Israel / Gaza

I've just watched Sayeeda Warsi's interview on Channel4 news, recorded after her resignation today. The whole segment was very good - they interspersed Osbourne's counter-point and news of the ceasefire into the interview, giving something approaching balanced coverage. First off, much respect to Warsi for speaking out. I've already seen some cynical comments about this not being a matter of conscience, merely a consequence of the massive pressure of the Islamic community she comes from. I'm sure her heritage informs her opinions, but she came across well in the interview and genuinely seemed as if she was speaking out based on her personal feelings.

Warsi was never great on-message. She was belligerent, spoke over people and still drops the ol' Yorkshire depth charge every now and then

She did well here, pointing out the obvious futility of spending UK taxpayer cash on patching up people injured by British arms, or the fact that our government could not bring itself to say that Israel's actions were disproportionate. It's a brave move, sincerely expressed and more significant than some of the cynics might think. The Conservatives elevated her to a ministerial position to court votes, a reasonable long term strategy given the amount of conservative Muslims out there. Those votes will be keeping a close eye on what both she and the Tories do next.

Today, she has got a lot of cross-party respect. The Channel 4 news coverage has also been excellent.

Little bit here:-

http://www.channel4.com/news/why-i-quit-over-gaza-exclusive-video-with-sayeeda-warsi

I've just watched Sayeeda Warsi's interview on Channel4 news, recorded after her resignation today. The whole segment was very good - they interspersed Osbourne's counter-point and news of the ceasefire into the interview, giving something approaching balanced coverage. First off, much respect to Warsi for speaking out. I've already seen some cynical comments about this not being a matter of conscience, merely a consequence of the massive pressure of the Islamic community she comes from. I'm sure her heritage informs her opinions, but she came across well in the interview and genuinely seemed as if she was speaking out based on her personal feelings.

 

Warsi was never great on-message. She was belligerent, spoke over people and still drops the ol' Yorkshire depth charge every now and then

 

She did well here, pointing out the obvious futility of spending UK taxpayer cash on patching up people injured by British arms, or the fact that our government could not bring itself to say that Israel's actions were disproportionate. It's a brave move, sincerely expressed and more significant than some of the cynics might think. The Conservatives elevated her to a ministerial position to court votes, a reasonable long term strategy given the amount of conservative Muslims out there. Those votes will be keeping a close eye on what both she and the Tories do next.

 

Today, she has got a lot of cross-party respect. The Channel 4 news coverage has also been excellent.

 

Little bit here:-

http://www.channel4.com/news/why-i-quit-over-gaza-exclusive-video-with-sayeeda-warsi

Will policy on Israel/Gaza really affect the way anyone votes in this country in significant numbers?

of course it wont

millions upon millions were actively demonstrating against war lord blair in 2003.

he won the next general election

Will policy on Israel/Gaza really affect the way anyone votes in this country in significant numbers?

Interesting question. You might want to consider Warsi herself in your answer. There have been articles today claiming that this is an example of tokenism gone wrong.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/05/lady-warsi-resignation-cameron-gaza

Warsi is unelected, and was given a peerage so she could be part of the Cabinet. That in itself suggests a certain lack of confidence in getting her into cabinet through proper channels, perhaps an indication of the difference in the will of the leadership and potential Conservative voters.

Addressing your question directly, let's start with the obvious. The largest amount of sympathy for Gazans is going to come from the Islamic community, two million strong in this country. This article includes a claim that the naturally Conservative Muslim vote could be harnessed in 77 marginals, half of all seats that matter.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100239760/the-tories-are-failing-to-connect-with-muslim-voters-this-is-not-good-enough/

I think the issue about Muslims and their votes is a tricky one. The Muslims population (representing under 5% of the UK population) is, itself, massively fragmented. A little bit of research revealed that the largest number of Muslims by ethnic group is Black, followed by...... wait for it..... White people.

Yes, the 2nd largest group of Muslims in the UK by ethnicity are white people. Then you have Asians and then mixed-race.

Within each grouping, people come from all over the place. Many of the white Muslims appear to be from Albania and Bosnia and many of the Black Muslims are from Somalia. Than, there are Turks, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and so and so on. This is not what you'd call a homogeneous group speaking with one voice who can be courted as a mass. So, on balance, I suspect the Gaza situation will definitely garner a lot of sympathy among Muslims in the UK but suspect the responses will be as nuanced as the Muslim population is fragmented.

Now mildly amusing as post 73 certainly is, those who have read it may well have come to the conclusion that Pap's lack of any real historical knowledge or understanding places him at a severe disadvantage when discussing historical subjects - indeed its brave of him to even take on this type of challenge with such a grave shortage of factual ammunition at his disposal. I don't claim to be a expert - far from it - but some of us on here have read more that one history book in our life's ... oh and by the way 44% is a veritable 'landslide' in most multi party systems and war was inevitable regardless of Danzig's fate.

I am reminded of the old saying that a little learning is a dangerous thing. That 'little learning' is exposed yet again with stunning clarity here:

"Condemn the deaths of the three Israel soldiers right now, or you're an anti-semite!"

I'm don't know you well enough to say whether you are truly anti-Semitic in nature or just someone so immersed in dull leftist anti-US/anti-Israel dogma that that your powers of independent thought have become restricted. Be that as it may, the older lad involved in this key incident being 19 may (or he may not) have been conscripted into the Israeli military I suppose. In any case the other two were I understand still just 16 years old at the time of their (horrific) deaths and therefore presumably not members of the IDF as you claim above. Or if that is not right then prove it.

The broader point I want to make is that all the Jewish and Palestinian deaths this terribly complex and intractable situation generates should be a matter of profound regret to all right thinking people. I suspect that most forum members reading this would agree with that. How depressing it is however when one person among us has obviously become so very obsessive in his pathological need to dominate and 'win' every argument on here that he can't even bring himself to condemn the murder of children anymore - lest he be seen to be conceding some sort of 'point'.

Worse still he's dragging me down to his level again.

Interesting question. You might want to consider Warsi herself in your answer. There have been articles today claiming that this is an example of tokenism gone wrong.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/05/lady-warsi-resignation-cameron-gaza

 

Warsi is unelected, and was given a peerage so she could be part of the Cabinet. That in itself suggests a certain lack of confidence in getting her into cabinet through proper channels, perhaps an indication of the difference in the will of the leadership and potential Conservative voters.

 

Addressing your question directly, let's start with the obvious. The largest amount of sympathy for Gazans is going to come from the Islamic community, two million strong in this country. This article includes a claim that the naturally Conservative Muslim vote could be harnessed in 77 marginals, half of all seats that matter.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100239760/the-tories-are-failing-to-connect-with-muslim-voters-this-is-not-good-enough/

Now mildly amusing as post 73 certainly is, those who have read it may well have come to the conclusion that Pap's lack of any real historical knowledge or understanding places him at a severe disadvantage when discussing historical subjects - indeed its brave of him to even take on this type of challenge with such a grave shortage of factual ammunition at his disposal. I don't claim to be a expert - far from it - but some of us on here have read more that one history book in our life's ... oh and by the way 44% is a veritable 'landslide' in most multi party systems and war was inevitable regardless of Danzig's fate.

 

I am reminded of the old saying that a little learning is a dangerous thing. That 'little learning' is exposed yet again with stunning clarity here:

 

I'm don't know you well enough to say whether you are truly anti-Semitic in nature or just someone so immersed in dull leftist anti-US/anti-Israel dogma that that your powers of independent thought have become restricted. Be that as it may, the older lad involved in this key incident being 19 may (or he may not) have been conscripted into the Israeli military I suppose. In any case the other two were I understand still just 16 years old at the time of their (horrific) deaths and therefore presumably not members of the IDF as you claim above. Or if that is not right then prove it.

 

The broader point I want to make is that all the Jewish and Palestinian deaths this terribly complex and intractable situation generates should be a matter of profound regret to all right thinking people. I suspect that most forum members reading this would agree with that. How depressing it is however when one person among us has obviously become so very obsessive in his pathological need to dominate and 'win' every argument on here that he can't even bring himself to condemn the murder of children anymore - lest he be seen to be conceding some sort of 'point'.

 

Worse still he's dragging me down to his level again.

Out of respect for Minty, and specifically his prior frustration, I'm going to dispense with my usual eye for an eye approach in the face of hostility and aim for something approaching civility.

I'd suggest that you get your facts in order, or provide some kind of context. It is of course your right to question my historical knowledge, particularly when I've impugned yours. There is, however, a difference in the way we've gone about things. Exhaustive as it may have been, I responded to your previous posts point by point, leaving nothing out and providing examples of where your better comparison of Northern Ireland so obviously evaporated. I lived there for three years, under the roof of a local politician, in touch with people from both sides of the community. My landlady's theory about why GFA is working is perhaps simplest of all. People like prosperity, and the stability arising from the Good Friday Agreement has brought prosperity about.

You won't concede that over half the turnout rejected Hamas, and you probably won't acknowledge the high proportion of young Gazans that have never got to cross a box. Of course 44% is a veritable landslide to our understanding, but we do not live under the same conditions that Palestinians have to, and despite that, Hamas cannot command a majority mandate.

I'd like, if I may, to address the question of anti-semitism, once and for all. You've brought the question up in two separate posts. I can say unequivocably, with one exception, that I've never wished a single person harm since I hit the legal age of adulthood. I didn't necessarily solve my problems in the best of ways before then, but council estate innit. A clash of two worlds. If I were this raving anti-semite that you suggest, but won't outright say, do you think I would be linking statements from former executive director of the Jewish American Congress? It's a lazy charge, which doesn't stick, and is becoming increasingly diluted through widespread "cry wolf" declarations from the likes of Netanyahu. Personal reasons for the exception, and the lad's not Jewish.

The catalyst for these events is disputed, but for the record - I'll happily condemn the deaths of any non-combatants. I just refused to be baited by your baseless accusations at the time they were made, and that doesn't excuse the disproportionate outrages by Israeli state forces in Gaza.

The other rationale for the incursions, the much amplified rocket attacks, have been effectively neutralised since Iron Dome came in.

Bringing this back to where we started, I'm not going to insult you any further, but neither will I let you characterise these events as a straight up contest. It isn't. In terms of capacity to do harm, actual harm caused, equality in fighting forces, equality in casualties, access to diplomatic or legal representation, effective representation in the world's relevant ruling bodies. Israel is backed militarily and politically on every front. Every effort to aid Palestine is blocked, normally by the US, but sometimes by us. We abstained on the most recent vote.

So for all your accusations of dragging your estimable self down(?!) to your level, I'm going to take the high ground in this post and let you get off scot free with the insults.

I'm a patient man, and history is written by the victors, after all *

* [damn, pap, damn!]

But I have already pointed (at least twice) that Hamas is no match militarily for the IDF and this is bound to lead to a extremely disproportionate casualty rate when the two go to war - as we have seen been recently alas. I have no idea why you feel the need to labour this point when it is both obvious and accepted.

I say Israel has a right to defend itself, but I'm sure everyone on here would rather the IDF showed a greater degree of concern for Palestinian civilian casualties when is conducting its military operations in the Gaza Strip. But ask any soldier and he will tell you that even with all the benefits of modern intel and targeting technology the practical difficulties of doing that are formidable during intense combat operations. These practical problems should not be underestimated by those who - like you and me - fight their battles from the safety of a armchair.

It is not deniable that Hamas launches its rocket attacks on Israel from civilian areas. TV pictures also prove that the 30+ tunnels the IDF has recently destroyed are also intermingled with residential districts - indeed for all practical purposes there is no 'front line' in this war and the entire Gaza Strip is in effect one large densely populated war zone. All that indicates that civilians casualties are inevitable I'm afraid. A miserable truth, but a undeniable one.

If the objection to Israeli policy is that their overwhelming military superiority makes the conflict 'unfair' then the obvious reply to that is to question when exactly was war ever supposed to be 'fair' in the first place? The age of chivalry is long gone (it was largely mythical anyway) and the fundamental error you make young man is that you just can't see that war is not a game run to the rules of 'may the best team win'. The brutal truth is that if you attack Israel this state will defend itself vigorously. That is how Israel fights its wars, and that is why it 'wins' so many of them.

As the IDF withdraws from the Gaza I suppose it has succeed in achieving the limited mission it was given - to destroy the infiltration tunnels and reduce (for now) the threat to Israel's border areas from Hamas rocket attracts. But Hamas will soon be back and this is just another battle in a long war - a war that has no end in sight. The longer term solution to the problem will therefore doubtless be a political one. The sooner that happens the better I say.

My objections cover more than military might. During the course of this thread, we have discussed all kinds of inequality, from military capability to human rights. Israel has a right to defend itself, but cannot claim that every action it takes is purely defensive. For that reason, I've absolutely no problem with the likes of Iron Dome, which is wholly defensive.

I do have a problem with the IDF rolling into Gaza, reportedly because the Hamas leadership were supposed to have killed three teenagers, a story that the Israeli's won't even stand behind anymore. The latest is that it was a "lone cell", operating outside the command structure. As I said in my earlier post, I'll condemn anyone who murders non-combatants - but Hamas did not order those deaths. The initial stated reason for rolling in doesn't exist.

I accept that the tunnels are a huge problem for the Israelis. I was reading a Jane's article about the efficacy of those tunnels and the way they change conditions. There are no fronts. It's a "360 degree" battlefield; this incursion into Gaza has been a costly one for the IDF in terms of casualties.

http://www.janes.com/article/41421/palestinian-militants-inflict-substantial-casualties-on-israeli-forces-in-gaza

On the need for a political solution, we're agreed - but it'll never happen unless Israel can be brought to the table. Israel's voters certainly don't seem keen. The Moshe Feiglin character that had Nazi-like plans, and Verbal referred to as a fascist was the fourth most popular politician in Likud in 2009; fair to say his views enjoy significant support.

In my view, the US needs to rescind the get-out-of-international-law-free card it has handed to the Israelis. As you've said, it's a hugely complex situation - who needs another variable? Oddly enough, there are hardline Israelis calling for exactly the same thing, but for different reasons. They want to be able to prosecute their affairs without "asking permission", something that may very well happen if they get their wish.

Now mildly amusing as post 73 certainly is, those who have read it may well have come to the conclusion that Pap's lack of any real historical knowledge or understanding places him at a severe disadvantage when discussing historical subjects - indeed its brave of him to even take on this type of challenge with such a grave shortage of factual ammunition at his disposal. I don't claim to be a expert - far from it - but some of us on here have read more that one history book in our life's ... oh and by the way 44% is a veritable 'landslide' in most multi party systems and war was inevitable regardless of Danzig's fate.

 

I am reminded of the old saying that a little learning is a dangerous thing. That 'little learning' is exposed yet again with stunning clarity here:

 

 

 

I'm don't know you well enough to say whether you are truly anti-Semitic in nature or just someone so immersed in dull leftist anti-US/anti-Israel dogma that that your powers of independent thought have become restricted. Be that as it may, the older lad involved in this key incident being 19 may (or he may not) have been conscripted into the Israeli military I suppose. In any case the other two were I understand still just 16 years old at the time of their (horrific) deaths and therefore presumably not members of the IDF as you claim above. Or if that is not right then prove it.

 

The broader point I want to make is that all the Jewish and Palestinian deaths this terribly complex and intractable situation generates should be a matter of profound regret to all right thinking people. I suspect that most forum members reading this would agree with that. How depressing it is however when one person among us has obviously become so very obsessive in his pathological need to dominate and 'win' every argument on here that he can't even bring himself to condemn the murder of children anymore - lest he be seen to be conceding some sort of 'point'.

 

Worse still he's dragging me down to his level again.

What a great post.

My objections cover more than military might. During the course of this thread, we have discussed all kinds of inequality, from military capability to human rights. Israel has a right to defend itself, but cannot claim that every action it takes is purely defensive. For that reason, I've absolutely no problem with the likes of Iron Dome, which is wholly defensive.

 

I do have a problem with the IDF rolling into Gaza, reportedly because the Hamas leadership were supposed to have killed three teenagers, a story that the Israeli's won't even stand behind anymore. The latest is that it was a "lone cell", operating outside the command structure. As I said in my earlier post, I'll condemn anyone who murders non-combatants - but Hamas did not order those deaths. The initial stated reason for rolling in doesn't exist.

 

I accept that the tunnels are a huge problem for the Israelis. I was reading a Jane's article about the efficacy of those tunnels and the way they change conditions. There are no fronts. It's a "360 degree" battlefield; this incursion into Gaza has been a costly one for the IDF in terms of casualties.

 

http://www.janes.com/article/41421/palestinian-militants-inflict-substantial-casualties-on-israeli-forces-in-gaza

 

On the need for a political solution, we're agreed - but it'll never happen unless Israel can be brought to the table. Israel's voters certainly don't seem keen. The Moshe Feiglin character that had Nazi-like plans, and Verbal referred to as a fascist was the fourth most popular politician in Likud in 2009; fair to say his views enjoy significant support.

 

In my view, the US needs to rescind the get-out-of-international-law-free card it has handed to the Israelis. As you've said, it's a hugely complex situation - who needs another variable? Oddly enough, there are hardline Israelis calling for exactly the same thing, but for different reasons. They want to be able to prosecute their affairs without "asking permission", something that may very well happen if they get their wish.

My gripe with Israel is not about the fact that the war is not fair, it's more to do with their treatment of the Palestinians on which the current war (massacre) is based. The people of Palestine have little to lose by going to war because Israel makes their lives are intolerable anyway. In my opinion Israel does it on purpose to provoke a war so they can bomb their infrastructure back a decade every time Palestine gets itself kind of sorted out. Because the last thing Israel wants is a peaceful functioning democratic society in Palestine - that is their biggest fear.

The below is a section of a piece from Doctors and scientists based in Gaza which is from one of the links Pap posted:

The blockade on Gaza has tightened further since last year and this has worsened the toll on Gaza’s population. In Gaza, people suffer from hunger, thirst, pollution, shortage of medicines, electricity, and any means to get an income, not only by being bombed and shelled. Power crisis, gasoline shortage, water and food scarcity, sewage outflow and ever decreasing resources are disasters caused directly and indirectly by the siege.

People in Gaza are resisting this aggression because they want a better and normal life and, even while crying in sorrow, pain, and terror, they reject a temporary truce that does not provide a real chance for a better future. A voice under the attacks in Gaza is that of Um Al Ramlawi who speaks for all in Gaza: “They are killing us all anyway—either a slow death by the siege, or a fast one by military attacks. We have nothing left to lose—we must fight for our rights, or die trying.”2

Gaza has been blockaded by sea and land since 2006. Any individual of Gaza, including fishermen venturing beyond 3 nautical miles of the coast of Gaza, face being shot by the Israeli Navy. No one from Gaza can leave from the only two checkpoints, Erez or Rafah, without special permission from the Israelis and the Egyptians, which is hard to come by for many, if not impossible. People in Gaza are unable to go abroad to study, work, visit families, or do business. Wounded and sick people cannot leave easily to get specialised treatment outside Gaza. Entries of food and medicines into Gaza have been restricted and many essential items for survival are prohibited.3 Before the present assault, medical stock items in Gaza were already at an all time low because of the blockade.3 They have run out now. Likewise, Gaza is unable to export its produce. Agriculture has been severely impaired by the imposition of a buffer zone, and agricultural products cannot be exported due to the blockade. 80% of Gaza’s population is dependent on food rations from the UN.

My gripe with Israel is not about the fact that the war is not fair, it's more to do with their treatment of the Palestinians on which the current war (massacre) is based. The people of Palestine have little to lose by going to war because Israel makes their lives are intolerable anyway. In my opinion Israel does it on purpose to provoke a war so they can bomb their infrastructure back a decade every time Palestine gets itself kind of sorted out. Because the last thing Israel wants is a peaceful functioning democratic society in Palestine - that is their biggest fear.

 

The below is a section of a piece from Doctors and scientists based in Gaza which is from one of the links Pap posted:

 

The blockade on Gaza has tightened further since last year and this has worsened the toll on Gaza’s population. In Gaza, people suffer from hunger, thirst, pollution, shortage of medicines, electricity, and any means to get an income, not only by being bombed and shelled. Power crisis, gasoline shortage, water and food scarcity, sewage outflow and ever decreasing resources are disasters caused directly and indirectly by the siege.

 

People in Gaza are resisting this aggression because they want a better and normal life and, even while crying in sorrow, pain, and terror, they reject a temporary truce that does not provide a real chance for a better future. A voice under the attacks in Gaza is that of Um Al Ramlawi who speaks for all in Gaza: “They are killing us all anyway—either a slow death by the siege, or a fast one by military attacks. We have nothing left to lose—we must fight for our rights, or die trying.”2

 

Gaza has been blockaded by sea and land since 2006. Any individual of Gaza, including fishermen venturing beyond 3 nautical miles of the coast of Gaza, face being shot by the Israeli Navy. No one from Gaza can leave from the only two checkpoints, Erez or Rafah, without special permission from the Israelis and the Egyptians, which is hard to come by for many, if not impossible. People in Gaza are unable to go abroad to study, work, visit families, or do business. Wounded and sick people cannot leave easily to get specialised treatment outside Gaza. Entries of food and medicines into Gaza have been restricted and many essential items for survival are prohibited.3 Before the present assault, medical stock items in Gaza were already at an all time low because of the blockade.3 They have run out now. Likewise, Gaza is unable to export its produce. Agriculture has been severely impaired by the imposition of a buffer zone, and agricultural products cannot be exported due to the blockade. 80% of Gaza’s population is dependent on food rations from the UN.

Good post, aintforever. The conditions for Palestinians are intolerable and seemingly unending. Fk knows what it must be like to actually live there, to not be able to rely on things that we take for granted.

Galloway's video recounts the Warsaw ghetto uprising in the Second World War. The Jews of Warsaw were similarly disenfranchised of pretty much all rights, left to rot, and had two effective choices; die quietly or rise up. They rose up against their oppressors despite being hopelessly outgunned, using whatever they had. Galloway doesn't see much of a distinction between the uprising in Warsaw and the resistance in Gaza. Neither do I, or the piece you reproduced. Die now, or die later. Horrible spot to be in, and I suspect impossible to imagine from most cosy Western perspectives.

Sky News interview with the leader of the organiser of the Jewish bloc of the Stop the War demonstrations.

In keeping with the aims of the OP here. Also in keeping will be the Stop the War demonstration on Saturday; StW have been incredibly active this past week. Will be interesting to see how many people show up for this one. Hopefully the ceasefire will still be on.

F*cking ***** Joan Rivers has outraged everyone outside America but is applauded inside for her disgusting views.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/watch-joan-rivers-go-rant-4021589#.U-Pv-2PyhR8

F*cking ***** Joan Rivers has outraged everyone outside America but is applauded inside for her disgusting views.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/watch-joan-rivers-go-rant-4021589#.U-Pv-2PyhR8

The coverage over in the US can be very partisan. Russell Brand has been bouncing off Sean Hannity's self-conjured sense of certainty for a little while now.

However, chin up - this Salon article is fairly critical.

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/07/joan_rivers_has_more_terrible_things_to_say_about_palestinians_you_deserve_to_be_dead/

She has apparently also issued a statement afterwards, which would suggest she's taking some flak:-

12:45 PM PT -- Joan says in a statement ... she was "totally taken out of context. What I said and stand behind is, war is hell and unfortunately civilians are victims of political conflicts. We, the United States, certainly know this as 69 years later we still feel the guilt of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

 

She adds, "Along with every other sane person in this world, I am praying for peace."

 

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2014/08/07/joan-rivers-rants-palestine-civilian-deaths-israel-hamas-video/#ixzz39kFsL9E8

see george galloway is being investigated by Police for saying Bradford should be an 'Israel Free' zone

Some background; I've seen the claim that Israel was responsible for the creation of Hamas. This is some pretty good substantiation.

Article substantiating Paul's claims.

How Israel helped to spawn Hamas

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847?mobile=y

"Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.

 

 

Instead of trying to curb Gaza's Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas. Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with "Yassins," primitive rocket-propelled grenades named in honor of the cleric.

Ron Paul is on the money with his description. "Blow-back".

see george galloway is being investigated by Police for saying Bradford should be an 'Israel Free' zone

pap, what are your thoughts on this?

I would imagine, had it been the other way around, you would have been beating the cat with rage and telling us all about it

pap, what are your thoughts on this?

I would imagine, had it been the other way around, you would have been beating the cat with rage and telling us all about it

I think he's treading a fine line between freedom of speech and incitement. However, he made the comments, stands by them. I do find it difficult to reconcile the two complaints reported in the BBC article with the "great offence" that the minister reckons was caused.

I can see why some might be concerned though. Although he exclusively used the term Israel, replace it with the word Jewish and it all starts to look a bit 1930s.

Well, on my way back to Southampton from the national demo.

Very well attended. Anecdotally busier than the last couple of rallies.

Didn't see any antisemitism, at all, although had discussions with many about the issue. As I suspected, people aren't as terrified of having the charge laid at their feet.

A sizeable Jewish delegation was there to protest against Israel's actions in Gaza.

Galloway was there, predictably going further than the other speakers, questioning Israel's right to exist in the first place, given the methods some of its citizens have used in the formation or consolidation. Not charged with anything, but did revise his Israel free zone comment a wee bit, but not much.

Overall though, superb day and I am left feeling positive. On a day like this, when you see many of the positives of a rainbow society, you realise how blooming close we are to having it sorted, of being a civilised, diverse country that looks out at the world and can justifiably speak out on human rights issues, perhaps better than anyone else.

We can't do that if we are unable to look our two million Muslim brothers and sisters in the eye. We can't do that until there is justice for the Palestinians.

How much money have you donated in the last few weeks pap... To Palestine etc

How much money have you donated in the last few weeks pap... To Palestine etc

Not much. About 30 quid, not counting anything spent on travel. Donated to Palestine back in January too.

Elsewhere, I donate to PDSA, Children's Society, Greenpeace and anything that my mates are putting actual efforts into sponsorship. Do some from here as well.

Not totally altruistic. A small and superstitious part of my brain entertains the idea of karma. It thinks my general luckiness (I am one lucky fk) is a direct consequence of donating. Until I get confirmation either way, will be making no changes

Well, on my way back to Southampton from the national demo.

 

Very well attended. Anecdotally busier than the last couple of rallies.

 

Didn't see any antisemitism, at all, although had discussions with many about the issue. As I suspected, people aren't as terrified of having the charge laid at their feet.

 

A sizeable Jewish delegation was there to protest against Israel's actions in Gaza.

 

Galloway was there, predictably going further than the other speakers, questioning Israel's right to exist in the first place, given the methods some of its citizens have used in the formation or consolidation. Not charged with anything, but did revise his Israel free zone comment a wee bit, but not much.

 

Overall though, superb day and I am left feeling positive. On a day like this, when you see many of the positives of a rainbow society, you realise how blooming close we are to having it sorted, of being a civilised, diverse country that looks out at the world and can justifiably speak out on human rights issues, perhaps better than anyone else.

 

We can't do that if we are unable to look our two million Muslim brothers and sisters in the eye. We can't do that until there is justice for the Palestinians.

see various protests all around london all the time at the mo

was down Brick Lane way yesterday and it was very much a "free palestine" area

Pap

Is that you selling the Socialist Worker ?

Some good and well written posts re this sad situation , in the last couple of days.

I would have hoped that a groundswell of the people on both sides would have forced respective leaders to look for a genuine plan that will lead to peace and reconciliation .

Hamas need to stop their head strong leaders from provoking the situation by firing rockets etc at the innocent israeli people , equally the hawkish leaders of israel seriously need to reconsider their retaliatory strike mandate. As there are to many innocent people and children being killed

George Galloway is just a numpty and is as bad as both Hamas and the israeli leaders . He's not a man of peace but someone who is stoking the embers of hatred .

More worrying us the barbaric Isis monsters murdering even more innocent people . 500 Christians buried alive as they didn't change their religious beliefs back to Islam . This story has still to be indecently confirmed

one for pap

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/the-most-important-video-about-israel-ever-made

im pap will reply in rage saying how wrong it is and it all our fault (or something repetitive)

It seems to me that: 'Simple to explain but difficult to solve' is an elegant enough way to summarise the problem. It is also obviously true (if inconvenient to those who choose to see the world in simplistic good v evil terms) that something akin to Jewish/Hebrew nation has existed on this land ever since the days of antiquity. Indeed I think someone has already made that point on here.

I have little or no interest in outdated leftist dogma and I don't claim to understand the mindset of George Galloway and his 'fellow travellers' at last weekends demo. I do know they don't speak for me. I also suspect that many of them would demand that the outside world should punish Israel by imposing a punitive set of military/economic sanctions on it, thus weakening this state sufficiently so that eventually the balance of power in the region might shift and the world's only Jewish state be left effectively defenceless before its many implacable Arab enemies. With all due respect to the importance of maintaining good relations our many 'Muslim brothers' here in the UK, I say that type of thinking has to be rejected, both on point of principle - Israel has a right to both exist and defend itself - and because it wouldn't bloody work anyway.

The recent fighting in Gaza is no accident of history, it is rather the outcome of Hamas policy to provoke Israel into military action and thus secure the sympathetic reaction seen on here and elsewhere. Yet again their own Palestinian people have paid a terrible price to secure that favourable media coverage in the west, but who really thinks that a terrorist organisation quite as fanatical as Hamas surely is would not see that as a 'price worth paying' ?

Or another view

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12175

Sour Mash enquired what the protestors were asking for in an earlier post. There are immediate answers, such as protesting the BBC for bias or the US Embassy because of its ongoing wholesale support of Israel. Beyond that, though many broad aims are held by all (Free Palestine, Justice for Palestinians, etc) you're going to have independent views about how those aims should be realised. Though it's difficult to ascribe objectives in any detail collectively, you'll get strident views from individuals about what it is they stand for.

The same can't be said for those arguing against Gaza demonstrators, something that is evident on this thread. I haven't seen one robust defence of Israel's actions in Gaza, only attacks against those that support the Palestinians. Bit of negative debating on here, but this blog piece over at the Spectator is the worst offender I've seen so far.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/londons-pro-palestine-rally-was-a-disgusting-anti-semitic-spectacle/

I don't think it contains a single substantiated claim.

This is Defamation, a film by Yoav Shamir. Shamir's first movie was Checkpoint. It won awards, but he was also labelled "the Israeli Mel Gibson" for his efforts. He is interviewed in the Guardian about the experience here. It's an exploration of antisemitism, spurred partially by the press he received from Checkpoint, but also because he was born and bred in Israel and had never experienced the phenomenon himself.

Shamir visits the ADL and spends a lot of the time shadowing Abe Foxman and his people. Another thread of the film sees him attached to a class of Israeli schoolchildren making their first visit to Poland. He also interviews those that the ADL have denounced for speaking critically, such as Normal Finkelstein, John Meirsheimer and Steven Walt.

It's a fascinating, but ultimately tragic watch. Those who've expressed an interest in the Israeli lobby will probably be interested in the glimpses into the way it works. The most chilling thing about it is the attitude of the children, and especially the change they undergo at the end of their trip. What hope is there for peace when successive generations of kids are brainwashed to fear and hate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liJ2v19o46A

Sour Mash enquired what the protestors were asking for in an earlier post. There are immediate answers, such as protesting the BBC for bias or the US Embassy because of its ongoing wholesale support of Israel. Beyond that, though many broad aims are held by all (Free Palestine, Justice for Palestinians, etc) you're going to have independent views about how those aims should be realised. Though it's difficult to ascribe objectives in any detail collectively, you'll get strident views from individuals about what it is they stand for.

 

The same can't be said for those arguing against Gaza demonstrators, something that is evident on this thread. I haven't seen one robust defence of Israel's actions in Gaza, only attacks against those that support the Palestinians. Bit of negative debating on here, but this blog piece over at the Spectator is the worst offender I've seen so far.

 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/07/londons-pro-palestine-rally-was-a-disgusting-anti-semitic-spectacle/

 

I don't think it contains a single substantiated claim.

I'll stick up a defence for Israel’s actions. It's simply a zero tolerance approach to the threat of terrorism to their people and their nation which is surrounded by hostile and aggressive neighbours.

Is the BBC really biased? In what way?

Passing off pro-Israel interviewees as independent, lack of Palestinian representation, and more...

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/amena-saleem/bbc-trying-shore-support-israels-assault-gaza

I'll stick up a defence for Israel’s actions. It's simply a zero tolerance approach to the threat of terrorism to their people and their nation which is surrounded by hostile and aggressive neighbours.

Pretty fragile guv. Falls to bits the minute you put any history on top of it.

Passing off pro-Israel interviewees as independent, lack of Palestinian representation, and more...

 

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/amena-saleem/bbc-trying-shore-support-israels-assault-gaza

 

 

 

Pretty fragile guv. Falls to bits the minute you put any history on top of it.

Plenty of sympathetic coverage of the Palestinian side I've seen on the BBC, on the whole I can't see them as strongly biased I'm afraid.

im sure pap will dismiss this as propaganda

Why is it fragile? It's exactly what they've done.

 

Plenty of sympathetic coverage of the Palestinian side I've seen on the BBC, on the whole I can't see them as strongly biased I'm afraid.

On 31 July, when the BBC’s flagship news program Today wanted to discuss whether Israel’s current assault on Gaza had a legal basis, it interviewed, not just one, but two, Israelis. And not a single Palestinian.

The first Israeli interviewed was Pnina Sharvit Baruch. Listeners were told she was the “former head of international law at the IDF [the Israeli military], now a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies [in Tel Aviv].”

What they weren’t told is that Sharvit Baruch was a colonel in the Israeli army, retiring after Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s attack on Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009. They were not told that, in that role, she legitimized strikes on civilians in Gaza during Cast Lead, including the attack on the graduation ceremony of new police officers, which resulted in 180 Palestinians being killed.

She was considered so extreme that, in 2009, staff at Tel Aviv University protested her appointment as a lecturer in law. She was not, however, considered too extreme for the BBC.

The day before she made her unchallenged appearance on Today, Sharvit Baruch wasinterviewed on the legalities of Israel’s attack by the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), which describes itself as being “dedicated to creating a more supportive environment for Israel in Britain.”

On Today she was joined by Yuri Dromi, introduced by presenter Sarah Montague as “director-general of the Jerusalem Press Club, but he used be a spokesman for the Israeli government in the Nineties.”

Sharvit Baruch and Dromi enjoyed nine minutes of gentle questioning by Montague. Her acceptance of everything they said and her failure to ask a single challenging or critical question was compounded by the absence of a Palestinian spokesperson who could have made that challenge instead and offered a different viewpoint.

It was an extraordinarily biased piece of pro-Israeli broadcasting, even by BBC standards. Montague’s questions seemed to be set up as deliberate cues for Sharvit Baruch and Dromi to set out the Israeli government’s key messages.

For example, she asked Sharvit Baruch, “Would you be advising the Israeli army that what they have done is legal?”

What answer did she seriously expect?

If the BBC wanted a genuinely impartial answer to this question, it could have invited a UN spokesperson onto Today to answer it. To ask it of a former Israeli army legal advisor who has greenlighted previous massacres seemed like a deliberate invitation to propaganda, not an attempt at serious journalism.

im sure pap will dismiss this as propaganda

Put some fkn effort in, mush.

This is the second of your links I'm going to entirely ignore because you present it in the manner of a laconic teenager with half a banana lodged in your gob. Give us a clue, FFS.

Put some fkn effort in, mush.

 

This is the second of your links I'm going to entirely ignore because you present it in the manner of a laconic teenager with half a banana lodged in your gob. Give us a clue, FFS.

play the ball not the man

watch the link. My guess is that you will bat it away as you dont want to accept that some truth might be in there

 

On 31 July, when the BBC’s flagship news program Today wanted to discuss whether Israel’s current assault on Gaza had a legal basis, it interviewed, not just one, but two, Israelis. And not a single Palestinian.

The first Israeli interviewed was Pnina Sharvit Baruch. Listeners were told she was the “former head of international law at the IDF [the Israeli military], now a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies [in Tel Aviv].”

What they weren’t told is that Sharvit Baruch was a colonel in the Israeli army, retiring after Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s attack on Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009. They were not told that, in that role, she legitimized strikes on civilians in Gaza during Cast Lead, including the attack on the graduation ceremony of new police officers, which resulted in 180 Palestinians being killed.

 

She was considered so extreme that, in 2009, staff at Tel Aviv University protested her appointment as a lecturer in law. She was not, however, considered too extreme for the BBC.

The day before she made her unchallenged appearance on Today, Sharvit Baruch wasinterviewed on the legalities of Israel’s attack by the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), which describes itself as being “dedicated to creating a more supportive environment for Israel in Britain.”

 

On Today she was joined by Yuri Dromi, introduced by presenter Sarah Montague as “director-general of the Jerusalem Press Club, but he used be a spokesman for the Israeli government in the Nineties.”

Sharvit Baruch and Dromi enjoyed nine minutes of gentle questioning by Montague. Her acceptance of everything they said and her failure to ask a single challenging or critical question was compounded by the absence of a Palestinian spokesperson who could have made that challenge instead and offered a different viewpoint.

 

It was an extraordinarily biased piece of pro-Israeli broadcasting, even by BBC standards. Montague’s questions seemed to be set up as deliberate cues for Sharvit Baruch and Dromi to set out the Israeli government’s key messages.

For example, she asked Sharvit Baruch, “Would you be advising the Israeli army that what they have done is legal?”

What answer did she seriously expect?

 

If the BBC wanted a genuinely impartial answer to this question, it could have invited a UN spokesperson onto Today to answer it. To ask it of a former Israeli army legal advisor who has greenlighted previous massacres seemed like a deliberate invitation to propaganda, not an attempt at serious journalism.

play the ball not the man

watch the link. My guess is that you will bat it away as you dont want to accept that some truth might be in there

It really isn't much of a ball. Kicked anyway.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/07/the-logic-of-israeli-violence/

Yep, that is poor from the BBC, doesn't suggest they're biased towards one side as an organisation as a whole. Plenty of coverage of the suffering of Palestinians.

They don't have to biased on the whole, just at the top. I know there are loads of good people at the Beeb, but it hasn't had the same editorial independence since the Hutton inquiry. The tragedy is that it was cut down to size and refashioned into the propaganda tool it has become for trying to do the right thing.

It really isn't much of a ball. Kicked anyway.

 

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/07/the-logic-of-israeli-violence/

so, no element of truth what so ever in the vid I posted?

It really isn't much of a ball. Kicked anyway.

 

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/07/the-logic-of-israeli-violence/

Good piece that. The Israeli violence has always been about denying the Palestinians the capability to live independently.

For example, they bang on about dropping leaflets to minimise civilian casualties - how the **** do they expect to kill Hamas military if they have already notified where they are going to strike? It makes no sense. It's just blatant acts of vandalism and they do as much as they can get away with before international pressure means they have to stop.

It's all about destroying infrastructure so that Palestine cannot function as a society and provoking the Palestinian people into responding so that they can be labelled terrorists.

Good piece that. The Israeli violence has always been about denying the Palestinians the capability to live independently.

 

For example, they bang on about dropping leaflets to minimise civilian casualties - how the **** do they expect to kill Hamas military if they have already notified where they are going to strike? It makes no sense. It's just blatant acts of vandalism and they do as much as they can get away with before international pressure means they have to stop.

 

It's all about destroying infrastructure so that Palestine cannot function as a society and provoking the Palestinian people into responding so that they can be labelled terrorists.

That piece is used as a source for this Stop the War article. Builds on the idea that Israel is "mowing the lawn", drawing parallels with the US's 19th century campaign against the Plains natives.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/how-israel-has-been-mowing-the-lawn-in-gaza#.U-kIw_ldXch

so, no element of truth what so ever in the vid I posted?

The bit where he summarises his personal career history has potential.

However, the claims of restraint are completely at odds with the damage caused.

so, no element of truth what so ever in the vid I posted?

Do you think dropping leaflets prior to an air strike will help kill Hamas militia?

You can bet if the Israeli and Gazan situations were reversed, and Hamas was killing so many Israeli civilians, the US would be raining down airstrikes on the darker coloured of the two races.

You can bet if the Israeli and Gazan situations were reversed, and Hamas was killing so many Israeli civilians, the US would be raining down airstrikes on the darker coloured of the two races.

Just a couple of questions . How many Jews have been killed by these "rockets" raining down on Israel (illegal state) and how big is the Palestinian Air Force ?