So why not target him too?

marco

You are right melanie. Other criminals such as Sharon Olmert and netanyahu should also be targeted. There should also be a no fly zone over gaza.

Ted

Indeed.

Whatâ™s happened to Peter Oborne and Max Hastings?

Itâ™s not like them to lose their tongues over the Middle East.

Are they really tuned in to whatâ™s going on out there? Or just tuned in to what Channel 4 and the BBC might like to commission from them?

What a pair of prize hypocrites they make.

Truthtriumphs

How about a Goldstone-type enquiry into the brutality against its unarmed civilians?

Oh, I forgot....it's the thug states that run the show at the UN, which is why there will be no "Goldstone report" into the slaughter of some 40,000 civilians in Sri lanka in the brutal government put down there, the UN announced.

Only Israel has the dubious distinction of being the only country for "permanent review" status at the UN, for the "crime" of defending itself agaist genocide.
No prizes for guessing why.

alan campbell

Yes, I can explain - it's because they, foolishly, thought that Qadafi would be a quick kill. An easy dictatorial scalp for Cameron to display and compare with the ones Blair notched up.

Shazza

Oil

Truthtriumphs

In answer to your question, isn't it something to do with the fact that Britain has billions of pounds invested in the libyan oil industry, whereas the same situation doesn't seem to obtain in Syria?
And since when does morality, or concern for "innocent civilians", figure in government policy?

Grassmarket

It's perfectly explicable. Many in the West - especially in the White House - want a final solution to the Israeli problem, but without any of the mud sticking to their faces. The only way to get this is to keep in place the most militantly anti-Israeli regimes, or (in Egypt's case) to replace a regime committed to detente with another committed to destruction.

Baron

Melanie, a puzzle indeed unless they know something we don’t, a fallacious assumption, I know, but without it one would be forced to conclude the West is governed by a bunch deficient, quite severely, too, in more than one department.

What disturbs most is that in spite of an army of advisors nobody has yet figured dictatorships are called dictatorships because dictators run them, are instrumental to their survival, their removal one way or another would almost always collapse the construct almost at a stroke.

In Libya, we are killing the foot soldiers many of whom are doing it by compulsion, for the money, wouldn’t have threatened us otherwise, as opposed to our going after the one obvious target that has already caused many of us pain. Madness.

ron

Because there are no morals in foreign policy, or at least there should not be. Talk of morals is just talk and there are plenty of logical reasons to stay away from Syria. Still, I do agree the European middle east policy is more like muddle east policy (or maybe even meddle east policy)

Rick

Truthtriumphs
April 27th, 2011 2:29pm
You may be more familiar than I am with the intricacies of the UN.

I do not know which UN body commissioned the Sri Lanka report. However, I believe it was intended, like the Goldstone Report, to gather information to determine whether there is a case to answer. As with the Goldstone Report, it is for the UN to decide whether further action is to be taken. It appears likely that no further action will be taken on the Goldstone Report. Similarly, and even more incredibly, with the report on Sri Lanka.

It is shocking and makes a nonsense of international law and the accountability of states to say that further action will only be taken if Sri Lanka agrees.

Similarly, with Israel, when it "picks its way delicately through the human shields to target those firing rockets to kill Israeli innocents, warfare undertaken solely to prevent the taking of more innocent life..."

Charlie

Could it be that he is part of the Iranian axis keeping Lebanon under control and closer to cause damage to Israel than Libya?

David

Hague reminds me of Neville Chamberlain.....both out of their depth and both utter cowards. I am suprised Vague never mentioned Israel in his latest comments as he usually does.

Augustus

What seems to be occurring in the Arab-Muslim world is the painful transition of a deeply troubled and divided pre-modern civilization to some sort of rendezvous with the modern world. Interestingly, neither China or Russia appear that much alarmed by the unrest on their southern frontiers. Could it be that neither would be confused by how to deal with any spillover of such unrest?

And yes, it's true, the Syrian regime has been guilty of gross impropriety towards its
people for decades, but now the world can watch and see it for itself. Even while protesters were trying to bury their dead they were being attacked by security troops.
The regime has been guilty of genocide, but one hopes that the brave Syrian protesters
won't give up and that al-Assad's regime will fall, because politically, the Syrian regime is the greatest ally of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran. The Syrian situation is possibly more complex than Libya. Rather like an East-bloc country during the Cold War. And if the West does nothing at all, gives no support at all to the civilian protesters, then a Syrian revolution will
undoubtedly radicalize towards religious fundamentalism. Salafists are already in Syria, and the Islamists are better organizers than the liberal Syrians. With a little help from Iran, and a tidy network of mosques throughout the land, a power grab
would be entirely possible. Europe must support the liberal elements amongst the population, cut off diplomatic ties with the regime, and go after the despicable regime of Bashar al-Assad with all its diplomatic might.

Raymond in DC

The contrasts are too bold to ignore. Libya formally abandoned support for terrorism (though many jihadists fighting in Iraq hailed from Libya); Syria still actively supports them. Libya abandoned and dismantled its nuclear project; those projects are ongoing in Syria. Yet Libya was voted off the UN's Human Rights Council, while Syria is about to join it.

Why the different treatment? Well, for one thing some assumed Libya would be easy, a "cake walk" (oops!); a military intervention in Syria would be far more complicated. Also, Syria is (foolishly) deemed to be a key player to achieving Middle East peace and stability, while Libya is a sideshow. So Syria gets a pass, even from the US which continues to "engage" it.

But if one focuses on the emerging "responsibility to protect" doctrine, there's a question of why it applies in Libya, but not in Darfur or Zimbabwe, and why it was used in support of Muslim rebels in Ivory Coast who engaged in atrocities against Christians. Maybe the Libyan operation was really just a dry run for a future operation against ... Israel. To protect the citizens of a soon-to-be-declared Palestinian state of course.

john gerard

Welcome to the UNHRC, Syria. A fine appointment if ever there was one! And please can we now have some comments about Israelis being the real criminals, and how we should have a no-fly zone over Gaza to make it easier for terrorists to kill them. It's just not fair with all that airpower, is it..?

N"L from Israel

This is not a joke:
Arab League member countries support Syria's joining the UN Human Rights council.

http://wlcentral.org/node/1673

So, Since Libya was kicked out of the UNHRC
and Syria is very close to be a member of the UNHRC , they should not be treated evenly by the west. QED.

nage

well, if Jordan is the next focus of all this, then I think we can assume that UK/USA/Europe are looking to surround Israel with countries that we have some influence over

Alona - Israel

syria dont have oil, simple as that. hypocrisy of the west

Dai of Edinburgh

Where exercising coercive influence over mightier Middle East adversaries than Qadafi is concerned, Britain and the US, under their present weak leaders, have the impact of a Jack Russell nipping at the heel of an Alsatian. The bulldog died along with Churchill.

cityca

Surely the answer is, because the Arab League, whose funds are keeping the world afloat, told them who to attack, and who to leave out.

Gadaffi was thought to be a pushover, and if the US had stayed on board, perhaps may have been.

Meanwhile, the coalition of EU forces lined up against Gadaffi seem unable or unwilling to press home their enormous technological air power advantage and finish the job.

I think Assad is safe from the coalition for the time being. It's his own people he needs to worry about.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Marco: "You are right melanie. Other criminals such as Sharon Olmert and netanyahu should also be targeted. There should also be a no fly zone over gaza."

Your moral sensibilities dont extend to the Palestinian jihadists who deliberately target civilians an explicitly celebrate the fact?

Interesting, `Marco..Are you one of those "good Crimes against Humanity/bad crimes against Humanity" kinda guys/goils?

Veracity

Forget Hastings and Oborne it's the deafening silence from that indefatigable defender of Syria, Robert Fisk , I am missing

Norm

There's something going on that we aren't party to, why attack Gadaffi who seemed to be towing the line and not Iran? Perhaps the fact that Begin was supplying Argentina with weapons during the Falklands is the reason Israel does not get the support it needs from Britain. Either way it just shows that we are never told the truth.

The Grand Wazoo

Could it be that Syria owes billions to France and Germany?

Truthtriumphs

Rick
April 27th, 2011 3:55pm
Truthtriumphs

"I do not know which UN body commissioned the Sri Lanka report. However, I believe it was intended, like the Goldstone Report, to gather information to determine whether there is a case to answer".

Now that's interesting!

You might like to know that Ban Ky Moon commissioned a panel of three experts to assess the "nature and scope" of the alleged violations by both sides in the Sri lankan civil war, but it was NOT to be a fact-finding mission or an investigation (whatever is meant by that).
The result was that the panel of three slammed the UN itself for suppressing the casualty figures, and deliberately concealing the massive death toll of 40,000 civilians, on both sides.

Compare and contrast this with the Goldstone report into the deaths of 1,400 in Operation Cast lead, of whom more than 8,00 were militants, as admitted by Hamas.
This report was commissioned by a UN official body, namely the Human Rights Council of the UN, a body which has issued more condemnations of Israel than all the other countries examined put together.
That should tell you something about the UN.

Even more egregiously, an editorial in today's Guardian on the UN Sri lankan report actually blamed Israel for civilian deaths in conflicts worldwide.
It said that Israel's "burial of the evidence of its own war crimes" in its rejection of the findings of the Goldstone Report,(the most important of which the author himself retracted), impacts on "how civilians are treated in all other conflicts".
So there you have it, a new low in the progressive demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel.
It is now blamed for conflicts thousands of miles away, with which it has absolutely no connection.

Truthtriumphs

Rick.

"Similarly, with Israel, when it "picks its way delicately through the human shields to target those firing rockets to kill Israeli innocents, warfare undertaken solely to prevent the taking of more innocent life..."

So tell us what is Israel supposed to do when the enemy rains down thousands of rockets and mortars at its civilian population, from its own population centres, using its own civilians as human shields.... a double war crime....what should Israel do to protect her civilians, and stop the fire?

Tell us, do!

rippon

TruthTriumphs (April 27th, 2011 10:12pm) says, “So tell us what is Israel supposed to do”.

The answer is easy and obvious: Israel is supposed to abide by international law, just as everyone else is supposed to. (Moreover, Israel, like everyone else, is supposed to do that regardless of whatever breaches of the law anyone else may be committing.)

Although it is easy and obvious, the massive problem with the answer is that the rogue state and its terrorist wing (IDF) and its apologists (e.g. TruthTriumphs – who, in fact, endeavours to make ‘lies triumph’) simply don’t like it. But that’s always the case: jackbooted thugs (e.g. IDF) never like the suggestion that their aggression should be constrained by laws – the essence of civilised society as opposed to fascism.

G. Leven-Torres

No Mrs Phillips! It is the EuroMed Union under construction. Please read Bat Ye'or's book 'Eurabia'. All these dictators oppose Brussel's plans for a neo colonial imperium from Europe.

Derek BLADES

Not really all that dificult to explain, Melanie.

The no fly zone was imposed in Lybia becauset Gadaffi's planes and heavy armor were posed to invade the towns in Eastern Libya that had declared for the rebels. To his honour Sarkozy forced the issue and the early French attacks on Gadaffi's forces almost certainly saved many lives.

In Syria, the regime are killing protestors sporadically but not yet on the scale threatened by Gadaffi. It is altogether possible that al-Assad is deterred from using planes and artillery against the protestors by the West's firm action in Libya.

Miranda Rose Smith

marco
April 27th, 2011 2:26pm
You are right melanie. Other criminals such as Sharon Olmert and netanyahu should also be targeted. There should also be a no fly zone over gaza.

Dear Marco: Who is Sharon Olmert?

David Hughes

Very well put Mr Blades,
I agree with your simplistic view on the immediate need for intervention in the short term, but the west are going to have to think fast on their feet if they are going to take their respective populations with them, as double standards are hard to stomach from a moral point of view.

Rick

Truthtriumphs
April 27th, 2011 10:05pm
You have me puzzled.

The UN commissioned a report on Sri Lanka. How do you think it did its job if not by finding out the facts?

The UN commissioned a report on Israel to find out the facts.

Each report was preliminary to a decision by the UN whether further action was required i.e. whether there was a case to answer in court.

In each case, it looks as if the UN will take no further action despite strong evidence. This is a scandal.

(The UN did not try to suppress the fact of the slaughter in Sri Lanka.)

Israel's disregard for international law, like that of the US, does indeed encourage others.

You ask what Israel is to do about the rockets if not conduct a massive assault on the people of Gaza. There was a ceasefire in place with the offer of its continuation and negotiation. If Israel's intention were peace, and not consolidation of its conquest and dispossession and imprisonment of the Palestinians, then the answer to your question would be obvious.

Tilly

Truthtriumphs -

Whatever the logistical problems of dealing with rocket-launchers in densely populated cities, the one thing the Israelis cannot hope to do is SANITISE the carnage inflicted by retaliatory air strikes.

Such bombardments do not "delicately pick through human shields" but maim and slaughter them in huge numbers.

Melanie's suggestion that delicacy is possible, together with her designation of all Gaza's civilian casualties to the role of "shields", displays either appalling naivety or a chilling degree of cynicism.

raymond

All I can think of regarding the incoherence of our foreign policy, is that we consider Libya to be in our "sphere of influence". Syria we consider to be in the Russian sphere of influence hence no targeting of Assad

Augustus

Rippon - You must hate Israeli soldiers a lot to compare them to Nazis. Since when have the Palestinian Arabs ever cared about international law? after 90 years of unbroken murder and terror, from 1920 with the Grand Mufti, via Arafat to Hamas
and Abbas it has been clearly obvious that the Arabs don't want peace. Their leaders are a Maffia, they live and breath hatred, violence, and deal in wholesale blackmail and corruption. Since 1967 the Arab population has been subjected to
hate propaganda against Jews on
a Nazi scale. The population has
virtually been soaked in anti-
Semitism. Peace is therefore impossible, even if new leaders should now decide they wanted it. And Hamas is the worst of all, because it is the most fundamentalist enemy, and Islam
will never give up territory it once inhabited. The Hamas Charter states that the Day of Reckoning will not come to pass until all the Jews are destroyed. And you call Israel an uncivilized society when the topic isn't even about Israel!
Now who's putting the (jack)boot
in?

Rick

Veracity
April 27th, 2011 9:21pm
What are you talking about? Fisk is no supporter of Assad and the Ba'athists. And he has reported extensively on Syria as about all the other Arab countries where the populace is protesting against repressive regimes.

aelle

Augustus tells us that ' the Palestinian Arabs ' ' live and breathe hatred (and) violence ' and are ' soaked in anti-Semitism '

I always understood that both Jews and Arabs were semitic peoples.

Given the tenor of his increasingly strident and belligerent attacks on the Arab population of Palestine it is hard to avoid the words ' pot ',
' kettle ', and ' black ' coming to mind.

He also objects to the use of the words ' jackboot ' and ' fascist ' in describing the activities of the IDF - which subject was in fact introduced by Ms Phillips herself.

I am pleased to say that it is some time since I had the occasion to examine the footwear of the IDF in situ.

As for the term ' fascist ', which of course originated with Mussolini rather than Hitler, I tend to agree with George Orwell, who observed that, in everyday use, the word had all but lost its original meaning. He suggested that the older English word 'bully' would convey the same meaning.

I have to say from what I have seen, heard and read of the behaviour of the IDF it would not seem inappropriate.

That's Why

Incompetence, woolly thinking, convenience, the media, moral corruption. The usual suspects.

I hope the Schengen Agreement is also a casualty of these crises.

Truthtriumphs

rippon
April 28th, 2011 12:06am
TruthTriumphs (April 27th, 2011 10:12pm) says, “So tell us what is Israel supposed to do”.

"The answer is easy and obvious: Israel is supposed to abide by international law, just as everyone else is supposed to. (Moreover, Israel, like everyone else, is supposed to do that regardless of whatever breaches of the law anyone else may be committing.)

Although it is easy and obvious, the massive problem with the answer is that the rogue state and its terrorist wing (IDF) and its apologists (e.g. TruthTriumphs – who, in fact, endeavours to make ‘lies triumph’) simply don’t like it. But that’s always the case: jackbooted thugs (e.g. IDF) never like the suggestion that their aggression should be constrained by laws – the essence of civilised society as opposed to fascism".

When I read your response, full of hatred and invective, but devoid of any factual content, it immediately brought to mind what Chaim Weizmann had to say about people like you.
He wrote ...
"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".

That is your position in a nutshell.
You clearly haven't the slightest knowledge of international law.
For you, it is an abstract concept, to be invoked in your armoury of agitprop against Israel.

As to "rogue state" and "jackbooted thugs" and "fascism", doesn't that describe the Hamas "government" and its operatives perfectly?
It is they who march in jackboots, faces swathed in masks to instil terror and obedience amongst their people.
It is they who throw their opponents off the tops of tall buildings, hands and feet tied together, who drag dissenters out of hospital beds and shoot them in cold blood, who terrorise civilians into wearing Islamic dress etc, who target civilians across the border, raining down rockets and mortars "until they will all leave", from behind their own civilian human shields.
It is they who steal monies intended for humanitarian aid, and indeed the aid itself, and use the monies for armaments and secrete it away into their bank accounts.
It is they, like the German Nazis before them, who call for the extermination of all Jews worldwide...written in black and white in their charter.

And, by the way, your description of "rogue state" applies to just every Arab nation on the planet, the evidence of which is unfolding before our very eyes, on a daily basis.

No, your rage is because Israel is NOT a rogue state, behaves within the constraints of international law, beyond what that law demands of it, but, above all, refuses to commit naional suicide and disappear.

Drakken

Rippon
I will give this to you, we know which side you support and it certainly isn't the West. I find that the leftys here think that you can conduct warfare without hurting people, well my friends I am here to tell you that if you support and defend arab aggression, that makes you a collaborator with the enemy. I can say that if I was in charge, if one rocket was fired into my territory the reponse would be extremely disportionate and the enemy would be made to suffer so that if they ever thought of doing it again they would think twice. If they continued, Shermans March would pale in comparison. As for so called international law this and international community that, I am I am a sovereign citizen of my country and it's rule of law and the Constitution of the US, not some busy body unelected anti west organization. So you leftys can argue circles about real life or deal with it effectivly.

Rick

Truthtriumphs

"Israel is NOT a rogue state, behaves within the constraints of international law, beyond what that law demands of it..."

You are free to chide others for intemperate language (although you should yourself heed your own chiding).

However, when you say things like the above, you are simply wrong. Israel, like its patron the US, systematically ignores international law when it suits. The US applies the term "rogue state" to states that disobey it. So, clearly, the US and Israel are not rogue states. They do, unfortunately, operate outside the law (funny, given how legalistic they both are).

You can criticize the Arab states for the cruel tyranny and kleptocracy they impose on their own people. None of them, as far as I know, extends their oppression to other peoples in the way the US and Israel (and the UK) do.

John Steadman

Really, Melanie....you do ask such awkward questions.
Alan Campbell hits the nail on the head - Libya and Gadaffi offered some cut-price kudos.

Doug R

@Truthtriumphs, I agree with every word that you have said.

Those pointing the finger accusingly at Israel and screaming 'international law' were silent when the missiles were being launched at Israelis. No such calls were made against Hamas. Enough said.

The same Grad missiles are now being used in Libya and the West is now targeting those responsible..... in accordance with international law too.

Arab apologists dismiss the significance of the Palestinian missiles while pouring contempt upon the Jewish victims of these attacks by ridiculing the relatively small number of fatalities caused by the Palestinian missiles.

Every one of the 10,000+ Palestinian missiles launched from Gaza was intended to kill/injure/maim as many Jewish civilians as possible. If one missile had killed one Israeli over 10,000 would have been casualties, but that still wouldn't have been enough for some or bothered others.

The fact that these casualties did not ensue is not Israel's fault & the fact that not enough Jews have been killed for Arab apologists is obviously problematic to those who hate the Jewish people for one reason or another.

The widespread psychological trauma upon thousands of Jewish children due to Palestinian kassem & grad missile attacks has been considerable. It's also led to dozens of fatalities & several hundred injuries. Katyusha rockets, like those used by Hezbollah, have also been fired from Gaza at Beersheba, Ashkelon & Ashdod.

It was the same with the missiles fired at Jewish civilians from the Lebanon. Each projectile was loaded with shrapnel in order to maim or kill as many as possible. Some 100,000 Israelis were either evacuated or moved to bomb shelters during the Lebanese conflict.

Just as in Gaza, the World was more concerned with the civilian casualties in the Lebanon conflict where Arab civilians were again purposely used as human shields with weapons being fired from civilian areas.

The blame extended to Israel for defending itself against unprovoked missile attacks was totally disproportionate to any international criticism employed against the Arab/Islamic terrorists firing missiles at Jewish civilians.

Gaza showed the world what to expect. The world refused to listen or heed the danger. Those who will not learn from history are bound to repeat it. The lessons of 1948, 1967, 1973 and many times since are there for all to see. The Arab/Islamic world want all of the Middle East. It's not about boundaries. It's about the very existence of a Jewish state, irrespective of size/borders, in land seen to be forever Islamic.

Israel strikes only at Palestinians combatants, and with laser precision (literally). If innocents are wounded or killed, it is accidental, and Israeli leaders and citizens express their sincere regrets.

Rather, it is Palestinian suicide bombers who are "indiscriminate," seeking to kill anyone and everyone in their mad quest -- babies, mothers and teenagers -- in bloody deeds extolled by Palestinian society.

If Israel followed the Palestinians example and indiscriminately launched 1000's of home-made missiles loaded with shrapnel into Gazan civilian areas just to terrorise the community, and hope that some hit civilian targets, would the World describe such as a "proportionate" response and lower its condemnation of Israel?

In so doing 1000's of Palestinian children, instead of Jewish kids, would be traumatised and have to go to school in air raid shelters. Would this be a "proportionate" response or lower Israel's international condemnation ?

No, of course not, on both counts. Such would be ridiculous and totally unacceptable. Astute analysts will be only too aware that beneath the spin and expedient rhetoric it is Israel's very right of self defence that is being condemned.

Instead Israel tried to target terrorists directly. Sadly some Palestinian children/civilians do accidentally become casualties but they are not the targets. Unlike the Palestinians who directly target Israeli civilians, firing from their own civilian areas and using Palestinian civilians as human shields. The Palestinian terrorists knowing full well that any Israeli response may well incur Palestinian civilian casualties but the terrorists also being prepared to sustain them due to the ensuing condemnation of Israel that they know will erupt. The apologists here assist them wherever possible.

The following is the full text of the comments by Hamas representative Fathi Hamad: - "For the Palestinian people death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and the children excel. Accordingly [Palestinians] created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death as you desire life."

International law or humanitarian concern for Gaza's residents is obviously of no concern to Hamas et al. As long as Israel is condemned they are prepared to sacrifice their own kind on the altar of political expediency.

Truthtriumphs

Rick.

"(The UN did not try to suppress the fact of the slaughter in Sri Lanka.)"

WRONG.

From today's Times, under "War crimes' leaders to avoid prosecution".

Mr. Ban's chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar, is among the UN officials whose conduct is to be scrutinised, both for his efforts to suppress casualty figures, and for his role in the notorious "white flag" killings, when Tamil Tiger leaders whose safety he had guaranteed, were shot dead while surrendering to the government.

Truthtriumphs

Tilly
April 28th, 2011 10:40am
Truthtriumphs

"Whatever the logistical problems of dealing with rocket-launchers in densely populated cities, the one thing the Israelis cannot hope to do is SANITISE the carnage inflicted by retaliatory air strikes".

You seem to have a problem in understanding the legitimate rules of warfare, the difference between retaliation and acts designed to stop weapons onslaught against civilians, and much else besides.

Permit me to help you navigate through the foggy lowlands of your mind with regard to Gaza.
Here is a simple analogy to clarify it for you:--

Imagine that the IRA, for example, launched rockets and mortars at mainland Britain, aiming them at civilian targets, especially schools, hospitals etc. (a war crime) with the express intention of ethnically cleansing its citizens. (We will not stop until they all leave.)
In addition, these rockets and mortars are deliberately fired from densely populated civilian areas, using civilians as human shields, (another war crime), to deter retaliation and that this situation went on for 8 years until life became intolerable, and after all other avenues were explored, the military option was the only way left to curtail the attacks.
Imagine also, that before such action was undertaken, the population of Ireland were sent warnings by text and phone when military action was to begin, in order to spare civilian lives.
Imagine that all the while the UK....under attack... continued to supply its enemy with power,etc. which helped to facilitate the firepower of the enemy.
That, in a nutshell, is the situation that obtained in Gaza, so what don't you understand?
In that situation, what would you expect YOUR government to do to protect you?

And by the way, you might like reflect upon why there is the trouble in/from Gaza.
Israel withdrew from every last centimetre,including disinterring her dead, and left infrastructure behind to help the Gazans build a future.
What was the response?
It was followed by belligerence, terror, hatred and that this was not so much a withdrawal to give peace a chance, but rather an opportunity to ethnically cleanse the region of Jews, and to put the final nail in the coffin of the Jewish state.

It's a pity that you inhabit a world of fantasy and delusion.

Truthtriumphs

Rick
April 28th, 2011 6:14pm
Truthtriumphs

"You can criticize the Arab states for the cruel tyranny and kleptocracy they impose on their own people. None of them, as far as I know, extends their oppression to other peoples in the way the US and Israel (and the UK)".

Trouble is, your knowledge doesn't go very far.
How do you think Arabia extended its reach to swallow up the whole of North Africa?
Do you not know of the civil war in Nigeria, where the violent Islamist North, (converted natives) are fighting it out with the south?
Arabia has extended its tentacles far and wide, and it continues to this day.
Have you forgotten the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990?

Rick

Truthtriumphs
April 28th, 2011 8:40pm
Rick.

"(The UN did not try to suppress the fact of the slaughter in Sri Lanka.)"

Your point is well taken. "The UN did not try to suppress the fact..." is simply wrong. There needs to be an investigation of its officials (for example, their part in the surrender of Tamil leaders). I have read that part of the reason for their equivocation was that Russia and China played the role for Sri Lanka that the US and EU played for Israel in its assault on Lebanon and Gaza, of keeping diplomatic pressure at bay while they got on with their work (recall the irrelevant mantra "Israel has a right to self defence"; recall that the EU leaders supped with the Israeli prime minister even as the IDF did its work).

I will repeat what I said, this time without relying on the context to make my meaning clear: - The UN asked for a fact-finding report on Sri Lanka. To ask for such a report from independent experts is not to suppress the facts but to expose them. Sri Lanka refused to cooperate. The report found strong evidence of crimes on both sides. It looks as if the UN will take no further action. Your initial complaint that Israel was singled out in a way that Sri Lanka was not is not borne out by the facts.

Truthtriumphs
April 28th, 2011 11:16pm

In a discussion of the present day, it is odd to refer to the events of centuries past. In a discussion of invasions across borders, it is odd to refer to civil wars.

Saddam is the one obvious counter-example. (He was encouraged by the US to invade Iran. He thought he had a nod and a wink from the US to take Kuwait.) His was a rogue regime his people and neighbours were glad to see the back of. I'm still not sure why you think you have provided a rebuttal - Israel and the US (and rogue thugs like Saddam in the past)invade others and the Arab states concentrate on oppressing their own people.

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
April 28th, 2011 10:50pm
Yet again we have the puzzle how you can repeat your stuff as if it had not been already shown many times to be questionable at best.

A few weeks ago a contributor set out the legal position on "self-defence". None of you managed a more cogent response than Harrumph before carrying on as if nothing had happened.

You must by now have read Dov Weisglas's explanation of the withdrawal from Gaza. You must by now have heard the arguments of the demographic time-bombadiers.

You should also know by now that a ceasefire was in place before Israel attacked Gaza, and there was an offer of an extension and of negotiations. We know this because the Israeli security services told the Israeli cabinet as much.

In the circumstances, your hasbara repetitions have every appearance of lies.

Augustus

aelle - I'll tell you what I object to. I object to people coming on this blog and trying to portray Israel as some kind of totalitarian Jewish entity with no regard for democracy.
Israel was established as a Jewish state, it has banned extreme right-wing parties from
standing for elections, and when it tried to ban the United Arab List (Ra'am-Ta'al) Arab party, because it supported terrorists and refused to recognize Israel's right to exist, it's own Supreme Court overturned the ban. Would Jews be allowed their own political party in Arab lands? Of course not! I ask you, which policy is the more democratic one: The Arab countries' policy, or the Israeli one? Or is one not allowed to make such comparisons
because Jews are inferior beings?

Augustus

"So why not target him too?" Exactly, because it's no secret that Islamist Iran is
the master in creating terrorists and training attack units. It's also no secret that Iran offered the Syrian regime two things: A few thousand well-trained members of the Quds division, and advisers from the
Revolutionary Guard to help put down the demonstrations. The same trained Arabs, Africans, and Afghans who helped put down the Green demonstrators in Iran in 2009. Iran isn't only Syria's political ally, but also it's ally in putting down demonstrations and murdering civilians. The
Syrian regime's fall would be a severe blow
for Iran in uniting Muslims against Israel.
But this rogue state is being helped by a lot of Western idiots and often European anti-Semites.

Tilly

Truthtriumphs:

As a student of hasbara, you are clearly attuned to the vital role language plays in promoting Israel's image. You immediately spotted the reference I made to "retaliatory" in my post of April 28th, 10.40am and duly pounced.

Well done.

Now please turn your antennae to the CENTRAL allegation I was making - which was about Melanie's attempt to santitise Israeli air strikes.

There is nothing "delicate" about the firing of missiles on a crowded city. It is impossible to avoid what Doug R - uncannily echoing Melanie - calls "accidents" when "laser precision" fails (April 28th, 6.42pm). Both Melanie and Doug are determined to give the impression that Israel's weaponry somehow delivers "cleaner", more "surgical" blows than Palestinian missiles do, and that while the IDF-inflicted death and injury toll may be comparatively much higher, it is nonetheless negligible enough to soothe overly-sensitive folk.

Neither impression bears the slightest intelligent scrutiny. An Israeli bomb rips people's limbs and heads off just as gruesomely, just as messily, as any Hamas bomb; and by Israel's own account, more than one in four of those killed during Cast Lead (for eg) were non-combatants - a hell of an "accident" rate in anybody's book.

So how do you get round these unsavory truths? In tandem with the obscene idea of "delicacy" in warfare is the equally despicable soubriquet "human shields".

Again, Doug R perfectly illustrates how this phrase has come to imply that Palestinian victims are somehow "less innocent" than their Israeli non-combatant counterparts. He uncritically accepts a Hamas spokesman's word for it that elderly Palestinians and children have pro-actively "created" a human shield because they "excel" at death and "desire" it. No question about Hamas's credibility here, eh? Of course not!

Or at least there is no question if you shut your eyes and ears to the mourning of Palestinians who have lost loved ones. For a people who supposedly embrace death so gleefully, they sure seem to cry and agonise a lot ...

You, Truthtriumphs, promote the myth rather more subtly than Doug R, but no less irresponsibly. By proposing a parallel between Gaza and Northern Ireland, you blithely suggest that the two populations have equal recourse to escape when warnings are given of action to come.

What you conveniently ignore is that the entire acreage of Gaza is slightly smaller than Britain's second largest city - Birmingham - and contains roughly half a million more people. They are among the poorest on earth and are not permitted to flee beyond their borders when the IDF whistle is blown.

All in all, their predicament is that they are fish in a barrel - and that is precisely the circumstance in which they are so "delicately picked through" by rockets and bombs.

I will try to address the pragmatic points you raised with me if you first respond to mine. Otherwise, be on notice that I and George Orwell's ghost are both watching your every word...

What you

Drakken

Rick

You can take that so called international law and pound sand with it. We in the US are a sovereign nation ruled by our Constitution not some busy body unelected organization who does not have our best interests at heart. If you want to put your faith and trust in this obomination you go right ahead but don't expect the rest of us to go along with it. looks like the EU thingy is going real well for you isn't it? So we should do the same as you Europeans ?? I don't think so!Oh just in case it slipped your mind, we in the US and Israel elect leaders to do our bidding, so if you want to side with the enemies of the West your free to do so.

Truthtriumphs

Herzen
April 29th, 2011 10:08am
Truthtriumphs

"April 28th, 2011 10:50pm

Yet again we have the puzzle how you can repeat your stuff as if it had not been already shown many times to be questionable at best".

The question is....by whom?

Answer...by people such as yourself, to whom no serious person would pay the slightest attention.
Herzen, you're strong on dissembling and flowery language, weak on facts.

Rick

Truthtriumphs
April 29th, 2011 7:53pm

That was such a good response to Herzen! Took each point of fact he questioned you on, and showed him why he was wrong and you are right! Impressive!

(I take it you consider yourself a "serious person".)

You repeat propaganda and, when it is shown to be false, you bluster...and then you repeat the propaganda again...

pterodactyl

Yes, call it suicide or treachery, either way we help those countries where change is likely to put in more anti-Western regimes (Libya) but do nothing to support democracy where the new regime is more likely to be more pro-Western (Iran democracy movement). See C Booker Sun Tel about our lack of support for Iran's pro democracy movement - and this does not involve war, merely diplomatic recognition of the democracy movement.

I expect W.Hague's conscience is troubled by us helping our enemies to possibly become worse enemies, but somehow I do not think Cameron's conscience is as he is more like the Liberals.

Augustus mentions China's apparent lack of concern - but note that they are concerned enough to interfere with search engines and I think other parts of the internet too although I cannot remember the details

Drakken

Tilly

You seem to be under the impression that if Israel just stood by and let the palis rocket them without repercussions that everything would be fine and dandy.
I also find it very ironic that the so called disaportionate response is somehow a bad thing, well my dear that is how you win wars. I think the Israeli's have been far to nice and have shown to much deference yo their enemies, I say if you fire a rocket from a crowed neighborhood they should level it, it is called warfare and the population that allows hamas to fire rockets,mortars and guilded missles, is just as complicit as the hamas terrorists themselves and should be made to suffer as much as they. I know, this hurts your precious sensibilities but that is reality and not wishful thing on your part. Wake up and smell the coffee, hamas and company are not friends and never will be, but you go ahead an keep supporting the enemies of the West, Chamberlain would be very proud of you.

Drakken

Rick

You seem to be under the impression that if we just always take the high moral ground, that we won't be buried in it. So called international law has no bearing in how warfare is conducted and we in the West have seen to forgot how to win wars. I predict very soon that all you leftys are about to get a vey rude awaking.

Truthtriumphs

Rick
April 29th, 2011 9:28am
Truthtriumphs
April 28th, 2011 8:40pm
Rick.

"(The UN did not try to suppress the fact of the slaughter in Sri Lanka.)"

Your point is well taken. "The UN did not try to suppress the fact..." is simply wrong.

Can you read?
Can you understand?
I will repeat it again.

From the Times...
"Mr. Ban's chief of staff, Vijay Nambiar, is among the UN officials whose conduct is to be scrutinised, both for his efforts to suppress casualty figures..."

Truthtriumphs

Tilly.

"I will try to address the pragmatic points you raised with me if you first respond to mine. Otherwise, be on notice that I and George Orwell's ghost are both watching your every word..."

So, as I understand it, when Israeli civilians are targeted by Hamas from Gaza, with the declared intention of forcing Israelis to leave...Israel, and committing war crimes in so doing, you advocate that Israel should do nothing in response, because otherwise innocent civilians in Gaza will die, because of the confined, heavily populated space from which Hamas fires its ordnance?

Am I right? Is that your position?
In other words, you think that the right of self defence does not apply to Israel.

Truthtriumphs

Herzen
April 29th, 2011 10:08am
Truthtriumphs

"You should also know by now that a ceasefire was in place before Israel attacked Gaza, and there was an offer of an extension and of negotiations. We know this because the Israeli security services told the Israeli cabinet as much.

In the circumstances, your hasbara repetitions have every appearance of lies."

Oh,I don't think so!
You know very well that the Hamas trick of calling for a ceasefire was nothing more than a trick, when they saw that after their years long mercilless civilian bombardment was about to be dealt with militarily, they called for a ceasefire.
Nothing more than a device to allow themselves breathing space. A hudna, in other words.
It's a well tried Arab device when they see the tables about to be turned.
They never call for a ceasefire when things are going their way.
The question is, Herzen, why was there bombardment and attack in the first place?
What did the Gazans want?
There was a complete withdrawal from every centimetre from Gaza, including disinterrement of the Israeli dead, and a wealth of valuable infrastructure left behind.
You choose to ignore the words of the Hamas leadership... we will not stop until they all leave... Israel, that is.

Quite coy about the real facts, aren't you?

Tilly

Truthtriumphs -

I told you I would address the "self-defence" issue if you first replied to the criticism I levelled at Melanie Phillips. Perhaps if I reframe this as two direct questions, it will aid your focus:

1. Is it, or is it not, possible for the IDF to "delicately pick its way through human shields" when employing air strikes on a densely-populated area like Gaza City?

2. If not, do you think it is acceptable for Melanie to describe IDF strikes on Gaza in such linguistically manipulative terms?

Rick

Truthtriumphs
April 30th, 2011 11:40pm
I suggest you read more carefully before sounding off, or, if necessary, take a course in English language.

Rick

Truthtriumphs,

The same strictures apply to your response to Herzen. Read what he wrote:

"A few weeks ago a contributor set out the legal position on "self-defence". None of you managed a more cogent response than Harrumph before carrying on as if nothing had happened."

- Can we now expect a cogent explanation from you of just how Israel's attack counts as self-defence?

"You must by now have read Dov Weisglas's explanation of the withdrawal from Gaza. You must by now have heard the arguments of the demographic time-bombadiers."

So if those in power in Israel explain that withdrawal from Gaza effectively freezes the "peace process" and reduces the threat of a "demographic timebomb" by a million and a half (or whatever the figure), you require us to disregard what they say in favour of propaganda about noble sacrifices and Gaza as Singapore or Abu Dhabi ( or whatever)?

"You should also know by now that a ceasefire was in place before Israel attacked Gaza, and there was an offer of an extension and of negotiations. We know this because the Israeli security services told the Israeli cabinet as much."

The Israelis themselves say the ceasefire was holding and an extension was on offer in return for negotiations. If Israel's prime concern were the safety of its citizens, it would have agreed to a ceasefire and negotiated.

As it happens, Hamas had been calling for a ceasefire long before Israel deigned to respond. It would appear that Israel preferred a policy of dropping an impressive array of ordnance on Gaza as a means to persuade the population to accept their prison life.

Your propaganda takes on a frantic tone when you have to contradict even Israeli officials to maintain its "truth".

Truthtriumphs

Rick
May 1st, 2011 1:10pm
Truthtriumphs
April 30th, 2011 11:40pm

"I suggest you read more carefully before sounding off, or, if necessary, take a course in English language".

I am not the one here who perverts language to mean the exact opposite of its intended meaning.
Others on this blog will decide who is the fraudster and dissembler, and who is not.

Truthtriumphs

Rick.

"As it happens, Hamas had been calling for a ceasefire long before Israel deigned to respond. It would appear that Israel preferred a policy of dropping an impressive array of ordnance on Gaza as a means to persuade the population to accept their prison life".

Anyone with half a brain understands what is meant by a "ceasefire" offered by an ostracised terror organisation whose publicly declared aim is to wipe Israel off the map, and to murder Jews worldwide, and whose moral code is to crush dissent from within by the most brutal means imaginable.

My intention here is to expose the vacuousness and hypocrisy of the Rick/Herzen goon show....not very difficult!

Rick

Truthtriumphs
May 1st, 2011 4:15pm

Let me help you down off your high horse or hobby horse.

If I say "Your point is well taken", it means You have made a good point or You are right.

If I say "'The UN did not try to suppress the fact of the slaughter in Sri Lanka'. is wrong", it means 'The UN did not try to suppress the fact of the slaughter in Sri Lanka' is wrong.

Take a deep breath, and ponder.

I notice you are very selective about what you say harrumph to. You have been circumspect (probably wisely) in maintianing silence on just about every point put to you.

And a ceasefire, as the Israeli security services can confirm for you, is when the rockets stop. And negotiation is when two sides see if they can reach an agreement and trust each other to keep it (for example, can Hamas trust Israel after it yet again reneged on its undertakings in the 2008 ceasefire?).

And Hamas has said it will accept a two state solution based on the Green Line, if the PA agrees it and the Palestinian people accept it in a referendum or in their parliament (Hezballah has said the same). That sounds like a basis at least for negotiations to start.

There is no justification for your rejectionism.

Truthtriumphs

Tilly
May 1st, 2011 11:17am
Truthtriumphs -

"1. Is it, or is it not, possible for the IDF to "delicately pick its way through human shields" when employing air strikes on a densely-populated area like Gaza City?"

Yes it is.
The following is just one example of precision guided weapons systems:--
Developed by BAE Systems in partnership with the U.S. government, APKWS provides aviators with a highly precise weapon that is effective against soft and lightly armored targets while minimizing collateral damage - important in urban areas and other situations in which non combatants or friendly forces are near hostile targets.

Of course, the question you should be asking is why Hamas is deliberately targeting Israel from the most densely populated civilian areas, deliberately risking the lives of its non-combatants."
How about asking that question?

No, Tilly, you have been check-mated.
Your non-answer is itself an answer, and an incriminating one at that.
You believe that when a country is attacked (of course, only a western democratic one), the only moral recourse is to do nothing, because any form of military action will cause civilian deaths.
So in the case of Israel, when attacked she should lay down her arms, and lay down and die.
That is your position.
Thus, you must disapprove of the defensive military ations the allies took against Nazi Germany and the Axis powers, because of the 20,000,000 lives lost in that war.
To sum up, if it's kill or be killed, it is the latter course of action that you advocate, except in the case of the fascistic, totalitarian autocracies, theocracies and kleptocracies that are the Arab states, and their client, non state subsidiaries, like Hamas and Hezbollah.

No, Tilly, you have been check-mated.
Your non-answer is itself an answer, and an incriminating one at that.

To sum up, if it's kill or be killed, it is the latter course of action that you advocate.

Truthtriumphs

Rick.

"And Hamas has said it will accept a two state solution based on the Green Line, if the PA agrees it and the Palestinian people accept it in a referendum or in their parliament (Hezballah has said the same)."

Why do you persist in acting the goat?
Read the Hamas charter.
Even the "moderate" PA pumps out the most virulent, vile propaganda against Israel and the Jews, even surpassing that of Nazi Germany, in its media outlets and school and university material.
Why does it show maps without Israel, and teach children that all the land between the sea and the river Jordan will be returned to them when Israel is destroyed?
Do you think that forms the basis for trust in future negotiations?

"And a ceasefire, as the Israeli security services can confirm for you, is when the rockets stop".

Why was there fire from Gaza, when Israel withdrew from every last centimetre, with the only proviso that she would be left in peace?
Isn't that the question you should be asking?

MLondon

The issue of Obama's American birth is unequivocal nonsense. However what is of more interest is his upbringing and in particular whether his Islamic influences were more Shia or Sunni based. I say this in jest....well only half so because it seems extraordinary that he chose not to support - twice - the brave demonstrators in Tehran and again has chosen not to support those opposing Assad's Alawite Shia regime...and yet when it came to Mubarek, he couldn't move quick enough to throw him under the proverbial bus (leading now to Egypt restoring relations with Tehran) and after that was the attack on Libya......so as I said, there is no doubt he is an American but one has to wonder whether deep down he leans towards the Shia (and no I am not saying he is a muslim!)

Rick

Truthtriumphs
May 1st, 2011 9:56pm
Tell me why a document produced by one zealot several decades ago is to be taken as canonical and all subsequent statements are to be disregarded, even those that have prompted senior members of the Israeli security services to say that Israel should talk to Hamas? The answer would appear to be that the charter allows you to feel righteous in your rejectionism.

And why have the Palestine Papers been written out of history (if you recall, evidence of the substance of the PA's negotiations with the Israeli governemnt).

And do you really think you have made a good argument against Tilly? On the face of it, what you say is grotesque.

KatieD

Whilst the terrorists disgust me, I can't help but find it appalling that Israel actually evicts innocent families from their homes, and then moves in Jewish settlers, making children homeless in the process.

Why don't both sides admit their faults and stop killing each other?

Tilly

Truthtriumphs -

Hardly "checkmate"! The missiles you cite (APKWS) don't appear to be in service yet - let alone have they featured in Israel's massively destructive airstrikes against Gaza to date.

These missiles may (or may not) prove to be a breakthrough in "delicate picking", but all one can say of Israel's RECORD in the "precision" field is that either the operators were extraordinarily inept, or the missiles themselves were inappropriate for urban assaults in which the avoidance of civilian casualties was a priority.

Whatever the case, Israel cannot have failed to realise - through decades of practical experience - that "collateral damage" (another obscene euphemism) is inevitable in an urban arena, and on a very large scale. Yet it continues to judge that the toll in civilian lives is morally acceptable.

Clearly you (and Melanie) have no problem with this stance: if rockets are fired at Israel from a densely-populated area, Israel has "no option" but to kill those civilians living in the rocketeers' vicinity.

OK - but why the need, then, to pretend otherwise ...?

... Which is exactly what you do when engaging in Orwellian gymnastics. Rather than having the courage of your convictions, you want the world to accept that every Palestinian civilian death is an "accident"; that "targeting" is something precise and delicate which (somehow, unfortunately, always unforeseen) goes "off-target"; that children who die are "shields" (a nicely subliminal militaristic image) rather than the offspring of impoverished parents who have no opportunity to flee.

Frankly, I prefer Drakken's in-your-face brutal honesty (April 30th, 7.08pm); I strongly recommend you emulate him if you want respect for your self-appointed guardianship of "the truth".

Truthtriumphs

Tilly
May 2nd, 2011 12:51pm
Truthtriumphs -

"Hardly "checkmate"! The missiles you cite (APKWS) don't appear to be in service yet -"

Weapons with laser guidance systems have been around for years.

Yes, check mate.
With all your yakkety yak, yakkety yak, jabber, jabber, you still haven't answered the salient points I put.
Again...
After 8 years of rocket attacks aimed at her civilians, and btw, often timed to coincide with children going to and from school, what is Israel to do to stop the attacks, invoking her legitimate right of self defence?
You haven't answered.
Were the Allies right or wrong to counter attack the axis countries, in a war that cost 20 million lives?
No answer.
Your ridiculous, de facto, answer is that Israelis should accept the attacks and be killed, rather than defend themselves agaist unprovoked attacks.
Today is Holocaust memorial day in Israel, Tilly---the "as a Jew, Jew",an appropriate day to get it into your head that the days of Jews quiescently lying down to die obligingly, when the enemy attacks with the sole purpose of killing Jews, are over....for good.

And another thing, nowhere, in all the reams and reams of verbiage you have produced, have you ever expressed the slightest remorse for the Jewish lives of innocents, babies among them, so cruelly taken.
Even Victoria managed that after the Fogel killings.
You first comment on Melanie's piece following those murders, was to tell me that my moral compass was hopelessly skewed.
We can all see whose moral compass is skewed, except that in you case, you don't have one, just a stone where your heart should be.

Truthtriumphs

Rick
May 2nd, 2011 11:17am

Truthtriumphs
May 1st, 2011 9:56pm
"Tell me why a document produced by one zealot several decades ago is to be taken as canonical and all subsequent statements are to be disregarded, even those that have prompted senior members of the Israeli security services to say that Israel should talk to Hamas?"

It's not just because it still stands today, it is because it is a brutal terrorist organisation, PROSCRIBED....do you understand the word...by the western democracies, and because of its behavour to its own people?
Do you know what happened in Gaza a few days ago?
When the news of a Hamas/Fatah rapprochement became known, there was a spontaneous peaceful demonstration in support, in the centre of Gaza city.
What was the response?
Hamas beat up demonstrators, imprisoned and tortured others, and flexed its might.
The question is, why?
As to senior members of Israel's security services wanting to talk to Hamas, Israel is a democracy....there is a plurality of views.
You might remember that in 1938 Chamberlain went to "talk" to Hitler, and came back with the infamous piece of paper "peace in our time".
What was the result?
Hitler didn't keep his promises....surprise, surprise.. and as Churchill so presciently predicted to him..."You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war".
Hamas and co. are the ideological heirs to Hitlers' third Reich. So, the route to peace is to utterly destroy Hamas, and then negotiate with those who genuinely seek peace.

"And why have the Palestine Papers been written out of history (if you recall, evidence of the substance of the PA's negotiations with the Israeli governemnt)."

Because it has been shown that there was a lot of fakery in them.

"And do you really think you have made a good argument against Tilly? On the face of it, what you say is grotesque".

Yes. Tilly's post comprise hot air, ranting and raving, but signifying nothing.

Rick

Truthtriumphs
May 2nd, 2011 2:25pm
On each point your response is grotesque in the extreme. I cannot tell whether the ignorant bluster is an act or a genuine misfortune. Study some history. Learn some logic. I am done.

Truthtriumphs

KatieD
May 2nd, 2011 12:21pm

"Whilst the terrorists disgust me, I can't help but find it appalling that Israel actually evicts innocent families from their homes, and then moves in Jewish settlers, making children homeless in the process".

What are you talking about?
Give specific instances.

If you mean the homes in E Jerusalem, with Arab tennants, then that was a case which went to the supreme court in Israel.
The Jewish owners have the deeds.
The Arabs were evicted because they had lived there for years, refusing to pay rent.
Try doing that in the UK.

If you mean homes which were put up without permission, the same evictions happen to Jews who behave that way.
Try doing that in the UK and see what happens.

No "settlers" have evicted Arabs to make way for Jewish homes.
They build on barren uninhabited land.

If you mean "homes" that have been used as weapons caches to use in terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, and then blown up by the IDF, that's very good.
Incidentally, blowing up homes in this way was an activity pioneered by the British,and with much greater brutality than the Israelis, in the war agaist Iraq in the 1920s.

Archie

Indeed so, Miss Phillip, and I fancy the reason might be that Syria would be a tough nut to crack!

Truthtriumphs

Rick
May 2nd, 2011 3:51pm
Truthtriumphs
May 2nd, 2011 2:25pm
"On each point your response is grotesque in the extreme. I cannot tell whether the ignorant bluster is an act or a genuine misfortune. Study some history. Learn some logic. I am done."

But you can't say why, because my facts are correct.
Your comment above is a graceless climbdown from someone ignorant of the facts and unwilling to accept he is wrong, and petulant when proved wrong.
I hope you are "done".
You won't be missed.

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
May 3rd, 2011 12:49am

You are so confident you have the facts you never bother to check. I suspect this and your love of non sequiturs is what finally exasperated Rick.

As for your response to KatieD, you are unaware of what goes on in East Jerusalem - this is not her mistake but your ignorance. You say Israel only demolishes houses built illegally - on occupied territory Israel does not have the authority. You say settlements are only built on barren uninhabited land - some of it belonging to Palestinians. You are silent about the way Palestinian villages are hemmed in, water diverted, Palestinian farmers denied access to their fields, Palestinian olive groves uprooted by settlers, Palestinians attacked by settlers, Palestinians denied free movement...You are a hypocrite.

To say that Britain applied emergency powers even more brutally is hardly and endorsement of Israel's illegal actions.

Tilly

Truthtriumphs -

Gosh, you sound cross. So I'll answer your question (before you burst a blood vessel) and maybe address your more offensive remarks in a separate post.

You ask what Israel is to do to defend itself against Hamas rocket attacks which have persisted for over eight years.

For a start, Israel should discontinue the use of a strategy which has patently failed. If airstrikes on Gaza haven't done the trick after all this time, they never will.

So three options remain - annihilate the entire Palestinian population (risking consequent destruction of Israel if the world cannot stomach it); engage the west in a global war against Islam with the aim of subordinating Arab states to western domination and administration, and forcing them to "assimilate" Palestinians while Israel's borders expand exponentially; or sue for peace.

Option one is, I think, completely unrealistic. Much as some lunatics might be prepared to take the suicidal risk and have no moral qualms about genocide, most Israelis and Jews in general would either abandon ship or bring down any government committed to this course of action.

Option two might work at a pinch ... if the west were prepared for all-out warfare over many years and an aftermath of perpetual colonial revolts lasting perhaps for centuries. Not a chance, on reflection, and in any case it would be Israel (however big) which would remain in the direct firing line of revolting colonials ...

Option three (you will doubtless insist) is equally unrealistic. But that takes no account of recent history outside the Middle East. You originally asked me to consider Northern Ireland as a scenario - good parallel drawn, though for all the wrong reasons.

The point you should be taking on board is that after decades of conflict, broken-down talks, military interventions, mass internments, seemingly irrevocable sectarian hatreds, it was only when peace became the ONLY option placed on the table that useless old strategies were abandoned and settlement reached. Yes, it meant talking turkey to terrorists, upsetting a lot of people, putting up with sporadic violence, making expensive investments, but eventually the whole face of Northern Ireland changed.

I don't know how this was achieved - what backstage manoeuvres were involved - but whatever the magic formula, it must be available to Israel (and Hamas) for the asking.

My suggestion is you take a break from Middle East history for a while and immerse yourself in the appalling, bloodstained story of Ireland; then tell me there there is still no hope of peace...

Adam B.

Tilly, you say airstrikes ahevn't worked, so Israel should stop them.

This demonstrates a complete lack of any military understanding. Israel never claimed that airstrikes would completely eradicate the problem of Palestinian rocket attacks against its southern towns. However, if you look at what happened after cast Lead, you will find that rocket attacks reduced considerably. Therefore, the airstrikes disrupt and hinder the Palestinian terrorists' ability to bomb Israeli civilians. To claim otherwise is to fly in the face of the evidence.

But then, as a member of the Palestinian lobby, I don't think you are really that interested in evidence. And none of your options provides security for Israel and her people.

Truthtriumphs

Tilly
May 3rd, 2011 1:09pm
Truthtriumphs -

"You ask what Israel is to do to defend itself against Hamas rocket attacks which have persisted for over eight years.
So three options remain - annihilate the entire Palestinian population (risking consequent destruction of Israel if the world cannot stomach it); engage the west in a global war against Islam with the aim of subordinating Arab states to western domination and administration, and forcing them to "assimilate" Palestinians while Israel's borders expand exponentially; or sue for peace."

Your first "option" is so absurd, that even the worst of Israel's detractors have never suggested that Israel would counter such a course of action.

Your second, that the West engage in global war to "subordinate the Arab states", is equally insane, especially since it is Islam that seems to be declaring war on the West....jihad, holy war, caliphate etc. etc.
Israel's borders expand exponentially. What? Are you joking...this miniscule sliver of land...look up the meaning of exponentially!
Third suggestion...Israel should sue for peace.

What in the world has Israel been doing, if not that?
Pulling out from every centimetre of Gaza, even disinterring Jewish dead, and leaving valuable infrastructure, which was trashed on their departure.
Pulling out of the Lebanese security zone, which it, together with the SLA, patrolled to safeguard Israel, pulling out of most of the West Bank and handing over control to the PA....all these unilateral actions by Israel were met, in every case, by an upsurge in violence and terrorism from these areas, interpreted, as they were, as acts of surrender.
The withdrawal from Gaza was followed by rocket and mortar attacks, aimed at Israeli civilians...a war crime.
In fact, the Israeli attack on Gaza was effective...it reduced the number of rocket and mortar attacks significantly.
And another thing, I pointedly did not make any comparison of Israel with N.Ireland.
There is no comparison.
I merely asked you to imagine a situation whereby the IRA sent ordnance across the border to England.
Perhaps I should have said Wales or Scotland, given how easily you are confused.
And given you final "point" that peace finally came to the province of NI.
Baloney. The Unionists were persuaded to give up much more than they should have....there was quiet for a time, but violence has returned with a vengeance....see the Police Federation Report of Northern Ireland of 14th.December 2010...there were 130 acts of terror in that year alone...figures suppressed by the Dept. of Justice of NI. to give the illusion of peace.

What, in reality, you want is Israeli surrender, that the state should come to an end as a Jewish state, allow in millions of Arabs, and that somehow, peace would magically follow.
Given the turmoil in all of Arabia at the moment, that is a pipe dream.

You want Israel to "negotiate" with an organisation, one of whose leaders, Abdel Aziz Rantizi, said in 2003:--
"I swear by almighty God, we will not leave a single Jew in Palestine".

Douglas Murray recently made a very perspicacious remark about Yasmin Alibai Brown.
He said:--
“she combines two devastating characteristics, sanctimony and stupidity. Individually they would be dangerous. Together they are fatal”.
I couldn't have put it better myself, and it applies equally perfectly to you.

In response to your suggestion that I take "a break from ME politics for a while", may I make a suggestion to you?
Read some good books on the history of Palestine and the ME such as "Palestine" by Saul Friedman ...and do some charity work.
It will make you feel better.

Tilly

Truthtriumphs -

When you asked me what I thought Israel could do to defend itself against rocket attacks, I assumed you had a brilliant solution of your own, which you were poised to unveil as a trump card after a (routine) demolition of my post.

Sadly, you don't seem to have any more clue than I do. Israel will just have to carry on as abnormal, I guess...

Adam B.

Tilly, thank you for admitting that whilst you are great at advising what Israel shouldn't do, you have no constructive advice for what it should do to defend itself. Presumably nothing.

well, the days of Jews lying down to die are over. Get used to it.

Truthtriumphs

Tilly
May 5th, 2011 1:50pm
Truthtriumphs -

"When you asked me what I thought Israel could do to defend itself against rocket attacks, I assumed you had a brilliant solution of your own, which you were poised to unveil as a trump card after a (routine) demolition of my post".

That little trick won't work.
I asked what you thought Israel should do to defend herself, as an alternative to the military action that you so disapprove of.

I have every "clue" as you so moronically put it, as to what Israel should do.
Just like the Allies in the 2 world wars dealt with their violent tormentors who waged war on them, Israel should make Hamas et al understand that force will be met with force, and that aggression directed at their civilians will be met with military might.
That is the only course of action that will resolve it, or at least contain it.
I would also advise Israel to turn a blind eye to the routine condemnations, and do what every other nation does/would do to protect her citizens, and not to be deflected by threats etc.
Further, I would not give up another inch of territory to those who swear that the destruction and obliteration of the whole of Israel is their ultimate goal.

I have a strategy....you do not.

Tilly

Adam B -

The central question Truthtriumphs put to me was this: "After 8 years of rocket attacks aimed at her civilians... what is Israel to do to stop the attacks?" (May 2nd, 2.04pm).

It was in this context that I addressed Israel's "defence" failure through the use of air-strikes. You, however (in your usual sneering, lazy way) rephrase the issue entirely - not considering what Israel can to STOP rocket attacks, but "disrupt" and "hinder" them.

How easy it is then to justify the status quo! But now try answering the question of "stopping" attacks on Israeli civilians, and I'll be very surprised if you come up with options any more credible than mine.

Tilly

Truthtriumphs -

Yes, you have a "strategy" - but it is not one which will "stop" rocket attacks on Israel (see my post to Adam B and also remind yourself of the original question you put to me).

If you think perennial terrorist activity is a price Israelis just have to pay, fair enough - maintain the status quo and keep up an eternal round of attack and counter-attack; otherwise, think again.

Truthtriumphs

Tilly
May 7th, 2011 11:27am
Truthtriumphs -

"Yes, you have a "strategy" - but it is not one which will "stop" rocket attacks on Israel (see my post to Adam B and also remind yourself of the original question you put to me).

If you think perennial terrorist activity is a price Israelis just have to pay, fair enough - maintain the status quo and keep up an eternal round of attack and counter-attack; otherwise, think again".

Wrong.
Israel has NO interlocutor for peace, and so the only option open to her is the military one.
Rocket attacks have very much reduced, proving your theory wrong, as did the separation wall in reducing suicide attacks against Israel to almost zero.
That is my strategy.
You do not have one.

Adam B.

Great Tilly, and in your supreme sophistication, I have yet to hear one viable option from you suggesting how Israel could stop the Palestinian rocket attacks against her civilians.

Any suggestions?

Tilly

Adam B -

I offered "suggestions" on May 3rd (1.09pm) and you didn't think they were "viable". Now you invite me to make some (more?) "suggestions" which, presumably, you will say are "not viable" unless and until they are exactly the same "suggestions" you made to me, which, of course, you regard as the last word in "viability".

Since you are so utterly convinced of your rightness and cleverness, you really don't need my capitulation or praise. Content yourself with self-flattery and have done.

Tilly

Truthtriumphs -

Terrific news from you - Israel has already managed to crack her problems through military action and the wall. Only one puzzling thing, though ...

Why do so many people contributing to this blog (not least of all you) continue to paint a picture of Israel's awful, unrelenting suffering and victimhood at the hands of terrorists when such effective action has been taken to emasculate them?

Can I perhaps assume this is just a "hasbara" device to elicit sympathy and should be taken with a large pinch of salt?

Adam B.

Tilly, I didn't realize that your single suggestion on May 3rd was serious. Your great strategy is (drum roll...) talk to the terrorists. That will stop the rocket attacks, the suicide bombings, and the antisemitic hatred.

OK Tilly. Just a couple of problems with this (I hesitate to use the term "strategy" for something so flimsy).

1. It is currently the Palestinians, not the Israelis, who have walked away from talks.
2. Talk to who? Fatah? Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Any of a myriad of clans and groups who all vow the destruction of Israel (and the genocide of the Jews in the case of Hamas)? Or all the above?
3. There is abdolutely no sign that Hamas (and indeed currently Fatah) wish to talk. Israel can want to talk as much as it likes. Hamas rejects talks - indeed, mocks the very notion of them in its founding charter.
4. What are Palestinians offering in terms of concessions in these talks? "Talks" is code for Israel gives, the Arabs take. Can you name one concession which Hamas (or Fatah) is offering?
5. Whenever talks have seemed like yielding results, the Palestinians have launched more terrorism, not less. Hence the increase in terrorism when Israel withdrew from Gaza, and when Israel withdrew from parts of the West Bank. In other words, these negotiations have a record of always making things worse. This is not difficult to understand. Concessions by Israel are seen (rightly) as weakness by the Arabs, who then up the stakes further with more demands, which the international bodies duly accommodate and increase pressure on Israel, thus emboldening the terrorists to more violence. Terrorism works, Tilly - because of how we react to it. Now you wish to reward the terrorists with talks as well.
6. What indication has Hamas given that it will stop the rocket attacks if talks take place? What is Israel meant to do in the meantime - just sit on its hands whilst its citizens are bombed? I'm sure you'd accept such a life for yourself and your loved ones, spending hours a day in shelters.

In other words Tilly, you are very good at telling us what Israel shouldn't do, and have no positive contribution to make suggesting how Israel could stop the rocket attacks. Your "strategy" is that Israel shouldn't ever respond to attacks, and should just shut up and take it.

Brilliant.

Truthtriumphs

Tilly
May 8th, 2011 2:10pm
Truthtriumphs -

"Terrific news from you - Israel has already managed to crack her problems through military action and the wall. Only one puzzling thing, though ...

Why do so many people contributing to this blog (not least of all you) continue to paint a picture of Israel's awful, unrelenting suffering and victimhood at the hands of terrorists when such effective action has been taken to emasculate them?"

Do you really enjoy acting the goat?
The terrorist threat has been very much reduced, but NOT eliminated.
Just last week, 15 young hassidim were shot at as they left Joseph's tomb in Nablus, by so-called Palestinian policemen. One was killed, leaving 3 orphans, for the crime of worshipping at a Jewish shrine.
As to the towns and villages in rocket reach of Gaza, do you think it acceptable that rockets and mortars should be aimed at civilians, especially at children timed when they are most likely to be in the streets?
Would YOU allow YOUR children should run that risk, however small?
Israelis need to be ever vigilant every moment of their lives.
And you still haven't answered me.... what more should Israel do to placate Gaza.... they evacuated every centimetre, and are supplying the Hamas regime with power, as well as allowing all manner of goods to pass from Israel to Gaza.
What does Hamas want of Israel, do you think?
Spell it out!

I repeat, you combine the unfortunate characteristics of sanctimony and stupidity, a devastating combination.
And, incapable of following an argument to its logical conclusion, you simply generate a lot of wind.

Truthtriumphs

Tilly.

And another thing, you were a bit off the mark about the wonderful peace that has returned to Northern Ireland, and how, if it's possible there, then it's possible in the ME, weren't you?

Seems it's not as peaceful as you thought....see today's Coffee House blog.
And there you were, telling me to immerse myself in the history of the province, to improve my understanding.
I think it's you who needs a bit of immersion, and not just in NI politics.

As I suggested to you before, as the possessor of a perfect moral compass, why don't you use your undoubted liguistic gifts to campaign for the release of Gilad Shalit, or doesn't the plight of the 5 year detention, without any visitation rights, of a young Jewish Israeli, move you?
Instead of generating endless hot air, do something useful.

Truthtriumphs

Tilly.

Oh, Tilly,
I just came across this excellent post on CiFWatch about the anti-semitism of the pseudo left...that wouldn't be you, would it?

Here's the link.
Enjoy, and tell us what you think.

http://cifwatch.com/2011/05/08/islamism-and-the-antisemitism-of-the-pseudo-left-never-smile-at-a-crocodile/#comments

Tilly

Truthtriumphs:

No wonder you're in such a tizzy about pretty well everything. You direct me to a Coffee House item which shows an old-style sectarian (his party struggling) mouthing off tired old rhetoric like a dinosaur and being heckled. Big deal!

The last time I was in Northern Ireland - during the "Troubles" - there were soldiers in the streets of Belfast, barbed wire everywhere, and Sinn Fein supporters would never have been in the same room as Orangemen for fear of a mutual massacre.

Life might not be perfect in NI (is it anywhere?), and of course there are still tensions between some Protestants and Catholics (just like there are in Scotland, for that matter), but it's no longer a war zone.

And that's because deadly enemies were - somehow - persuaded that peaceful coexistence was possible after centuries of strife.

If there are lessons to be drawn from NI, why don't you stop grizzling, harping on about the past and seeing only insurmountable obstacles - and try LEARNING something for a change.

* Talking of learning ... what, if anything, did the CiF Watch article tell you that you didn't already "know"? I've personally seen all those arguments trotted out a hundred times in these blogs, and in exactly the same cliched language, so it advanced my knowledge not a centimetre.

If you can cite me any passage which newly enlightened you and thus might enlighten me, please direct me to it; otherwise I'll just assume you think a heavy dose of hectoring is good for my soul and leave it on the shelf marked "Waste of Time".

Adam B.

Tilly, your comparisons between the Troubles and the Arab-Israel conflict are just plain silly.

Have you ever seen an Irish suicide bomber?

That, in a nutshell, demonstrates the difference.

Truthtriumphs

Tilly.

"If there are lessons to be drawn from NI, why don't you stop grizzling, harping on about the past and seeing only insurmountable obstacles - and try LEARNING something for a change".

There certainly are lessons to be learned from NI, but you seem to have missed them.

As to learning, I couldn't agree with you more.
The thing is that it's generally a good idea to learn from those more intelligent and knowledgeable than one, rather than the other way round.
With that in mind, and seeing as you asked me to point you in the direction of a good article, I send you this link to a piece by a remarkable man....both brilliant and humane, Judea Pearl, father of the murdered Daniel Pearl.... even you couldn't fault him.
Read it, and tell me what the solution is to the I/P problem.
It might give even you pause for thought, and stop your yakkety yak, yakkety yak for a brief moment...hopefully.

http://www.danielpearl.org/news_and_press/articles/dialogue_of_deaf.html

Little Richardjohn

"Can anyone explain why Britain, America and Europe are trying to remove and even kill Col Gaddafy" Simple Melanie. Because we can. Because it is an Achievable Goal, as the consultants say. And because there is no queue or form to fill in to decide who is helped first. We have to start somewhere, don't we?
Not only that, but now that the Libyan people have totally demented him with their insolence, we cannot allow Gadaffi to recover his powers and wreak whatever vengeance his diseased megalomania decides to inflict on the region.
A small campaign now, or a massive war later. Take your pick.