarre misunderstanding of what I said and seem unable to shake it off. I can't imagine how you got yourself into such a tangle.
4. You have to keep in mind what you said. You said the aggression came from Hamas. It didn't. Israel has at least as good a claim to be the aggressor, indeed in many instances a very much stronger claim. That rockets were fired at Israel has never been in dispute - another of your bizarre misreadings.

I note that every point you raise that receives an answer you can't answer slips from view never to be raised by you again. Doesn't inspire confidence.

Adam B.

Lindsay, what "evidence"? Every piece of evidence I have seen, including the professional appraisals of Col Tim Collins, and Col Richard Kemp, attests to the problems Israel faced in such warfare, cynically manipulated by Hamas in using its own civilians as human shields. Other evidence points to the planting of fake "evidence", like the bomb in the flour mill. You need to dig deeper.

What "jurists"? And please don't quote the Israel hating UN at me, the organization which put Libya with its torture chambers and secret police in charge o human rights and Zimbabwe with its 100,000% inflation in charge of economic development.
It isn't my fault that you are unable to understand what you yourself wrote. I'll ask you again, why are teh palestinians building Olympic pools and shopping malls when they claim they have no materials to repair homes? Merely shrilling accusations left right and centre doesn't actually answer the point. And I take it you condemn Hamas' deliberate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, and its antisemitic charter?

Harold

Lindsay,
I've been there before you. Don't be drawn by Adam B. He won't seek out jurists, or evidence, or anything, however easy of access. If you give him the information, he will disregard it. It will meet with silence. His curious misunderstanding of what you said, he will repeat with minor variations again and again. He will not acknowledge he got it wrong. He is not attempting to debate, but browbeat you. He has a tiny repetoire he recycles endlessly. If one fails, he'll flash another. If all else fails, he will require you to condemn the genocidal etc.

Travis

If Gaza is a prison - which it certainly is not - the Hamas are the jail wardens. David Cameron is a pasty faced idiot.

Adam B.

Harold, you have singularly failed to provide a scrap of evidence for your contentions, whilst you ignore reams of evidence about the illegal use of civilians by Hamas as human shields. But it comes down to this: do you believe a liberal democracy which is governed by the rule of law with a free press - or a neo-Nazi antisemitic racist terror organization which crushes any dissent from within or without, which targets civilians deliberaqtely and celebrtaes the deaths of innocents?

Interesting, by the way, that when asked about Hamas, Lindsay does a disappearing act.

Omar

This is Lie..Its a lie propagated by Israel to stop the humanitarian aid to the poor gaz people..