[ Parent ]

The so called peace talks were going to start with a visit from Ms Rice in a few days, which was billed as when the pressure was to start on Israel to make concessions. Instead, now the talks will focus on making them stop the current genocide. In the end, Israel gets the short term gain, but at the cost of peace.

[ Parent ]

[ Parent ]

You are correct to identify the word used as Shoah. I used holocaust because most people would not know the word Shoah. You are also correct that the word can mean disaster. However, at Yad Versham (the very moving memorial to the holocaust in Jerusalem) one of the displays explain how this word could never again be used to mean just a simple disaster.

I resent being called dishonest. Is this just yet another attempt to prevent the horrors committed by Israel from being discussed? Because in the end whatever word you choose to use to describe the situation -  actions speak louder than words. 

[ Parent ]

If you looked at the situation objectively and intelligently you could see that Israel fulfills more of the definitions of a terrorist state than Palestine.

What do you want me to say about Israel handing power over Gaza back? Well done, how generous? Perhaps, you would have some credit if you didn't then attack Gaza. You used Lebanon as a cover to slaughter Gaza citizens. You have prevented food and water; medical supplies; you have hounded Gaza for choosing Hamas. Hamas does not believe that Israel has the right to exist. I do not agree with that. However, I have not seen any evidence that Israel believes that Palestine has the right to exist.

If this behaviour was by people instead of countries, we would identify Israel as the school bully who keeps stealing from Palestine; and expects to be rewarded when it gives some of Palestine's possessions back whilst continuning the bullying. In this analogy Palestine's actions would be seen as either self-defence or understandable retribution; that is not in the same league as the abuse it is suffering.

I do not understand your analogy that Israel is like the UK. Israel undertakes acts of war against Palestine and continues to break the Geneva Convention. The UN Special Rapporteur has repeatedly tried to being the world's attention to the war crimes committed by Israel.

[ Parent ]

Jeremy,

Those 5000 rockets- how many people have they killed?

Is it more or less than the 100 people killed, and many more injured, that have been killed by the Israeli bombings? 

[ Parent ]

Jeremy said - "Why don't you concentrate on criticising Livingstone's antisemitic remark instead of criticising Israel for defending itself against terrorists?"

Do you really think that criticisng Ken Livingstone's remark should take priority over the slaughter of innocent Palestinian's? If you had seen first hand as I have the teatment and oppression of the Palestinian's by the occupying Israeli's, you would not be calling this article anti-semitic.

In Hebron old city, the zionist settler's live above the streets inhabited by Palestinians. It has been necessary for the Palestinian's to erect wire netting to protect their children from the rocks, garbage and even human excrement that is hurled down upon them by the zionists.

Well done Michelle - great article!

[ Parent ]

> At least David Miliband understands the situation. His statement yesterday was very balanced.

I call David Miliband's statement  mealy-mouthed.

He says "I support the UN Secretary General's call for all parties to step back from the brink ...". Good.

The UN Secretary General says "I call on Israel to cease such attacks." and "I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed and injured so many civilians, including children."

But all David Miliband can say is "Israel's right to security and self-defence is clear and must be reiterated and supported. But measures taken in response to rockets must ... minimis[e] the suffering for innocent civilians"

Hardly the same thing as the UN Secretary General. Let's not have another response from the UK like that to the Lebenon incursion. We should be clear on what is or is not a proportionate response, rather than waiting to follow the US line.

[ Parent ]

Jeremy,

 I promise you that Israel's "help" in keeping order in the West Bank is not required.

In Hebron, International Observers walk Palestinian children to school because Israel have "helped" by building Jewish only roads in Palestine (West Bank),. Because of Israel's "help" the children have to walk several miles to school past a Zionist settlement. The people in the settlement attack the children with impunity. As scopevale has already mentioned these attacks often involve pelting people with human excrement.

They "help" by cutting off towns and people from each other. They "help" by putting up road blocks. By seizing all the good fertile land. By holding up agricultural goods at checkpoints - so the Palestinians crops they have actually been able to harvest - goes to ruin. They "help" by collective punishment. By shooting first and asking questions later. By the reopeated murder of innocent civilians. So no, Israel's help is not wanted.

Far from the Palestinians who have waived on every peace process, it is usually the Israelis. The day after the Arab States held a meeting in which they historically agreed that they would all recognise Israel's right to exist; Israel responded by imprisoning Arafat in Ramallah. It may help you to understand the inequality if you read some books about the conflict.

The best on the market, written in his typical calm balanced manner, is a book by Jimmy Carter entitled 'Palestine: Peace not Apartheid'.

[ Parent ]

"Israel is persecuting nobody. The Palestinians are continuing with aggressive and illegal violence against Israel, and the Israelis have the right to do whatever it takes to stop it. If the Palestinians stopped tomorrow, the Israelis would make peace, just as they have made peace with other Arabs".

Totally deluded! 

[ Parent ]

Oh yes they did.

You are right that Palestine was occupied before Israel took  the job - that does not mean that Palestine did not exist. The British occupied Palestine after the second world war when the influx of Jewish into Palestine increased considerably. Following the horrific treatment of the Jewish in the second world war and a new intent in Europe to prevent war on that scale occuring again; Britain faced a dilemma about what to do (although, of course we should not have been there in the first place). Accordingly, it handed the problem over to the UN. The UN in 1948 sought to split and divide the country. Lines were drawn. That Israel just took the land given to them but did not relinquish control of that not given to them; that Israel has never stopped redrawing the lines to take more and more; is not an argument minimising Israel's conduct.

Just denying the persecution unfortunately does not make it go away. 

[ Parent ]

Have you seen the news?

A third of Gaza citizens do not have running water, and 80% are reliant on UN food aid.

My earlier blogs make it clear that I do not, in fact, personally support Hamas. I just don't think that it is my right to overthrow a democratically elected party. Nor, have I, at any point, supported violence by any side.

Three Israeli's died in the last week - of course I object to their deaths as much as I do the 120 Palestinians that died in the same week. If you really understood what proportionality meant you would understand that those figures indicate that one side is more culpable than the other.

[ Parent ]

No it doesn't. Proportionality means that the measures taken to deal with a threat deal with that threat. So looking for militants who launch rockets against civilians is a proportionate response to militants launching rockets against civilians. It is not a response to a particular number of civilians killed, but deals with the security problem. That doesn't make it the right response - that depends on the context. Dropping nuclear weapons on a city from which rockets are launched against civilians is not proportionate. Doing nothing is not proportionate either but still be justified, eg for political or diplomatic reasons. 

You are being disingenuous in not making a distinction between civilian and militant deaths on the Palestinian side. Nor by recognising that the targeting of civilians is a war crime.

You seem to commit to the idea that democracies (however defined) have a right to do what they like, even if their methods are murderous in either home of foreign policy, or both. I can't see how this is compatible with human rights. People's basic rights can be and have been trampled by governments that came to power legally. Entire peoples sometimes.

The thing about human rights is that they are universal - they cover all of us by virtue of being human. There are no exceptions. Not even wars of liberation: the Irgun were terrorists just as much as the Hamas armed wing. While the justice or otherwise of a nationalist movement is unaffected by the means taken, the means do matter. Pretending otherwise is a nihilistic exercise. If you want to support the destruction of universal institutions like human rights (democracy is by no means universal) then go ahead, but don't dress it up as sympathy for the oppressed. The vulnerable are the last people to benefit from their destruction.

[ Parent ]

[ Parent ]

It is sad that Labour Friends of Israel seem to feel the compulsion to spin the unjustifiable acts of the Israeli Government. The actions of Israel are untenable and the truth will eventually 'out' whatever PR spin you put on it.

The truth like, for example, that Hamas did not take over Gaza violently but won in a free and fair election. Like,  there are roads in the West Bank that are only open to Israeli citizens, leaving Palestininans to make long detours on inferior roads. Like, areas in the so-called demilitarised zone, in the West Bank, that Palestinians are not allowed in - but Israeli business still thrive (I am thinking in particular of areas around the Jericho area of the sea). Like, that Israeli settlers get priority over the water supplies and are charged less than Palestinians.

Israel does not need to take a role akin to South Africas' apartheid regime. Labour Friends of Israel does Israel no favours by supporting policies that anyone with a left-wing perspective would deplore.

[ Parent ]

Hamas is wrong in saying that they do not recognise Israel; Israel isd wrong in demonstrating by their every action that they do not recognise Palestine.

[ Parent ]