I heard the news today, oh boy..

[mockney piers]

Yeah, definitely a lot of "it wasn't me guv honest", but no less interesting as you say.

This one made me chuckle

The contrast with having briefed his father and Clinton and Gore was so marked. And to be told, frankly, early in the administration, by Condi Rice and [her deputy] Steve Hadley, you know, Don?t give the president a lot of long memos, he?s not a big reader?well, shit. I mean, the president of the United States is not a big reader?

and it wasn't all savage

Picking up the phone, calling people who are visiting an ailing father in the hospital, personal notes to people whose child just had surgery. Things big and small. It?s hard to describe it all, but they are the kinds of things that do inspire great loyalty?and that?s not why [bush] does it, by the way.

[mockney piers]

The mash should honestly be made required reading.

I maintain, it can't really be satire if it's true.

[Huguenot]

I can't put it better...

"In the three years after the withdrawal from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. On the other hand, in 2005-7 alone, the IDF killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children."

This is a fine opinion piece.

[DaveR]

"So when Israel is urged to respect world opinion and put its faith in the international community the point is rather being missed. The very idea of Israel is a rejection of this option. Israel only exists because Jews do not feel safe as the wards of world opinion. "

Not exactly a response, but an alternative opinion

[david_carnell]

From Comment is Free:

Hamas do not have to fire rockets at Israeli schools and homes. And even if they choose to do so, they don't have to base their launch pads inside their own civilian centres, intentionally putting their own wives and children in harm's way on a daily basis. But they do, and the same protesters so virulently opposed to every facet of Israel's cruel campaign refuse to raise a murmur of protest, lest anyone should think that by doing so they are taking the enemy's side.

[mockney piers]

That's a rather confused essay.

Saying the world is incapable of acting, and if jews would have to depend on that there would be no israel.

Simplistic and disingenuous. The world acting brought an end to the Nazis at great cost. The world doing its more usual torpor allowed the Zionists (sic) to carve out their own state (rightly or wrongly I don't care, I'm just pointing out the flaws in the argument).

To follow that up with

And again and again they have turned the offer down, for it has always been more important to drive out the Jews than to have a Palestinian state. It is difficult sometimes to avoid the feeling that Hamas and Hezbollah don't want to kill Jews because they hate Israel. They hate Israel because they want to kill Jews

is even worse. The Palestinians want peace with honour, though Arafat in the end gave up on even that for the few scraps Israel promised but had no intention of delivering.

Hezbollah and Hamas are movements borne of brutal occupation pure and simple. They are organisations with political goals. I don't doubt for a minute that they are anti-semitic, but to claim they kill out of racial hatred is propoganda, as both have been canny practitioners of the dual military/political fronts.

They have never been, are in no position to, and have no intention of driving the jews into the sea, they look for a reasonable settlement. Israeli political leaders may want to look up the word compromise in their dictionaries, amazingly it isn't defined as having everything your own way.

Sharon's visit to the temple mount / al aqsa and his post 9/11 pronouncements regarding terror define the modern era of Israeli policy. I watched those with profound sadness in 2001 suddenly realising the intifada was over and bloodshed would mark the way of things until Sharon was out (or dead..eventually) and Bush gone. Sadly I don't see anything changing even with Obama in...like I say depressing.

Despite claims of victory in the recent spat in Lebanon (and be assured Hezbollah delivered a bloody nose to the IDF) it is significant that Hezbollah have ermained rather quiet in recent days, showing that a strategy of disproportionate response may be more effective than we would care to admit. Cromwell in Ireland is a fairly reasonable comparison here.

And that's even worse D_C, no they don't, though god knows there's little enough room to fire it from anywhere else in Gaza, and the IDF doesn't have to shell civilian areas (that's artillery with little more accuracy than a qassam) or the air force drop 1000lb bombs on civilian buildings (you didn't see the air force dropping bombs on South Armagh, Derry or even Dublin when the guts were being ripped out of our cities by IRA bombs did you?).

No one has to do anything, but that's the equivalent of the rapist blaming his victim for wearing a short skirt. I'm surprised at you reprinting such tosh.

[SeanMacGabhann]

more posts like this please - nice one MP

[david_carnell]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Simplistic and disingenuous. The world acting

> brought an end to the Nazis at great cost. The

> world doing its more usual torpor allowed the

> Zionists (sic) to carve out their own state

> (rightly or wrongly I don't care, I'm just

> pointing out the flaws in the argument).

Now who is being disingenuous? Are you trying to suggest that the allies went to war to save Jews? I rather hope not or we've been reading different history books for the past 60 years.

> Hezbollah and Hamas are movements borne of brutal

> occupation pure and simple. They are organisations

> with political goals. I don't doubt for a minute

> that they are anti-semitic, but to claim they kill

> out of racial hatred is propoganda, as both have

> been canny practitioners of the dual

> military/political fronts.

> They have never been, are in no position to, and

> have no intention of driving the jews into the

> sea, they look for a reasonable settlement.

> Israeli political leaders may want to look up the

> word compromise in their dictionaries, amazingly

> it isn't defined as having everything your own

> way.

I'm afraid I disagree, Piers. Hamas is backed by Saudi Arabia and Iran, two states who have openly admitted to a goal of the removal of the state of Israel. I am quite convinced that given the opportunity to do so, they would. And this would not be merely a forced exodus of Jews from their homeland but include mass-murder. Second, Israel has compromised. It withdrew its armed forces and settlements from the West Bank and Gaza and yet still Hamas continues to launch rocket attacks. Compromise has to work both ways.

> And that's even worse D_C, no they don't, though

> god knows there's little enough room to fire it

> from anywhere else in Gaza, and the IDF doesn't

> have to shell civilian areas (that's artillery

> with little more accuracy than a qassam) or the

> air force drop 1000lb bombs on civilian buildings

> (you didn't see the air force dropping bombs on

> South Armagh, Derry or even Dublin when the guts

> were being ripped out of our cities by IRA bombs

> did you?).

Ok, first, please don't patronise me with descriptions of Israeli weaponary and its limitations. You know that I know etc. Secondly, no, Israel does not have to shell civilian targets. However it is left with little choice if Hamas continues to base its forces there - which was my point. Hamas daren't indulge in open warfare because it would be destroyed by a superior foe. So, cowardly, it hides amongst the people it is apparently meant to be standing up for.

The Irish parallel you draw is a false one. If the IRA had been launching missiles from Belfast streets and hitting British targets with them then I should think the British response may well have been more heavy handed. But they did not. It's not a helpful comparison.

> No one has to do anything, but that's the

> equivalent of the rapist blaming his victim for

> wearing a short skirt. I'm surprised at you

> reprinting such tosh.

Again your analogy is hyperbolic and unhelpful. You know full well I'm not some IDF-supporting, arab-hating hawk but for the benefit of intelligent debate, if nothing else, these arguments should have counter-weights.

[mockney piers]

There has been no military withdrawal from the West Bank, I don't know what newspapers you're reading, and completely surrounding Gaza and turning it into a prison (thanks in no small part to an acquiescent Egypt) isn't exactly withdrawal is it. So I'm failing to see your compromise.

Where the right to return or compensation, where the proposed settlement of dual control of Jerusalem, where the knocking down of illegal land-grabbing walls, where the rights of west bank civilians to their own water, where the removals of illegal settlements in occupied territory?

as for:

"Now who is being disingenuous? Are you trying to suggest that the allies went to war to save Jews? I rather hope not or we've been reading different history books for the past 60 years."

you're simply putting words into my mouth. I'm saying the international community may have enormous inertia, but it acts, most particularly when self-interest is involved, I'd expect better from you than to twist my words.

And of course it's a valid comparison. Why the hell is a missile somehow intrinsically worse?!?!? Qassams put a 3 ft hole int the side of a domestic house and have killed 20 in 8 years. IRA bombs killed hundreds even thousands, destroyed billions of pounds worth of property, brought entire cities to a standstill and had a greater psychological hold over the six counties and the mainland than Hamas can even dream of.

[david_carnell]

My mistake about the West Bank. Your casual ignoring of the fact that Israel did withdraw from Gaza and Hamas continued to launch suicide attacks - hence the security wall - and fire rockets into Israel. Those rockets are now coming within range of heavily populated areas and even nuclear power plants. I think it was time to act.

However, on most of your other points, as usual, I am in complete agreement. Perhaps we differ in means, rather than ends. I do think the attacks are disproportionate but not unwarranted.

I think it is the iconography of the missile. The mere idea that it can be fired from another state/country/nation into your own that breeds fear more than IRA car bombs did. I think the V2 rocket and the panic it caused is a closer analogy.

[mockney piers]

The withdrawal from Gaza was nothing to do with making a workable Palestinian state. Israel was militarily defeated there (like the Brits in Basra); it was about allowing the work of the wall to continue. Please don't dress it up as some magnanimous gesture.

Plus Hamas suicide attacks were overwhelmingly against military targets, I think you mistake them with the Al Aqsa brigades and Islmaic Jihad.

V2s wiped out whole streets as did car bombs, truck bombs took out city centres. Iconography or no it's an invalid comparison.

[mockney piers]

But yes, if you mean we'd both like a cease fire and a genuine settlement, then we are indeed in agreement.

Israelis would be wise to read the short history of Outremer and the hazards of refusing to compromise, nay continuing to commit atrocities when you country is surrounded by hostility. Perhaps they would be more inclined to avoid the hawks and the hardliners if they understood this.

Smart bombs ran out in the first day of the Lebanon campaign, and were duly replaced by the US. With US hegemonic concerns moving eastwards rather than the middle east Israel must know strong-arming is not a wise long term strategy.

It's so much harder to speak and find middle ground and commit to genuine compromise, but it's the best for everyone. With two workable legitimate states, trade, security, jobs and peace will flourish and the language of walls, bombs, and reprisals will fade into history.

The analogy with Northern Ireland works here too you know.

[DaveR]

"It's so much harder to speak and find middle ground and commit to genuine compromise, but it's the best for everyone. With two workable legitimate states, trade, security, jobs and peace will flourish and the language of walls, bombs, and reprisals will fade into history."

A worthy sentiment that is too often only addressed to one side i.e. Israel and far less often to the other players - not just Hamas and the other Palestinian groups but also Iran, Syria, Egypt etc. The telling analogy with Northern Ireland is that the war effectively ended when the Republican political and military leadership accepted that they could never win it and were able to persuade the majority of the movement that political engagement was a better strategy.

[mockney piers]

"The telling analogy with Northern Ireland is that the war effectively ended when the Republican political and military leadership accepted that they could never win it"

Close, but not quite. Political feelers were put out before this, and secret negotiations started in the mid 70s. A military stalemate helped persuade the majority of the paramilitary leadership that a negotiated settlement was an inevitability, but we're now talking the mid 80s. This is 5 years before IRA strategy hit it's peak of effectiveness when it demonstrated that a military victory was not possible to the British government and were able to lob dud mortars on to Heathrow runways or bomb infrastructure targets at will.

Notably (Hamas take note) that they did attempt to do this with minimal loss of life having realised that murder is counterproductive, particularly with the backlash post Warrington, killing children being too much even for the noraid contributors in the States*.

So it wasn't until the mid 90s that the British government realised that it had to act to end the war. It's always beholden on those with the power to end the war if those without do not choose to surrender. In NI Britain had to commit to the peace process as well as the IRA; Major tried but was blackmailed by the Unionists for his slim majority and subsequently Blair with his solid mandate moved it forward more credit to him (though not for alot else ;-)).

So both sides need to realise victory is impossible and work to end the war.

Us pinkos address Israel because the Palestinians have long been open to negotiated settlements, Arafat, as I said, even essentially selling 'his' people down the river for scraps in a bid for peace (It's no coincidence that Fatah lost the support of the people, those who vote for them now (not that a vote counts for much when your government has to be accepted by your neighbour if you want to avoid collective punishment for voting incorrectly) do so as the main viable alternative to the Islamists.

Israel knows it cannot win, but has chosen permanent occupation; for the powers that be attempting to minimise the damage that low grade insurgency can inflict, using walls, checkpoints and disproportionate collective punishment has been deemed an acceptable means to maintain the status quo.

That's why I get so angry about this, becuase there's no interest in peace OR a viable Palestinian state from the Israeli side, because compromise would involve letting go too many things they are not prepared to do. As the original article said "they have chosen land over peace".

*this is a pre 9/11 world. Pre 9/11 Israel went to great lengths to avoid civilain casualties (less so in Lebanon interstingly, but heh). Post 9/11 mere mention of the word terrorist will provoke a bloodlust response in the majority in the States, hence why Sharon was able to usher in the new era where casualties mattered less, but the man was brutishly cynical to put it politely).

[DaveR]

"the Palestinians have long been open to negotiated settlements"

that's the key point though - Arafat had his time but it was never clear that he could deliver an end to violence on the Palestinian side (particularly where there were external bodies willing to fund continued mayhem when it suited them)

The difference between the UK govt and the Israeli govt situations is that the UK could be sure that the people they were negotiating with could deliver. How many supporters would desert Hamas if they actually followed through on their offer of a cease-fire in pre '67 borders, and how many new groups (backed by Iran or someone else) would spring up who are willing to suicide bomb civilian targets? There is a lot of interest in peace on the Israeli side, but real peace, not just a temporary absence of attacks.

[mockney piers]

Herein lies Israel's greatest weapon. Blame the Palestinians.

No offer of a settlement on pre '67 borders has ever been offered, and personally I think a genuine offer of that would be acceptable to the vast majority.

The Oslo peace accords were a sham aimed at creating a client, not an independent state. They didn't deal with the settlements (in fact more were built), they didn't deal with East Jerusalem, and the vague timetable of withdrawal with it's impenetrable categorisations of military areas was entirely open-ended and Sharon didn't even go through with stage 1 (I doubt he ever had any intention of walking down that 'roadmap').

So meanwhile millions live in abject poverty having to undergo humiliating control day in day out and the bombs continue to fall and bullets fly creating a constant stream of radicalised youth, justifying the permanent maintenance of occupation everytime a sentry post is attacked or a home-made rocket flies.

It was Israel that broke this cease fire with yet another targeted assassination (how mundane is extrajudicial execution these days, the British government got inot all sorts of trouble for killing IRA operatives in Gibraltar back in the days when due process was valued) and Hamas duly delivered the desired response, resumption of rockets, in turn justifying this incursion.

Like I say, someone has to break the cycle and it is simply not within the Palestinians power to do so.

[SeanMacGabhann]

It's almost impossible to try and voice an anti-Israei-Government opinion because

a) one gets called anti-semetic

b) one is asked why the same leftie, liberal pinkos don't condemn Hamas bombings with the same degree of... well, condemnation

both are nonsense of course - plenty of Jewish people disagree with their governments actions, and plenty of us condemn the Hamas actions as well - but no-one tends to listen to us when we are doing that

Best example of how wrong the current activity is was a letter I read in today's paper

"Imagine if a gunman kidnapped some Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv and began shooting at the police. The army surround the building and, if possible, will kill the gunman. Suppose that in their attempt to kill the gunman, the army considered bombing the building. Would the army be ethically justified? If they did bomb the building and killed the civilians, could they argue that the moral responsibility for the killing of civilians rests with the gunman or whatever organisation he had belonged to?"

[mockney piers]

Please don't think I'm anti Israel by the way.

I just hate power being abused.

I felt the same about Russia, engineering a situation with poor little Georgia in order to be able to flex military muscles in an exercise of sabre rattling in NATO's direction.

Shakashvili (you try and spell it) was stupid to believe his little state was more powerful than it was and that NATO's reach would extend that far. He was stupid to rise to the bait but the provocation was strong as was his hubris.

That doesn't make what Russia did right, but of course it doesn't mean it was entirely wrong either, it has spheres of interest like any other country (nothing ever being simple).

Likewise of course Israel has absolutely every right to security and self defence, but it's coming up to 42 years of occupation, and imperialism was supposed to be a thing of the past. (idealistic idiot alert!!!)

[Huguenot]

SMG, I tried to work through your bizarre debate but ended up with nowt. Where are you going in the greater scheme of things?

[Huguenot]

Can someone do me the favour of fugging this data for me:

"In Gaza, the Jewish settlers numbered only 8,000 in 2005 compared with 1.4 million local residents. Yet the settlers controlled 25% of the territory, 40% of the arable land and the lion's share of the scarce water resources."

I find it extraordinary, but unsupported. Can someone bitch slap me with somthing better?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

"You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you.? ~Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9

I argued with my flippant side, but it won out. sorry

[david_carnell]

On a much lighter note (and with added kudos for a quite splendid moustache at the sprightly age of 24 - lucky git):

Rocket Man set to become Record Man

It's recent, if not quite from today.

Now....back to this other unpleasantness if you will....

[SeanMacGabhann]

Huguneot - calling my post a debate would be stretching things. And I'll accept "incoherent" but "bizarre" seems a tad harsh

It wasn't meant to be a cogent all-my-thoughts on the topic. Just a few random musings following Piers posts. If you found the letter I quoted bizarre then I can't help too much I'm afraid - but I got what the writer meant

As for my a) and b) points - hardly bizarre are they? I just find the repeated accusations, wheeled out by apologists, just... rubbish. So for the record:

I condemn the Israeli military actions. This doesn't make me anti-semetic. I condemn Hamas bombings equally. But to echo Piers' posts - the two sides are not equal and the extent of the military action is what's most outrageous

If we disagree fair enough - but I'm not sure what's bizarre

[mockney piers]

Did anyone else hear Rod Richards on the Today programme this morning insisting that it's all political correctness gone mad, and that 'paki isn't a rude word it's just a word people say', and that it's no ruder than Jock or kiwi.

Who ever said MPs are out of touch?!?!? In all fairness everyone knows Harry is gaff prone and he's apologised, so what on earth was this nutter doing defending him, that frankly was bizarre!

[Ted Max]

I didn't hear that. I do think, employing my trusted analytical technique of a couple of pints and a bit of matronly bosom-hoisting, that Harry remains a lonely orphan who just wants to fit in.

That he has to fit in with the Cirencester Coll of Ag/ Sandhurst set is a bit of a shame, but not entirely his fault. I think there's hope for the lad yet, before he turns into his great aunt.