The west's bloodstained hands

David SI

"The western intelligentsia are not passive onlookers to this never-ending tragedy. They are active players in ensuring that it continues. It is high time that they were held to account for this murderous obsession."

Agree entirely, but it'll never happen unfortunately.

bru wales

Melanie,

The settlers chose to live on other peoples land. If they take that choice, they live with the consequences.

It turned out to be a bad choice, but they knew the stakes. Nobody decides to live in another peoples land without weighing up the consequences.

It was an opportunity they had. Unlike the thousands of Palestinians who would like to return to their homes, but have no opportunity.

Racist?

dmgold

The 'settler' issue is minor next to the demand for 'the right of return' to Israel by Pali 'refugees' and for the legitimate security demands(see UN resolution 242) of Israel and dont forget the division of Jerusalem. Even if all the settlers left tommorow morning the world would wake up to the next demand and of course it would still be the fault of the Jews. Most Israelis have their heads on their shoulders still and can see nothing new in this new peace process other than another raging intifada at the end of it. The progressive world wont desist however until Israel ceases to exist. Could be a long and bloody wait I would say.

Bob

In my humble opinion the slanted journalism and the free pass given to Islam no matter what atrocity is carried out exists because of the following 3 points:

1. As long as the Muslims have huge amounts of petro-dollars there will many who aspire to power and influence who see merit in whatever muslims want.

2. Wannabe politians in UK, USA, Etc need vast amounts of capital to get elected and unlike 50 years ago when just trade unions or Industry supplied the money, there is now the oil money. Another source of finance but with strings attached

3. It must be very hard to write unpalatable truths against an unprincipled but well financed politician and even more difficult to be invited to the next press conference once you have done so. Journalists therefore just take the line of least resistance

Truth is but a small weapon against the Vast influence of the oil money

AY

Bob

Oil money is only a component.
UBL was a billioner, but he refused safe life of a rich worm, and consciously made all choices for terror, leading to his death in Afghan cave.

What West facing is the ideologized barbaric cult, using many tactics and tools, notably religious brainwashing and terrorism sponsored by oil money, to realize its totalitarian goals.

Gershon

@bru wales

Totally and utterly wrong. The entire land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people. The Arabs are the squatters. They should be returned as soon as possible to Mecca and Medina.

AY

There was no word from UK authorities, predictably.

When 9 Turkish terrorists were killed while attacking IDF on that flotilla, Hague issued a statement of "concern", just in minutes.

But when four defenceless people, two women among them, are shot and then finished at point blank range, - no reason for concern, they are only settlers. They called it on themselves.

It's hard to say, but West will pay for this meanness, pay to the same jackals. Because this reaction showing no will to stand for an ally today, also shows no will to stand for themselves tomorrow.

Sarah AB

I'm sympathetic to ordinary Palestinians whose lives are certainly restricted - but this isn't all Israel's fault. There was a bizarre interview on the Today programme this morning with someone who has written a book about Hamas - Professor Milton-Jones - who earnestly asserted that Hamas were in favour of both peace and negotiation. It was quite early in the morning but I don't think she said anything to square this assertion with the recent attacks for which Hamas had taken responsibility - she didn't even, for example, I don't think, distinguish between different possible factions within Hamas.

Derek BLADES

Ms Phillips is rightly concerned that Israel should not "expose yet more of its civilians to murderous attack." The obvuous way to do this is to call a halt to settlements in the occupied West Bank.

This would also help the Obama peace process. Some of Ms Phillip's blogs give the impression that she does not want her peace process to proceed. I am sure this is a mistaken impression but it would be good to see her write in support of a genuine peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.

Charlene

It truly beggars belief what is going on in the west today. Murderers are rewarded, not held to account as this article and analysis highlights. Truly the Guardian and thier ilk are colluding with evil. They are not settlers they are Jewish civillians living in their Promised Land being murdered by psychopaths who hate, read Bridgitte Gabriel's 'Because they Hate', Bru from Wales and all those who pity those murderers who teach their children to hate and celebrate death.

Yisrael Medad

May I suggest the term "resident" instead of "settler", although I prefer "revenant".

phil

bru Wales
September 2nd, 2010 3:37am ----------
------------------
Racist?you must be the judge of what you feel ,but wrong ,of course ,just read what Mel has written ,which it appears you have not and then send us your legal arguments .Too many like you take in soundbites , and then jump to conclusions -dangerous stuff for all our futures .I have spent a month on the intermission thread whilst Mel has been away trying in my amateur way to counter lies and innuendos ,TG ,Mel is back !! --harold and lindsay guardianistas to their roots can deal with her instead -amateur month is over .

So, N

Hey, bru, the settlers are NOT living on "other peoples [sic] land". That's your fundamental error - one you make on purpose because it serves your agenda. that But I guess you think the earth is flat, right?

Imshin

One woman wrote about one the women murdered:

"Hi – I am sitting here crying because one of the women murdered tonight was my son’s gannenet (kindergarten teacher). Yehuda is six and is mentally retarded – his teachers are our world because they bring him such joy when the world is such an overwhelming and confusing place. Cochava was an angel, and we were with her an hour before she died – she was on her way home from the gan (kindergarten) welcome back orientation when she was murdered."

http://www.crossingtheyarden.com/2010/09/lives-not-statistics/

Raoul

Did BRU WALES understand anything at all of Melanie's article? It appears not. And if those murdered were Israelis on the other side of the green line, as has too frequently been the case, then what would Bru Wale's argument be? Or must all Israelis *take the consequences* for living in their own land?

Andrei

Everyone should condemn murder. Murder of civilians worse. Worst of all murder of unborn child. But this commentary is grotesque in just about every other respect.

Raymond Douglas

Appeasement, appeasement and appeasement. That is the agenda for our current crop of politicians today. In this, they are helped along by a craven and dishonest media. Sadly, this mentality even effects many sectors of the Christian church leadership who should know better. God continue to bless you Melanie. You are every inch the prophet for our times in the media world you live in.

Tru Wales

Bru Wales did you actually READ Melanie's article before you wrote? or did the automatic opposition kick in? You have no argument against the fact that there was never a Palestinian land of the Palestinians and this was a no man's land until the Jordanians illegally occupied it .So according to your argument Israel must allow Arabs to live successfully in Israel but if there ever is a Palestinian State it must be judenrein?

Joshua

"The settlers chose to live on other peoples land. If they take that choice, they live with the consequences."

Britain is currently occupying parts of Argentina, Spain, Ireland and Afghanistan. I hope you realise the significance of what you are saying. Or does your logic only work for Jews?

Truthtriumphs

bru wales.
"The settlers chose to live on other people's land."

That comment is borne out of gross ignorance.
For Islam, the kuffir is not entitled to land deemed to be Islamic.
Here's a simple clue to the rightful owners of the land.
Judea---- hence the name Jew.
Arabia, as in the A Peninsula---Arab.
Take a look at the map, and read up on the history.

Bob

To
bru wales

Your posting illustrates perfectly what Melanie speaks of what I spoke of in my earlier posting. The belief that the jews only arrived in Israel in modern times from Poland or Germany.

The jews were in Israel and were all over the middle east from Biblical times right up to the modern age.

One should ask, what were the Arabs(only called Palestinians since 1968) doing when the Jews were building temples to God (in Israel) and laying the moral foundations that western populations still live by?

The return of the European Jews in the 20th century merely showed the existing dhimmi jews of the middle east and Israel how to regain control of the government of their state. This culminated in the re-founding of the state of Israel.

A jewish population has never been absent from Israel. The influx of European Jews in the 20th century merely facilitated the wresting back of control from the corrupt conquerors. And what did these conquerors give the mankind? The word baksheesh? New methods of fighting like Taqiyya and Kitman? (google it if you don't know what it means)

There are gaps in your knowledge and these are being filled by propaganda instead of history

Have a nice day

Truthtriumphs

Sorry Melanie, but you are wrong to say that the "settlers"
would and should give up most of the WB if there's a real chance of peace.
As you now rightly acknowledge, that land belongs to the Jews---legally, morally and historically.
The present armistice green line was rightly described as the "Auschwitz line"--- indefensible.
Why do you think that Israel, a minute speck on the globe, should cede what it rightfully owns, to an aggressive, supremacist creed in control of vast areas of territory, most of which was aggressively and illegally acquired by bloody conquest?

Rebel Saint

Bru Wales,

The Palestinians chose to live on other peoples land. If they take that choice, they live with the consequences.

It turned out to be a bad choice, but they knew the stakes. Nobody decides to live in another peoples land without weighing up the consequences.

It was an opportunity they had. Unlike the thousands of Jewish immigrants who would like to return to their ancient homeland, but have no opportunity.

Racist?

Margaret Muller-Johansson

bru wales, the land Israel belongs to the Israeli people, it belonged to them in the past, it belongs to them in the present and it will belong to them in the future.

Augustus

Hebron may seen by the world as an Arabic city, but even so, Hebron remained, since the time that Abraham was buried there, occupied by Jews. In 1929 the Arabs massacred the Jews there in wholesale slaughter, but in recent years Jews have returned to Hebron, or to be more precise, in one particular street. To the Arabs, who like to call themselves Palestinians,
and to international organizations and media groups,
these Jewish residents are labelled 'a hindrance to peace'.
But to the Jews themselves this
is their forefathers' land, and they don't see why it should be
taken from them. The Jews in Hebron are in constant danger. They can't build any more dwellings because the government is afraid of Arabic
revenge and for escalating violence. And Obama's policy simply has a negative influence.
He wants to dismantle the settlements without even being knowledgeable about the matter and all the problems. In that one Jewish street Arabs aren't allowed to drive their cars, but they can use it as pedestrians, and this makes them feel discriminated against.
But on the other hand, the whole of the Arabic part of Hebron is a no-go area to the Jews, and if they do try they risk their lives. Arabic Hebron
(where the Jews aren't allowed)
isn't what the Palestinians would have you believe, a decrepid old city. It's full of new modern houses in better condition than Amman in Jordan. The city of Hebron is just like an enormous aquarium full of sharks which the world thinks is a goldfish bowl. In fact you could say that the most Arabic city in Israel is a typical symbol of Western ME politics.

Truthtriumphs

"The real opponents of Zionism can never be placated by any diplomatic formula: their objection to the Jews is that the Jews exist, and in this particular case, that they exist in Palestine".
CHAIM WEITZMANN.
Trial and Error. Page 290.

Therein is the essence of the problem, and the great powers go along with it because the Jews, tiny in number as they are, are expendable.

blue_&_white_avenger

Hey Augustus! "The Jews in Hebron are in constant danger. They can't build any more dwellings because the government is afraid of Arabic
revenge and for escalating violence."
RONG - well at least only partly right - they can't even occupy the buildings they OWN: the whole market area was Jewish owned before the 1929 pogrom & was declared such by the courts years ago - but the army threw out the Jews who went to live there; ditto, the house bought back from an Arab at vast cost from which the Jews were evicted recently...

rippon

It's great that everyone on this thread is recognising what this conflict is about - land (and, btw, other resources too, e.g. water).

There is a solid body of international law and numerous UN resolutions to settle the land issue. The reason the conflict is not resolved is because America and Israel, the global and regional super-powers respectively, have the power to block progress and trample international and humanitarian law.

Noam Chomsky correctly observes that Israel has always preferred expansion over security.

Someone remarked that bru wales should consider carefully the wider implications of what s/he was saying. Well, those are simple and clear: when allied forces occupy other people's land, they too have to suffer the consequences - which, in fact, are nothing compared to the horrendous consequences for the occupied.

Miranda Rose Smith

bru wales
September 2nd, 2010 3:37am
Melanie,

The settlers chose to live on other peoples land. If they take that choice, they live with the consequences.

Dear Mr, Wales: What other people's land? I don't know where you live, but I guarantee you, somebody thinks he's entitled to it.

George

Derek BLADES,

With regard to Melanie Phillips' desire to see an end to Israel's citizens being exposed to yet more murderous attacks, you suggest that "the obvious way to do this is to call a halt to settlements in the occupied West Bank."
Your logic seems to be somewhat faulty. Firstly, there has been a building freeze for the last nine months. Secondly, Israel tried this solution in Gaza just over five years ago. Not only was all building stopped, Israel totally withdraw from Gaza. Yet the rain of rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel's internationally recognised territory didn't cease - it increased. I suggest that you search for a better solution.

Derek Pasquill

If the Guardian and the bien pensants on both sides of the Atlantic did not exist, they would have to be invented.

As the Creole saying goes - "Evil exists" - and its nauseating trail is revealed in what passes for polite, liberal society.

Alex Bensky

Of course, if the Arabs had accepted the UN's 1947 partition plan, the sum total of displaced Arabs would have been none. But alone among the people of the world, Palestinian Arabs are allowed to refuse offers, launch and lose wars, and never have to suffer conseqauences.

Dmgold is of course right--if Israel withdrew every single person...call them settlers, residents, what you will...from the post-1967 lines tomorrow, the Palestinians would still insist on the right of return as an obstacle to making peace.

Israeli hasbara (information) seems lax in pointing out that no such right exists. Millions upon millions of people were dislocated in the last century as a result of, among other events, the world wars and the breakup of India and Pakistan. Except for Palestinian Arabs, not a soul among those untold millions is in a refugee camp today and none of them claim any "right of return."

My sympathy for the Palestinian Arabs is equal to my sympathy for, say, the Sudeten Germans. No less, but no more.

Gordon Ross

It's gratifying to read the informed comments of the Jewish state's supporters on Melanie's latest piece and in response to the predictable ignorance and bigotry of those who are not just enemies of Israel but of the whole Jewish nation.

Particularly impressive is Joshua's comment reminding us of the British occupation of, among other territories, the Malvinas (re-named the 'Falklands' by the British), an occupation complete with 'settlers'.

Augustus

Andrei announces: "Everyone should condemn murder". And what happened after Israel evacuated Gaza in 2005? Rocket attacks form Gaza on innocent Israeli civilians increased dramatically. And the number of UN resolutions deploring this?
Zero. Ironically, only when Israel took control of Judea, Samaria and Gaza could the residents of those areas work freely, obtain decent education and healthcare, and design for themselves a new Palestinian identity. A Palestinianism dedicated to violence and the destruction of the Jewish state!

George

@Rippon

The reason that there is no solution to the conflict is because the Arabs choose not to end it. They have had more than enough opportunities to do so and choose not to. They will only see the conflict as ended when Israel ceases to exist and they don't care if achieving that aim takes another 500 years.
As for Noam Chomsky, even he can be wrong :-)

Nectarinia

Well said Alan Bensky,

Israel agreed to every UN resolution even when they were disadvantaged by those resolutions. It was always the Arabs who broke the resolutions and then they have the freaking audacity to whine about being disposessed when they came unstuck because they did not keep their word.

Andrei

George
I see you have discovered your voice again. After "winking at" incitement to atrocity you retreated to prudent or pusilanimous silence. Now return to show living in Israel does not guarantee what you say true.

George

Andrei,

I didn't retreat to any kind of silence, neither prudent nor pusillanimous. I simply took Phil's sage advice. I also didn't "wink" (or simply wink) at incitement to violence, but that is not the subject of this thread. However, I have no idea what you mean by this sentence: "Now return to show living in Israel does not guarantee what you say true." Could you please try and explain to me what you mean. When I understand you, i will endeavour to answer.

Andrei

George

If those inciting to atrocities had been Muslim clerics you would not have been so blase about their obscenities as about Shapira, Eliyahu et al. This was put to you in clearest terms with opportunity to explain you do not condone such views. Instead you said perfectly sensible in war - and then opted for silence. This very much like winking at their appalling views.

You use residence in Israel as if clinching argument - "I live in Israel so I know you are wrong" Here you tell us stuff about Gaza and settlement freezes and Palestinian rejectionism which, if true, is so little of the truth as to give entirely false impression. But you live in Israel, so I must bow to your views?

It is pusilanimous to duck response to detailed post such as post of Lindsay in previous thread.

It is unbecoming serious supporter of Israel to associate with such nonsense as here.

London Calling

Welcome back Melanie, I hope you had a good break…

I was waiting with anticipation to see what possible event would entice you from you bright pink deckchair…The Ground Zero Mosque, events in Iran, or a woman dumping a cat in a rubbish bin maybe?. Sadly your return is marred by further violence against innocent Israeli citizens and a victory parade by Hamas to celebrate, how sickening to watch grown men with children on their shoulders carrying guns and celebrating death. Whilst there is a justifiable debate over the settlements, there is no justification for the warped mentally of those who prefer death over peace.

I’m not going to criticise those who are involved in the peace talks, they should be commended for not giving up and be supported regardless of personal opinion.

I wouldn’t bake a Peace Cake yet though, as everyone will want a piece and will all be back where we started…:)

La Cumparsita

Ted Belman writes:

"The pro-Palestinian propaganda machine has succeeded in stigmatizing the Israeli occupation and the settlements. Time and again we hear about the “brutal occupation” and the “illegal settlements”. We rarely hear the truth in opposition to these lies." for the legal arguments see http://www.israpundit.com/archives/27051

C.Gee

Andrei:
"It is pusilanimous to duck response to detailed post such as post of Lindsay in previous thread.

It is unbecoming serious supporter of Israel to associate with such nonsense as here."

Lindsay's nasty, uninformed and mischievous contribution is part of the anti-Zionist propaganda industry - so easy on the internet -that likes to pretend that the Old Testament and Judaic law is a blueprint for current Israeli policies of violence. Quite aside from the obvious fact that the Israelites are not fighting the battle of Jericho even metaphorically, no-one who has spent even a day of research into the exegesis and commentary in ancient Jewish law can pretend that the hypothetical debate contained therein is applied in reality.

Furthermore, if the understanding of self-defense elicited from the commentary - and quoted by modern day rabbis - is put into modern context, the principle that even the innocent among the enemy might be killed is already acknowledged in the law of war. As it must be. Theoretically, the massacre of the enemy - to the last child - may be justified. In practice, though, it is not the Israelis who are committing massacres of innocents. America and the Britain have done it. Europeans have done it. The Arabs have done it - even to other Arabs. Hamas is constituted to do it, based on Islamic law, and do it as their raison d'etre.

Lindsay insists that we condemn rabbis finding precedent in religious law for military action against enemies. She should inform herself as to why it might be necessary in some religious communities for the rabbis to put some spine in their young conscripts. She might be interested to investigate the religious factions that read the ancient law to require pacifism and other equally religious factions who think that Israel as a state is illegitimate in the absence of the messiah. If the rabbi's reassuring religious soldiers that it is not a sin to kill innocents in war, is seen in the context of the present war (with those particular enemies) , then Lindsay's ignorant consternation and outrage is hardly worth answering.

As for this priggish idea that it is "unbecoming" to encourage Israel's self-defence, or that to do so is not in Israel's best interests - drop it. Do not project your Dr. Phil "tough love" ideas for wayward teenagers onto an entire nation which is fighting for its life.

Peter Gay

Melanie -

I always enjoy your articles, outspoken and to the point but I think you weaken a good argument by going over the top.

Yes Jewish and other peoples should be allowed to settle on the West Bank so long as they do so legally and with the agreement of the land-owners.

People of Jewish descent have no stronger historic claim to the ancient land of Israel than Anglo-Saxons to Jutland and Angeln in modern Denmark and Germany but given their hideous treatment over the centuries there is a moral issue - they should have a secure homeland free from fear of persecution. I know that if I were Jewish I, too, would want that but one should not forget that that is also the dream of the Palestinians who have also been badly treated, if not on the same scale.

It is not an answer to say that Palestinians, historically a mixture of Semitic and European peoples, could go and live in Lebanon or elsewhere in the Arab world any more than that Jewish people should live in the West.

Best wishes, Peter Gay

Oflife

A word of hope to those in Israel: Britain today is: Bankrupt (financially & morally), Crime ridden (and the type of crime, some against animals and the elderly, is henious), falling apart (visit Reading Station), implementing all the wrong environmental policies, full of phyically able people (white trash and dubious imigrants) who are bleading the state dry, in the pockets of oil rich nasties, humiliating our best people whilst hyping the nasty, dumbed down and as a result, 60% of the population want to emigrate. Meanwhile, Israel is a leading force in sustainable technology and more, and a superb example of how an industrious people can turn desert into utopia.

Israel won't have to do anything to win. The losers will simply die off because they lack the common sense to survive.

The sooner the oil runs out, the better.

sleeping dolls

Whose land is it? Ben Gurion seemed to understand this dilemma better than many here are prepared to: “we have taken their (the arabs)country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country.”

Andrei

C. Gee
So much heat: so very little humanity.

Contortions to avoid condemning what ought to be condemned is priceless illustration of hypocrisy. If Muslim clerics said even half what rabbis say there would here be righteous apoplexy. Indeed much more reasonable sayings of Fadlallah did prompt shrieks.

Can I say - no-one said Judaic law blueprint for Israeli violence. Israeli violence much more mundane - to take land and cow its inhabitants. But words of clerics do influence growing number of religious in ranks of army (all ranks) in carrying out of violence.

You talk of exegesis, purely hypothetical and not applied in reality - go tell that to the rabbis and their students.

You say if all this hypothetical exegesis translated into modern terms it is already enshrined in laws of war, so what is fuss.

Kill gentiles even if not at all guilty. Kill babies if it is clear they will grow up to harm Israael. Carpet bomb civilians to avoid death of any Israeli soldier. Kill 1000, 100000, 1000000...civilians to persuade to cease resistance. Say attack on Gaza is "war against Amalek". None of this has anything at all to do with laws of war except as grounds for prosecution for crimes.

You are right europeans guilty of such crimes many times over. America since its inception up until today also. But this is not a justification for Israel to do it rather than reach peace that has been offered by all Fatah by Hamas by Arab states by Muslim states even reluctantly by Hizballah.

To associate yourself with nonsense in this blog is indeed unbecoming. To excuse sayings of these rabbis is something worse.

logdon

The dvd, Farewell Israel offers an easy way of understanding this situation.

There is one, and one only aim of both the PA and Hamas. That is the swallowing up of Israel in a one state solution.

Israelis would live as the dhimmi's of old, second class and with negligable rights.

Up until the relatively recent past the ME was dotted with Jewish communities who had lived in the region for centuries. Now reduced to a handful by pogroms of hate and death many fled to Israel as the only sactuary.

Now even that last refuge is under fire.

And why? According to the Koran even the rocks and trees must give up the Jews for slaughter.

Any other interpretation is mere pipe dream.

George

Andrei,

Just so you don't think that I am maintaining a cowardly silence, I want to tell you that my lack of answers on this thread for at least the next 48 hours is that I have more important things to do than answer a gaggle of those who have no better answers than to make ad hominem attacks.

Augustus

Once again Israel has entered the spiders web of peace negotiations, where it must rely on reason, discourse, and argumentation to understand the enemy's point of view; look at the historical reasons for his behaviour, acknowledge its culpability in creating the conditions that produced him, perhaps give him everything he wants, and then what follows will be 'peace'. It's no use being furious at the way Israel's blood, national treasure, and moral capital has been expended towards a cause of installing yet one more Muslim tyranny in the ME. But Muslims are masters in the craft of subterfuge (taqiyya),
and this form of ideologically
sanctioned deceipt makes trusting Muslims impossible. Like some card sharp who relies upon palming his aces rather than actual ability, Islam's routine resorts to dupery that can be difficult to combat.

However, with equal ease, that same proficiency becomes a form of dependency, a predictable outcome of a feudal culture that
does not allow room for building what we call civilization. Whilst the Palestinians may have very capably sold their cause to the deluded and wilfully blind in liberal America and Europe, their professional liars will progessively become unmasked in the modern information age. The unwholesome habit of deceipt will become a crippling vice in a world that increasingly demands intellectual vigor, after once sympathetic ears increasingly become tone-deaf to Muslim cries of victimization
and poverty.

jOHN ROOSEVELT

Bru Wales wrote: "bru wales
September 2nd, 2010 3:37am
Melanie,

The settlers chose to live on other peoples land. If they take that choice, they live with the consequences.

It turned out to be a bad choice, but they knew the stakes. Nobody decides to live in another peoples land without weighing up the consequences.

It was an opportunity they had. Unlike the thousands of Palestinians who would like to return to their homes, but have no opportunity.

Racist?"

Don't be a dingbat, bru. If you think this is racism and, no doubt Nazi and apartheid-like, you will have no more epithets left usefully to describe the real deal. If the IDF the IDF wiped out in a few short years the entire moslem population of the West bank and Gaza in gas chambers - just name one methodology that was popular once, how would you then describe that?

Equivalence seems to be one of the more virulent diseases du jour. Perhaps see a doc...or go visit Auschwitz..

phil

Andrei
September 2nd, 2010 4:49pm -What on earth have the views you attribute to GEORGE to do with the problems we all face .You are personalising your own interpretation (or in fact the views of whoever is writing your posts)to one man ,will your attempt to embarrass him help any of us ? George and his family represent most of what is great about Israel,loyalty , compassion and the care for all .I suggest you go and educate your friends harold and lindsay and the incredible rippon,it is indeed they who need it most ,and then tell them that at least some of us know that you are all coming from the same places of instruction .
-----------------
You are humoured here because we fruitlessly try to explain what is the truth-no doubt a total waste of time, as none of you want to know the truth ,but we feel better for doing it ,so maybe I should thank you for giving us the opportunity to tell the world who read all our petty efforts .Your attempts at propaganda are shown to be exactly that ,so what in fact do you think you achieve ?-nada that is Spanish ,I m glad that at least you are getting someone to write in English for you now because previously it was in tongues .Oh and btw in case you are again confused C.GEE referring to a dr phil does not mean me :)you will find him by google

phil

sleeping dolls
September 2nd, 2010 7:05pm -You have misunderstood the words attributed to Ben Gurion ,he explained what would be the thoughts of the Arabs who lived in the Ottoman empire and what became the British mandate ,that does not mean it was de facto the truth of the situation -Much of the land was owned by absentee Arab landowners who certainly did not live in the area ,Paris London ,Berlin supplied their every need at the expense of the renters ,some land was bought by the Jewish people at prices that funded the lifestyles of these playboys and eventually the Grand Mufti brought ignominy upon his people by living with hitler in Berlin throughout the war and praying for the destruction of the Jewish nation .
-----------------------
The world in its embarrassment through a free vote at the UN decided there was to be a JEWISH NATION formed from within the mandate administered by Britain -I am trying to explain to you that their never has been ever a Palestinian state or nation ,no government, no currency and until 1967 nobody had heard of them .Black September put them on the map by killing Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics 1972,a fine way to announce their arrival as an entity .Nevertheless I believe it is long past the time that they should become a nation living in peace with Israel as their neighbours ,their innocent children deserve that along with the children of Israel ,a life of prosperity and happiness ,sadly hamas and Iran do not agree with me and will do everything in their power to obstruct the revived peace talks .They are ably assisted by the usual suspects who write here fomenting hatred with lies and misinformation ,I think you are trying now to find the truth and that is why I am trying to help you -it will have to be your own decision as to whether you believe me .

Ian Hills

The anti-semites seem to have Barack Hussein Obama as an ally. Partly brought up by a moslem father, friendly to Iran, zealous about the ground zero mosque, and complacent toward Jew-baiting voteriggers the New Black Panther Party in the U.S....I shudder to think what might come next.

mairT

Derek Pasquill
September 2nd, 2010 1:12pm

If the Guardian and the bien pensants on both sides of the Atlantic did not exist, they would have to be invented.

As the Creole saying goes - "Evil exists" - and its nauseating trail is revealed in what passes for polite, liberal society.

Absolutely correct, I agree totally with your comment.

Ay..nice to see you.

Bru Wales go and read a Bible am sure they must easily found in Wales......this assertion that Israeli's are living on other peoples land just demonstrates your ignorance. And your reply disgusts me, it is irrelevant who lives where or what, murder is murder and specifically that of a pregnant woman.

Charles Train

When Turkish terrorists were killed while attacking the Israeli bording party on that flotilla, William Hague stated the UK's Governments "concern", just in minutes.
But when four defenceless Israelis,two women among them, are shot and then finished off at point blank range, - no "concern" is expressed. The dead are only settlers who brought things on themselves.
Justice and Truth is lost on this new ConDem government of ours, especially when it comes up against the Vast influence of Arab oil money.

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

Over the decades I have noticed that when terrible atrocities occur in the Middle East, if Jews are killed, and even when children en masse (not that everyone’s life isn't sacred), as in school bus bombings, the Western media just report it as a DESCRIPTIVE event. In most cases there is minimal moral outrage regarding the actions and identity of the perpetrators that have committed the heinous crime.

On the other hand, if a Palestinian is killed by Jews, however justifiably, Jews are nearly always vilified as oppressive brutes that have committed criminal acts.

Jarred Crane

These murders were actually cheered by Hamas,kids cheering,women handing out candy.
Israel should send in the planes and pulverize the Hamas leaders.

Noddy

I fail to see why the Jews and the Arabs just can't get along. Perhaps extremists on both sides are keen to keep the pot boiling. Ordinary folks must be thinking "a plague on both your houses".

Andrei

George
I apologise - not cowardly silence but following sage advice of Phil(!) to avoid responding to justified criticism.

David Revelman

The Middle East doesn’t need a “two state solution.” It needs a one state solution and that state should be Israeli and extend from Morocco to the border of India. There are no legitimate or civilized nations except Israel anywhere in that area.

David SI

Rippon notes “Noam Chomsky correctly observes that Israel has always preferred expansion over security.”
Lucky old Noam Chomsky!
Seriously though … if Israel always prefers expansion over security, why is it still no more than two thirds the size of England after sixty years or so? Specifically, Israel has built up a formidable military machine and so given that it is surrounded by a number of countries with far greater oil wealth, you’d think that it might have at least expanded a little more than it has, right? After all, modern day America is built on huge tracts of land taken from the Mexicans, the Chinese have absorbed Tibet, the British developed an empire on which the sun never set and even the Belgians managed to create havoc in the Congo.
And the Israelis? They spend a whole lot of time cooking up this evil expansionist strategy and then subsequently losing both the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza strip whilst also negotiating to hand over the West Bank. They end up with a country not much bigger than South East England! How dyslexic is that?

campbell

Phil: But was not Ben Gurion entirely correct in describing how the Arabs living on the land felt? And in what way were they incorrect in feeling that way?
What was the situation 'de facto'? Surely the de facto situation was that they were on the land, had been for a considerable time and now it was being taken from them.

The absentee landlord point is neither here nor there - 19th century Ireland was largely owned by absentee landlords; in 18th century France you could hardly find a landowner who wasn't in Paris or Versailles but in neither case, or in any similar case, is that an arguement for displacing the peasants on the spot. Or is it?

"There never was a Palestinian state or government..." What is your point? Is it that therefore there a Palestinian state is a logical impossibility? Well, there wasn't a German state until 1870 nor was it inevitable that there should ever be one. Likewise the Italy came into being as a state in the 1860's but it was 'a damn close run thing'. Ireland, again, entirely lacked a genuinely independent government for 700 years or more. So are they analagous to Palestine - obviously not; but why not?

phil

campbell
September 3rd, 2010 11:59am -I will answer you because I always do .the answer to your question is no,and from the supercilious way you have put it ,you would not be interested in knowing the truth anyhow -Do you have a point to make other than being rude and argumentative .I am sure from your display of "learnedness" that you know you are writing nonsense ,so I am afraid you will have to get the answers you require from somewhere more helpful to your point of view .

John.

Gordon Ross, Joshua: The so-called "Malvinas", (from "Malouines" after St. Malo because of some French seamen who visited the islands at the end of the 18th century, were uninhabited when King Charles of Spain gave them to the British by the Treaty of Madrid in 1760. The British named them the Falkland Islands and only the British have ever lived there, (mainly Scots sheep farmers). So, not exactly Argentinian territory. Gibraltar was ceded to GB by the Treaty of Utrecht at the end of the 18th century. If you do not believe in the validity of international treaties one may as well give up. Likewise Northern Ireland was left as part the UK by the 1922 Treaty between the Irish Free State and GB. There is no permanent settlement of Afghanistan by any of the allies. Heaven knows what you are talking about.

campbell

Phil: Thank you for making your position clear. I shan't trouble you further.

C.Gee

Andrei:

Do re-read the Walrus and the Carpenter, by Lewis Carroll.

Steph

On the subject of Palestinian 'refugees' they are refugees not because of Israel but because the King of Jordan had evicted them from what is the West Bank (Jordan)
On political involvement, why is there no meddling in Sudan, Malawi and many other parts of Africa? Oh yes, forgot, they dont have oil!

jim comfort

Melanie, you always find a way to say the right things. You are always a voice in reason in this mad world. Thank you so much for these words.

Andrei

C. Gee
I do not understand why so many comments are censored. So many empty and so many insulting are allowed. I will try again with what I think reasonable question to you.

It is odd: When contributor on earlier thread reports some of Israeli military action in Gaza you produce diatribe about Blood Libel and Protocols and Civic Duty to smear opponents as anti-semite. When other contributor in last thread quotes rabbis inciting much much worse than earlier contributor described you call it self-defence in laws of war. Why is it Blood Libel to say what Israel does in Gaza, but reasonable guideline on self-defence when rabbis encourage much much worse (reminder - carpet bombing of civilians, killing of 100000, 1000000 etc. civilians, killing of babies for G*d's sake!)

Answer please, not literary reference. Thank you.

(Tell me, which is walrus and which carpenter between Israel and US?)

charles soper

One other fact eludes the writers here. Hebron was one of four sites of continuous Jewish settlement from the time of the Roman occupation till the modern era (until the massacre of 1929 that is). It is the royal Judaean city of King David's first reign, an ancient priestly city of refuge, Caleb's choice inheritance and close to the burial place of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their wives. The sterile and deracinated epithet West Bank is a little like calling Westminster, the Thames North Bank.

C.Gee

Andrei:

The rabbi is expressing the world-wide understanding of war: it is okay, necessary even, to kill the enemy and it is better to have more of the enemy and fewer of your own, die. The proportion of 1 to 10, or 100, or 100,000 of own to enemy dead is doable, but unlikely, given that Israel has never yet unleashed its full power, preferring not to carpet bomb . Who among human beings has not wished for a plague, or a pox, or a confounding of their dirty tricks, or, yes, death, upon the enemy. I have wished such things upon teachers, colleagues and siblings. Hymns and anthems have been composed upon that very theme and sung cheerily in schools, churches and parades. Please spare me the consternation - or the tears. Put away that handkerchief, Mr. Walrus .

Note, too, that the Arab and Islamic call to slaughter Jews is more virulent, more wide-spread, and has greater popular appeal, than the "get them, before they get you" strategy voiced by this hawkish rabbi. Perhaps you agree with them that the Jews' self-defense should be limited to hiding behind Gharqad trees. That anything else is "unbecoming".

As for blood-libels, what else is it when Israel, alone among nations at war is accused of inhuman blood-lust, indiscriminate butchery, which, ironically, characterizes her enemies? What else is it but incitement to hate Jews as murdering animals, without conscience and humanity? What else is it but preparation for yet another expulsion, or pogrom, of these brutes?

I have now made the same point many times. If this does not answer you, perhaps we should move on to discuss whether pigs have wings.

Tomm Friend

What is being objected to is Israeli occupation of Israeli land.
There is nothing to negotiate here.
Israel is the Guardian of the Mandate. The Two State Solution is already in place. Jordan.

Gordon Ross

The history of the so-called 'Falklands' is considerably more complicated than John, with his potted version of it, would have us believe. It is NOT true that "..only the British have ever lived there..", and regardless of this Treaty or that, Argentinians and others justifiably perceive the British presence there as 'occupation'.

As for "..the validity of international treaties..", since treaties are invariably entered into without consulting the populations that will be affected thereby, their 'validity' is inevitably open to challenge.

In the case of Ireland, the Irish Free State (as it then was)no doubt considered it expedient to enter into the 1922 Treaty as the quickest way to break the 700 years' English/British stranglehold on the indigenous Irish people. That a significant section of the population was opposed to the Treaty was the cause of the civil war that followed.

Andrei

C. Gee
What rabbis say is absolutely unequivocally NOT what world understands to be war.

Your support of rabbis "call to slaughter" leaves you no justification by your own standards for condemning anyone else for similar obscenity.

" Perhaps you agree with them that the Jews' self-defense should be limited to hiding behind Gharqad trees" you have Phil's gift for "humour". However, not self-defence but aggression to complete expropriation and subdue natives.

"Who among human beings has not wished for a plague, or a pox, or a confounding of their dirty tricks, or, yes, death, upon the enemy. I have wished such things upon teachers, colleagues and siblings. Hymns and anthems have been composed upon that very theme and sung cheerily in schools, churches and parades." This as "exegesis" of rabbi who says lawful to kill babies if think they grow up to be danger is grotesque. I think you know this and are disingenuous. If not, you are condoning morality of sociopath. I am truly in disbelief at straightface brazen double standard - they say it, it is genocidal; we say it, it is self-defence according to laws of war. Is this honest?

What Israel did in Gaza is condemned by many in same way as what Americans and UK did in Iraq. Media tends to accept American claims to be virtuous fighters for "freedom". Israel also has same preferential treatment still - but after decades of this and with brazen murderousness of Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008 it is too clear that it is settlers using aggression to take land and scare off inhabitants, so small but increasing number criticise, because reasonable compomise peace has been available for many years now. Cries of Blood Libel Protocols and Holocaust is just ploy to prolong ISrael's special treatment as immune like America its guarantor.

To continue with Lewis Caroll, you want us to believe oysters are eating walrus, and many other impossible things.

I hope this time my reply gets through. It is certainly less objectionable than your contribution.

C.Gee

Andrei:

To make distinctions , discern differences, compare and contrast is a useful mental tool. Putting remarks and actions into context is helpful too. I leave you to decide the context for the rabbis remarks, cultural, religious, national and geographical. I leave you to work out the difference between and among a rabbi, his government, and the entities at war with his nation. Then go on to weigh the the difference between an individual's statement and government policy. It might be illuminating to compare and contrast the rabbi's speech with that of an Imam or Ayatollah - and perhaps to see how closely the religious speeches match their respective side's actual policy, popular opinion, cultural practice and military action, including baby-killing. Look too at the differences in constitutions between Israel and the PLO and Hamas. Finally, there is a difference in the conduct of the Israelis government and quasi-governments of its enemies.

The website MEMRI will be invaluable to you in this.

I do not suppose the exercise will do much good, but it should awaken you to the true "preferential treatment" the Israel receives - not as a ward of America, but as a scapegoat and pariah, as the subject of international bills of attainder. So it has been and so it shall be.

After 'Through the Looking Glass', read the Protocols. The Arabs do. They have even made a TV series of Jewish doctors robbing body parts. Despite which, Arabs have been persuaded to bring their babies to Jewish hospitals.

I shall not continue this with you. You give the impression of youth and your English is perhaps not fluent enough to express the subtlety of your
(Russian?) thought. It is unfair of me to place you in a position where you must repeat Arab narrative and work-up the moral outrage to go with it. Hard to do plausibly and authentically in the best of circumstances.

Like the aged, aged man a-sitting on a gate, I no longer try madly to squeeze a right-hand foot into a left-hand shoe.

phil

C.Gee
September 4th, 2010 1:44am -I do not remember whether our friend andrei has been reminded of Dresden ,Cologne ,Hamburg,Vietnam and of course many other places where the innocent population were killed in many ten,s of thousands by the allies in pursuit of total war .A war that was necessary against an evil regime .Israel has never done this preferring surgical strikes ,telephone warnings to civilians and actual knocking on doors to avoid civilian casualties ,They also have mock villages to train the IDF to minimise destruction of property and person .Does andrei know of any other army who have ever taken such care with its enemies? I may be wrong but I see andrei as a naive and confused young man who does not realise what is happening in the ME .You no doubt will be aware that there are many worse who post here and do know what hatred and trouble they cause ,they arrive regularly using differing alias,s .It is they who I despise rather than this young man who may well have learned something new here .
-------------------------
It would be good to hear from him if he has .He complains of censorship ,but who knows what he has written ,so many vicious lies by others more eloquent than him still get through that it is hard to imagine what he has said that we do not get to read.
---------------------------
I never like to write about anti -Semitism as it seems a pointless occupation ,but it certainly is alive and well and flourishing on the internet.The perpetrators would have the Jews lie down ,never defend themselves and never be given credit for all the good they do in this evil world .----my conclusion ?--Always be ready to defend oneself,make the enemy aware of the consequences of their attacks ,and never forget the ambition Israel was borne with -to be a light unto nations ,and finally excuse the language "bugger" the lies of the accusers ,they will never change nor will they ever help us so why are we so worried what they think -I am not .

Juicy peach

Steph, I think the reason people are not up in arms about Sudan, Malawi and other African countries is the fact that no Jews are involed. Sad but true!

Andrei

C. Gee
Why misrepresent to evade point made to you? No-one said the rabbis represent government of Israel. What was said is they represent significant constituency with significant influence, among other things increasingly within army. Sayings of Fadlallah, certainly those I have seen, infinitely more rational and likely to lead to peace than those of these rabbis. You have also clearly decided to remain ignorant of what is done to Palestinians and Lebanese by civilised government of Israel even without following helpful hints of influential but psychopathic rabbis - otherwise would not produce absurd purr of complacency "there is a difference in the conduct of the Israelis government and quasi-governments of its enemies." Dahiya doctrine and conduct in assault on Gaza too close to rabbis for such complacency to be other than sickening, as is number of children receive bullets through their head year after year and conduct of occupation. And, oh dear G*d, the Protocols again. There are anti-semites in Arab countries, more since they confuse Jews with Zionists. This is obviously unforgivable. This is not however good pretext for expropriation and oppression. You remain happy to justify genocidal rabbis as exponents of laws of war and condemn those who condemn Israel's barbarism in Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank as anti-semite blood libeller Protocol believers. Your smug wholly unwarranted self-righteousness is not to be troubled by practice of reason or humanity. I suppose your performance serves good purpose of showing depths to which supporters of Israel willing to stoop. There must be reasonable advocates of Israel out there, not just thugs and apologists for thugs willing to justify every crime and atrocity. Israel after all is as I know civilised country - but then so is America and UK...and (to some extent) Russia.

I leave you to your favourite pastime believing impossible things and insulting any who do not also believe.

Harold

It is instructive to observe young Andrei put to C. Gee specific points about unsavoury opinions and double standards, and C. Gee carefully slide away from answering each and every time. The opinions are as unsavouty from a rabbi as from an imam or priest or pastor.

C. Gee

Harold:

So many unsavoury opinions, so little time...

Andrei:

Your mind has been expropriated.

Phil:

Keep up the good work. You are a patient and magnanimous man. But it always, inevitably, and no doubt to the irritation of the moralists and humanitarians, gets back to that awkward mental disease...

Keith Southall

Well put Melanie, but with Obama in the White House you have another actor (like Blair) words and no guts.

God help us all when Iran gets the bomb.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Andrei:"Can I say - no-one said Judaic law blueprint for Israeli violence. Israeli violence much more mundane - to take land and cow its inhabitants"

You mean in '67, Andrei? Or '48? You mean by accepting Resolution 181, perhaps? "Take"? You mean the Israelis attacked the Arabs in '47? '48, perhaps? No, you must mean '67 or '73? Oh, sorry. You mean when the Jews were attacked they "took" the land? Mmmm....

Ah, no, what you really mean is there is no just defense of the idea of a Jewish state at all? You mean, therefore, the the arabs and moslems can do no wrong when it comes to israel and the Jews?

So, where does that leave us? 6 million people who cannot justify defending themselves in any way no matter what violence threatens them, right?

That's fine, but have the courage to come out with it and stop hiding behind your veil of shibboleths that seem to comprise the core of common liberal and leftist discourse - especially in Europe. The culture of what is now being - rightly - called the neo anti semitism is doing Europe no good whatsoever. It is a Torjan Horse, I fear...

JOHN ROOSEVELT

To all Derek Blades, Andreis, Bru Wales's of this blog, a thought for the day:

"..if the principles, standards and values applied by bien pensant Europe to Israel were retrospectively applied to Europe itself in 1930’s and 1940’s it is, in all seriousness, difficult to escape the following conclusions: the editorial pages of liberal newspapers across the continent would portray the Nazi Party as a ‘grievance’-based organization ‘radicalised’ by Western injustice; Nazi Germany’s ‘alleged’ anti-Semitism would be dismissed by BBC journalists as the rhetoric of the oppressed and would be censored out of the reporting; Amnesty International would denounce the Royal Airforce’s bombing campaigns as ‘disproportionate’ since German civilian deaths outnumbered British civilian deaths by 25 to 1; the European Parliament would condemn the targeted assassination of Rheinhard Heydrich in Czechoslovakia as an ‘extra-juridical execution’; and Winston Churchill would be indicted for a long list of ‘war crimes’ by the International Criminal Court in The Hague…Contemporary European values negate the possibility of contemporary European realities. Today’s Europe could not have been built on the basis of the value system now being argued for by the large numbers of the continents own opinion formers. The Allies would have lost WW11."

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Rippon: ".Noam Chomsky correctly observes that Israel has always preferred expansion over security.

Someone remarked that bru wales should consider carefully the wider implications of what s/he was saying. Well, those are simple and clear: when allied forces occupy other people's land, they too have to suffer the consequences - which, in fact, are nothing compared to the horrendous consequences for the occupied."

One wonders if you have the slightest clue about the history of islam or the credo of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran et al?

What is it, precisely, that you find gets your 'humanitarian toe" tapping about the Hamas Charter or the innate imperialism of islam?

Have you a clue of the roll of Islam in this conflict? Do you think for one oment that hamas has the slightest interest in your "humanitarian Law"..or do you care? Chomsky couldn't care less. What counts for him is whether or not his anti capitalism can find some blood to suck - wherever that may be found.

Islam is absolutist and preclusive. It is also universalist. To ignore the implications of what is the very raison d'etre of Hamas is to negate everything you say against Israel. It makes utter nonsense of it.

Now we have the jihadis for justice?? Give us all a well-deserved break...

Teresa Hessler

A question for those of you who blame the settlers... If someone in Texas or Arizona or New York (or any other place in the US that was settled by the early "settlers") is murdered in cold blood by a terrorist organization, who is to blame?

FYI, no one was living on that land when Jews moved back to their homeland - it was desolate and Arabs were (and many are) still riding camels in their nomadic fashion of traveling from land to land just like the American Indian used to be free to do.

phil

Andrei has my post to C GEE 6.44 ON THE FOURTH ,made it too difficult for you to respond-it was very simply put and only requires a similarly simple response .It is of course easy to accuse and more difficult to provide answers, but if you wish to be taken seriously then you must do both, otherwise I feel most fair minded people will dismiss your comments as an explosion of mere hatred ,and of no value .Am I mistaken in my belief that you are being used as a pawn by others ?,and it would it be possible to tell us what nationality you are and what religion you adhere too ?It might make it easier for us all to understand where you are coming from .You will of course notice most of us provide this information so that readers can evaluate our bias .

Drakken

Andrei still bashing us Americans and vilifying the Israelis I see. Let me give you some sage advice little boy, you and people like Harold and Blades are on the wrong side and if history is any indication you are going to be in for the most rudest of awakings when you find the people you side with turn on you like a rabid dog. Good luck with that.

David, Thailand

When Islam or its apologists point in one direction it is wise to look in the other. Most posters here have followed the finger.

The problems to the civilised world of the Middle East have nothing, repeat nothing to do with land and everything to do with the dysfunctional ideology of a homicidal maniac.

Remove every Jew from Israel tomorrow, and we could have peace with Islam for a week or a month, but this would be the effect of shock as in 'crikey it worked!' Then they be emboldened and go for the Jews wherever the civilised West had safely 'stored' them. There is nothing to argue on this point; their holy books spell it out clearly.

Issues concerning settlers, the 'apartheid' wall nibbling at Palestinian land, and Gaza's stage managed suffering, are all distractions that the West fall for time again, out of fear cloaked in the guise politically correct fairness and ironically, human rights.

Democratic niceties are no match for barbarity.

Andrei

Drakken
STILL not mucho.

I believe in liberal democracy. I hope and trust I am on right side of history - but looks like corporate military industrial chauvinist pseudo democracy will win.

George

Andrei,

If you are a liberal democrat, why are you taking the side of a theocratic dictatorship?

David Samuel

What do you say to the Israeli media so avidly quoted round the world when they oppose Israeli policy or actions.Don't the Israeli left provide a lot of the world justification for their opinions in favour of the freedom fighters?

Harold

Phil
I will not try to answer for Andrei. He is probably disconcerted to be challenged to reveal his religion, as if it had anything to do with anything here.

A distinguished Indian jurist at the time warned that the Allies risked being seen as dispensing victor's justice by excluding any consideration of aerial bombing. The right-wing historian Michael Burleigh has written a good book, Moral Combat, arguing that the bombing can be justified; A.C. Grayling has written one, Among the Dead Cities, arguing that it is a crime. The distinguished historian of WW", Richard Overy in his Why the Allies Won says that the bombing contributed to victory, but leaves open the question if its morality. The question is still open.

The carpet bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos is very clearly and unequivocally a crime.

Whatever the arguments about aerial bombing in WW2, it is not relevant here. Israel's attack on the Lebanon in 2006 (as in all previous attacks) and its attack on Gaza (as in all previous attacks) was not a war and certainly not a war of necessity, but of choice.

"Surgical strikes" very clearly does not describe what Israel did in Gaza, nor in the Lebanon (as just one or two examples, the sowing of a million cluster bombs on the eve of a ceasefire known to be coming into effect, the bombing of sewage and water works, the bombing of chicken farms(!), the dropping of phosphorus and DIME bombs on urban areas...).

All armies expecting to engage in urban warfare practise in mock-up streets, not to minimise civilian casualties, but, perfectly reasonably, to ensure the efficiency of their operation.

John.

Gordon Ross: Argentina did not exist in 1760. There have been 3 referenda in the Falkland Islands to decide whether the inhabitants would like to become citizens of Argentina. In each around 98% of the population have said no they would definitely not like that. So much for the wishes of the indigenous population being considered as per your article. So far as I know no-one but the British have ever lived there - the islands were uninhabited when the first permanent sttlers went there and these people were British. The French visited but never settled. The islands have, as I point out, been British since long before Argentina even existed. Sentiment in Ireland has changed from century to century and will doubtless continue to do so, just as it does everywhere else. Queen Victoria was received there rapturously! It was to try to avoid bloodshed that part of Ulster remained within the UK. in 1922. A pious hope that, because of corruption, was never realized. One would hope that as the years pass and national boundaries within the EU. gradually come to be seen more and more as county boundaries are seen now, the old nationalist and religious
animosities will fade and disappear. Had, for example, the Isle of Man been awarded to Spain or France in former times, do you really think that the British would get exercised about it? - especially if it were now to be inhabited by a non-British population? It would be a curiosity surely rather than a thorn in our side.

phil

Harold
September 6th, 2010 1:28pm -You do not amaze me !! I am used to it but that was a slithering excuse for an answer.Which armies do you know of who did what the IDF did to minimise casualties ,like telephoning and training ,dropping leaflets .facts please ,with evidence ,not harold statements which receive little credence here .
--------------
And ANDREI is no shrinking wallflower ,he has proved well able to send answers when it suits him -we all say what our bias may be ,and due to his anonymity he need not be shy to say what his religion and nationality is ,just call him up and tell him .

Drakken

Andrei, I do believe in A Republic style democracy, but our way of life is not a suicide pact for those who try and use our liberties against us. Please do try and lose the leftist/commi/socialistic nonsense, it makes you look like a bloomin idiot.
Harold, it is obvious you do not understand warfare, you seem to hold us in the West to some unatainable standard the enemy never will use. If you hide behind schools, hospitals and public places you still deserve no quarter since none is given.

Andrei

George
September 6th, 2010 1:04pm
After such loaded silence (not just busy, but following Phil's "sage" advice), this glib attampt at debating point is very disappointing. I believe in liberal democracy, in same way as famous British Prime Minister Churchill, as least worst option. I do not take side of any "theocratic dictatorship" and have never given any reason for any reasonable person to think I do. It is not me justifies theocratic poison as sensible self-defence.

phil

Andrei
September 6th, 2010 9:17pm -if you intend to refer to me have the good grace to answer my question .or do you need the affable harold to hide behind ?show some courage son .

George

Andrei,

Please learn to read what is written to you and also try and desist from personal attacks.

Now, if you will excuse me, I am going to absent myself from the computer until after the Jewish New Year.

Andrei

George
September 7th, 2010 7:40am
Please try to read what is written to you and do not think glib retorts sufficient. Nor strategic silences.

Nevertheless I wish you sincerely very happy New Year.

Augustus

A German news crew recently met the mayor of Hebron, Noam Arnon,
in a clandestine corner of a bullet-free playground. The first thing he told them was that "the Western media see the truth, but report lies. Did you know that in this very street fifty Jews have been shot by Arabs, one of which was a baby in a pram who was deliberately shot in its pram by a marksman?"
Who could possibly defend these cold-blooded murders?

phil

Andrei " Please try to read what is written to you and do not think glib retorts sufficient. Nor strategic silences." --------good advice ,but surely you should take it yourself as I notice you have not answered me yet .!

Jill

I disagree Melanie. the way things are, I think the "Palestinians" should be thrown out, if anyone should. i think Israel's priopritites should change and firstly make Israel safe for Jews and whoever wants to live there peacefully.
The rest should be ejected. At least then they can complain OUTSIDE the country!

phil

Jill
September 8th, 2010 9:59---Probably your emotion has overcome your morality ,those are words I thought were not used by Israelis or Jews and most certainly would never solve the problems Israel faces .Peace and a two state solution is what may put an end to the interminable divide ,not more hate and certainly not ethnic cleansing .Leave the hatred to those that come here to ensure the battle will continue ,we do not need to help them .

Ronnie

It's like a certain kind of 50s western.

The government and the Indians sign a treaty. Settlers break the treaty because either they answer to a higher authority or there is gold in hills. Hot-headed Indians kill the settlers and the situation escalates until Custer and his troops are massacred at the Little Big-Horn; and so on and so forth with lots of shouting from the bleechers.

A pattern from which we will never escape.

Adam B.

Ronnie, your pseudo argument for the cold blooded murder of four people, one of whom was pregnant, is disgusting.

I suppose you can provide evidence that these four (five) had "broken a treaty" as you put it?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay and Harold both believe Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state.

They both support Hamas and Hezbollah and Ahmedinejad's Iran. Totalitarian Islam doesn't warrant even a mention t=in their book...Just dem bad old Jewish folk...

What is there to discuss? If only we could return to the Caliphate, who would bat an eye lid if I shouted "Off with their heads"?
..or perhaps we just say move to Hamistan and throw them both off the top of a building.

Ah, but it's complicated, as Lyndsay would say..

If pigs could fly...

Gordon Ross

More in response to John on the so-called 'Falklands' etc.

The people of Argentina must surely be the descendants/successors of the people who lived in the area previously controlled by Spain, and that's what counts !

Sure 98% of the population did not want to become citizens of Argentina. That's because they're British SETTLERS or their descendants.

As for old nationalist and religious animosities disappearing in N. Ireland, not too long ago certain smug British politicians were lecturing the Israelis on how to deal with Arab terrorists by trumpeting what they saw as the 'success' of British negotiations with the Irish nationalists. Shortly after that, the violence re-emerged.

Some peoples, like the indigenous Irish and the Jews, are proud of their nationhood and quite understandably want to maintain it and their boundaries.

No, the British of today would not "get exercised" if the Isle of Man had been given to France or Spain, but then they would not "get exercised" about much else that's important either !

John.

Gordon Ross: Sorry you're wrong again: most of the Argentinians are descendants of Italian immigrants who arrived after independence from Spain - so without much right to pronounce upon matters which exercise you
and who also exterminated the indigenous
Indians in the Campaign of the Desert. As the British settled an unoccupied land they were and are the original indigenous people. What else does indigenous mean?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Derek BLADES
September 2nd, 2010 8:54am
"Ms Phillips is rightly concerned that Israel should not "expose yet more of its civilians to murderous attack." The obvuous way to do this is to call a halt to settlements in the occupied West Bank.

This would also help the Obama peace process. Some of Ms Phillip's blogs give the impression that she does not want her peace process to proceed. I am sure this is a mistaken impression but it would be good to see her write in support of a genuine peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians."

..and it would be sterling if you did, too, Derek...

Frank

You say, "The western intelligentsia are not passive onlookers to this never-ending tragedy. They are active players in ensuring that it continues. It is high time that they were held to account for this murderous obsession.".

Don't bet on it. When Jews were burned and murdered for 5 years, by the thousands daily, the NYT kept a small log of it near the back pages, as insignificant events, during the holocaust. So don't expect them to change now.

Gordon Ross

Where's the evidence supporting John's vague claim that "most" of the Argentinians are descendants of Italian immigrants?

In any event, it doesn't alter the fact that, prior to their occupation of the 'Falklands', the British had no historical connection whatsoever with that territory. Their presence there is solely the result of colonization, and that does not make the settlers there or their descendants 'indigenous'.

Linda Smith

Gordon Ross, you asked “Where's the evidence supporting John's vague claim that "most" of the Argentinians are descendants of Italian immigrants?”

All you had to do was google “Italians in Argentina” and you would have found this wiki item, like I did. Here‘s an extract:

An Italian Argentine (Spanish and Italian: italo-argentino) is an Argentine citizen of full or partial Italian ancestry. It is estimated up to 25 million Argentines have some degree of Italian descent (up to 60% of the total population).[1] Italians began arriving to Argentina in great numbers in the 1870s, and this migratory flow continued to the 1960s.

Italian settlement in Argentina, along with Spanish settlement, formed the backbone of today's Argentine society. Argentine culture has significant connections to Italian culture, also in terms of language, customs and traditions.[2]…..

….The Italian population in Argentina is the second largest in the world, by numbers, outside of Italy [3]. By concentration, along with Uruguay, it is the highest outside of Italy[4].

John.

Gordon Ross: You cannot "occupy" an uninhhabited land. The real colonists are the Argentinians who, in order to steal their land from the aboriginal inhabitants of what is now termed "Argentina" committed genocide every bit as horrific and thorough as the Nazi genocide of the Jews. Who did the British kill? No-one. Whose land did they steal? No-one's. The formerly numerous Tehuelche in the Pampa were wiped out during the "Campaign of the Desert" as were the Ona and the Kaweshkar in Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. Only the Mapuche in the Andean foothills escaped, by going over to Chile, and the far from numerous Quechua and Aymara up near Bolivia, where it was too difficult to conduct an extermination campaign and the land was not worth stealing. The same can be said for the GuArani and the Ache in what is now called Misiones. The perpetrators of these disgraceful crimes never showed the slightest remorse for them nor do their descendants. At least the Germans have shown recognition for what was done in their country by their forbears, and deep contrition. So you wish to help these people to steal yet more territory from yet more innocent aboriginals, do you? Shame on you. May I suggest that you do a bit of reading and research before you make wild, unfounded accusations in the future?

Gordon Ross

Yes, as Linda Smith says, I could have google searched this item following John's vague statement, but have no real interest in the accuracy or otherwise of the information, since John's persistency in going on about the allegedly wicked Argentinians is simply a red herring, to divert attention from the main topic under discussion, i.e. the status of the British presence in the 'Falklands'.

As for John's latest comment, he continues to drag along and draw out the red herring of the Argentinians' acitivities on their mainland, and makes the stupid suggestion that I "wish to help these people steal yet more territory from yet more innocent aboriginals". No doubt the "yet more innocent aboriginals" he refers to are the British colonists ! Shame on him for his stupidity.

John.

Gordon Ross: Clearly youdon't take in what I say: the real "Argentinians" were the indigenous people who were massacred by mostly Italian immigrants into their land. The colonists are the present so-called Argentinians. Obviously the British living in islands that were never previously occupied are the indigenous population of those islands. It would seem that you are being less than quick in the uptake here.

Gordon Ross

Well, of course I already knew that John, a master of definition, classes the British colonisers and settlers of the 'Falklands' as 'indigenous'; my previous comment clearly indicated this. As is well-known, others disagree with him.

He will no doubt come back with further remarks. If so, he will have the satisfaction of "having the last word"(which I'm sure he craves), since on my part there is nothing more to be said.