UKC

I know there are other Gaza related threads going but I just had to voice my absolute despair.

Following the news we hear of tank fire hitting schools, hospitals being hit and now markets being targeted in Gaza.

I can't believe that what appears to be a really concerted attack on a civilian population, by armed forces overtly supported by 'us', goes on with no repercussions.

I know there are other conflicts. I know that the conflict in Syria is undoubtedly as bad if not worse. I know that.

But just how do we and the USA support a regime that does this to people?

And just what is the mentality of the Israeli soldier that pulls the trigger to send a tank shell into a school? Revenge?

I bloody despair.

In reply to andyathome:
One gets the impression Israel is aware it can do basically as it pleases ,without anyone ever coming round to knock on the door.

They are obviously targeting civilians ,as schools and market places don't continuously get hit by accident.day after day.

Always been of the opinion that the best way of stopping a bully is to give them a bloody nose ,or to 'put the frighteners on them' (East End villain speak).

Israel as a nation is showing itself to have a dark side and the world is taking note.

The powers that be in Washington also know the rest of the world are watching .and waiting.

Waiting perhaps for Senator Kerry to kick ass and point the finger at Tel Aviv... Yeah .Right. Like its going to happen

It's a rotten world

In reply to andymac:

It's hard to stand, isn't it? And so is the way so many people lie to justify the killing.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Without wishing to diminish what is going on in any way, would you care to point to an example?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Obama, Hollande, Cameron... or any number of bloggers and journalists who defend Israel.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I wasn't asking for a list of people you don't like, I was asking for an example of a downright lie in defence of Israel. Don't you even read posts before you fire off replies?

In reply to andyathome:

I agree completely and all the killing will just make the problems worse. My suggestion is for Palestine and Israel to agree to have a peace keeping force indefinitely based in Israel and Palestine.
I'm sure the detail would take some working out .......

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

You asked for examples, I gave you some people, if you wanted examples of the lies you should have been clearer, but come to think of it worse than real out and out liars there are the hypocrites who come on to a thread to drag it off course.

PS. To cut this red herring short, a typical lie is that Israel is responding to Hamas attacks, an obvious lie as in the short term it's chicken and egg, who is responding to who? Israel killed a couple of Palestinians just before this latest bout set off, Hamas, or whoever replied with rockets.

Long term it wasn't the Palestinian Arabs who travelled a couple of thousand miles or more to go and live in someone else's country, it was the Jewish immigrants who later became Israelis who went to Palestine, so once again it is a lie to say Israelis are responding to Arab attacks, it is quite evidently the other way round.

Another lie is to putting Palestinian rockets, most of which are destroyed by the Dome defence system anyway, on a level with the equipment of one of the biggest and most modern armies in the world... it's saying bows and arrows are as deadly as tank shells.

Another lie is the "human shields" nonsense, Gaza is so small and crowded that it's wherever the Hamas buildings, militants, weapon are it's pretty well impossible to not kill civilians if you fire artillery from miles away.. even if they were trying to avoid civilian casualties which the numbers show they aren't.

Just three simple examples, all brought out by Israel and our supporting politicians in the West, whether "left" or "right".

Now if we could go back to the subject - the emotional impact this has on us far way and feeling so sick and helpless - it would be nice.

In reply to andyathome:

I'd like to apologise if this is not the normal 'this is what I think what do you think' UKC discussion.

I might not contribute too much to this thread beyond starting it.

I just wanted to register my total f*cking disgust at what is being perpetrated in Gaza right now.

War Crimes tribunal? Bring it on!

In reply to andyathome:

Isn't part of the problem that the USA has got their back at the UN,. Apparently vetoing or watering down many relevant resolutions. They have their backs with cash and milatry hardware too. Until the USA grows a pair, we are stuck in the appealing cycle of violence

In reply to andyathome:
AND - whilst I'm on angry roll....

When an English MP says that he sort of understands the mindset of a Palestinian and if he lived in Gaza he might be firing rockets just why does his party leader, and all other party leaders, round on him for 'supporting terrorism'?

Spineless 'bastards'. UKC wont allow me a much stronger epithet

Do they have zero understanding of the human condition?

In reply to kipper12:


Possibly the most unfortunate typo I've ever read.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


This for starters.
http://www.thenation.com/article/180783/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-de...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/16/bbc-defends-coverage-israeli-a...

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-07-09/prime-minister-uk-staunchly-suppo...

Yes, I know the ITV one is a bit old but the point is valid and I've not heard anything different come out of our eunuch PM's mouth.

In reply to I like climbing:


A massive heavily armed presence with the authority to dish out similar medicine to anyone who misbehaves would be a key detail.

In reply to andyathome:

I agree that Israel need investigating for war crimes.

I am sickened by the Israeli attitude and 'justification'. They've now admitted that the three Israeli teenagers were not killed by Hamas.

In reply to kipper12:


The USA and Israel are one and the same thing.

The whole world knows it , but don't like to say .

Bit of a taboo subject .

Is it not?

In reply to Removed User:


It worked in Bosnia. All that was needed was firing a massive amount of ordnance at...oh...not working so far in Gaza, is it? I'm sure NATO bombs on Gaza and Tel Aviv will even up the body count though.

In reply to Ridge:

It doesn't need a single bomb or bullet. It just needs the financial rug pulling out from Israel. Proper sanctions. That puled apartheid down eventually. It would do the same thing with Israel

In reply to Removed User:


If both sides have a say in who makes up the peace keeping force in each territory that would be helpful.
There is always a heavily armed presence in that area which hasn't been seen to help.

In reply to Removed User:

But even if that were possible it would maintain the status quo in which Israel has the greater part of the land so once Palestinians had got over their relief from not being bombed every five minutes they would want to put this historic injustice right and find themselves up against not only Israel's army but the UN one too - let's not forget that its the USA and its puppy dogs who run the UN.

In reply to Removed User:


Really? Because our recent military adventures in hot and dusty parts of the world have been so successful you want to commit troops to eternal conflict?

In reply to andymac:

It is indeed a very taboo subject. Which allows the USA to get away with double standards all the time. Most recently with its stance over Ukraine where they have persuaded the EU to join in to hit the Russian economy, while ensuring Israel can carry on its slaughter in the middle east.

In reply to andyathome:

16000 reservists being called up, no sign this is ending any time soon. bastards

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28579278

In reply to andyathome:

I you are all bothered about this then please sign this :-

http://davidward.org.uk/en/petition/we-demand-the-british-government-stands...

At least if there's a discussion in the HoP then we'll at least be able to make the supporters visible.

In reply to Ridge:


I don't think anyone want an even body count.

What most people want is an end to the violence and for the Palestinians to be able to live normal lives in freedom, an end to the seven year blockade and an end to the apartheid system.

Restoration of their land wouldn't go amiss either and enforcement of outstanding UN sanctions against Israel.

In reply to krikoman:

I was just in the newsagents, had a glance at the front pages of all today's paper- no mention of the events in Gaza at all. You'd think there was nothing going on to report. Yet according to the bbc, another 100 Palestinians were killed yesterday.

Will definitely be signing the petition

Gregor

In reply to krikoman:

I've signed

In reply to andyathome:

It is just carnage on a vast scale . And by not openly opposing it , we are condoning it .
The whole conflict is one grand blame-the-victim fallacy . The people of Gaza are imprisoned , running out of supplies , food and water and yet they are being punished for supporting a group who however nasty they may be , aim to lift the blockade . If you force people into despair , they will turn to violence in order to gain some kind of freedom.
Hamas are bad guys , but to many Palestinians they must represent the local hero/resistance fighters .

In reply to SethChili:



Did you see Jon Snow's questioning of the Hamas guy last night? Appealing with him to stop the 'pointless' rocket attacks so Israel have no excuse to carry on.

In reply to SethChili:

It's all right. If the Isrealis eventually agree it was them, they will apologise, which will obviously make things better

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28578547

In reply to andyathome:


Just out of interest, have you given any money to the organisations working to help Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank?

(Full disclosure: I sometimes work for those organisations.)

In reply to seankenny:



Just out of interest, who would you suggest would be the best of those organisations to give money to. Now that you mention it I would donate

I don't see Gaza on the DEC site

In reply to woolsack:

That's true, the DEC arent' doing an appeal for Gaza at the moment. But many of their members will be, they all do good work - pick one you like and send them your money.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I agree with everything you have said.

In reply to woolsack:

The Red Cross has been in Gaza for a long time and continues doing it best with hospitals and the like. I've volunteered for the Red Cross for a number of years visiting imprisoned 'aliens' in detention centres and police gaol - sometimes the studied neutrality can feel a bit stifling, but they work back channels impressively in a way little seen and the volunteers and staff in places like Gaza are unbelievably brave.
http://blogs.redcross.org.uk/emergencies/2014/07/gaza-israel-questions-answ...
Oxfam is also in Gaza http://www.oxfam.org/en/emergencies/gaza I do a direct debit to Oxfam, it's a just a few quid a month but I think they really rely on regular long term supporters even if individually we're giving rather small amounts.

In reply to TobyA:

Toby - do you know how many Israelis and Palestinians have been killed since the formation of the state of Israel? The whole thing just seems so pointless and self destructive for both sides.

In reply to andyathome:

Slightly off topic but what about the illegal Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14724842

http://www.un.int/syria/golan.htm

In reply to andyathome:

I find the BBC's attempts at a 'balanced' view pretty irritating. They show us a Palestinian funeral and then one for an Israeli soldier, as if this shows equal suffering. Shouldn't they be showing 20 Palestinian funerals and one Israeli funeral for a really balanced view.

I see that the US is sending Israel more ammunition, like that's going to help !!

In reply to cander:

No idea; god only knows how you would count them either. I'm sure somewhere there will be a website where someone has tried though. What would count though? The Syrians invaded Lebanon to destroy the power of the PLO in the 'camps' there - does that count? The Palestinians were there because of the forming of Israel, but it wasn't fighting with the Israelis. Black September? The Arab-Israeli wars? etc etc.

In reply to cander:

Far fewer than those killed in Afghanistan since 1979, or the DRC (Congo) in the last couple of decades. Probably even fewer people than died in the Somalia famine a few years ago, where over a quarter of a million people died.

Of course not that those deaths make the killing in Palestine any more paletable, and it's heartening that so many people are feeling outraged by what is happening. However the world is full of hideous disasters and I can't help but think what it would be like if half the energy and interest in Gaza was directed towards those conflicts.

In reply to andyathome:

Last year, the Western backed Egyptian President El-Sisi massacred at least 600 plus civilians in 3 days and injured nearly 4,000 in what Human Rights Watch described as the “most serious incident of mass unlawful killings in modern Egyptian history”. Last month William Hague congratulated El Sisi on his recent election win stating “We are proud to be Egypt’s largest foreign investor”. The Rabba massacre killed more civilians in 3 days than Israel has in 4 weeks in Gaza, yet there were no protests on the streets of London, there were no pictures of dead bodies all over social media nor were there calls to boycott Egypt or its Western affiliates.

In reply to andyathome:
To try and bring some balance into this debate....

1. Why would Israel target civilians? What would they gain (nothing)? What would they loose (the support of allies)?

2. Hamas are a terrorist organisation. They will never recognise Israel...they are not there to defend the Palestinian people, they are there to destroy Israel and establish an Islamic state.

3. Senior Hamas figures have said the human shield tactic is proving effective (there's videos of this on youtube). They have advised people to stay and 'fight the bombs with their bare chests'......are Hamas not at least as much to blame as Israel for civilian deaths?

4. All this money that is spent on rockets and tunnels to attack Israel.....could it not be better spent on hospitals, schools etc.

5. If Israel stopped all bombing, ended the blockade and retreated to the 1967 borders do you really think Hamas would leave them alone (given point 2 above)

I'm in no way condoning Israel's response which as ever has been over the top but it's not as one sided as some post on here seem to suggest.

In reply to seankenny:

I'm surprised at that, it seems the Isrealis and Palestinians have been killing each other for so long, I thought the body count must be something shocking. Live and learn I guess.

In reply to cander:


Some statistics here. The number of Palestinian refugees is very high

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7375994.stm

In reply to cander:


As Toby says, it's all guesswork. Of course the body count is shocking. It's just that it's even *more* shocking elsewhere. In Somalia everybody involved knew there was going to be a famine, but the emergency response was vastly underfunded, so long-term measures to avert the disaster couldn't be put in place. However bombs are considerably easier to be angry about.

In reply to Tony the Blade:


The hypocrisy of the west beggars belief.

In reply to geordiepie:

This article, linked above, discusses several of those points
http://www.thenation.com/article/180783/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-de...

Condemning Israel is not the same as supporting Hamas, but the way Israel treats Palestinians means a steady line of recruits for Hamas

In reply to icnoble:

Is it hypocrisy or real-politik? Our interventions in the middle east don't seem to make things any better for the population or for ourselves Iraq and Libya come to mind and I'm thinking Afganistan isn't exactly going to be a land of milk and honey once we've fully withdrawn. It's not a case of supporting who is best - it seems to be more of a case of supporting the least bad

In reply to geordiepie:




None of this is balanced and is all a bunch of tired old chestnuts.


If the above happened and, more pointedly, the Palestinians were not treated as second class scum and vermin but instead were given the same freedoms, opportunities in fact everthing that is enjoyed by the Jewish Israelis then Hamas would lose so much support they would become a bit pointless. I'd also give this very desireable but totally hypothetical scenario about two generations at least before it had any effect. The current generations are f*cked. The Palestinians are totally brutalised and the Israelis are, generally, entrenched.


That would be a fair point, and one often made, if it wasn't based on the assumption that the Gazan Palestinians ought to be content with the standard of their lives in their beachfront concentration camp. Their daily lives are shit, their kids have no hope, no dignity, and yet we are surprised when they kick off.

In reply to Bruce Hooker and I Like Climbing:



Yes, all true, that was not a realistic attempt at a solution on my part, more of an angry rant based on how we seem to think we can deal with other parts of the world supposedly on humanitarian grounds so why not do it there but with less tolerance. And I was not thinking about maintaining the status quo, far from it. Oddly I don't have problem with the existence of Israel per se but I do with the way it is allowed to conduct itself and the complicity we have in it.

In reply to seankenny:


A few possibilities:

1. We are supposed to share something in common with Israel, they should be easier to relate to than the rest of the Middle East. For much the same reason we cared about Apartheid.
2. Part of the rationale for WWII was to protect the Jews, as with the creation of their homeland. That they now extend a middle finger to the UN that created them irritates.
3. The history is readily accessible so easier to understand than tribal Afghan politics and faceless thousands in a backwards African country.
4. We live among Jews, we work with them, they're our friends and families. It seems only natural to take an interest in the actions of their homeland, in the same way we look at America and Europe.
5. The killing seems so totally one-sided and visible, while Israeli justifications outwardly ludicrous.
6. Simply withdrawing our fawning support for Israel would go a long way to helping end the conflict. It takes no active involvement from us....again, like the fight against Apartheid.

In reality is seems more and more clear we share little in common with Israel at all. While the UK is guilty of an obnoxious use of military power in Iraq, at least the population of the UK objected to it.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

I think most are horrified by it and would like our government to be far less spineless against Egypt as well. But it occurs in the context of a civil emergency, it is not in a massive refugee camp whose borders are being squeezed, is internal oppression (not that this is a justification) and is wrapped up in the confusing milieu of Egyptian coup and counter-coup.

Most people are stunned by Egypt, and the death sentences handed down. Give that one a few more years and perhaps the Western world will become more active there.

However there's only so much one can focus on at a time.

In reply to geordiepie:


They seem to think they have nothing to lose when hitting civilian targets and their course of action will inevitably do so. This, according to their and some of our own media, is entirely acceptable. The US will support them regardless, as has been shown throughout history. The flow of weaponry and aid continues no matter how many civilians die.

They are also elected. If I was Palestinian, given my treatment by Israel, I would probably vote for them too. If Israel were to start seriously dealing with Palestine (i.e. ending settlement building, blockades) the Hamas vote would likely wane.

And they're right. Israel ignores human shields and bombs. They're both as bad as each other in this regard. However, you only have to look at some of the Gaza pictures, entire city blocks razed to the ground, as we see in Aleppo, to realise civilian casualties aren't just a result of human shields. Equally, the argument seems to be that if the civilians evacuate then demolishing their homes is acceptable. I can understand why plenty wouldn't leave.

Rockets are cheap. You could say the same about Israel - their economy is in the dumps yet they subsidize settlement building. Would they not be better off doing the opposite?

Probably not. But then Hamas would lose legitimacy, Israel would gain greater support and the West, which I feel is more naturally allied to Israel (or at least Jews) would be more balanced in criticism.


Unfortunately it is pretty one-sided at the moment. Just look at the death toll, the damage, and who has the land.

In reply to David Martin:





Didn't the Allied leaders know all about the concentration camps fairly early on, but decided not to tell the general public because anti-Semitism was so rife that the news would reduce support for the war effort?



Does one really need to understand the politics well to feel empathy for the death and suffering of others?




There are only a 1/4m Jews in the UK, compared to over a million Indians. Yet I don't find Brits getting outraged about, say, the number of Indians suffering malnutrition, or being killed in Kashmir.

I reckon your other suggestions are a little closer to the mark - especially with the conflict being so visible.

In reply to seankenny:


Possible. Such were the times that all sorts of things were kept secret from the general riff-raff.


I think there is empathy for all these trouble spots. The interest with Israel is the solution seems straight forward...although its becoming less so.


Again, its a less simple issue - bound up in the caste system, a less clear border dispute and generally a culture that is probably more alien in general.

In reply to David Martin:


So nothings changed, except occasionally things leak through due to much easier communication.

In reply to David Martin:




Go on then...

In reply to Stig:

Go on then...

All the Jews leave and live in Utah. I think that's it anyway.

In reply to Skip:


This statement is a prime example of why one should think before one posts.

In reply to cander:

If supporting the least bad is the way to go then we are supporting the wrong side

In reply to seankenny:


Please explain. Genuinely, i would love to know why, or what I've missed, or whether i should consider removing my post.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


The Great Satan and it's imperialist running dog lackeys in the midst of the IDF, Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS with the Syrians, Lebanese and Iranians tinkering around the edges. What could possibly go wrong?

In reply to krikoman:





thanks for the link. I've signed the petition, made a donation to Oxfam's Gaza appeal, and emailed my MP- text of email copied below:



Dear < MP >,

i am writing to you regarding the current situation in Gaza, and the limited response so far by the British government. This is the first time i have ever written to my MP regarding international events, but the recent developments in Gaza have appalled me and i feel i have to make some form of response, small as it is.

I think it is worth point out that I am by no means anti-Israeli in position; I fully accept the right of Israel to exist, and for its people to live free from fear of attack. I have no hesitation in condemning the rocket attacks made by Hamas, and the lack of concern they show for the safety of their fellow Palestinian by siting military facilities in residential areas.

However, there needs to be proportionality and accountability in the response Israel makes, and this is currently not being shown. Israel considers itself to be a modern, democratic nation, and must be judged by the standards that such nations are held to. These include a basic respect for human life, and avoiding harm to non-combatants in pursuing military objectives. The appalling death toll among civilians, including a depressing number of children, and the repeated targeting of UN safe havens clearly shows that these standards are not being observed.

For two decades, the UK suffered a sustained terrorist campaign by Irish nationalists. By and large, the British government's response respected the rule of law and treated this as a criminal matter, despite mortar attacks directly on Downing street, assassination of a member of the Royal family, and the near-assassination of the government in Brighton at the Conservative party conference. Despite the severity of the threat, the UK did not conduct aerial or naval bombardment of republican areas of Belfast. It mostly conducted itself as would be expected of a responsible modern democracy, and the lives of catholic residents of Northern Island were not held to be of less importance than those of protestants.

The current actions of Israel in Gaza, with reckless disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians, sadly appear to indicate a mentality among the Israeli military that Palestinian lives are worth less than Israeli ones. With the death toll now past 1400, including hundreds of children, it pains me to say that there appears to be little moral difference between the IDF and Hamas, with the IDF being far more effective in inflicting terror and death on the civilian population they threaten.

This does not look like the legitimate actions of a country defending itself. And i fear it will in the long run be self-defeating for Israel; they are losing support of moderate people across the world, and digging a deep well of hatred towards them which i fear will last far, far longer than the current crisis.

I also think it harms the UK national interest to be seen to be so unwilling to criticise the actions of Israel. We would not be so tolerant of these actions from those we do not consider our allies; we nearly took direct military action against the Syrian regime for the use of chemical weapons against their own people, and are leading in putting in place sanctions against Russia for their involvement in the missile attack on a civilian airliner over Ukraine- and rightly so. There is a clear double standard here, and this undermines our authority and influence as a country, and fuels resentment and anger against us.

The best friend is a critical one, who is not afraid to say when their friend is taking action that will harm himself and those around him. We do ourselves, Palestinians and Israelis no favours by our virtual silence on this matter. I fear history will judge Israel, and the West who condoned their actions in this recent offensive, very poorly. Israel must be encouraged to disengage from the policies and actions that create despair among Palestinians and drive support for Hamas- lift the blockade on Gaza, reverse the settlement building process, and treat the Palestinian population with the same respect and care as they would Israeli citizens. The contrast with the lack of respect that Hamas shows its own people would be made starkly clear, and moderate Palestinians would be a be more able to take the initiative and steer Palestine towards a peaceful future.

I have signed David Ward's petition requesting the British government bring pressure to bear on Israel to stop their current disproportionate and deeply tragic actions, and would ask that you use whatever influence you have to raise this matter within the Government to reconsider the UK's response so far.

Thank you for taking the time to read this,


Best wishes



I'd encourage as many others to do the same; use the text of my email if you want (and think its any good; ignore it if you think its rubbish...).

best wishes

gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

That is excellent.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Excellently expressed I will steal bits.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Nice one, and thanks.

I emailed our MP and got a load of old shite back.

Basically, "oh yes it's really bad, Israel should look at lifting the blockade, the Hamas terrorists should stop firing rocket".

Nothing about how Israel are killing children or sanctions. But he did say he was a friend of Israel!!

Anyhow f*ck him and the rest of the bought and paid for MPs, keep moaning, signing and protesting and stop buying Israeli goods, hit them economically at least I can do that myself.

In reply to all:

thanks for the comments, and feel free to steal bits, MG

some unexpected developments tonight:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/28596609

could still unravel very quickly, but a hopeful sign

the pressure still needs to be kept on, i will be joining the boycott of israeli goods,

cheers everyone

gregor

In reply to andyathome:

This is a bit disturbing.


youtube.com/watch?v=0E70BwA7xgU&

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


This is pretty much the point - Why does this conflict elicit such a strong emotional response when others don't?

I guess we can theorise but it doesn't generate that response in me, the nose dive karma more frustrating than anything else.

So I guess it's for the emotionally invested to explain?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


David Ward is a fairly tainted brand by now, isn't he?

The BBC had to correct a story last year because they didn't present his views as sufficiently racist!

In reply to winhill:

I'd be grateful if you could expand on and clarify that last statement winhill,

Cheers

Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Here's his wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ward_(politician) and his website http://davidward.org.uk/en/

Sounds like he's got more than an eye on his constituency demographic!

In reply to cander:

Yes, I read the wiki article, and the guardian interview it appears to draw on

He has clearly been less careful with his choice of words than a man in his position should be. Note my letter above quite pointedly refers to the actions of the state of Israel, not of any group of people- because this is a political conflict, and will need political solutions.

Is ward racist? I can't tell from the limited information presented. It could be that his opponents are using his badly chosen words to attack him as a form of ad hominem; but he could genuinely have a problem in this matter.

However, ward's careless language should not be allowed to obscure the injustice he is drawing attention to, nor does it invalidate the views of the 50000 people who have so far signed the petition. they have endorsed a specific form of words, not anything else he has said previously. And any attempt to discount the views of those who have signed the petition by imputing racism by association would clearly be an underhand tactic, another form of ad hominem.

I don't know what winhill was intending with his post, hence the request for clarification,

Best wishes

Gregor

In reply to winhill:

I'm not sure he is a racist, and I can completely see where he was coming from with the rocket tweet - If you are in that situation for long enough and there's no hope then I can easily see why people would turn to violence. I don't think he was encouraging it simply stating the facts. I hope he's not a racist.

It's quite nice to have someone actually speak their mind, without sanitizing and modifying their language.

for the first time in my life I wrote to my MP about Gaza and the reply was so contorted so he didn't criticise Israel it was obvious he was paying lip service.

In reply to winhill:


Putting it bluntly I think the Israelis are seen as 'white', and we subconsciously expect a better standard of behaviour from then than we do from the dusky types. This allows the use of terms like apartheid and colonialism.

Don't get me wrong, what the IDF are doing is grossly disproportionate retaliation for the Hamas rocket attacks, (you kill one of our civilians and we'll kill 100 of yours trying to kill the people who fired it). Absolutely horrific mentality.

I'm also under no illusion that if Hamas had access to the same firepower as the IDF we'd see how you really go about targeting civilians.

In reply to Ridge:

I can only speak for myself, but its nothing to do with the skin colour of any of the participants in this situation. It's that Israel holds itself to be a modern democracy, and frequently calls attention to this to distinguish itself from its opponents.

Which is fine. But I will then judge it's actions by the standards I would apply to modern democratic countries. And find all the more fault when it's actions are so grossly at variance from these standards.

It would be utterly, utterly unacceptable for the UK to treat Irish catholic the way Israel treats Palestinians, due to the Troubles; likewise for the Spanish government to treat Basques in that way due to ETA.

If Israel wishes to be accepted as a modern progressive democracy it needs to start behaving like one, and the judgements people make of it will be all the harsher due to the gulf between the actions expected of it and those it actually takes.

Best wishes

Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Some excellent points, and I pretty much agree with all of them. The only issue is that if we assume Israel is a modern, progressive democracy, we have to be cogniscent of the fact it's surrounded by countries that aren't.

Ideally Israel could retreat back to the pre 1968 borders for instance, and we call a halt to the whole lunacy. Unfortunately that would be hailed as a crushing defeat of the Jews by 'the other lot', then it would be the 6 day war part 2, with the whole sorry cycle repeating itself.

In reply to andyathome:

Having obviously deposited tons of shells on the schools and houses in Gaza, Israel has run out of ammo and asked the US to open their emergency stores.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/americas/13130-us-restocks-israels-w...

In reply to woolsack:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/senate-blocks-israel-aid-109617.html?...

In reply to Pete Dangerous:

From that link

“We’ve all watched as the tiny state of Israel, who is with us on everything, they have had in the last three weeks 3,000 rockets filed into their country,” Reid said. “Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel asked for $225 million in emergency funding so that Israel’s arsenal as it relates to the Iron Dome could be replenished. It’s clear that is an emergency, and we should be able to agree on that.”

“Our number one ally — at least in my mind — is under attack. If this isn’t an emergency I don’t know anything that is,” <Senate Majority Leader> Reid said.

And that's form a democrat, not some tea party republican - it's terrifying

In reply to Pete Dangerous:

So they've maxed out their credit card, good.

In reply to Pete Dangerous:


Excellent news, it's a great start, hopefully this whole business might now come to some sort of settlement. America have always had the power to put and end to Israel's colonialism in the area, it's a pity it was done on financial grounds rather than moral ones, but I don't think most people will complain.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



That relates to funding for the anti missile defences, not munitions for firing at Gaza. Making that conditional on a ceasefire and withdrawal would surely be a positive move?

In reply to woolsack:


I wonder how good it will be. If iron dome has no ammunition and ceases to be effective and more rockets get through, do you reckon the bombardment of Gaza will increase or decrease?

In reply to Ridge:

For me it has nothing to do with religion or race, it's about fairness (sounds trite but I can't think of another word that suits).

It's about fighting the bully and it's and humanitarianism and it's about supporting the underdog.

It's also about trying to right a lot of wrongs, if you look at the UN resolutions that aren't acted upon.

It's also about our governments hypocrisy and duplicity and their tacit approval, it's about no one in our government being prepared to speak out and it's about the BBC and their one-sided reporting.

So all of that plus quite a it more I can't think of at the moment.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

It was mortars and artillery shells they'd run out of. From what had been reported several weeks ago, Hamas had around 10000 rockets in stock, if they've fired off 3000 then this won't be ending anytime soon

In reply to Ridge:


Except for the apartheid operated there.


And as Israel is their nearest role model to what "modern democratic states" do is this likely to help them in the right direction?

In reply to andyathome:

If any one is wondering why Israel gets massive support in the US this is fascinating If somewhat disheartening.

http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100/view/all

In reply to woolsack: According to the grauniad those extra munitions were requested on 20th July.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Number one ally? Thought that was us? Or Saudi Arabia? Im confused.

D

In reply to Ridge:


I wonder how Israel would react if someone gave the Palestinians an anti-missile system to protect their civilians from attack ?

But mainly it's the image of plucky little Israel standing up against bullies that I find so incredible.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


With the strongest army in the Middle East and the atom bomb this is rather too much! But then people will believe anything they want to believe... psychologists probably have a long word for it.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I can't agree more with this sentiment.

I remember the IRA planted bombs at the two stations I used to commute between, and the IRA killed and injured the public and the government. I know we were not prefect (Bloody Sunday and all that), but I do not remember us sending in jets and missiles to bomb the population the way the Israeli's are?

Hamas may be trying to kill Israelis, and Israel may be trying to be careful, but I think we have to judge the situation on results. Most of the Israeli dead have been soldiers, most of the Gazan dead have been civilians, and Israel is killing far more people in total as well. I think Israel is the state that needs to make the big moves to create a lasting peace, rather than just smashing a population already on its knees? I cannot believe that America and Europe can stand by and watch such a senseless and barbaric actions from the Israeli state.

20 years ago I traveled around Israel and the middle east for 3 months, and loved the whole area and the people I met. I look forward to going back there one day when a proper and fair solution has been found, but know I may be waiting a while ...

In reply to Chris the T

But mainly it's the image of plucky little Israel standing up against bullies that I find so incredible.

Its one of the the primary myths that Israeli society is built around - the few against the many, david vs Goliath, Masada etc.

D

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It's probably cognitive dissonance. Seeing people you (not you personally) support doing things that are clearly unacceptable is likely to evoke feelings of discomfort.

This is dealt with by a process of casting the aggressor as the victim, and then devaluing the opponents (eg suggesting that the civilians killed in the attack on the UN school may have been harbouring Hamas fighters- ie they brought their fate on themselves)

And so that nasty uncomfortable feeling goes away, and you (again,not you personally) can continue to support your ally, no matter,how badly he behaves

Gregor

In reply to Dauphin:





Quite right! 350 million arabs and muslims in the middle east, oppressed by 5 million Jooz...you'd better send for reinforcements.

In reply to andyathome:

http://www.boycottisrael.org.uk/co-op-boycotts-exports-from-israels-west-ba...

In reply to nbonnett:

https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/10561764_1015264334...

In reply to dek:


Took you a while to crawl back out from under your stone. Proud of your handiwork?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

He drew the ridiculous comparison between The Jews and Nazi Germany and referred in a confused manner to The Jews and Israel, by linking it to the Holocaust it was adjudged to be The Jews in general, not specifically Israel.

The BBC reported it as referring to The Jews of Israel, which it clearly didn't, so corrected the article.

I don't think it's just a question of poor use of language, as I think the use of the Holocaust to criticise Israel's actions is racist in itself.

I can understand you writing that you have carefully distinquished between Israel and The Jews but it doesn't explain the emotional reaction to criticise Israel, rather than say the UN, who Israel will claim has killed hundreds times more civilians than Israel has ever managed.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Why? It's surrounded by 400 million arabs and 70 million Iranians supported by another billion moslems worldwide + the Bruces of this world who would like it to be destroyed and have demonstrated their willingness to do this in the past.

I am not justifying Israeli actions whig I think are not only atrocious but probably self defeating but if the rUK and the whole of Europe wanted to destroy Scotland, even if it had the support of the US, do you not think the Scots might feel a little vulnerable?

In reply to woolsack:


Herr Wooly.
How goes the War?..I see you've been busy, no holidays for you Nazis?

In reply to RobertHepburn:

Then again the IRA werent launching shedloads of rockets. They would use mortars but wouldnt hang around since the troops would soon turn up.
Unlike in Gaza where to get to those launch spots it needs a full invasion.

Of course the one action reinforces the other eg by sending in the jets it means a lot more people are willing to fight.
Thats the nightmare about the whole situation. It needs someone to make the first step and that step will increase short term problems for them.
Its not help by both sides extremist elements.
In Israel due to the parliamentary system small parties can wield more influence than they would have under other systems.
For Hamas the extremists can simply either disobey in as simple a way as launch a couple of missiles and the Israeli response will pretty much guarantee support for them.
Doubt it is helped by the Israeli habit of assasinating the leadership as well. Means it would be hard to exert control on people if by sticking your head up to give them orders you end up with a few incoming rockets.

In reply to winhill:

Drawing parallels with the Nazis is never a good idea in a debate, either on the Internet on in the media. He was foolish to do so, and the subsequent reaction meant the story became him, rather than the horror he intended to draw attention to. He did subsequently clarify he did not mean Jews in general, and his parallel was with the treatment of the jewish population in germany in the lead up to the war, not with the holocaust itself. as such, it is not the position you attribute to him.

But: the clarification was partial, and inadequate, and the damage was already done. He should not have said it in the first place, and should have been wise enough to see where it would lead.

As to your point re the UN: as someone else has said, criticising the UN for failing to prevent humanitarian disasters is like criticising Madison square gardens for the New York Knicks playing badly. The 'UN' is just the will of its member states, with all the compromises and exercising of politics that entails. Comparing the actions of the UN to that of a sovereign nation who can freely choose what course of action to take is not useful, and if Israel has suggested that, is evidence of disingenuousness.

For context, I made the same level of emotionally involved criticism of the US and UK governments for their actions in Iraq. Indeed more so, as in the case of the UK that was my own government doing things which were utterly unacceptable.

the UK, and in this case, Israel, claim to occupy the moral high ground, and to represent the best ideals of progress, democracy and the upholding of internationally accepted standards of human rights. The reaction is because people claiming to represent values of fundamental importance to me are falling so short in displaying them; and even worse, claim to be upholding them when they pursue a course of action, when in fact they are doing the exact opposite

And just to clarify re the petition- what was your reason for raising west"s previous comments? Does the petition not stand on its own merits? Are you suggesting that it can be dismissed because of what west has previously said? If not, what point are you making?

Best wishes

Gregor

In reply to andyathome:

Desperately sad situation. And i fear it will get a whole lot worse before it gets any better.
The tunnels, the tunnels, all we ever hear about are the f'ing tunnels. And im just wondering what exactly they are used for; ive heard it stated by the IDF that Hamas use them to enter Israel to murder/kidnap Israelis, yet just how often has this actually happened, does anyone know?

In reply to dissonance:

The IRA nearly managed to kill the British govt in Brighton though. How close have Hamas come to doing a similar thing in Israel?

And according to wiki, the IRA were responsible for 1824 deaths over the course of the Troubles, including 621 civilians.

I think you are underplaying the severity and lethality of the threat posed by Irish republicanism. Yet, by and large, the response of the UK was the correct one, to treat it as a criminal justice matter and target the perpetrators , not administer collective punishment to the communities they came from

In reply to dek:



You're winning, nearly 1500 bodybags. Pleased?

In reply to dissonance:

Ps I fully agree with the rest of your post, though

Gregor

In reply to woolsack and dek:

If you wish to trade insults and accusations, can you please find another thread to do it on, or preferably, just do it in private.

In reply to dek:


Well maybe they shouldn't have tried to push in there, take someone else's land and then start throwing their weight about?

Anyway you know it isn't a question of numbers, it's a question of technology, culture, support from outside, mentality. For the moment they are the bullies but one day if the Arabs and other peoples in the Middle East get their act together they may see the error of their acts. I hope they do sooner rather than later.

In reply to dissonance:

Dont you think sometimes that Gaza is almost totally controlled from Tel Aviv? There must be loads of Palestinian touts and snitches at all levels of society and operating throughout the political system, including Hamas. The 'gorgon stare' of Israeli intelligence into Gaza is unrelenting. Stands to reason, in desperate situations people will do anything to survive.

D

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Indeed.

No empire lasts forever, and the American one is no different in that regard to those that preceded it. The link to the refusal to extend further financial support from the US to Israel posted above is maybe the start of it.

One day, the flow of money and arms from the US will dry up. It would be in Israels best interests to be on good terms with its neighbours by that point, if its current residents wish their descendants to live there in security.

Clearly given what has gone before, that process of reconciliation is going to take some time. Now seems as good a time to start it as any,

Gregor

In reply to nbonnett:


I'm all for a total boycott but that changes little, I've been doing it since a student but given that I don't really want to buy their products, except occasionally avocados, that's not going to bring them to their knees, so maybe a wider campaign would be better and a boycott of all goods from the USA? Again it won't have much material effect but it could cause a bit of whittering and outraged objections. People will just have to put off buying their second Harley Davidson till the fighting is over? So it's :

BOYCOTT THE USA, SUPPLIERS OF ARMS TO ISRAEL!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Just suck it up.

In reply to dek:



So, in addition to your prejudice against "Arabs and Muslims," and lets not forget Persians, in fact pretty much everyone who isn't Jewish but is from North Africa, the Levant and eastern Asia, for which I have to acknowledge you make no attempt to disguise, you now also seem to have a problem with Germans. Who's next? I don't get it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:




Well what's been stopping you?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


No. I am just commenting on what responses were available.


The difference is the UK could always chose to respond within the law enforcement area. Even at the worse time in places like South Armagh they could send patrols in without needing air support (in terms of attack rather than reconnaissance) and armoured fighting vehicles.
It does become self reinforcing though. If the UK had decided to drop some bombs then chances are not that long after that the only option would be to drop more bombs.

Another difference is the UK would negotiate with the terrorist leaders whereas for Hamas and co given the Israeli habit of assassinating their leaders it would be somewhat brave to try and open a negotiation channels.

In reply to dek:


No one seems to have noticed my solitary efforts, it needs a few more of you b*ggers to join in too!

In reply to andyathome:

Bloody hell - another dinosaur wakes. 'A former UK defence minister has accused Israel of "brutal" attacks on Gaza after a short-lived ceasefire collapsed amid mutual recriminations.

Peter Luff said Israel's response to Hamas attacks was "disproportionate" and said the UK needed to send a message to Israel that its actions were "becoming very difficult to justify".

He is the latest MP to call on No 10 to take a firmer stance on the conflict.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28602017

As for Philip Hammond that mealy mouthed weasely little tw*t couldn't actually sink lower in my estimation anyway

In reply to dek:

Dek. If you have a point to make just make it without sarky reference to 'Jooz'. If you have no point to make then just piss off as your contributions just might not add anything positive.

Andy

In reply to andyathome:

I heard that on the radio today, Jesus wept, what next? If they don't stop we'll get very cross and maybe even go so far as to wag a finger at them? I can just hear Churchill, "Now look here you naughty Bosch, if you don't stop these mass exterminations we're going to write you a strongly worded letter." I really despair, which is still better than the lot of anyone in Gaza at the best of times never mind right now.

While I'm on a rant, the f*cking BBC have a headline that says it all:h http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

Now I don't want to wish particular personal ill on this guy or his family (leaving aside that the chances are that he's a murdering racist bastard), but why is this news? Have the beeb not noticed what's going on? Do the beeb think that we're all a bit bored or jaded by 1400 civilians and children being blown to smithereens? This shit makes me sick and angry beyond words.

In reply to Removed User:

I'm confused - what guy is probably a murdering racist bastard? The Israeli soldier captured? That's top of the page when I click on it. Lets put aside that he's likely to be a conscripted reservist and hence possibly a murdering racist bastard or possibly couldn't think of anything worse to be doing than fighting in Gaza but didn't fancy jail, but considering what happened with Shalit the Israelis losing another soldier will just make this hellish situation even worse as they smash their way around Rafah trying to find him or stop him being moved elsewhere in the strip.

In reply to TobyA:

Nice one Toby, pick the section in brackets and ignore the rest. You aiming for a job at the beeb?

In case you need some granny on egg action, yes, I'm implying that as he is an Israeli soldier the chances are he's a murdering racist bastard. Maybe I'm being unfair, it's a tough world apparently.

Anyway, on with the show. Anyone got a list of 1400 (at the last count) names the beeb could put up?

In reply to TobyA:

F*ck me Toby - 40 kids get killed but an Israeli soldier getting captured is the big news - work it out - you're supposed to be the clever guy on here.

E

In reply to Removed User:

The BBC' s stance is hardly a surprise ,as the Corporations Zionist leanings are well documented.

In reply to Removed User:


A fair enough assumption, there are "refuznik" groups in Israel but not many, they get sent to prison and when they are let out sent again so it requires some courage - less than in nazi Germany if you took a stand against Hitler but courage all the same.

Any who accept to kill Palestinian civilians can only be judged by their acts. They should all go before some kind of Nurenburg trial, all of them from generals down, and the Politicians involved be tried for war crimes... Funny how all those on ukc who are fond of such tribunals on other occasions seem a little coy when it comes to judging this bunch of murderers.

In reply to andymac:


Depends who you ask though. Some say its the other way.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yes.

Like I said earlier in this thread ,Israel is a taboo subject.

Critiscising Israel is perhaps seen as being Anti-semetic and an excuse to be anti -semetic.An accusation that is not acceptable and that no one wants levelled at them.

In reply to the thread:

i just heard David Milliband on Newsnight say in no uncertain terms that the Israeli action is disproportionate, and that the civilian casualities being inflicted are unacceptable and must cease.

what a shame our senior elected politicians don't seem to be able to bring themselves to make a similar statement

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Sadly it is probably easier for Miliband to say this because he is Jewish, in the same way that Gerald Kaufmann was able to give a pretty hard hitting speech that would have got anyone else into hot water.

That said, disproportionate doesn't do it justice by miles.

Kaufmann's speech from 2009, very relevant now: youtube.com/watch?v=xEYz00MqCx0&

In reply to Removed User:


Or because his party's in opposition.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


It's not me that originally attributed that position to him, it was the BBCs Editorial Standards Committee, who said his explanation just wasn't credible.

This is anti-semitism, it's much more than an internet Godwin.


Well, we'd look in particular at the permanent members of the security council as individual nations and also the collective action of say, the 1990s sanctions regime against Iraq.


Although you said it was the first time you'd written to your MP?


Absolutely, like I said he's a tainted brand, a racist whose petition will be ignored, treated as a smoke screen for racism.

It's probably important for him to host it rather than say organise through the PSC, in order to sanitise his recent comments. He could always start with his own party but I think he'd find that difficult, Tonge didn't much change.

In reply to winhill:



thats the opinion you have formed, based on the judgement handed down by other people; but that doesn't make it necessarily correct. here are the actual words he used, from the following guardian article:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/06/david-ward-not-racist


Ward was initially defiant – it was "just a statement of fact", he told Sky News. Did he not see that he was accusing all Jews, rather than the Israeli state, of mistreating Palestinians? "I'm accusing the Jews who did it, so if you're a Jew and you did not do it I'm not accusing you. I'm saying that those Jews who did that and continue to do it have not learned those lessons." But then he apologized.

"I never for a moment intended to criticise or offend the Jewish people as a whole, either as a race or as a people of faith, and apologise sincerely for the unintended offence which my words caused …



and his reply to criticism of his widely reported 'if i lived in Gaza i would probably be firing rockets too' tweet:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/23/lib-dem-david-ward-apology-...



He told BBC Radio 5 Live on Wednesday morning that he had done nothing wrong. "The comment was about understanding why people are firing rockets," he said. "I am not condoning that. In fact, yesterday in the House of Commons I condemned it. I'm saying I understand why people are so desperate that they are doing it."

However, the party later released a lengthy statement from Ward, which said: "I utterly condemn the violence on both sides in Israel and Gaza. I condemn the actions of Hamas, and my comments were not in support of firing rockets into Israel. If they gave the opposite impression, I apologise.



reading his own words, i do not think it is as clear cut as the BBC editorial committee would have you believe. he may indeed be an anti-semite, but i don't think that the case is proved from the information i've read. nonetheless, he was foolish, as it has allowed him to become the story instead of the conditions of Palestinians living in Gaza.

it is distasteful however, that this can divert debate from the real issue- the grotesquely disproportionate collective punishment being meted out to the residents of Gaza by the IDF- and that the ad hominem against Ward can then be extended to all 50000 people that have signed the petition, and their arguments dismissed as racist by association. the signatories were endorsing a specific form of words, repeated below:


I/we the undersigned urge the British Government to call for an immediate end to Israeli military operations which endanger civilians in Gaza and which are effectively a collective punishment of the Palestinian people. Furthermore we believe that the British Government should inform Israel that unless it ends its campaign of violence against the civilian population then Britain will consider the contribution that a policy of boycott, divestment and sanctions could play in bringing an end to the long standing conflict between the State of Israel and Palestinians.



if you are prepared to entirely dismiss me, and 59,827 other people, as tools of racism, and use this as a way of shutting down debate on Gaza and diverting attention from the unacceptable actions of the IDF there, then i would question your motives.

what is your view of the events in Gaza? do you consider the Israeli response excessive, and the rate of civilian casualties unacceptable? David Milliband was entirely clear in his condemnation of both Israel and Hamas last night, and felt that the flagrant disregard for the safety of the civilian population of Gaza represented a serious undermining of the Geneva convention, and a dangerous precedent. Do you agree with that?

And finallu, others have explained why this conflict has particular resonance for them. which conflicts elicit utter horror and dismay in you? and why? others have been open enough to explain themselves in this regard, so i think it would be fair for you to do likewise

As to your other points:



i still dont know what point you are making- other than possibly that the criticism of Israel is driven by closet antisemitism. is that your accusation? if so, then it would be fair to explicitly state this. if noe, then what point are you making? people have explained why they react to this crisis in the way they do for a number of reasons; they may well have similar reactions to the behaviour of states in other situations- but they will post these on other threads at other times.

And what is your reason for the comment about me writing to my MP? it reads like you are questioning my motives and sincerity. for the record, i vowed i would not vote labour again until everyone involved in that decision was no longer in a position of influence in the party, and i have kept to that- so i did take action, of a different sort (whether either course of action has any impact is of course doubtful)

so i have been open about my reasons for the positions i take; i;d welcome this in response from you. there is an undercurrent of doubting the motivation of those critical of israel in your posts; this may of course be reading more into your contributions than is there, but in the spirit of openness, it would be good if you were as open in explaining the reasoning behind your posts in return.

In reply to winhill:

it wont allow me to edit for some reason- the decision referred to was of course Blair's to take us to war in Iraq.

finally- apologies if ive misread the tone of your posts, they seem to have an undercurrent of doubting peoples' motives, but of course its easy to misjudge intent on here

thats the main reason for asking you to give a bit more information about your own views,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to Enty:


Because by having a soldier captured, it is now guaranteed the IDF will be keep killing Gazans and destroying their houses and schools and sewage pumping plants and shops for longer. The 72 hour cease fire that would have at least stopped Gazan kids from getting killed for three days lasted less than hour didn't it? Do you think the IDF is going to pull out after getting a soldier captured or is it more likely they'll turn more people's homes into rubble?

In reply to TobyA:

indeed

and Hamas must be fully aware of this. so why did they do it?

is it Hamas strategy to ensure that there is maximum harm to Palestinian civilians, in order to increase the sense of outrage both internally, driving their support up, and internationally, isolating Israel?

if so, why to Israel seem so keen to play into this. i know there is domestic pressure for the Israeli govt to act; but the role of govts in democracies is surely to do what is right at times of national crisis, not what wins votes.

far more Israelis have died since the offensive began than Hamas would have killed in years of rocket attacks; and around the world their reputation as a racist state, indifferent to human suffering, is becoming entrenched.

why is Israel seemingly so keen to play the part Hamas appears to be writing for it?

note: i utterly condemn Hamas' grotesque lack of concern for the safety of their own people too,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to TobyA:

Would you be happier if it turns out he is dead?

In reply to krikoman:


Agreed, although that doesn't fully explain our interest in this conflict over others. But as has been said before, the rockets fired by Hamas are probably comparable and effective as the arrows fired by native Americans against colonists. Perhaps in today's more enlightened times we can sympathise easily with their position.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

There were rumours about a week ago that one Israeli soldier had been captured but the IDF said he was dead - I don't think it is known yet whether Hamas has his body. I wish no one had to be killed but I suspect for the Gazans it would have been much better if he had either survived the firefight and remained with his own army or had been killed in action.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/01/israeli-officer-capture-gaza-h...

In reply to TobyA:

seems likely he was killed by the IDF if you believe this:
We lost contact with the (Hamas) troops deployed in the ambush and assess that these troops were probably killed by enemy bombardment, including the soldier said to be missing - presuming that our troops took him prisoner during the clash.. the Brigades said in a statement (reuters)

In reply to David Martin:


It is important that for a lot of the last decade the rockets and mortars have NOT been fired by Hamas, but rather IJ, the Popular Resistance Committees and other groups. While Hamas was in undisputed control of Gaza they would sometime stop other groups from firing them. I saw the rockets shells stacked up in the car park of Sderot police station in 2007 - and they said that the different groups handily painted the tail fins of the rockets different colours so you could see who was firing them. :-/

The ineffectiveness of the rockets is to a great extent the result of how the Israelis have 'hardened the target' like Sderot, Ashkelon and later other towns further out and the IDF's increasing speed in targeting the rocket firers, rather than their numbers dropping off. Like earthquakes of the same strength having much smaller effects in rich countries than in third world slums.

In reply to malk:

That's the Hamas statement is it?

In reply to TobyA:

i reckon? or rather its military wing..

In reply to malk:

Yep - just saw a long story on NYT with that quote http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-conflict.htm...

In reply to TobyA:

will be interesting to know who is telling the truth about the timing (before or after the 'cease fire')..

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


People can support anti-semitism without necessarily being anti-semites themselves, just as doing a stupid thing doesn't mean someone is stupid, it's an action rather than some essential quality sometimes, probably more often than not.

But there is certainly a disconnect here between the level of emotionalism shown in certain directions, it's a social phenomenon, I think, like the outpouring over Princess Di. I don't think noting the phenomenon is the same as questioning people's motives, more realising that there is something that is more than just a simple conjunction of similar views.

I'm interested if people think their emotionalism is part of a larger phenomenon or if they think that it's a personal thing.

It's diffcult to put a figure on these things but less fun if we don't try, so I would say that 98-99% of the criticism of Israel is racism (bear in mind the vast majority of it comes from muslims who are particularly racist in this regard). I don't doubt also that Israel uses accusations of racism to divert genuine criticism. But the effects of that are trivial compared to the overall impact of anti-semitism.

Did you see the story about the Belgian shopkeeper who put up a sign saying Dogs Welcome - No Jews?

Except he put it up in French which said No Zionists and also in his native Turkish which read No Jews. I don't think the way people have learnt to write Zionist instead of Jew is particularly convincing. (Or Tonge's 'Pro-Israel lobby' controlling the media, in exactly the same way as The Jews used to be described).

Separately I think there is a big problem with the petition about Divestment and a much bigger problem here than just what's happening today.

Support for Hamas is disappearing, their main backers now are Qatar, UAE, Turkey and Iran. Support for them, amongst Gazans, for firing missiles at Israel peaked in 2007 IIRC, now there is much less support.

There has much criticism of Arab leaders for not condemning Israel but the Saudi King, whilst criticising Israel was much more critical of Hamas.

There is even a mildly hawkish suggestion that there is less support for Kerry's plan amongst the Arab nations because they hope to see Hamas defeated and disarmed and replaced by Fatah.

Dislike of the Muslim Brotherhood (now declared terrorists by Saudi and Egypt) is even more intense than dislike of the Jews.

So the bigger picture remains how do we stop Hamas, rather than how do we punish Israel.

In reply to the thread in general:

Normally I'm not particularly interested in what famous people have to say (JK Rowling on Independence, Bono on just about anything) as I don't see that being a successful writer, singer, artist imbues you with greater insight than anyone else, but this from Brian Eno is exceptional and is essential reading, and it hits the nail squarely on the head.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/brian-eno-on-the-israelgaza-cri...

In reply to Removed User:




Thanks for posting the link. It certainly is relevant now. Unless the west change their stance on Israel there will never be peace between Israel and Palestine. A good start would be for the UK to impose a complete ban on trade with Israel, this would mean going out on a limb but it is the correct thing to do. A possible benefit could be that our relationship with the Arab nations would be better which would be no bad thing.

In reply to Removed User:


Well done You! Those places you listed have either massacred, or ethnically cleaned their Jewish population. Now your complaining that they are in israel, where exactly should the survivors have gone?
The 'Persians'?....Lets not forget those medieval fascists, in control, have been proudly suppling hamas with missiles and weapons to Make israel/jews/'The Zionist cancer' dissapear from the map, not to mention state sponsoring of terrorism against israelie embassies abroad (and any others they hate).

'Herr Wooly'.. was a reference to his support for hamas , who have the same stated aims as the Nazis...extermination of all 'Jews' not only Israelis.
But you know all this shite, don't you.
Having seen your subsequent posts, i think you have caught the same obsessive 'Jew fetish' as Mr Hooker.

In reply to dek:
Calling everyone who is critical of Israel an anti-semite is staggeringly cheap, but pretty much everyone who posts on here recognises that so it's no big deal. See my post where I say I don't even have a problem with the existence of Israel per se, if you like, though I don't really care. Mike TS actually lives there and though he is on 'the other side' he is at least capable of coming on here and entering into robust discussion without resorting to that bankrupt rubbish or whataboutery.

Clearly you know sod all about Iran apart for the rubbish you have gleaned from the same websites that Anders Brevik used to whack off to.

I don't think I've seen anyone on here, not even Woolsack or Bruce, waving the flag for Hamas, and I certainly don't, but I can understand why they (Hamas) attract support.

In reply to icnoble:

I'd go for all European/Scandinavian/any other civilised country (Canada, even Russia) closing down the Israeli embassy and kicking their "diplomats" onto the first plane "home". Christ, remember the disapproval that Jack Straw got for shaking hands with tin pot dictator Mugabe! And Cameron stands shaking hands with Netanyahu on the steps of No.10. Disgrace.

In reply to andyathome:

Maybe. Just maybe...

Some of our politicians are sensing that their implicit support for the massacre currently going on in Gaza might backfire as people increasingly wake up to what is going on:

Lord Ashdown, formerly the UK's special representative in Bosnia, said Israel had been "very foolish" to launch its military strikes given it had the "best anti-missile system in the world".

He said Israel had lost the "support and sympathy of world opinion".

Had UK troops in Afghanistan or Northern Ireland retaliated to civilian attacks and fired back, they would have been "guilty of a crime", he said.

In reply to dek:

Stop trying to make this 'anti-Jew'. It is nothing of the sort.

It IS a protest against the war crimes committed by the Israeli governemet and those currently serving in the IDF.

I am sure that the vast majority of Israelis, just like the vast majority of people in the UK, are disgusted by what is being done in their name.

In reply to dek:
'Jew fetish'?

Behave yourself .and stop trying to twist this thread into something it is not.

Gladly the UK is a democracy, where free speech and being able to air our opinions is still a given right.

We are all quite within our rights to criticise Israel's actions .

And how is it OK to infer that someone is a Nazi ? It's quite an accusation.

A cheap shot.

In reply to andyathome:


Apparently not as far as Israelis are concerned, opinion polls show they support it fully and many would like to "do the job properly". A small minority of Israelis oppose this bloodshed but fewer now than in past years.

In reply to winhill:


What nonsense, what on earth do you base this on? Until Israel's abominable treatment of Palestinians changed things Jewish minorities had co-existed with Muslims in most Muslim countries for centuries. Even now the country which has kept it's Jewish minority is Iran. You say "Muslims are particularly racist in this regard" and yet a great many Arab Muslims in the Middle East are of the same Semitic race as Jews are!

As for Hamas, in the demonstrations I've been on, including today, one of the main slogans was "Total and Unconditional support of Palestinian Resistance in all its forms", which doesn't sound very critical of Hamas to me, and I will remind you that they are the elected government of Gaza, and have just signed a union agreement with the Palestinian Authority.

Your "information" seems a wee bit out of touch with reality.

In reply to winhill:

It's diffcult to put a figure on these things but less fun if we don't try, so I would say that 98-99% of the criticism of Israel is racism (bear in mind the vast majority of it comes from muslims who are particularly racist in this regard)


there is some irony here in your accusation that almost all the criticism of Israel is driven by racism, when you make a comment like that. and an irony that you dismiss Ward's opinions for a poor choice of words when your own choice appears pretty careless there.

would you like to clarify what you meant when you typed the passage above? it seems to say that you think muslims as a whole are racists, without qualification. though i'm not sure i can believe you meant that. did you really mean to say that? all muslims? its just, it looks like something that UKIP candidates wouldn't even have the balls to say in public, even if they thought it.

i'm sure you must have meant something else, and it would be very helpful if you were to clarify,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to winhill:


and re this- in my view, the bigger picture is how to stop another 100+ palestinian civilian being killed by the IDF every day from now until, well, until when? neither side are prepared to back down now, so i cant see it stopping any time soon. see my post to Postmanpat on the other thread for my thoughts on this.

and if the bigger picture is to stop Hamas, in the long run, the only way that this will happen is the way we stopped the IRA, by a political deal. i dont buy the 'they are somehow different to us civilised people, we cant deal with them' line. they are human beings, just like us, with the same motivations and desires.

Hamas are said to want the destruction of the state of Israel. well, the IRA wanted the complete destruction of the British state on the island of ireland- and yet now they are governing the Province. They made that decision, to pursue a political path, when it was clear that there was not going to be a military victory; but also when they had assurances that the civil rights of the population they represented would be taken seriously, and when a deal that they could accept and bring their supporters with them was offered.

thats how Hamas will be defeated- by meeting their practical concerns, and offering a way out that they can accept. people with security, full stomachs, and satellite TV dont fire rockets at civilians, they watch Man Utd and send inane messages to their friends on social media.

yet everything israel does seems to take the situation further away from that, entrench the cycle of violence and given succour to Hamas. its as if they dont actually want to defeat Hamas,

and: sorry if the last post was a bit direct, but i really dont think you can say things like that. no one here has said 'Israelis are racists' (i think), never mind 'Jews are racists'; they have said the current Israeli govts policies are racist. you seemed to be saying that muslims were racists, without further qualification. you must have meant something different, its just thats not how it read, and i thought you should have the opportunity to clarify your position

best wishes
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Whenever I've seen young Hamas militants being interviewed they come across as particularly calm and civilised, far more than Paisley and his like for example. The Hamas program is perhaps no more to be taken literally than the Jewish Bible. In their daily situation in Gaza the only way to maintain hope is to fight back, by whatever means they have, which are infinitely weaker than those of Israel and it's US backer - they have to show they exist or the world will forget them like so many displaced peoples, rotting away in "camps" here and there.

To call them "racist" is particularly despicable as how else can they define their enemy? An enemy which defines itself as a "Jewish State"... you only have to listen to interviews of Israelis to see where the "racism" lies. Besides in the Middle East such ethnico/racial references are standard practice, I'm not sure the have the same inner sense as in Britain for example.

In Lebanon, for example, people see themselves as belonging to and owing allegiance to, their "racial" group, whether this be Armenian, Maronite, Sunni, Chia,and a whole number of others. Does this mean they are all racists? I doubt it as these multi-cultural countries have lived for centuries in relative harmony until the equilibrium breaks, as since the creation of Israel and the whole castle of cards falls down.

In reply to andyathome:

Blimey. Is Ed Milliband starting to grow a set of bollocks?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28628577

And what do the government come out with?

'Downing Street said: "The PM has been clear that both sides in the Gaza conflict need to observe a ceasefire.

"We are shocked that Ed Miliband would seek to misrepresent that position and play politics with such a serious issue."

What a set of total spineless wankers.

In reply to winhill:



To be honest I don't think that is the issue at all. The crucial thing is to get across to Israelis tat they are becoming the pariahs of the world. That many people regard their actions as disgusting.

If I was a Palestian in Gaza and I had an RPG I wouldn't hesitate.

If I was in London outside the Israeli embassy with an RPG I'm not sure how long I'd hesitate.

The current actions by Israel in Gaza are simply despicable. There is no discussion possible. Another school goes down.....

In reply to andyathome:

Ed is a smart boy .

And knows there's an election looming.

He and his spin doctors would have to pretty thick not to know how the British voting public feel about this.

Expect a slight change in rhetoric coming out of Downing St in the coming days ,to outflank Eddie.

Cameron has done himself damage with his stance on Gaza.

He is either as blinkered as he appears. Or he is a tad stupid.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


A quick google shows semi naked corpses being dragged around the streets of Gaza by particularly calm and civilised young militants firing AKs and pistols in the air.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



Not at all, anyone who spends time discussing this with muslims is likely to find the same thing, the numbers are huge and the justification frequently koranic.

Medhi Hasan, himself no stranger to the odd racist outburst:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/anti-semitism-british-muslim-co...

It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism isn't just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it's routine and commonplace... You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism.

(A reference to the Banality of Evil)

Or http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15450#.U964SPk7v0s

“During my years at university, I spoke with an estimated 150-200 Muslims. It struck me that almost all held the same opinions. It didn’t matter whether they were Moroccans, Turks, Kurds or Muslims from Suriname. In all those years, I only met two Muslims who did not hate Jews or Israel.

In reply to andyathome:

Er, no. The real games not over here. If Milliband really possessed anything approximating to bollocks he would tell the USA to withdraw Military funding to Israel and whilst he is at it invoke UN
peacekeepers to maintain a ceasefire in the Gaza strip. Like that's going to happen anytime soon.

In reply to andymac:

Lots of rhetoric coming now (carefully worded statements so not as to upset anyone who pays the bills) from both sides but feck all action. Both parties are signed up Friends of Israel and apologists for colonist murderous enterprise.

D

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You must have a better grasp of history than this?

The rise is anti-semitic events in the 19th century completely contradicts you, why there was a rise across Africa and the Middle East and Europe for the whole century and since, is the interesting point.



Egypt closed the Rafah crossing in response to Hamas' electoral and military successes over Fatah in 2007, the outlawing of the muslim brotherhood as a terrorist orgwnisation in Egypt and SA is fairly incontrovertible, I would have thought?

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:


I've been thinking a lot about this - who is going to commit their troops as peacekeepers to Gaza? Can't see anyone wanting that job.

In reply to winhill:

Was reading the (a?) Saudi Grand Mufti has declared protests in sympathy with Gaza are haram - giving humanitarian aid is ok (as Saudi king has just done, unsurprisingly), but political protests are a no-no. Watching clips from Egyptian state TV as well, and they were calling Hamas deranged. Quite remarkable how little support Hamas is getting from states this time.

In reply to TobyA:


As thankless and dangerous jobs go it would be quite high up the list.

In reply to TobyA:

Quite remarkable how little support Hamas is getting from states this time.

No its not. Egypt newly re-installed military dictatorship is at war with the muslim brotherhood within its own borders. Saudi ruling elite are pretty scared by the Arab spring and the effect the muslim brotherhood had in Eygpt. Hardly surprising both are not supporting Hamas to any great degree. Plus both are heavily supportive of U.S. foreign policy within the middle east.

D

In reply to andymac:


Check how much money the conservatives get by being "Friends of Israel"

"Some 80 per cent of all Tory MPs are members, including most Cabinet ministers. No other lobbying organisation – and certainly not one that acts in the interests of a foreign country – carries as much weight at Westminster. Every year, it takes a significant number of parliamentarians to Israel. Meanwhile, its sponsors play an important role in financing both the Tories nationally, and MPs at the local level. "

In reply to Dauphin:



Seems to me that most people have a huge amount of sympathy with the Palestinians and very little with Hamas. Have seen in a couple of places reminders to us wooly-minded liberals that Hamas are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-free speech etc, as if that justifies whatever Israel does in it's attempt to eradicate them.

However what Israel is doing is fuelling support for Hamas. I would even say that Israel is quite happy with this outcome.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Plenty of swivelled eyed rascism, homophobia and misogyny within ultra orthodox Judaism. The world is 6000 years old. Mokay.

D

In reply to Dauphin:



And the vast majority of whom are not Zionists, so what's your point?

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Ultra orthodox not Zionists? Yeah a very few, you are correct. And your point is?

D

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Pink washing I believe its called. Maybe you've heard of it?

D

In reply to Dauphin:

Well obviously, and you didn't mention that Hamas has fallen out with Syria to a great extent after the Assad regime attacked the Palestinian 'camps' in Damascus for being pro-opposition. And that means Iran is less willing and able to support Hamas too. But what I meant is that things have changed significantly, since 2006 for instance. Egypt has always seemed to have got an easy ride in world opinion, considering that it has a significant border with Gaza and has been part of the blockade for much of the time.

In reply to TobyA:

I perhaps incorrectly never see Eygypt as anything but the U.S.'s bitch in the middle east. After a brief period of democracy, pro American military dictatorship was reestablished. Its not likely they are going to do much to upset there precarious position both from opposition within the country and the state dept. Hardly a ripple on the BBC. Military coups are okay when they trump islamism apparently. There isn't much understanding of the popular support for the MB in Egypt and its history of opposition in the mainstream analysis its secularism vs islamism.


D

In reply to Dauphin:


And that point is just as irrelevant. I object to this "if you're not with us your against us" mentality that means if you criticise on side you are accused of supporting all the ills of the other. I support neither side in this conflict, but I'm very angry about the fact that my government, and even more so it's my ally, does.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

My point was there is plenty of medieval bigotry and non tolerant viewpoints on both sides. Neither side is particularly warm and cuddly despite protestations of Israel being the only democracy in the middle east and a gay haven.

D

In reply to Dauphin:



Your point is confused by it relying on equating the Israelis with Hassidic Judaism which is, after all, rarely Zionist.

In reply to winhill:


Does that surprise you after what the Jews in Israel have done to Muslims, and others both in Israel and outside?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

In reply to winhill:



No, at all. It's all to predictable to be a surprise. But quite what the treatment of the Palestinians has to do with Lord Ahmed blaming the media-controlling Jews on a visit to Pakistan is less clear, except as rampant and unconstrained anti-semitism.

But then I view the whole concept of the Muslim Ummah as currently performing a racist function, not an in-group enabling function, so fairly far right wing in it's functionality.

The predictability or not of muslim racism in this regard doesn't make it any less racist.

BTW Here's a bit from the BBC on Hamas' realpolitik:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28371966

In reply to winhill:



personal anecdote and a couple of links off the internet don't make this true...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Europe

wikipedia perhaps not the best source, but it is maybe a little more solid than a link to a website which 'identifies itself with neo-Zionism' (the israel national news one- again, from wikipedia). Its suggests that across europe 25-50% of Muslims have antisemitic views- an alarming and troubling figure, and associated with disgusting acts of violence against Jewish people. This is more than enough to say that muslim communities have a real problem with antisemitic racism- but far short of the near universal antisemitism that you claim.

and referring back to the comment you made:


It's diffcult to put a figure on these things but less fun if we don't try, so I would say that 98-99% of the criticism of Israel is racism (bear in mind the vast majority of it comes from muslims who are particularly racist in this regard)



my problem with this was that you said muslims, and seemed to mean muslims as a whole- not just that there are high rates of racism among muslims, but essentially that muslims per se are racist (the israelnationalnews one suggested 99%, a figure you seem to endose by linking to it and then highlighting the quote).

this is exactly what David Ward was pulled up for, suggesting that Jews as a whole were to blame for the oppression of Palestinians, not just those (and non-Jews) that voted for the current Israeli government- and if he had stood by that, it would have undoubtedly been racist.

However, Ward went on to make a clarification that he did not intend to mean all Jews, and that he had not directly compared the treatment of Palestinians to the Holocaust- he develops the position here, and makes some very reasonable points (though also continues to fail to get why certain forms of language really are offensive, playing the 'political correctness' card a bit too readily and undermining himself somewhat in the process)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/06/david-ward-not-racist

You made a clarification of your position, but did quite the opposite; I challenged you on your assertion that almost all critism of Israel was motivated by racism, and you gave the reply quoted at the top of this post- that you really *did* mean that, and that most, or even nearly all, Muslims were racists. But the evidence (beyond the personal testament and some selected internet editorial you linked to) does not support this.

You said that Ward was damaged goods and his opinions, and all associated with him could be ignored. Sadly, if we observed those rules, it would mean we'd have to ignore you...

we started down this road because you dismissed Ward as a supporter of antisemitism, and included all those who signed his position as supporters of this, intentionally or inadvertently. Having read his actual words rather than commentary on them, i dispute that what he says is racist(assuming the clarification is a genuine one, rather than a get-out; but the position he takes is coherent and logical, so it doesnt look like on-the-hoof wriggling out of a difficult corner) .

It is interesting to note that in the several days since you first replied, you've not responded to any challenge to justify the accusation of antisemitism based on your own analysis of his words, rather than by referring to the judgement of others, eg the BBC.

and it troubles me that you so readily set aside the concerns he was raising, on the basis that he is held by some to be a racist- while at the same time appearing to hold over-generalised negative views about Muslims as a group.

i'd welcome your comments on Ward's actual comments as reported in the Guardian article i linked; i dont think his clarification is antisemitic, but i'm prepared to listen to arguments that it is, and will change my mind if the case is well made. by the same token, if you are not able to find evidence of racism there, it would be nice if you were prepared to retract your original dismissal of Ward, and by association me as a signatory of the petition, as effectively a tool of antisemitism,




best wishes
gregor

In reply to andyathome:



The question remains whether killings Jews on the streets of London is your usual response to world events - or does this represent a particularly emotional response to one situation?

If your usual response to the News at Ten is to tut loudly and take another sip of tea but when the Jews do something you go a bit Rambo, it looks more and more like a manifestation of racism than anything else.

In reply to winhill:

In the case of Palestine we have two very similar groups of people, both Semitic, both finding their distant origins in the Arabian Peninsula, fighting for the same bit of land. One are the indigenous population of the area for the last dozen or so centuries, the other lived fairly briefly there around a couple of thousand years ago but who did go through an important (for them) cultural foundation there. In these circumstances is opposition between the two groups and their culturally linked supporters throughout the world really "racism" in the general sense of the word?

Is it the same as the hate of white Americans for the black descendants of their former slaves? Or hatred of any quite different racial groups elsewhere in the world? It seems to me that it is just as inappropriate as the term "anti-semitism" applied to two Semitic peoples - the violent hatred expressed by Israelis for Arab Palestinians, pushed as far a calling publicly for a "final solution" for the Palestinian people seems just as good a contender for the term as in the other direction.

A more appropriate approach seems to be to look at the history of the area, see who lived there before and who has pushed in to seize the land since. Having done this very simple task it only remains to answer the second simple question, do we consider in the 20th and now 21st century that one stronger group of people should be allowed to take over the land of another by force and then hold it by the same method, pushing excess as far as killing hundreds of children and civilians and wounding thousands more in a period of a few weeks, and this on a regular basis?

Things are simple if you cut away the blabber and look at the facts.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I didn't see this, I think our posts crossed but regarding Ward, he uses weasel words that don't convince in the slightest.

I said that comparing Israel to the Nazis was anti-semitic, not an unusual view, the EU has a working definition of anti-semitism that includes:

"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

In the article you've linked to he says that

"Because, don't forget, long before the death camps were set up, the treatment of the Jews in many of these European countries, and of course following 1933, in particular in Nazi Germany, was racist, and directed at the Jewish people. [It was] very low-level or what was regarded as low-level cases of nastiness and harassment to begin with, and then escalated. And when you look at – wherever it may be – the West Bank, and a declared intent by the Israeli Defence Forces to harass, often just annoy Palestinians – in terms of a checkpoint that will be only open on certain days, and then it will be open, but at a later time, and the next day it will open slightly earlier, so you get there and then it's been shut again ... really just to harass, in many cases to move the Palestinians from land, to just give up and move on ... "

That's sufficient for me but I'd include Using the Holocaust as a stick to beat jewish people with and I'd also extend that to comparisons with Apartheid, as attempts to make racial slurs, so far moved, as they are, from the reality of those situations.

In reply to winhill:

Strikes me as a strange category to include in the anti-Semitic definition.

What if Israel started rounding up Palestinians and gassing them? Would it still be anti-Semitic to call them nazis in such a case, according to the EU?

In reply to David Martin:

Don't be emotional.

D

In reply to winhill:


You don't call the Israeli attitude to Palestinians apartheid???

From my point of view, I've come to admire the Jews more because of the protests. It's harder for Jewish people in Israel to protest than it is for me, I didn't expect anyone to bother. I seen, met and talked to Jews protesters on the marches in London.

You seem to be spouting the same old Israeli propaganda lie which equates to any criticism of the Israeli government is anti-Semitism.

It's the same bullshit and Hamas are using people as human shields.

The Gazan people have been under siege for SEVEN years, that collective punishment for 1.5 million people and when people speak out about it they are anti-Semites!!! Please!!

In reply to Dauphin:


Err, why? As we head towards 2000 dead, of which most are civilians and many are children why wouldn't a normal person become emotional?

In reply to andyathome:

How long before the Friends of Israel ask the BBC not to publish details again?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28683092

Remember this?
youtube.com/watch?v=E21MdXe3BOQ&

In reply to woolsack:



We really do need more people to take his place, sadly the world is a bit short on people like Tony.

In reply to andyathome:

Must be close to the end of the current round of killing, now they're busy trying to cover their behinds. It's not a war crime when they do it

http://nypost.com/2014/08/06/netanyahu-asks-us-to-help-israel-avoid-war-cri...

In reply to andyathome:

A petition to get our pathetic Government to do something right for once. RFA Argus, a hospital ship is anchored in Falmouth doing not much. The petition is to get the ship sent down into the Med and get some of the injured from Gaza treated. I know the Friends of Israel won't approve but f*** them!

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-rt-hon-philip-hammond-mp-send-rf...

In reply to woolsack:

Good idea, petition signed

In reply to Cobra_Head:

Signed too, better that just floating there rusting away. It would put the Israelis on the spot though, which is why our spineless government would never do it.

In reply to woolsack:



How much would it cose to send a ship to the far end of the Med? Why not just use that money to improve hospitals and medical facilities in Gaza? There are plenty of doctors there but a huge shortage of medical supplies. Also what about timing? How are you going to get the injured from Gaza to the boat?

It's a nice thought, but not a very considered one...

In reply to seankenny:



There's a bit of difficulty getting supplies into Gaza, I think there's some sort of blockade going on.

It might take sometime to get there but it could do an enormous amount of help and not just in patching the wounded up either. It sends a message, it would create a safe area around it (hopefully at least) Israel wouldn't want the bad publicity of shelling a British hospital ship; our government might have to speak up then.

In reply to krikoman:


Yes, but aid work is being done there:
http://www.dec.org.uk/appeals/gaza-crisis-2014/aid-getting-through




The message it would send is "Britain is crap at diplomacy" - since when would a country accept another nation's military vessel appearing off its shore, uninvited, and taking the wounded from and conflict zone. It would do approximately nothing to change the actions of the Israeli govt.

An arms embargo, or something that would affect Israel's economy, yes, but this kind of stunt is just stupid. So let's not waste valuable political energy asking for it.

In reply to seankenny:


Probably the same as air dropping aid in to Iraq currently


Becasue the f***ing Israelis keep blowing them up, when would this be incidentally?


There are in the region of 10,000 injured people there

>How are you going to get the injured from Gaza to the boat?

By boats? Assuming Israel hasn't yet destroyed the harbour completely

In reply to seankenny:




Actually, it would send a significant signal to Israel that the days of everybody turning a blind eye to her brutality and violence are coming to an end. It won't happen of course because Friends of Israel have 90% of the Government in their pocket


They're only Palestinians

In reply to andyathome:

War is a commercial affair these days; you could be supporting it directly. Got any shares, savings funds, pension etc? Unless otherwise defined, any such fund could have bought shares in armaments or warfare.

Pull out and buy into ethical funds!

In reply to woolsack:



Well, I'm looking at the UN's latest sit-rep for Gaza (for work, I hasten to add), which says there's huge demand in Gaza's hospitals for medical supplies, which they need right now, not in ten day's time. Also problems with the electricity supply, which is affecting how hospitals can run, and which isn't going to be solved by a troop ship. Nor is it going to solve the problem of children with psychological problems - putting a bed-wetting, clingy kid onto a troop ship probably isn't going to be helpful.




The Israelis control access to Gaza via the sea.



They're only Palestinians

So you're saying that because I disagree with this idea, that I give not a jot for the lives of people in Gaza?

In reply to seankenny:

Medical supplies PLUS the troop ship. I'm guessing some of these seriously injured people won't be up and out of bed in a week?

Canada has managed to fly in military supplies to Ukraine. That was easy enough wasn't it? We're managing air drops into Iraq.

We're sending 15 NHS medics to Gaza


No shit!


Yes, they have a bit of history pretending not to notice which way ships are flagged don't they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

In reply to woolsack:


I still can't see how sending a troop ship is going to be better than helping doctors and nurses in Gaza, who have small advantages such as being able to speak the same language as the patients, the hospitals are near their homes, relatives can visit, etc. How much does it cost to run a ship like this? £1m a day? £2m a day? That's an awful lot of money, compared to getting an aid agency to do the work.

(FYI - I work for aid agencies, so I might be biased!)


I'm not saying it's impossible. Merely not very good use of limited resources.

Air drops are usually the least-efficient way of delivering aid, tho clearly there isn't much choice in Iraq atm.

In reply to seankenny:

I think it's much more about not upsetting the Friends of Israel than anything else

In reply to woolsack:


Don't you mean upsetting the actual Israelis? I mean, let's ignore the practical problems with your plan and presume it went ahead, it would be a diplomatic disaster. You may diss diplomacy, but it's how international affairs are run, and this kind of plan you're proposing would achieve very little for an awful lot of disruption.

There are many far more politically effective things to do, but don't let that worry you, if signing this makes you feel better, that's good - because it's all about you and your feelings...

In reply to andyathome: see my sea shell post.

In reply to seankenny:


It doesn't seem that the current Government is listening at all does it? Quite happy to continue to send out supportive messages in favour of Israel's massacre. They won't even call a spade a spade and state that the Israeli action is disproportionate.

In reply to woolsack:


Well, that's not quite accurate. We've seen a cabinet minister resign over this so the government is clearly not of one mind on this issue. Clegg was critical and he is also part of the govt.

Anyhow, since when did campaigners refuse to campaign because no one was listening? But one way to ensure you definitely will be dismissed (which is different to being ignored) is to ask for something that's impossible to do.

In reply to seankenny:


There's nothing impossible about this 'ask'. There is surely a lack of will I'll grant you

In reply to seankenny:

>> > It doesn't seem that the current Government is listening at all does it? Quite happy to continue to send out supportive messages in favour of Israel's massacre. They won't even call a spade a spade and state that the Israeli action is disproportionate.


But that NOT the government calling the action disproportionate is it?.

Medical supplies directly now of course, but that's only because it's no use having doctors with no medical supplies, then Doctors and supplies and the ship wouldn't hurt supposing it all kicks off again? A ship full of injured people could sail away into a safe area.

It's all a bit f*cked up to be honest, like one Gazan resident said, "You send us medicine to make us better, while you send bombs to Israel to try and kill us".

In reply to seankenny:

The whole point is that sending a ship from a country Israel couldn't just slag off and throw a few commandos at would break the embargo. It's about time the world did something about the US/Israel idea that they can force people to boycott whoever they want, Gaza, Cuba - who do they think they are?

In the case of Gaza it would provide a first safe haven for people wounded by the murdering gangsters in Israel.

In reply to seankenny:


It's quite obvious you don't give much of a damn about the Palestinians or you wouldn't be supporting Israel, here's a good idea, one that will be rejected and hated by Israel though and all you can do is pick homes in it.

In reply to woolsack:


The report I read on the BBC (IIRC) about sending the 15 medics said that they would be sending people who could not be treated locally back to England for treatment. So the existing plan seems both quicker and more effective. Is there an informed criticism of the existing plan that involves sending the hospital ship or is it just idle slacktivism again?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Why do you have to pick a side?

Quite interesting here how much support Israel has lost.., especially in the north east.. While fox is still very pro Israel CNN have really changed their tune more recently... Strangely both are Murdochs I think....

US support is definitely being questioned., and hopefully soon they will stop..

In reply to andyathome:

youtube.com/watch?v=HHC8KC5cLs8&

In reply to Cobra_Head:



So you want the government to go from not even being able to criticise Israel to sparking a major diplomatic incident for virtually no humanitarian gain? Asking for that level of u-turn is simply unrealistic. Better to use the energy and outrage the conflict has created towards achievable goals that will actually help people, rather than a bit of grandstanding with big bits of kit.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You have the black and white, with us or against us view that would fit in quite well in Israel. I pick holes in it because it would be massive waste of time, effort and money, and it isn't ever going to happen, so why create a lot of fuss about something that no decision-maker is ever going to sanction? Better to put the political energy into something effective.

Incidentally Bruce, have you given some money to help the relief effort fo the Palestinians?

In reply to seankenny:



Yes, to assuage my idle slacktivism

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Should be "holes", of course, it was late!

In reply to seankenny:


What to buy plasters to stick on the wounds? keep them just at survival level? That's not what they need, they need, and want, political support to solve the problem, to make the sort of tidal change you scoff about above... as if recognising the right to self determination for the Palestinians is anything extraordinary to ask for! Why are they the only ones who don't have this right in your world view?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Right now, it most certainly is. I don't think any aid agency or the UN wants to keep Palestinians at "survival level" - they want them to thrive. But how is ranting on the internet but then refusing to give these people any of your money helping at all?


they need, and want, political support to solve the problem, to make the sort of tidal change you scoff about above... as if recognising the right to self determination for the Palestinians is anything extraordinary to ask for! Why are they the only ones who don't have this right in your world view?

Where exactly did I say this? Your presumption that because I oppose some dumb ideas is that I don't think the Palestinians should be able to control their own destiny is some leap.

So I'll re-phrase my question: what have you done to help Palestinians in *any way* - humanitarian, political, social, etc?

In reply to Kai:

Are the Jews who speak out about Israel anti-Semitic too.

This is the same old shite, "the Israeli's could do what they does best, ....making life better for all of us.2:45 " apart from if you're on the other and of one of their bombs.

Children in the firing line.
What about, this and that.
A veiled inference to anti-Semitism for the Tricycle theatre stance.
@ 4:36 "any jew who thinks the holocaust..." and one who thinks the ghetto can't exist ever again, can look at Israel and what they have been doing to Gaza for the last seven years.
@5:00 "people who want to botcott....have no idea what it's like to live on a thin strip of land" What about the people in Gaza? At least they people in Israel have free movement, no embargo and control over their own power, water and trade.

5:40 as for UN resolutions...." except I suppose the one that recognised the state of Israel?

"Political persuasion" in his book political persecution.

You is this muppet??

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I suspect it bloody well is in thousands of cases right now. If you can't spare any cash, that's fair enough but for anyone who can, saying they don't need medical and humanitarian aid in Gaza right now just sounds like an excuse.

In reply to TobyA:


I agree with this totally and have made my donations to this and the Iraq appeal.

There is an irony expressed by a Gazan resident who said, "you send us doctors and medicines to make us well, and you send bombs and missile to Israel to try and kill us."


Oh in my post above I meant "Who" instead of "You", although it might be more appropriate.

In reply to krikoman:



But there's a difference between a government and the people of a country, isn't there?

In reply to seankenny:


Off IT's shores??? I thought the shores of Gaza might belong to Gaza or at the very least Palestine. Just because Israel have blockade it illegally, doesn't make it there's, which is where a good deal of the trouble emanates from.

In reply to seankenny:


Maybe they believe in some democratic ideal were the government represents the people?

In reply to Mike Stretford:


^^^ This ^^^

In reply to Mike Stretford:


My point being that civil society is - and should be - something that is as independent from the government as possible. The government doesn't always represent all the opinions of the people, how can it? So the government can do one thing when some of the population support something different. That's what happens with protest movements, charities and pressure groups and so on, it's normal and healthy. So the people giving aid and the people selling bombs are two different parts of the same society.

I don't think this is particularly unusual or problematic, unless you are in Russia, China, Ethiopia, etc...

In reply to krikoman:


Gaza is so small that being close to the shores of Gaza means you're close to the shores of Israel too. And if we move from geographic reality to political reality, Israel considers the shores of Gaza as "its territory", and I agree, that's part of the problem.

Anyhow, this discussion is pointless as what you're proposing simply isn't going to happen. Try pushing for something that actually will, and will make a long-term difference, like a lifting of the blockade.

In reply to seankenny:


Oh! funny that, I thought that's what I was doing.

Yet I keep being told I'm an anti-Semite or that I should be more concerned about ISIS.

It's is our government that's sending aid too and our government that's supplying arms to Israel. Likewise America.

It's not just the government supplying arm while Joe public supply the humanitarian stuff, is it?

In reply to TobyA:


There was an English doctor currently working in Gaza on the radio the other day, and she was saying there's a desperate shortage of all types of medical aid, all the way down to sterile dressings.

The sad fact is that they need all sorts of things, all the way from sticking plasters to a lasting peace, and everything inbetween. Poo-poohing one just because they don't have the other is pretty crap.

In reply to seankenny:

A mojor diplomatic incident, might be what's needed, nothing else seems to be working.

U-turns might be just axactly what's needed, it happened in South Africa.


How do you know what is and what isn't achievable?
Wasn't Everest unclimbable at one point in time?

Why not do both? Why not do everything you can.

I've been told I'm wasting my time going on marches, rather than donating to charity. Well I'll do what I think is best and that includes protesting.

If you listen to what you being told is achievable all the time you won't get very far.

And I want our government to state the truth, That Israel's response was disproportionate, yes this is what I want, and it shouldn't be too much to ask from my government to tell the truth.

In reply to seankenny:


This is on the level of "my willy is bigger than yours", the debate is about Palestine and that the killing keeps going on, which it does, must be over 2000 by now. Debating on internet is not contradictory with any other actions that you might consider useful, but the essential problem is to attempt, with great difficulty thanks to people like you and Toby, to build up a consensus that Israel should be condemned, sanctions should hit it hard and fast and the horror that is the stinking concentration camp of Gaza should be a thing of the past in a democratic and united Palestine in which all Palestinians have their word to say.

It's not giving money to charities that will get us there. You don't even want us to push for an unused hospital ship lying on it's moorings doing nothing to be sent there to break the blocus and care for wounded people, of which there are more than 6000 apparently.

In reply to seankenny:


No there isn't, not in a democracy anyway. If we all really believed it and got out on the streets and said it Cameron and Hollande with all the tear gas in the world wouldn't be able to stand up to it, their governments would fall and policies would change... but we don't do this and they carry on as if best of all things in the best of all worlds.

We are all responsible for what our governments are doing.

In reply to krikoman:


Yeah, when you keep crapping on about the Holocaust and Jews that can happen.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:




So basically, you've done nothing for the Palestinians other than argue their case on the internet? No donations to help feed, clothe and house them? No letters to your elected representatives? Just a bunch of sounding off on the net? It's not about willy-waving, this is about following through on one's anger with real action that makes a difference out in the world. Certainly debating the issues is important but there comes a point where one has to put one's money on the table.

I am not against building a political consensus to end the blockade, etc, but why are you so against giving to organisations which actually help people on the ground, and often are involved in lobbying for political change too? I may be biased as I work for these organisations, but the alternative of just sitting around in the online equivalent of a sixth-form common room seems awfully anaemic.

In reply to seankenny:

To enter into your personnal willy waving, how many demos have you been on? Authorised and illegal?


When have I said I was against it, but boasting about it and saying that giving to charity is going to change the political situation or get rid of Israel is clearly bollocks... In your case it's to try and score points and discredit, you're just an Israeli spin merchant, as you admit as you work for these bogus NGOs who drive around in brand new white Range Rovers or Toyotas while the people you are pretending to help are dying - the worst form of parasite.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


None, I'm afraid. I'm not really the marching type, but I don't denying its effectiveness.



And I quote: "> Incidentally Bruce, have you given some money to help the relief effort fo the Palestinians?

What to buy plasters to stick on the wounds? keep them just at survival level? That's not what they need..."

That's quite a denunciation.



but boasting about it and saying that giving to charity is going to change the political situation or get rid of Israel is clearly bollocks...

Well no, you won't find many organisations trying to get rid of Israel, not even the Palestinian Authority wants to do that.



Now now dear, clean the spittle off your computer, get back to reality. This whole "you either agree with me or you're the enemy" shtick, it must be pretty exhausting to keep up...

In reply to andyathome:

Anyway, we're on to the Yazidi's now. Anyone know much about them and what's going on? Is it as bad as is being made out?

My personal view is it all sounds pretty shocking and there may be a use for guns and death on ISIS to sort it out...

...however, we've had this battle cry before, be it babies thrown from incubators in the lead up to GW1, imminent threat from WMD in GW2, and potential for the the govt seeking to deflect criticism of Israel by overshadowing the scenes in Gaza. Call me cynical, but I have little faith in much of the media reports and the establishment in giving an unbiased angle on what is going on over there

In reply to David Martin:



ISIS have their own annual report, you could check it out if you like. I believe it's in Arabic but lots of think tanks have looked at it so you're bound to be able to find extracts in English.

I think you confuse the media with the govt which often supplies the media. Yes, in the run up to Iraq the media printed a lot of codswallop, but it was often fed to them by the govt and very hard to assess accurately. Otoh, the media have also published lots of stuff on parliamentary expenses, the problems of the financial crash, etc etc - so it's not as if they're govt patsies the entire time. Surely rather than blanket scepticism, it's better to be selectively sceptical. Better, but harder!

In reply to David Martin:


Do you really believe that the govt are going to start organising expensive and dangerous air drops simply to stop people worrying about Israel?

I think that's all a bit green ink.

In reply to David Martin:

It is quite true that there has been a great deal of atrocity propaganda, from all sides, and much of it has subsequently turned out to be false, loaded or exaggerated, so your scepticism is understandable, most of us after all are now several times bitten, now shy. The middle Eastern conflicts are very much media conflicts on all sides (in addition to actual chaotic military conflicts of course), with some surprisingly sophisticated operators involved.

A significant difference with ISIS/IS, however, is that rather than other people claiming that they are committing massacres, beheadings, etc, with them denying it, is that it is quite often THEM claiming that they are doing this, indeed, they may actually be exaggerating their own barbarities. The reason for this seems to be a definite terror tactic to spread fear before they arrive, rather in the style of Ghengis Khan or Tamburlaine.

Meanwhile, for anyone who wants to be even MORE depressed about the Middle East :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-28691901

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity"

In reply to seankenny:

I am trying to be selectively sceptical. But I'm very wary of any drum beat for war, sudden playing to emotions, with stories of impending doom and a rush to "send in our boys". While the mainstream media might not always be patsies, they can easily get carried along in the rush to sell a story.

As for Israel, embarrassing questions, resignations and seemingly public opinion is giving our government's inaction a roasting. I don't believe it at all surprising that they would seize on the emergency situation in Northern Iraq to change the focus. I wouldn't say they are solely acting to change the narrative, but I'm pretty certain the grand announcements of airdrops have this in mind. That we have delivered three or four C-130 loads of pallets of water to 30,000 people hardly seems like the major action it is being made out to be.

In reply to Simon4:

Agreed, ISIS do seem to be advertising their deeds for this purpose. But its not altogether new. This kind of thing was going on during the darkest days of post invasion Iraq. Then though, we were being fed a far rosier story of victory being just around the corner, schools being opened and hearts and minds being won.

It feels as though then, the story was presented in just the right way to make our actions looks proper and successful, with the story told now in a different way to similarly justify our actions and a refocussing of media attention.

Sceptical of Tunbridge Wells

In reply to David Martin:


Agreed. There are calmer areas of the media, though, and ones with good analysis.



Bear in mind that it's August - the slow news period. Bear in mind that it's dramatic, aid drops are more photo- and telegenic than regular aid work - and rarer- so get more media coverage, particularly on the TV. Bear in mind that the actual situation is both dramatic (people stuck on top of a mountain, that's a story we all want to hear more of) and actually important: what's happened in Iraq is undoubtedly a big deal. It's not every day that a govt loses a third of its territory in a week. The fact that the govt doing the losing was supported by us, and probably our money, makes reporting on it doubly important, as we need to know if our politicians and officials weren't doing their job properly (this is part of the media's job description, or should be). Even if Gaza hadn't just happened, Iraq would be getting shed loads of coverage and I'm fairly sure the govt would be doing some kind of humanitarian effort.

In reply to David Martin:


We were? I remember plenty of stories on how violent post-Saddam Iraq was, pretty much from the start. Certainly by 2004 the media were spending more time on reporting the car bombing of Shia shrines than they ever were new schools in Basra.



This is totally different to how I remember it. There were critical discussions on the Iraq war right from the start, as it took place, and afterwards. Whilst the initial days of Saddam's fall were presented as a good thing, from very early on there was a steady news of violence, sectarianism, corruption and failure.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I wish you'd have the balls to actually say that to the faces of the Red Cross doctors and medical aid workers in Gaza, operating night and day on injured civilians - right now, as you wrote those words and as I write these. Hopefully they'd tell you to f*** right off because I can't think of anything else worth saying after that statement.

In reply to David Martin:

I was watching an ISIS Eid celebration video the other night - a Finnish friend who studies these things had picked up on it because there is a Finnish-Somali guy in the video talking in Finnish, along with a number of Brits, a Belgian, a Trinidadian-American etc etc, all telling their "brothers and sisters" to make a pilgrimage to the wonderful Islamic State and join them. It was freaky because it was obviously made on a decent dSLR and using some Mac editing programme, and hence looked rather like one of the better made bouldering videos we see feature here; and secondly because there were no women beside per-pubescent girls. Those guys are clearly not ever planning on coming back so it seems rather death or glory (or more for them death AND glory) but they are still talking to people in the West. When al-Zarqawi was putting beheading videos on the internet in 2005-6 it seemed that they were mainly aimed at Iraqi audiences, or perhaps elsewhere in the region. ISIS put videos of them shooting people on Twitter, but they still seem to be trying to get people to go from Europe, N America and elsewhere around the world to go and join them.

In reply to seankenny:

Another book to read, "The Prince of the Marshes: And Other Occupational Hazards of a Year in Iraq" by Rory Stewart. He later became a MP for somewhere in the Lake District. It gives an inside view of what a total cock up the occupation of Iraq was.

In reply to TobyA:

You know I will never meet them but I don't think they would find it hard to hear, they must think it much of the time themselves. The fact is that people who are or have been active in trying to change things don't react like you and Sean, they know the difficulties involved and accept quite calmly that each person participates as they can and wish to do when they can. They don't give lessons to people, they leave that to people in their ivory towers, quick to judge.

As someone said earlier on, "first you bomb us then you send doctors to patch us up until the next time." The problem in Palestine is the existence of Israel, no Western ONG will ever do anything to do anything about that, giving money may give those who need it a good conscience but in this they are worse than neutral as it prevents people from facing up to the fundamental injustice... and trying to do something about it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I've tried to come up with a couple of sensible replies to your comments but I really can't. You're making some vile comments, and that's all there is to it.

I've done about a dozen visits with work to the field over the last decade and have met plenty of aid workers. I've met water engineers who took time out of well paying private sector jobs to dig wells for refugee camps in Chad - the worst sort of parasite. Afghan women trying to educate villagers on how to give birth more safely - the worst sort of parasite. Teams in Pakistan coping with a sudden rush of tens of thousands of desperate people fleeing flooding - the worst sort of parasite.

In reply to seankenny:

But long term does it help countries come to terms with their own problems? Most of Africa has been independent for over half a century, are things getting any better? Does propping up corrupt incompetent governments actually do any good long term. Some help may help but overall what progress has there been? Compared to the harm done to Saharan Africa by the enormous and uncontrolled distribution of arms to bring down Ghaddafi the net positive influence is well in the negative.

In Palestine the answer is even simpler, absolutely none.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yes, of course they are. Plenty of stats to prove it, know you don't like them but they're out there. Has aid helped? Depends who you ask.

>Does propping up corrupt incompetent governments actually do any good long term. Some help may help but overall what progress has there been? Compared to the harm done to Saharan Africa by the enormous and uncontrolled distribution of arms to bring down Ghaddafi the net positive influence is well in the negative.

So aid agencies are handing out arms are they? Really?



So the aid workers providing medical care are doing nothing? No good whatsoever? Or are they just "vile parasites"?

In reply to seankenny:


Governments and various agencies were involved.


Are they living like local people? Are they driving about in white 4x4s? How do they get in and out of Palestine? How many weapons could Hamas buy with the cost of their air-fares?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



good grief Bruce, has your account been hacked by Richard Littejohn?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


No, who's he?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


So which aid agencies handed out weapons? Please be specific.


By this logic, a gambling counsellor would have to spend all day in a betting shop, and a doctor specialising in alcoholism in the pub. As for the rest of the post, you have sort of gone off on a riff that seems only vaguely tethered to reality...

In reply to andyathome:
Head of Gazas bomb disposal killed defusing a 500kg missile

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/head-gaza-bomb-sq...

This statistic is pretty chilling
"He estimated that between eighteen to twenty thousand tons of explosives were dropped on Gaza from airstrikes, artillery, tanks and naval bombardments since 7 July. He estimated that there are more than one thousand tons of unexploded Israeli ordnance strewn across Gaza, posing a dangerous risk for civilians as well as bomb disposal experts like Abu Murad and his team."

Proportionate response? 18-20,000 tonnes? Even a quarter of that into a densely populated area. FFS?

In reply to TobyA:

Could it be that ISIS goal is to try and drag us back in to the Iraq conflict, more so than actually achieving any long term territorial gain?

Interestingly, the news reports today are that the Yazidi "humanitarian disaster" appears to have been far overblown. Fewer found on the mountain and those that were in better condition than reported.

In reply to seankenny:

To give Bruce some credit here, I've seen enormous wastefulness in the NGO/development sector, with a culture of "jobs for the boys" that ultimately achieve very little other than giving graduates a chance to have a jolly in third world countries and beef up their facebook profiles. Overall that probably isn't the case, and clearly those at the sharp end (medical staff, and those labouring in the filth of the front-line) are certainly making a positive contribution. But there is undeniably a rump of cushy jobs, paying Western salaries achieving little to nothing.

In reply to David Martin:

Still, better do a few more sweeps of the area with those Tornados just to be sure eh?

In reply to David Martin:


As you imply, there is an obvious distinction to be made between the emergency activities of NGOs in war and disaster zones like Gaza and the ongoing institutionalised and often unproductive activities in poor countries. It is simply dishonest to ignore this.

In reply to woolsack:


You of course have detailed knowledge of the local situation: how many refugees there were, how many there are, where they went, how and why. Please let us know.

In reply to woolsack:


Which shows the dishonesty of Israel and their supporters who compare the number of "Hamas rockets" and "Israeli targets". The term used avoids saying precisely the numbers of shells, missiles or bombs sent towards Gaza nor their weight and destructive power which is, as your figures show, tremendously higher on the Israeli side.

Add to this the nature of the ground reached - densely populated areas for Israeli ordnance, largely deserted areas for the "Hamas rockets" which actually penetrate the Iron dome system and the disproportionate nature of the affair is flagrant. Anyway we know that from the death figures.

In reply to seankenny:


So you deny that there are NGOs which act as CIA fronts, partially or wholly?

It's nothing new though, the "Peace Core" has been doing it for decades - never saw the film "Sangre de cóndor"... if you haven't take a look on wiki.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well, being secret, it's not something I could know about, but having worked for plenty of aid agencies, I can assure you that they are not CIA fronts. Unless the CIA has some kind of strange appeal to the Birkenstock wearers of this world.


Ah, so your evidence is a 1969 art house film? With all due respect Bruce, I think you need to get out a little more.

In reply to woolsack:





Wooly
I think you'll find that's a dud iranian M302 missile. No doubt recycling the explosives to kill israelies in an IED would have been handy.
Quoting electronic intefada as an information source? Oh dear Wooly,this jew fetish you have, its getting worse.

In reply to David Martin:



Davd, I'm not sure what your experience of NGO work is, although I've never worked full-time in the field for an aid agency I have been sent off to work with numerous programmes in Asia and Africa, and I don't really recognise your take on it. Most of the time - in my experience - the vast majority of the staff are locals from that country, and certainly not earning western salaries. One or two are foreign, often but not necessarily Western (eg Indian, Nigerian, etc). The Western staff tend to be extremely highly educated and often mid-career professionals. For example one of my colleagues in the field had a masters in law, had worked in a law firm, then as a foreign policy advisor to a UK political party, and then for the NGO. That sort of career path was not uncommon.

Whilst there may have been a jobs for the boys culture with a lot of cushty jobs at one time, I don't think the sector is quite like that now. It's hard for young people to enter and is very competitive, and there aren't that many overseas jobs these days. Most jobs that are around tend to be in tougher environments, rather than "nice" postings like Nairobi, Delhi, etc.

In reply to Postmanpat:


This is the line usually found in the sort of papers I imagine you read In reality, of course, it is hard to distinguish between an emergency response and broader development work - one often slides into the other.

I'm not sure the average "development" project is institutionalised - projects tend to be of relatively short duration, a year, two years, and fairly carefully monitored. Of course you can argue the efficiacy of this, and there's plenty of evidence that social programmes (whether run here or abroad) are extremely difficult to measure and assess.

As for dishonesty, a huge number of aid organisations in the UK (which is regarded as a leader in this field) use independent assessments and the reports are publicly available. So you can see stuff that worked, and stuff that didn't. There's also a large and active group of academics - some of whom work in NGOs rather than universities - who examine the question of what aid works and why. The idea that NGOs simply plug away, throwing money at problems but not getting anywhere, is very out-of-date. There's plenty of new ideas being tried, for example giving out cash directly, and assessed pretty rigorously.

In reply to seankenny:

Yes, the Grauniad is beginning to get it It was a convenient and simplistic way to distinguish between medics and emergency aid workers in Gaza today and the traditional long term development aid of dubious efficacy. Quite probably even in war zones one can morph into the other.


Yes.


That's not what I was getting at all. You are being a little oversensitive! I'm well aware of the bureaucracy and cost associated with getting approval for, assessing and monitoring traditional aid projects.

My point was simply that Bruce was telling fibs by conflating emergency workers in Gaza with gup yeeer students et al getting suntans in Kenya.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well, you say it's dubious as if it's axiomatic, I'm just saying it's not.




Oh not really, it's a fairly common trope and one that I feel is inaccurate and unthinking. Nuance is much more interesting

Out of interest, what's your involvment in traditional aid projects?




Agreed. And of course the whole gap year thing isn't providing aid, it's about creating fancy holidays acceptable to parents who want a get-out-of-jail card to spoil their kids.

In reply to seankenny:


Well, it's axiomatic that it's dubious, which is not to say that many of them may be efficacious.


Well, yes, but it wasn't what I was saying !

I am actually helping a friend establish a "non traditional" project. He spent ten years or so as a senior admin guy at Oxfam. He described his role as, amongst other things "trying to end my job"
ie. trying to reduce overhead costs. Through him, reading around, and our project I've learnt a bit about the aid industry but wouldn't make any claim to be an expert.


Tell me about it…..

In reply to Postmanpat:


If many of them work, then why is their dubiousness a given? "All aid work is dubious" sounds like a proposition you should have to argue, rather than something that's a given.


Hmm, not quite sure what you were getting at here then, no matter.




Was the "non-traditional" programme successful? (I'm leaving it open to you to define success! )



At least an all-expenses paid booze-up in Thailand has the virtue of honesty, or in fact the virtue of no virtue.

In reply to seankenny:
I've interviewed and studied a number of NGOs in SEA, specifically Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand, and have spent a fair bit of time around their activities. While my focus was specifically an area of post conflict development specific to there and Africa/Central Asia/NME, my interest was a fair bit wider than that. I'm also still in contact with a number of fellow students from my Development Studies MSc course so get some insight in to other development agencies, be that UNV/DP, WHO, ILO, Red Cross, and in roles ranging from regional directors to volunteers.

In terms of education, yes they are highly educated on paper. Many with PhDs and considerable external experience. However, even though being at masters level, I don't think a Development Studies degree is particularly taxing nor do I think the skills learned are hugely practical to work outside of the sector. That is to say, my fellow graduates would probably be hard placed to display skills necessary to stand them apart in more technical areas of work. Its all very much soft skills focused and slightly wishy-washy. Added to that, I've seen a number go through to positions simply because relatives or family also holding positions in the organization, while being clearly deficient in skills themselves. Nepotism, despite the competition, seems rife - but maybe more so in non-Western offices.

There is certainly a push to use more indigenous staff in NGOs and this is something I applaud. However, in the areas I've been this has been a long time coming and seemingly actively resisted. Worse, the top-down and Western managerial focus, particularly (but not exclusively) from ex-military types, has not only cost huge sums, but has severely delayed aid delivery and directly negatively impacted livelihoods - to the point of possibly contributing to more death and injury than had there been no aid program at all! This has been evident for decades yet change was and is till actively resisted. It seems once getting a nice position and perks in a foreign office many are loath to give it up, even if the outward need for their role no longer exists. Altruism, which should surely be the primary calling in this line of work, isn't always evident.

On a more basic level, I've always found the sight of land-cruisers, expensive meals, junkets, costly trips to overseas conferences, not to mention social events that take place in the NGO community, all under the noses of the people they are supposedly there to help a little grating. In terms of bang for buck, it is pretty clear a substantial number of workers are living the high life, and in a way disturbingly reminiscent of colonial administrators of old. One of the organisations I studied very closely has just had its chief exec and founder very publicly outed for excesses that certainly came as no surprise.

In reply to seankenny:



Having watched this first hand however I do wonder if it simply contributes to perpetuating an aid 'industry'. Academics studying projects, people instituting projects, academics studying these projects. Outwardly that's all well and good. But when a team of 5-10 goes out to Laos to evaluate the evaluation of a UNDP programme for a month, each calling in a consultancy day rate of $500, and then produce a publication of vaguely worded platitudes and criticisms, how much is gained?

I've pretty much come full circle and believe we would be better off dropping $50 in to a bank account for every man, woman and child, in most of these areas and letting them spend as they wish. Instead we set up a huge bureaucratic apparatus that seems to do little more than keep ourselves in paid employment.

In reply to David Martin:


I can't comment on the academic difficuly of a Development Studies degree or masters, not having got one, but I think it's a bit silly to say they don't have technical skills - that's not what they are for, surely? There are plenty of technical experts who can't for the life of them grasp the "wishy washy soft skills" stuff...

As for your point about nepotism, I've never seen that in any organisation I've worked for, certainly not in the UK, but I couldn't speak for non-Western offices, which I've just not spent enough time in. Most times when there was a deficiency of skills or capacity - which certainly does happen - it came not because of nepotism, but simply because there's a huge discrepancy between the levels of organsiational skills in a western organisation as compared to a developing nation. Fundamentally, we've had generations more of using and fine-tuning the skills and mindset required to run large institutions.



Again, I'll be clear: most of the offices I've worked in abroad have been roughly 95%+ local staff, with just one or two foreigners. I've worked mostly in the humanitarian side so delivery tends to be fairly quick and efficient, but if you've examples of which programmes have actually killed more people than not doing anything, I'd be genuinely interested in hearing about them. Presumably this kind of thing would have been picked up, either by the media or in assessements...?

I'm guessing from this and other comments that you've studied the de-mining type organisations, where obviously there'll be more ex-miliarty staff. I've never worked in or for these organisations, and there may be a very different culture between those and the more typical development type of NGOs.



So you're talking about Guy Willoughby and the HALO Trust? I agree, paying for his kids to go to expensive private schools is disgusting.

As for the NGO high-life, I'm afraid I haven't seen much of it (but then I've never worked for the UN!). I've never eaten at fancy restaurants (absolutely no alcohol allowed on my expenses claims, quite rightly), never been on any junkets or been to fancy social events.

Please do send me a private message full of hints on how to milk the system better

As for the whole "four wheel drive" criticism, I once remember bouncing around an un-made road in a very rural part of Afghanistan, in a 4x4 of course. We overtook a regular car - a Toyota Corolla of course - which was crawling along, struggling with the gradients and gravel. Had I been in that car it would have taken me days to get around and do my job - and I'm not sure that would have been a particularly good use of my time.

In reply to David Martin:


Well the alternative is not doing the projects, or not studying them. Of course we could just not do that work (which is what PMP seems to be suggesting should be a default position), but since they're being done it would make more sense to study them.

I thought about your UNDP assessment example. Let's say you have a team of five on the salary you suggest, and take Laos as your example, which has a UNDP budget of $70m annually. That would put the cost of this bit of your evaluation programme at 0.07% of the budget... Of course one can question the use of doing these reports - and I've seen a few duff NGO reports in my time - but at least doing them gives transparency for organisations, decision-makers and the public.




Well, that of course has been done - and even "just giving cash" requires some bureaucratic apparatus (witness social services in developed countries). There is very good evidence - probably produced by some pesky overpaid consultant - that this approach works and aid agencies are starting to do a lot of it. But it only works for some kinds of project. Giving everyone a bunch of cash doesn't help when the key thing you need to change are people's perceptions, or to support women trying to enter local politics, or similar.

In reply to seankenny:

Believe it or not, I think we see eye-to-eye on this. I'm just coming from a more jaundiced angle than you, no doubt based on divergent experiences.

The example of killing more people than they saved is a real potential result of the mine clearance programme. Specifically, the vast majority of mine clearance in SEA has, is still, and will remain carried out by villagers. Returnee populations clear their own land, using hand tools. They do so without any support, and often outright hostility, from the humanitarian mine action sector. This is despite as far back as the early 1990s it being identified that they were key players in any wide-scale clearance and that, to paraphrase a Canadian ex-officer at the time, "they are the unsung heroes, who if provided with basic mine clearance safety kit" could achieve many times more than all the clearance agencies have achieved in a fraction of the time and cost.

So, we have actively denied funding and support and have slowed the release of land for economic and subsistence use of destitute populations. The end result is lethal weapons exist in higher quantities, over wider areas than they would otherwise. Hundreds of million have instead been spent making what amounts to token clearance in the grand scheme of things. Meanwhile the thousands of civilians attempting (needing) to remove UXO have been put at greater risk while those in need of land have suffered without livelihood for longer.

I don't see this as isolated. Rather it probably typifies a number of short-sighted, ill-conceived, and Western dominated aid programmes. And it didn't take consultants on $500/day salaries in a $1/day country to figure it out. A small number of researchers for volunteer organisations and think-tanks have long highlighted the issue, locals have said it themselves, and even some enlightened ex-military sorts as well. Yet many appear to have been on the gravy train, living the life, with a plumb Southeast Asian posting and Princess Di on hand to salve the conscience. The Whilloughby situation just shows how high up the system it goes.

I can understand that while in-country, the creature comforts of home might be necessary. But I've seen a lot who, possibly the result of people lowly students prior to appointment, suddenly find themselves at the other end of the pecking order once employed. Maybe they went in with a desire to "be one with the natives" but once the reality of life in a 3rd world country dawns and the trappings of relative wealth appeared, they just couldn't resist. While I can understand idealism might decay, there are in my mind basic standards that should be maintained and levels of opulence or flashyness that should be resisted.

Regarding the UNDP assessments, yes, it makes complete sense that evaluation and monitoring takes place and in the context of an entire programme budget the costs are relatively low. But it is incredibly sad that the culture of the big spend and big salaries is entirely normalised, and will always be shocking when seen in context of the impact such huge sums of money could have on individual lives. The amount in country aid programme officers might spend on comfort demands could be the difference between life and death for people they are supposed to be helping.

A lot of this is obviously unavoidable. But I'm really not at all convinced many of our aid programmes are providing a remotely efficient service...certainly not in comparison to remittances and similarly less flashy acts of support.

In reply to David Martin:

Re the evacuation.. I thought that's because others stepped in, Kurdistan took many, but they now need US weaponry to fight..

The thing is the US now seem to be realizing that Asaad may be needed to fight ISIS in Syria... That's going to be a fair 180 degree turn...

ISIS have made it pretty easy to get the US involved...

In reply to IainRUK:
That is the way its starting to look - the reports this afternoon where of the Peshmerga having played a key role and generally everyone managing to square themselves away/escape without much need for our involvement. I'm still slightly sceptical of how this is being spun though.

When it comes to drone strikes and a good old heavy handed US response, ISIS does seem a justifiable target. With some luck the US has taken on board how counter-product their explosive efforts can be in winning hearts and minds and exercises some caution all the same.

Syria is truly awkward. But probably not beyond the realms of this more liberal US leadership (and a more open approach to Iran) to strike a grand bargain with Assad - we'll help get rid of ISIS but you either have to go in to exile or pull your socks up dramatically. Returning back to the original OP, the US, UK and the West in general would have a hell of a lot more legitimacy and ease in making this happen if they had given Netanyahu a good spanking however.