Herald calls for end of Israel
The Herald has a solution to the Israel problem – to effectively get rid of Israel, by supporting a full Palestinian Right of Return.
I’m all in favour of peace for land, and Israel going back to its 1967 borders. But it would be suicide for Israel to agree to a full right of return – this would turn Israel into an Arab majority state – either initially or over time.
The Herald says:
Change may require something as drastic as reconsideration of Israel’s need of a Jewish majority, the reason for its resistance to a full Palestinian right of return. Israel fears for its religious character if it ever makes that concession but Judaism was freely practised in the Islamic empire that preceded today’s warring states.
I’m not sure if this is stupidity or naiveity of the worst kind. The world has changed, in case the Herald editorial writer has missed it. And after the Holocaust, persuading Jews that they should give up majority control of a country to become a minority again is well near suicidal.
The so called right to return is a play to destroy Israel from within. There may be a case for compensation as part of a peace settlement, but a full right to return (which the Wikipedia article shows is both hypocritical and unheard of in international law) is just nonsense – especially when you consider this would be giving a right of return to thousands of terrorists whose only aim in life is to destroy Israel.
On a similiar issue Fran O’Sullivan notes a different tone from the NZ Government:
Just simply a few bland words by McCully to newswire agencies lamenting the Gaza strip onslaught and endorsing the United Nations’ call for an immediate ceasefire. Notably, his words were devoid of the usual harsh condemnatory judgments against Israel that had become a trademark of the Clark Government.
Good. While Israel is far from without blame, the one sided condemnation of Israel only was tiring. Fran then notes:
National’s fellow travellers have already complained of bigotry after a Herald “letter to the editor” writer made the linkage between Key’s Jewishness and the Government’s new stance.
It is a nonsense to allege bigotry in this instance.
In a multitude of post-election articles in Israeli and Jewish newspapers elsewhere, there had been a clear expectation that the advent of the Key Government would lead to a more “balanced” relationship between Israel and New Zealand.
The Jewish community has publicly singled out several National Cabinet ministers who are “friendly to Israel”: Key himself, McCully, Tim Groser, Jonathan Coleman, Wayne Mapp and Attorney-General Chris Finlayson.
I stand by the bigotry claim. As Fran notes there are many Ministers “friendly to Israel”.Are they all Jews? No, of course not (and neither is Key in terms of religion). Centre-right Governments tend to be less willing to bash Israel than centre-left ones – and that would have been the case I suggest, regardless of if Key was PM or not.
NZ peace groups are now calling for a boycott against Israel and the Palestinian Human Rights campaign has sent an open letter to Key and McCully calling on them to “declare your positions of principle regarding Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian land”.
So far, there has been no official response.
I imagine the response would be that NZ’s position remains that it wants a peace settlement that involves land for peace.
The traditional Christmas/New Year holiday period is an easy excuse. But British PM Gordon Brown is not asleep on this issue, neither is Australian Acting PM Julia Gillard who has pledged an extra A$5 million ($6 million) aid to help Palestinians get access to food and medical supplies.
New Zealand has been urged to follow suit – but so far nothing has eventuated…
This is not a good look – but one which is quickly remedied.
Fran may have a point here, but of course Australia is far more globaly focused with its ad than NZ. We have a Pacific focus. But on the assumption there is an appropriate budget available, it would be good to help with aid. Regardless of who you blame for the conflict, there are a lot of innocent families suffering.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
Oh, FFS!
Since Indepence in 1947 Israel has killed something like 60,000 Muslims in defence of it’s own territory and citizens. In the same period Middle East Muslims have killed 10 million of their co religionists as well as the usual attempts to kill Jews and and other non Muslims. In the last few years millions have been killed in conflict in the Congo, a million in Rwanda, hundreds of thousands in Dafur and the Sudan plus the impending tragedy in Zimbabwe.
What is it about a few homicidal Palestinians being killed that makes them special and vastly more deserving of sympathy and money than those other millions of dead.. answer antiSemitism, plain and simple.
The editor of the Herald knows the score in the Holy Land. He knows he is promoting genocide of the Jews there, he knows that everyone knows he’s being antiSemitic.. and he knows it’s unlawful to promote such a “final” solution. Yet he also knows that he can get away with it in an increasingly antiSemitic world.
There is simply no defence for this stuff. He/she wants the Jews wiped out, and the editorial is designed to to give the excuse to bigots everywhere that it’s OK to promote such a policy openly.
JC
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:10 am
The terrorism will not end until the terrorists, (or Israel) are gone. So why is it the more civilised of the two sides always has to compromise? It would be good if some of the MSM actually looked at all the options, not just those detrimental to Israel.
“Palestinian Human Rights campaign has sent an open letter to Key and McCully calling on them to “declare your positions of principle regarding Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian land”.
Key and McCully should send a letter back asking why this sort of crap is on Palestinian state television, (childrens programs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LaAvZp7EP4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi-c6lbFGC4&NR=1
You wont undo this hate filled indoctrination with Israel pulling back.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
Some conflicts are complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a clarity that is very very clear.
The grievance?
It cannot be occupation, military control or settlers, they were all removed in September 2005.
There’s only one grievance and Hamas is absolutely open about it. Israel’s very existence.
This is the issue for all Nations and men everywhere, either you’re for Israel’s existence or you’re not.
So let’s stop the bullshit and be honest for once.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 am
David, do you mean to tell me that China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia don’t know where their arms and monies are going and how it’s going to be used?
No country should accept anyone letting bombs off in their territory and has the duty and right to respond to stop it happening again, So what’s the difference with missiles or mortars into their towns?
Sure they may be inaccurate and hit and miss but the terror created isn’t.
How would we respond if we had 300 missiles come in 24/7 last week and the previous months?
Meanwhile we sit with our lattes and pontificate on the excesses of both sides whilst our government arms and aids the terrorists in our name.
Every dollar sent as humanitarian aid by the EU, UN and other countries including ours is a dollar Hamas doesn’t spend on providing infrastructure to their people.
Every dollar we send the terrorists from Kiwi taxes that we don’t hold them properly accountable for, is a dollar that finances terrorism against another democratic state, and we are complicit in this, because we all know what it is being used for, including everyone in the Beehive.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 am
I do wish the Israelis would stop equipping the Palestinians with rocks. That’s the trouble with rubble, actions have consequences.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:48 am
David, in Greater Israel at this time there are more Arabs than Jews, what happens if the Arabs say ok we have one state, where is our votes ?
In Israel itself the Israeli Arabs are out breeding the Jews and at the current rate they will be a majority by 2050.
To stop that does Israel take up a bit of religious cleansing, ie push all their Arabs into Jordan ?
It seems Israel can be a Jewish apartheid state, or a democratic state, it cannot be both.
Do we owe the Semites on both sides anything ?
Should we ask for that damn NZ traitor back from Israel ?
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:51 am
Fuck New Zealand peace groups, mostly made up with dick pulling lefties. These bastards give me the screaming shits why should John Key have to declare his position to these slimy suckholes. I’m sure if Israel was to shut up shop tomorrow the ones that would be most upset would be the Islamic thugs in Gaza followed by idiots in NZ peace groups. It wouldn’t take more then 5 minutes for these tossers, both Islamic thugs and NZ peace groups to find another cause to promote their demented view of life on.
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
Gaza has been a difficult problem for many great figures in history. If you are interested in how Alexander the Great dealt with Gaza, I’ve blogged it here.
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
When I saw Fran talk about “our moral leadership in international affairs”, I felt compelled to add “within our own country”.
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
JC Said “The editor of the Herald knows the score in the Holy Land. He knows he is promoting genocide of the Jews there, he knows that everyone knows he’s being antiSemitic.. and he knows it’s unlawful to promote such a “final” solution. Yet he also knows that he can get away with it in an increasingly antiSemitic world.”
Unfortunately I think JC is right.
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
“Palestinian Human Rights campaign has sent an open letter to Key and McCully calling on them to “declare your positions of principle regarding Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian land”.
Let’s look at it from a pragmatic point of view:
Gaza – unoccupied – a hellhole
West Bank – occupied – somewhat better.
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
Palestinian Human Rights Campaign.
Hmmm. Wonder how many of them have any real connection at all?
Think there should be a ‘Right to Return for all Maori’ displaced by the Klark Regime.
All Pakeha Assets, especially the Herald to be Placed into a Trust for the Benefit of Maori Freedom and Rightful ownership.
All ‘Owned’ Pakeha Residences to be allocated to various Maori Families Debt free or Not.
Whereupon ‘rent’ shall be paid whilst inhabited.
All Cars owned by Pakeha ‘Debt Free or not’ shall have their ownershio passed into Maori Trust and should thereafter be rented at Avis/Hertz Prices per Day Use.
Etc.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Both sides appall me but I am sure there are decent people on both sides too – as well as fanatics and evil hatreds.
In my opinion accusations of anti-semitism are 99% garbage and an empty and dishonest rhetorical debating point.
Nowadays there is far more prejudice against Muslims than there is against Jews.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
god has told the jews this is there land,therefore it must be taken back at any cost,people just dont understand that israel is only doing what god wants them to do
sure israel has killed thousands of people in there quest to take back there land but these people are on there land that was promised to the jews by god
god is always right and isreal is only doing gods work no matter whos in the way
this to is the work of god and will help you understand israels holy quest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n4OhUpc20Q&eurl=http://www.dotconnectoruk.blogspot.com/
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
A good editorial from the NZ Herald though yes, the right of return is a sticky one and I can see why it is the most difficult issue to solve in the peace talks. I would have thought that after 60 years the former residents (or their children) would just take the money (assuming compensation is being offered) and stay where they are now or set up in the West Bank (as I think many are “refugees” in Jordan). Normally one would think refugees should have the right to eventually return to their homeland but I think we have a special case here based on the time lapse and unique historical, cultural and geographical factors. The negotiators need to think outside the square, and maybe this is where Obama can provide some new impetuous. The place is as big a mess as it´s ever been, and while the negotiation table has been tried and failed many times before, at least it doesn´t make matters worse, unlike the current conflict. The table needs to be tried again, and a potentially new US could be the difference this time. Stranger things have happened (I think).
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Lefties. What about all the Jews that had to be airlifted from Islamic states at short notice? Israel got no compensation for this.
If Israel became a majority Arab state there would be true apartheid in no time at all. Then you would be seeing genocide.
The Herald editor is full of shit and very liberal with the truth. When did Jews live in peace with Muslims? Never. When did they live under a form of discrimination? About 1,000 years ago. They make out like it was perfect pre 48.
The main fact that seems to get missed is all the modern cities in Israel where built by the Jews. It wasn’t like walking into London and taking over. Also a lot of the land was already owned by Jews that had been legally purchased from Arabs.
And why is the Gaza Strip so over crowded, because there wasn’t that many initially. Average of over 7 children per family may have something to do with it.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Just a reminder the current score is Palestinian deaths 396, Israeli deaths 4.
This is not a contest of equally blameworthy states, it is a one sided beating conducted against a history of land seizure and oppression of a civilian population.
There will be no peace until Israel recognises Palestine’s right to survive and stops targeting its civilians and lets its infrastructure recover. It could also for a start allow Palestine to bring in fuel and medical supplies.
Until then the Palestinian people will continue to produce martyrs against a nation they believe threatens their country’s survival.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Also has nothing to do with anti-semitism, just Hamas bent on the death of all Jews and the descruction of Israel.
Lets think of a world with no Israel. No INTEL chips for a start. Then there is all the security systems, biotech development etc.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Mickey how about you remove the number of terrorists from that figure?
Also because a Arab was killed by a Hamas rocket fired into Israel, which side do you count that death on?
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Also Mickey. Why doesn’t Egypt or Jordan just open their borders and let them in? There is no cultural or racial difference between any of them.
Before 1918 there were no country boundaries, they were all Arabs.
The left all talks about a Palestinian state. If the boundaries hadn’t changed in 67 then Egypt would still control Gaza and Jordan the West Bank. But you can guarantee that there would still be the same issues and groups wanting to wipe Israel off the map.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
MYTH
1. “The Palestinians have given up their maximalist dream of destroying Israel.”
2. “Palestinians are justified in using violence because the peace process has not allowed them to achieve their national aspirations.”
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/PeaceProcess.html#s18
You’ll also find an answer to right of return, though I think Alan Dershowitz’s op ed was best.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:42 pm
mickysavage said: “Just a reminder the current score is Palestinian deaths 396, Israeli deaths 4.”
As SR mentioned, you do need to remove the Hamas militiamen from this number. Surely they are legitimate targets, as the IDF are as well in this “war”. Compare civilian deaths to get a more accurate perspective.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Mickey Savage
Let me get this right, Israel is disproportionate?
Yeah right!
6500 rockets and mortars have been fired into an area where 250,000 people of all races and genders live, in the hope of killing some of them?
Even Barak Obama said ” If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night,
I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that and I expect the Israelis to do the same”.
Sadly in the main New Zealand has supported the terrorists, albeit obliquely.
We too have blood on our hands and as usual it is the ordinary people who suffer on both sides.
Especially as Hamas like Hezbullah deliberately bed their weapons and facilities amongst the ordinary populace.
Maybe the answer is either destroy the Jewish State of Israel or make the countries around them like glass?
This is not going to end as the intention of the Islamic world is the destruction of Israel and it’s being aided and abetted by people like you with your groupthink.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
SR
So actions of other states against Jews justifies Israeli suppression of Palestine?
And arn’t we seeing genocide now?
And Palestinians hell bent on destroying Israel? The only state I see being destroyed is Palestine.
[DPF: You know someone is incapable of rational discourse on the issue when they start accusing Israel of genocide.]
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Personally, I don’t really think the right of return is much of an issue. George Tenet’s “At the centre of the storm” has a chapter on Arafat. Tenet happened to become the lead middleman in 2001 Paris negotiations. The games detailed in that account on both sides nicely illustrate the difference between publically stated positions and private negotiating positions.
Both the right of return and the refusal to recognise Israel are long-term positions that have been in place since forever, for all practical purposes. Notwithstanding this factor, there have nevertheless been many significant negotiating rounds and many significant concessions on both sides. I really don’t understand why everyone is so exercised over it today.
There’s an interesting article by Richard Falk, the UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine. Whatever you think about his politics (and those are irrelevant to the point I’m making), he cites many geopolitical factors that add up to one plausible explanation for the Gaza fighting. It’s a shame to me that so far on these various Gaza threads, we haven’t yet objectively discussed the surrounding geopolitics.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Just a reminder the current score is Palestinian deaths 396, Israeli deaths 4.
In other words, Israel is winning the war. Excellent.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
BTW – there is no Palestinian children just Arab children as there was no Palestinian state in the 400yrs before Israel came about when it was owned by the Turks of the Ottoman Empire and when Jordan and Egypt administered the areas before Israel won the areas in Just war Rem 1967?
Then came about the marketing idea of a Palestinian state, when they realised they couldn’t win after 1973.
Also note, before the formation of the State of Israel the British used to refer to the Arabs as Arabs and the Jews as Palestinians.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/
You’ll find all of it there and another place is
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
If the Palestinians in Gaza had just accepted the land back from Israel that was given to them on the grounds of “Peaceful Co-existence”, and not been firing rockets into Israel for the past 6 months, the Israelis would not now be attacking Gaza.
Why can’t you dipshit Hamas supporters see that?
Instead, you conduct yourselves like Professionally Agrieved Greivance Professionals, and call on Israel to be destroyed.
I give up on you bunch of dickheads.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I think that there may be some sense in creating a New Israel.
Say in Canada, they have plenty of room, or Australia?
Even New Zealand could cope with the formation of a NI in the Wellington District.
We could then send the Palestinian Sympathisers to the old Israel to live in paece and harmony with their Hamas Huggies!
Imagine if the Jews moved out, and the Philistines moved in. Then all the aid was cut off to the Evil Rag Heads.
It would be like Zimbabwe in about 5 years flat.
There is a marked difference between what the Israelis achieve with the land, compared to the lazy fucktards across the Borders.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Don’t ever give up on them Don – keep hammering away at them with the truth.
They want to destroy Israel and the Jews and we mustn’t ever forget that, even though they won’t admit it.
The Jews are the canary in the mine.
The Islamics will never give up, they just keep quiet whilst they are beaten with a stronger hand or call a Hudna to regroup rearm and then return to the fray.
They intend to see all of the world to be under Sharia.
The dipsticks you refer to are useful idiots and will bow the knee to Mohummed when push comes to shove.
We just keep fighting in all the areas we can against them and their Dhimmitude.
Never never Give UP.
Freedom is worth it!
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Israel’s war in Gaza is an act of political insanity. It is the product of a deeply disturbed society, able neither to curb its military arrogance nor calm its profound paranoia. The consequences are likely to be painful for Israel’s long-term prospects.
By radicalising the Palestinians, and by arousing great anger in the Arab and Muslim world, this savage war rules out the possibility of Israel’s peaceful integration in the region for the foreseeable future. That may even be its cynical aim, since Israel wants dominance, not peaceful coexistence.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Yes GM
but the why should the Jews leave the land where they have lived since they were given it.
Sod the Islamics and the Arabists let the Arab states absorb the refugees as what happens all over the world in displacement ususally.
While we’re at it let’s close down the UN Palestinian refugee organisation, they should have no special treatment over other refugees and shows up the anti Jewish sentiment of the UN and it’s members.
Let’s close down the UN anyway, bunch of shitfaces living high on the hog protecting tyrants and dictators and advancing the Islamic agenda.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Someone should let Fran know that doling out millions of dollars in foreign aid to a terrorist regime, whilst a decade of deficits is projected, and sick patients are flooding the hospital corridors, isn’t exactly a good look either….
Guess it’s a matter of perspective.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
jastowns
the Islamics are radicalised anyway and nurtured from birth and at schools that we pay for.
so your statement is bull shit.
You are right in only one thing it is a product of a disturbed society, if Israel wasn’t disturbed they would have bombed gaza as each and every missile came in.
they didn’t they tried to be humanitarian as they are now sending in tons of aid and food and medicine.
something you don’t acknowledge so I guess i know where you stabnd on Israel’s existance don’t I?
Sorry to be so blunt but I won’t give up and hopefully Don won’t.
BTW – can you recite the Islamic prayers ?
Learn buddy if you’re going to carry on like this.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
The war has, in fact, confirmed what had long been apparent, namely that Israel has no interest in a negotiated peace. Peace means retraction, it means ceding territory, whereas Israel is still bent on expansion. That is what the continued theft of West Bank land and the mushrooming settlements are all about, together with the demolition of Palestinian homes, the security wall, the settlers-only road network, the stifling of the Palestinian economy by over 600 checkpoints, and countless other cruel vexations.
Peace is, indeed, the main casualty of this war. It is as dead as the corpses in Gaza. The two-state solution has been dealt a deathblow. The tentative Israeli-Syrian talks have been firmly shut down. The Arab Peace Plan, which offered Israel peace and normal relations with all 22 Arab states if it withdrew to its 1967 borders, has been buried in a welter of blood and bomb wreckage.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
yeah fox
and what will they do with our aid?
use it to further radicalise their kids, use it to free up other resources to buy more expolsives and bombs.
Before any pollie gives our taxes away to anyone, I want to know they will hold them accountable for how it’s spent and we will be reported back to and be able to veto it.
there are enough businesses and people here who could put that money to good use.
ohh except jastowns.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Ohh yes jastowns more bullshit.
every time israel has ceded territory has it worked.
The Arabs have never held up their side of any agreement since 1948.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/
But lets not let the truth get in the way of a good arguement shall we?
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Frankly the Hamas sympathisers make me want to Vom.
Just like the ‘queer as a fruit bat’ leader the Philistines had before.
Yasser Arafat, better known as Jasmine of the Dessert for his sick penchant for little boys!
The Man with no less than 6 Helos, before the Mossad left him with one.
Corrupt, Venal, and self serving. Sexual Deviants with all that power.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
The “one-state democracy” “solution” that the Herald has bought into, is as simple as this: it would be like 8 million cannibals and 7 million civilised people taking a vote on what to have for dinner.
The Herald’s disingenuity is simply disgraceful; people who support this notion are either pigshit stupid, perhaps wilfully so; or raging genocide-supporting Jew-haters.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
What bullshit turpin,Israel has never liked Palestinian moderates, for the simple reason that concessions might have to be made to them. To avoid being drawn into negotiations, it has always preferred Palestinian radicals — and when they were not there it has done everything it could to create them. “How can you negotiate with someone who wants to kill you?” is a familiar Israeli refrain.
The war on Gaza has confirmed Israel’s visceral rejection of any expression of Palestinian nationalism. It will kill to prevent it, as sixty years of wars, assassinations and massacres testify. Consciously or not, Israeli leaders seem to fear that any recognition of Palestinian aspirations undermines the legitimacy of their own national enterprise.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Now that’s a whole nother thread about Islam and the repressed sexuality and violence to women and homosexuals and lets not forget the children in the maddrassas
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Turpin, what do you think is the endgame?
As far as I can see under present policies, hatreds and trends the only possible ending is a nuclear holocaust in Israel and the only question is how long until it happens.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Jastowns
So When no bombing or missiles come in for a year (which will never happen) you would eat your words.
But you KNOW that that will never happen so you push your bile safe that the conflict will go on.
Meantime you want to destroy the ONLY democracy in the Middle east and little 1% of the Mid East.
So Please I know where you are and what you want to achieve.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
The principal aim of Israel’s all-out war on Hamas is to reaffirm the military supremacy over all its neighbours which the Jewish state has enjoyed since its creation in 1948. The war is therefore meant as a warning to Hizbullah in Lebanon, as well as to Syria and Iran — and indeed to anyone who might dare challenge Israel’s predominance — that they, too, could face the sort of devastating punishment Gaza is now enduring.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Alan Wilkinson (74) Vote: 2 4 Says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
“…..Nowadays there is far more prejudice against Muslims than there is against Jews…..”
Alan, what planet do you live on? Are you aware that even in the USA, the FBI’s hate crime statistics show many times as much anti-Jewish hate crime, like desecration of synagogues, as there is anti-Muslim hate crime like desecration of mosques; and this reality is repeated, only on much worse scales, all over Europe. The murder, rape, and assault of JEWS, BY Muslims, in Europe, is a crisis of humanity that is being disgracefully ignored all over.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Alan
The Islamists will not give up as Israel is an affront to their religion and their prophet.
They mean to have back ALL land under the infidels domination and anywhere where there are infidels (dar el harb) they want to bring the most perfect state of humankind that humankind can live under, namely Sharia Law.
Then all the world will be under Dar el Islam and we will be able to live in the most perfect peace with no conflict as we will all be in submission to Their Moon God under Sharia.
Nuclear?
Not by sovereign states but if they won’t stop supplying and aiding the terrorists then someone will use a dirty bomb either there in the Mid east or elsewhere to make their point.
Of Interest is that Arafat, Saddam and the old Syrian leader signed an agreement to act together.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I just want Israel to behave like human beings.Throughout the truce with Hamas, which started some six months ago on 19 June, Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak devoted himself to planning for the war, which he and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni have now unleashed. Long and careful preparations for the assault were made in the months of relative quiet. The last thing Israel could accept was that Hamas might acquire any deterrent capability of its own, however minimal.
This is what Barak meant when he said that Israel’s intention was “totally to change the rules of the game.” Resistance to Israel of any sort is not to be allowed. Hamas has to be destroyed and rooted out of Gaza altogether. It remains to be seen what the longer-term consequences of this folly might be.all,
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I live in NZ on planet Earth, PhilBest. Where do you live?
Of course Muslim vs Jew is totally and disastrously polarised. I’m talking about feelings towards each of those religions by those of other or no religions. Those are the people usually and falsely accused of anti-semitism when actually they oppose only the actions of the state of Israel.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 pm
There have been numerous cases around the world, of competing claims by different races or cultures, to the same piece of land. We have bits of land between Germany and France, between Serbia and Bosnia, between Russia and Poland, between India and Pakistan; to name but a few. In some cases, ancient hatreds seem to have been buried and peaceful coexistence achieved, irrespective of the issues of which nation possesses the disputed territory.
In other cases, it has been necessary for a compromise solution to be imposed by the international community through the UN. These compromise solutions involve a physical separation of the incompatible peoples, with the displacement of significant numbers of both. Obviously, the solution designed will attempt to be as fair as possible, and draw borders that require the minimum amount of displacement of peoples. This was the case with the UN-designed “1946 borders” of Israel and Jordan and a “Palestinian State”. However, this solution assumed a peaceful coexistence, and did not allow for defensibility of the borders of the new Jewish State; in fact one would even wonder if the Europeans involved had any intention of the new State surviving at all, when the facts on the ground at the time are considered. I mean, a State that over a significant amount of its length, is 15 miles wide, between the Mediterranean sea and its sworn enemies………get real?
OK, the Jewish State embarrassed its creators by daring to survive, and in the process, taking defensive positions beyond its original borders while reasonably awaiting end-of-conflict non-aggression agreements. Note that NO JEWS remained in “Palestinian” or Arabic areas, while several hundred thousand Arabs remained within the borders of Israel. This should tell us a lot about the moral status of the adversaries; but no, Israel’s detractors choose to focus solely on displaced Arabs, rather than displaced Jews and their legitimate fears in the event that they remained in Arab dominated areas.
The point that I find is crucial, when discussing these issues with New Zealanders, is that almost everyone has no concept of the size of the territories in dispute. This is not France and Germany; or India and Pakistan. We are talking about a State, Israel, that is about the size of the lower North Island of NZ from Wanganui to Wellington, only, at its narrowest point, no wider than the Kapiti Coast. We are talking about territories disputed by the “Palestinians”, that are about the size of Upper Hutt. Imagine the Kapiti Coast being populated by Jews, and the overlooking ranges being populated by “Palestinians”. Would you deny the Jews the right to hold onto at least the first range of hills overlooking their towns, in the absence of clear, sworn, and demonstrated peaceability on the part of the Arabs? What we are talking about here, is a tacit “Final Solution” that you can either endorse or reject; what you choose says a lot more about you than it does about Israel.
There are surrounding nations that are kin to the “Palestinian” Arabs; Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia; these nations are in total a hundred times the size of Israel, hundreds of thousands of square kilometers. Yet the possibility of the absorption of the displaced “Palestinians” by these nations never comes up; the focus is entirely on 18,000 square km Israel being demanded to relinquish 4,000 square km of strategic territory that virtually cuts it in half, to people who remain avowedly devoted to Israel’s destruction.
I have said this before and will keep saying it. If the “Palestinans”, and Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia were all Christian, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or anything except Islamic, the descendants of the displaced “Palestinians” would all long since have got themselves a life in the land to which they had been displaced and welcomed with open ams; in many cases merely a few kilometers from where they originally lived. Are there ANY territorial disputes anywhere in the world where Islam is involved, where this has happened? Cyprus? Bosnia? Kashmir? East Timor?
Look at India and Pakistan. How many Hindus in Pakistan? Nix. Nada. Nil. How many Muslims in India? Tens of millions. Which country still has trouble with the other side attacking it, demanding that their rights be acceded to? How many Hindu demands for a right to live in peace in Pakistan where their ancestors came from, backed up with terror attacks in Pakistan? Ever?
The international blindness to the existential threat that is Islam, in favour of an obsession with the so-called crimes of the tiny, imperilled Jewish state, can only be explained by reference to the biblical and the supernatural. It is not explicable on rational, humanist grounds. And the inability of “liberal” “humanists” to acknowledge this, merely strengthens the case against them.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Wake up Jastowns.
I’M Sorry I forgot you’re a enemy of Israel and are parroting what your masters want.
You know very well that the Islamists aim are to surround Israel with so much weaponry that they won’t be able to stop the next major attack.
In the meantime they bleed the Israelis and keep them on the back foot with dicks like you in top echelons of the UN and Western Governments and your bullshit. Which you know is bullshit but it serves your end to lie.
The West (read USA, EU) and China and Russia give/sell/loan the advanced weaponry to the so called moderate Islamists Like Saudi, Egypt which means they will have nearer parity to the Israelis.
[[Do a look up on Silkworms and Saudi Arabia for starters.
The Saudis are no friend of democracy but you and your other useful idiot friends don't apply your intelligence to that issue do you? suspect on purpose.]]
Then when they have enough (quantity) of missiles that can hit all of Israel they’ll launch the attack which the UN EU and West will do nothing about as they will have becomes Dhimmis by conquest from within or by living as Dhimmis from afar and being hamstrung in that protector of tyrants dictators and Islamists the UN.
Wars are fought in minutes now not days now as you well know and so we grind on inexorably to the Day when Israel is really alone because the whole world will either be active in her destruction or turn the other way (which is the same).
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Interesting explanations
“Wartime in Gaza: The worst anti-Israel charges you’ll hear,
It is, abruptly and again, wartime. Across the globe, the selective pacifists of the left and the recliner Rambos of the right are spoiling for their next battle, the war in Gaza
Herewith the first in a two-part guide to the 10 most gratuitous, least productive, most resolutely ingenuous claims likely to be hurled in an effort to attack Israel.
The first five are arguments of the anti-Israel left, claims which are, curiously, as tired as they are unflagging……..”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050421.html
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Alan Wilkinson (76) Vote: 0 0 Says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“I live in NZ on planet Earth, PhilBest. Where do you live?
Of course Muslim vs Jew is totally and disastrously polarised. I’m talking about feelings towards each of those religions by those of other or no religions. Those are the people usually and falsely accused of anti-semitism when actually they oppose only the actions of the state of Israel.”
Alan, I do not blame you for not knowing this, but hate crimes against Jews, are a far bigger problem in spite of the far lower numbers of Jews; than are hate crimes against Muslims; in the USA, England, and Europe. It is not a “reasonable reaction” against the so-called “crimes” of the state of Israel; that Synagogues get vandalised or destroyed and Orthodox Jews get murdered, beaten up, and raped; in France. Your original comment that I was responding to,
“…..Nowadays there is far more prejudice against Muslims than there is against Jews…..”; is simply way out of touch with reality. But as I say, I do not blame you for not knowing this; there is simply so much institutional bias involved. It is a strange phenomenon, but apparently “hate crimes against Jews” are ignored, because apparently the “crimes” committed by Israel are the real issue; but “Islamophobia” and hate crimes against Muslims, which take place at a far lower rate, will be subjected to endless media analysis and condemnation.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Jastowns you want Israel to behave like Human beings?
What utter rubbish and a vicious libel.
Who put their weaponry amongst the children in Gaza, who Bombed in the relative quiet?
Who is right now sending food and medicines to the Gaza populace because they have none as the monies were spent on weapons.
and therein lies your position
The relative quiet you state was bombs coming down on populated areas where kids were!
But they don’t matter do they because they are Jewish aren’t they.
again you know that wars take minutes now and especially over short distances that rockets are used.
you also know that that is the intention of the Islamists to defeat israel and drive the Jews into the sea.
so what does that make you?
That’s why with the history since 1948 barak was planning the next part of the war, its what ministers have to do against a foe that won’t give up like you.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Why would Israel be barring foreign journalists from entering the Gaza Strip despite a Supreme Court decision this week to allow a limited number to enter the territory.
Yes it it easy to see they dont want the world to get another opion other than Israils propaganda
The ban has been in place since a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas began to fray on Nov. 5.
Israel has maintained the closure since launching its air offensive against Gaza a week ago.
A legal challenge by the Foreign Press Association, which represents foreign media in Israel, prompted the court ruling this week to allow a limited number of foreign journalists to enter when the border crossing between Israel and Gaza is open.
territories, which launched a petition, said the court ordered the state to allow a first group of eight journalists into Gaza.
But no reporters went in on Friday after the FPA objected to a government demand that authorities choose two of the eight reporters allowed to go in. The FPA said it was “dismayed” by the demand.
The court ruled reporters should be allowed to enter in groups of eight to 12 in the future, an FPA statement said.
Israel banned journalists from entering Gaza after it launched its massive air offensive, limiting coverage inside the enclaved territory to local journalists and photographers.
The FPA, which represents resident journalists of all foreign media, welcomed the decision to allow in the foreign press, but also called for the permanent opening of the crossings into Gaza to reporters.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
“I just want Israel to behave like human beings”
So a State has to don human qualities?
What the Fuck do you think the Hamas Rockets are intended to do?
They must be celebrating Mo’s birthday every day now?
You are a Lying lefty Troll, with tish for Brains.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
again more bullshit from you Jastowns.
you have ignored the truth of what the islamists want and the history against the jews and brought up another distraction issue?
Are you a disciple of Alinsky ?
To answer in part, war is fought in many spheres and one is in the media and they want to get into where the wicked zionist machine has hurt the poor Palestinian children.
ohh Justn move the teddy over there in frame better, thanks.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
jastowns (101) Vote: 0 2 Says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
“I just want Israel to behave like human beings.Throughout the truce with Hamas, which started some six months ago on 19 June, Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak devoted himself to planning for the war, which he and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni have now unleashed. Long and careful preparations for the assault were made in the months of relative quiet…..”
What an apologist-for-genocidal-maniacs twat you are, Jastowns.
So Israel spent the months of peace keeping a close eye on all those Hamas weapons caches and launching sites, and planning to take them out, so that when Hamas started to use them again in breach of the cease-fire, they would be able to take them out as quickly as possible; and you think you have the right to condemn Israel not only for doing that, but for being forewarned and prepared?
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
PhilBest and Turpin, thanks for your good, thoughtful posts.
Turpin, you seem to be agreeing with me about the most probable endgame. So something has to change. I think we would also agree it is the Muslim belief system. So how?
PhilBest, do you seriously suggest that more Jews are killed or injured by Muslims than the reverse? I stand by my opinion that the average NZer and probably European is a great deal more prejudiced against the Muslim religion than against the Jewish religion – and with cause.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Stopping journalists jastowns….you mean like this from the Associated Press ?
“Iran closes reformist paper blaming Hamas
The editor of a reformist Iranian newspaper says his daily was shut for publishing a statement blaming the militant Hamas group for provoking Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip.
Mehran Karami says a government order to close the paper _ Kargozaran _ came Wednesday. It said the move followed the publishing of a reformist student group statement saying Hamas is to blame for Israel’s assault.
Karami says the statement condemned Israeli attacks but also called Hamas a terrorist organization hiding in schools and thus drawing civilian casualties.
Iran doesn’t recognize Israel and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of the Jewish state. Tehran is Hamas’ main backer but denies arming the Palestinian militants.
Associated Press
2008-12-31 11:00 PM”
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
jastowns (101) Vote: 0 2 Says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
“I just want Israel to behave like human beings…..”
How about Hamas behaving like Human beings? The Gazans have been on the receiving end of the most international aid per capita of any people in the world, for years; in fact the amount per capita is higher than the average wage in Egypt and several other countries in the region. What has Gaza got to show for it? If they changed their whole reason for living every day when they get out of bed in the morning, to something other than “get Israel”, they could have themselves another Dubai on the Mediterranean.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Al Jazeera has lots of reporters, even television crews, inside Gaza. You can get your fill of broadcasts from inside Gaza by watching their streaming channel. The station also maintains a twitter channel on Gaza, if you’re really interested in minute-by-minute news.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Turpin what utter shit,you are an obvious pro Israel, anti muslim,when i am nether being an atheist
After six days of Israeli bombardment, aid agencies say that Gazans are facing a humanitarian crisis with air strikes causing severe problems in getting food, medicine and fuel supplies to the besiegedcivilian population.
The assessment, by several international relief organisations, contradicts the statement by the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, during a visit to Paris yesterday that “there is no humanitarian crisis in the Strip, and therefore there is no need for a humanitarian truce”. While relief shipments were allowed into Gaza by the Israeli authorities in the days before the start of the offensive, they came after weeks of virtually no supplies getting through, the agencies point out.
The biggest difficulty is that many people are too frightened by bombing to venture out to collect food rations. Gaza officials are also unwilling to take part in food distribution because they could be considered legitimate targets by the Israeli military for working for the Hamas-run administration. Chris Gunness of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which looks after 750,000 refugees in Gaza, said: “How can one carry out proper relief work in these conditions of violence? The people of Gaza have already suffered the most stringent economic sanctions. There are obviously problems with giving out aid. Even when people want to get food for their hungry family, they are very aware of the dangers they are facing in going out.”
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Perhaps the Ragheads will stop playing with lethal rockets then?
Didn’t notice any Jewish Fanatics blowing up Restaurants in Germany.
7/7 bombings, Glasgow Airport, Madrid Central Train Station, all those pesky Jews again.
The myriad bombing in India, and the butchery of Jews in Mumbai?
The Evil that is the misinterpretation of the Koran that the Fundamentalists cling to is sickening.
However that is all they know. Here there is a choice, and Jastowns, I for one would happily debate this eye to eye!
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Alan Wilkinson (77) Vote: 0 0 Says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
“PhilBest and Turpin, thanks for your good, thoughtful posts.
Turpin, you seem to be agreeing with me about the most probable endgame. So something has to change. I think we would also agree it is the Muslim belief system. So how?
PhilBest, do you seriously suggest that more Jews are killed or injured by Muslims than the reverse? I stand by my opinion that the average NZer and probably European is a great deal more prejudiced against the Muslim religion than against the Jewish religion – and with cause.”
I certainly do insist that the facts are that the statistics for crimes in Europe, involve nearly an epidemic of murders and rapes and assaults apon Jews and their properties, mostly by Muslims, next by Neonazi skinheads, and lastly by “other people”; and that there is nothing like the same problem happening for Muslims, in fact the reverse is the case, most populations in Europe live in fear of the Muslim presence in their communities, not the other way around.
I completely understand your opinion that the average NZer and probably European is a great deal more prejudiced against the Muslim religion than against the Jewish religion – and with cause. You are talking about by and large decent people and their non-acted-apon opinions. I am talking about the actual commission of hate crimes. We are lucky here in NZ to be oblivious to the kind of ancient hatreds that inflict old countries; Jews are unlikely to suffer the kind of treatment here in NZ that is the norm in even a civilised country like, say, France; and Muslims are far less likely to suffer that treatment in France than Jews are, in spite of the fact that Muslims in France are a source of endless highly militant and criminal strife. The underlying dynamics of fear where Muslims are concerned, is one of fear OF Muslims, not fear on the part of Muslims. Violence FROM Jews, on the other hand, is simply not something that is feared by Europeans.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Tell me is this Humus,if you want me to believe your propaganda,EXPLAIN THIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n4OhUpc20Q&eurl=http://www.dotconnectoruk.blogspot.com/
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“The biggest difficulty is that many people are too frightened by bombing to venture out to collect food rations”
does the fear come when they put on their jacket, or strap on their belt?
Is strapping a bomb to your 11-year-old son and telling him he’ll become a martyr “behaving like human beings”
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“Why can’t you dipshit Hamas supporters see that? Instead, you conduct yourselves like Professionally Agrieved Greivance Professionals, and call on Israel to be destroyed. I give up on you bunch of dickheads.”
See here’s the thing Don. I abhor Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and have for years, because in my view Israel consistently acts not just like a bully but a thug.
It uses its vastly superior power – military, financial and diplomatic – to give Palestinians a terrible time. It basically metaphorically holds the Palestinians by the throat up against the wall. If Israel’s objective is to achieve internal security, then this behaviour is ineffective, counter-productive and unnecessary.
It’s clearly ineffective because over the years Israel has achieved absolutely no change in attitude, rather it’s become worse and this latest Gaza incident merely adds more fuel. The results speak for themselves: it hasn’t worked.
It’s obviously counter-productive. Every 10-year-old knows that bullying behaviour makes enemies out of the people who are bullied, it’s a very well known thing. Some people deny outright that Israel acts like a bully. To me this position belies the facts freely available to an objective reader. Unfortunately some people lapse into justification mode when they’re reading these facts. Obviously that’s quite irrelevant when all you’re considering is whether a particular event actually occurred or not. There’s a long long litany of them.
Israel’s thuggish behaviour is sometimes justified as being necessary for security. I ask, how so? Security depends on intelligence and deterrence. Israel already has both those things and they exist quite separately to its actions against the Palestinians. I’m not talking about security from a few rockets, that’s not a strategic threat to Israel, and I’d remind people that when Fatah was in power the rockets didn’t stop then, either. Strategically from a security perspective, rockets are pin-pricks, as illustrated by the extremely low Israeli casualty figures. Politically however, they’re dynamite. But I repeat, not strategically. Ironically, intelligence gathering would become easier were Israel to behave more reasonably and deterrence would become easier via threat reduction dynamics as a result of fewer people being driven into the arms of the terrorists.
If anyone interprets this comment as implying that I in any way support terror or terrorism or Hamas or Fatah, let me just say in advance, you’re a freaking moron and you’re seeing something that isn’t there.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
jastowns (103) Vote: 0 2 Says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“Why would Israel be barring foreign journalists from entering the Gaza Strip despite a Supreme Court decision this week to allow a limited number to enter the territory.
Yes it it easy to see they dont want the world to get another opion(sic) other than Israils(sic) propaganda…..”
Jastowns, ALL journalistic activity within Gaza is so controlled by Hamas “minders”, that it ends up as Hamas propaganda. Turpin is right; they even place teddy bears in rubble as part of their stage-setting before letting Western journos on the scene. What we are seeing here is a repeat of the same sort of thing as Western media getting conducted tours of Potemkin villages in Cuba and the former USSR, and coming back and telling us how much morally superior our enemies are to us.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
“if you want me to believe your propaganda,EXPLAIN THIS”
How did the Israel military know McKinneys boat wasn’t carrying weapons? The stupid bitch was entering a war zone FFS. What else did she expect them to do
The silly cow cites a 1967 incident involving the USS Liberty to justify her hatred of Israel
HULLLO – (forgotten more recent events have you?)
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Reid, you are not in the same class as Jastowns. Surely you can see the points I and others are making about Hamas? I fully understand your point about Israel’s actions aggravating the situation, but I do not believe that your suggested solution, Israel “ignoring the pinpricks”, would actually work in the long term.
What we are talking about here, is another classic case of a regime, Islamic theocracy, that will rule by terror anyway even if it is not democratically supported, just like the Bolsheviks, or the CCP, or the Khmer Rouge. “Moderate” Palestinians very quickly end up dead at the hands of the militants, by gruesome butchery, by way of an example. Many Palestinians would rather that Hamas did NOT set up their launching sites and weapons dumps right next to their homes and schools; but they have no say in the matter. Of course, there is a certain element that even rejoices in this as part of glorious “martyrdom”; I do not think that we can engage in rational analysis of motives and so on as if these people were the same as us. Of course they might have been the same as us, but it would require as much change to their culture as to their circumstances at any particular time.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Jastowns
“After six days of Israeli bombardment, aid agencies say that Gazans are facing a humanitarian crisis with air strikes causing severe problems in getting food, medicine and fuel supplies to the besiegedcivilian population.”
Duh!
This is what happens in War.
How many trucks have the Israelis tried to send in?
There are consequences.
Reid
“It’s clearly ineffective because over the years Israel has achieved absolutely no change in attitude, rather it’s become worse and this latest Gaza incident merely adds more fuel. The results speak for themselves: it hasn’t worked.”
It will never work as I stated in my other post because the Islamists and their useful idiots won’t ever let up until Israel is destroyed.
Reid
“If anyone interprets this comment as implying that I in any way support terror or terrorism or Hamas or Fatah, let me just say in advance, you’re a freaking moron and you’re seeing something that isn’t there”.
How is Israel to deal to the so called pinpricks when they get accurate or the payload is devastating or both?
It isn’t about pinpricks it’s about NO PINPRICKS or BOMBS.
have there ever been a time since 1948 when there haven’t been attacks on Israel?
You are either for the continued existence of the state of Israel or against it.
and if you call me a freaking moron then so be it.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
McKinney is a well known Jew Hater!!
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
you have only explained half of it like i knew you would what about the USS Liberty come on you loosers EXPLAIN THAT
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
PhilBest, I think we are pretty much on the same page now except perhaps for two points:
1. “Anti-semitism” accusations are counter-productive for public opinion when used indiscriminately. They need to be reserved for cases where religious prejudice is clearly the issue rather than just politics.
2. There are “by and large decent” Muslim people too – some of whom have fled persecution by their fellow Muslims. I have respected friends both Muslim and Jewish.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
JANUARY 2, 2009 WALLO STREET JOURNAL
“Israel’s Policy Is Perfectly ‘Proportionate’ – Hamas are the real war criminals in this conflict.”
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
“israel’s actions in Gaza are justified under international law, and Israel should be commended for its self-defense against terrorism. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter reserves to every nation the right to engage in self-defense against armed attacks. The only limitation international law places on a democracy is that its actions must satisfy the principle of proportionality.
Since Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, Hamas has fired thousands of rockets designed to kill civilians into southern Israel. The residents of Sderot — which have borne the brunt of the attacks — have approximately 15 seconds from launch time to run into a shelter. Although deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime, terrorists firing at Sderot are so proud of their actions that they sign their weapons.
When Barack Obama visited Sderot this summer and saw the remnants of these rockets, he reacted by saying that if his two daughters were exposed to rocket attacks in their home, he would do everything in his power to stop such attacks. He understands how the terrorists exploit the morality of democracies.
In a recent incident related to me by the former head of the Israeli air force, Israeli intelligence learned that a family’s house in Gaza was being used to manufacture rockets. The Israeli military gave the residents 30 minutes to leave. Instead, the owner called Hamas, which sent mothers carrying babies to the house.
The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal’s widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
Hamas knew that Israel would never fire at a home with civilians in it. They also knew that if Israeli authorities did not learn there were civilians in the house and fired on it, Hamas would win a public relations victory by displaying the dead. Israel held its fire. The Hamas rockets that were protected by the human shields were then used against Israeli civilians.
These despicable tactics — targeting Israeli civilians while hiding behind Palestinian civilians — can only work against moral democracies that care deeply about minimizing civilian casualties. They never work against amoral nations such as Russia, whose military has few inhibitions against killing civilians among whom enemy combatants are hiding.
The claim that Israel has violated the principle of proportionality — by killing more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets — is absurd. First, there is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian.
In Today’s Opinion Journal
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Euro Decade and Its LessonsTreasury to Ford: Drop Dead
TODAY’S COLUMNISTS
Declarations: In With the New
– Peggy NoonanPotomac Watch: The Senate Goes Wobbly on Card Check
– Kimberley A. Strassel
COMMENTARY:
Conservatives Can Unite Around the Constitution
– Peter BerkowitzLet’s Be Worthy of Their Sacrific
– Karl RoveLet’s Write the Rating Agencies Out of Our Law
– Robert RosenkranzObama Promises Bush III on Iran
– John R. BoltonIsrael’s Policy Is Perfectly ‘Proportionate’
– Alan M. DershowitzSecond, proportionality is not measured by the number of civilians actually killed, but rather by the risk posed. This is illustrated by what happened on Tuesday, when a Hamas rocket hit a kindergarten in Beer Sheva, though no students were there at the time. Under international law, Israel is not required to allow Hamas to play Russian roulette with its children’s lives.
While Israel installs warning systems and builds shelters, Hamas refuses to do so, precisely because it wants to maximize the number of Palestinian civilians inadvertently killed by Israel’s military actions. Hamas knows from experience that even a small number of innocent Palestinian civilians killed inadvertently will result in bitter condemnation of Israel by many in the international community.
Israel understands this as well. It goes to enormous lengths to reduce the number of civilian casualties — even to the point of foregoing legitimate targets that are too close to civilians.
Until the world recognizes that Hamas is committing three war crimes — targeting Israeli civilians, using Palestinian civilians as human shields, and seeking the destruction of a member state of the United Nations — and that Israel is acting in self-defense and out of military necessity, the conflict will continue.”
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
‘looser’ than what?
you obviously thought her USS liberty claim was stupid as well
Cant really see what’s left to explain. A load mouth rabble rouser takes a large pleasure craft into a war zone and completely ignores directions from a military craft protecting their waters, and they got rammed – what else?
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
grumpyoldhori teach the bro to love their kids(DONT WORRY ABOUT HAMAS AND ISRAEL) luv kids like i do. A THOUGHT lets not get the tratior back ,lets show the CUSSIE bro that you dont need to KILL YOUR YOUNG BRO. wrecks the benifit payments
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Jastowns
“Turpin what utter shit,you are an obvious pro Israel, anti muslim,when i am nether being an atheist”
I am not necessarily pro Israel, But when Israel has had a whole year of NO BOMB or MISSILES then we can talk about it properly and in order, whilst they are under attack I advocate all those who aid and abet it (incl useful idiots) to desist or at worse to be destroyed themselves.
I am Pro Jew though.
What’s being an atheist got to do with not being a Jew hater?
How dare you name me as anti Muslim.
I am anti Islam, a very different thing, which is a wicked enslaving system of belief, who’s followers and friends (useful idiots) seek to enslave the world under Sharia law.
if you don’t see that you’re stupid or ignorant or dense, you could be all three or maybe deceived.
What I do know is that freedom is very very precious and No One deserves Dhimmitude at the hands of wicked people ever anywhere.
This is an issue you will either be on one side or another there is NO middle way.
Sharia or not.
Wake up.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Jasrtown and other Hamasophiles. OK – what is your solution. Bear in mind that your side want to exterminate the jewish people (their words, not mine). I don’t want to hear about settlements or bombings. Lets say Israel ceases to exist tomorrow. How do you stop your Islamist mates from carrying out their stated aims of ridding the world of Jews. Given you think that Jews should not defend themselves, how do you propose to protect the millions of Jews who are in Israel?
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
AW
We are on the same page there too on both points.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
“How dare you name me as anti Muslim.
I am anti Islam, a very different thing, which is a wicked enslaving system of belief, who’s followers and friends (useful idiots) seek to enslave the world under Sharia law.
if you don’t see that you’re stupid or ignorant or dense, you could be all three or maybe deceived.
What I do know is that freedom is very very precious and No One deserves Dhimmitude at the hands of wicked people ever anywhere.
This is an issue you will either be on one side or another there is NO middle way.
Sharia or not.
Wake up.
”
Well said – people always trot out racism when you are anti-Islam – as if a belief is a race. I have heard of Blacks, Whites, Chinese, Indians, Inuit and Asian – but I have never heard of a race called Muslim.
I hate Islam and detest those who blindly follow that political/religious code. They are brainwashed bigots whose belief system has no place in modern society. That doesn’t make me rascist.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Oh Brian you wicked wicked man.
Come on Jastowns and Reid and the rest of you Islamic aiders Lets hear how the Jews will survive in the world you’ll make.
and answer me too.
What do you say when your Islamists then want Spain and all the other areas (which they will) that were under Islamic domination before today?
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Its not a claim it is public knowledge so EXPLAIN IT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Israel did attack the USS Liberty weather you think it is a stupid claim or not
This is the true nature of Israel
EXPLAIN THIS PROPERLY OF FUCK OFF WITH YOUR PRO ISRAEL PROPAGANDA
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Brian
You are correct.
hating and opposing Islam doesn’t make you a racist.
Being a follower or useful idiot of Muhammad is something that transcends race and gender.
It is an allegiance of the heart and mind.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Why are we worring about muslims and jews ,ITS A SIDESHOW in gaza (WHO CARES , fuck its a industry of death) bombs and bombs fall ETC ETC rockets are launched Bombs are dropped, MORE CHINESE AND RUSSIAN AND IRANIAN ROCKETS GO WOOOOOSH, smart bombs fall (WHO CARES ) its a hate industry
Tomorrow a male or female will kill a child, IN NEW ZEALAND SO MANY HAVE BEEN KILLED THAT TRIALS HAVNT STARTED. Every week a cussie bro, STEP FATHER , (MOTHER????????) are on trial fuck the middle east , our kids are getting killed by feral fuckwit humans opps we cannot discuss it as its sensitive, The death penalty could sort out the gene?????? pool
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Jastowns
yet again you ignore the core position being stated and argued for and bring in dribble instead.
then you make it the core of your participation.
and tell us to shut up if we won’t go down your rabbit hole.
If you won’t explain what will happen if Israel doesn’t defend herself against the Islamists in answer to Brian, please go away.
You abrogate your responsibility to fair discussion.
I would argue that you and other people who behave like Islamist useful idiots do that anyway by ignoring the facts and history of Islamism.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
As usual there is a great deal more heat than light here. Those of you who pretend to some knowledge of the History of this conflict should apply their energy to defeating these posts from tumeke.
1. One of the least understood aspects of this conflict revolves around Israel’s major bone of contention – recognition as a Jewish State.
Palestinians cannot accept this for three reasons. The first is because they were not the only party to reject partition:
“In internal discussion in 1938 [David Ben-Gurion] stated that ‘after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine’…In 1948, Menachem Begin declared that: ‘The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever.” Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”
Secondly, Israel has never recognized Palestine:
In an interview with the the Sunday Times Golda Meir, Israel’s Prime Minister between 1969-1974, stated in June 1969:
“It is not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them, they did not exist.” (Iron Wall, p. 311)
If one examines the constitution of several important Israeli political parties, one finds a denial of Palestinian statehood and rights. The Likud Party for instance, opposes statehood, as does the Yisrael Beiteinu Party which openly proposes the forcible transference of Arabs. Kadima has a bob each way by insisting on Israel’s historic right to all of Eretz Israel in its constitution but publicly paying lip service to a small Palestinian State.
Thirdly, a condition of recognition insisted upon by Israel is the abandonment of all claims arising out of the expulsion of the indigenous people in 1948. This, to the Palestinians, is utterly unacceptable. They would never have the right to even visit the place where their families had dwelt for centuries nor claim compensation for its loss. The “right of return” for Jews to a place where they have never lived as opposed to the prohibition of Palestinians to enter the land of their forefathers has its ironies.
For these reasons, to the Palestinians, nothing is settled. The original wound has never been treated and all bets are off.
In my view there is some merit in the argument. The U.N. partition plan was never ratified. Israel unilaterally declared statehood before it was put into effect and they did not accept it either by word or deed – Israel has never declared its borders. The Palestinians never accepted it at all. It is therefore a rather moot point as to whether partition is valid at all.
This makes all the territory disputed.
Under the Geneva convention, settling on disputed territory is forbidden and resistance to an occupier is permitted. To the Palestinian, settlers are complicit in the theft of their land and the violence that accompanies it.
2. One of the major myths exploited by the Israelis is that, in 1948, the nascent state was savagely and without provocation, attacked by the massed Arab forces.
The timeline does not support this thesis.
Before the Arab League moved to stabilise the area on 15th May 1948, 250,000 Palestinians had already been terrorised out of their homes and made refugees.
They were terrorised by events such as the massacre at Deir Yassin which is well documented and occurred at the beginning of April that year.
Benny Morris, himself a committed Zionist and Professor of history at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be’er Sheva had this to say:
Q: Benny Morris, in the month ahead the new version of your book on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem is due to be published. Who will be less pleased with the book – the Israelis or the Palestinians?
Morris: The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.
http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm
It was for this reason that the Arab League acted. I recommend a thorough reading of their declaration:
http://www.ipcri.org/files/Arableaguestatement48.html
At no time in the ’48 action did Arab forces cross beyond the Partition boundaries and into the proposed Jewish State. The League did favour a Unitary State with votes for all and this, it seems, was what Israel feared the most – a modern plural democracy. They were, furthermore, outnumbered by the Israeli forces:
“In the Event of invading [Arab] forces were limited to approximately 30,000 men. The strongest [consider this fact while reading the next quote] single contingent was the Jordanian one, already described. Next came Egyptians with 5,500 men, then the Iraqis with 4,500 who ….. were joined by perhaps 3,000 local irregulars. The total was thus around eight rather under strength brigades, some of them definitely of second-and even third-rate quality. To these must be added approximately 2,000 Lebanese (one brigade) and 6,000 Syrians (three brigades). Thus, even though the Arab countries [population] outnumbered the Yishuv by better then forty-to-one, in terms of military manpower available for combat in Palestine the two sides were fairly evenly matched. As time went on and both sides sent reinforcements the balance changed in the Jews’ favor; by October they had almost 90,000 men and women under arms, the Arabs only 68,000.” (The Sword And The Olive, p. 77-78)
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story457.html
3. The Historic claim:
“The extended kingdoms of David and Solomon, on which the Zionists base their territorial demands, endured for only about 73 years…Then it fell apart…[Even] if we allow independence to the entire life of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, from David’s conquest of Canaan in 1000 B.C. to the wiping out of Judah in 586 B.C., we arrive at [only] a 414 year Jewish rule.” Illene Beatty, “Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan.”
“Recent archeological digs have provided evidence that Jerusalem was a big and fortified city already in 1800 BCE…Findings show that the sophisticated water system heretofor attributed to the conquering Israelites pre-dated them by eight centuries and was even more sophisticated than imagined…Dr. Ronny Reich, who directed the excavation along with Eli Shuikrun, said the entire system was built as a single complex by Canaanites in the Middle Bronze Period, around 1800 BCE.” The Jewish Bulletin, July 31st, 1998.
4. The Diaspora:
From:
Israel deliberately forgets its history
Zionist nationalist myth of enforced exile
by Schlomo Sand
Le Monde Diplomatique
September 2008
Translated by Donald Hounam
“But during the 1980s an earthquake shook these founding myths. The discoveries made by the “new archaeology” discredited a great exodus in the 13th century BC. Moses could not have led the Hebrews out of Egypt into the Promised Land, for the good reason that the latter was Egyptian territory at the time. And there is no trace of either a slave revolt against the pharaonic empire or of a sudden conquest of Canaan by outsiders.
Nor is there any trace or memory of the magnificent kingdom of David and Solomon. Recent discoveries point to the existence, at the time, of two small kingdoms: Israel, the more powerful, and Judah, the future Judea. The general population of Judah did not go into 6th century BC exile: only its political and intellectual elite were forced to settle in Babylon. This decisive encounter with Persian religion gave birth to Jewish monotheism.
Then there is the question of the exile of 70 AD. There has been no real research into this turning point in Jewish history, the cause of the diaspora. And for a simple reason: the Romans never exiled any nation from anywhere on the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. Apart from enslaved prisoners, the population of Judea continued to live on their lands, even after the destruction of the second temple. Some converted to Christianity in the 4th century, while the majority embraced Islam during the 7th century Arab conquest.”
Schlomo Sand is professor of history at Tel Aviv university and the author of Comment le people juif fut inventé (Why the Jewish people were invented)(Fayard, Paris, 2008)
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Phil don’t read that into what I said. I’m neither ruling in or out, nor suggesting any particular tactics that could be adopted to achieve the change in behaviour that I’m advocating.
I merely said that it’s a fact that rockets aren’t a strategic threat. As I said they’re political dynamite. That’s all I said.
“How is Israel to deal to the so called pinpricks when they get accurate or the payload is devastating or both?”
Turpin, I would say that since Gaza was hit 2 weeks ago, the chances of any Palestinian rocket terrorist being supplied with a devastating payload by a source who didn’t like Israel, have increased tenfold. Guess why? Israel makes them mad when they do this to the Palestinians. Who woulda thunk.
“It’s about NO PINPRICKS or BOMBS”
No it’s not and if you believe that you’re a child. Listen Turpin, if Israel really wanted to stop the rockets long term they wouldn’t be stirring up the hornets nest they’d do it differently. The only possible way their strategy will work is to destroy the entire nest which means destroy everyone in Gaza. Obviously they’re not going to do that, are they. So when they leave which they eventually will they leave behind a seething fury of people just thirsting for revenge. Was that counter-productive, or not? Obviously a child knows it is, so you can fucking bet the IDF and the govt know this too. There are various external factors in play here not least Israel’s February elections. I gave a link to these in my first post on this thread.
“You are either for the continued existence of the state of Israel or against it.”
Oh I’m definitely for the continued existence of the state of Israel Turpin, how could you not see that? Are you blind?
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Alan Wilkinson (78) Vote: 1 0 Says:
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
“PhilBest, I think we are pretty much on the same page now except perhaps for two points:
1. “Anti-semitism” accusations are counter-productive for public opinion when used indiscriminately. They need to be reserved for cases where religious prejudice is clearly the issue rather than just politics.
2. There are “by and large decent” Muslim people too – some of whom have fled persecution by their fellow Muslims. I have respected friends both Muslim and Jewish.”
Thanks, Alan. 1) Maybe there needs to be another category created for hate crimes committed against Jews anywhere in the world, that were a “reaction” to alleged “crimes” committed by the state of Israel……..if “anti-semitism” is to be restricted to exclude that? But in that case, hate crimes against Muslims anywhere in the world, as a “reaction” to the actions of, say, Iran; could not be described as “Islamophobia” either, you would have to restrict that definition likewise, to attitudes to the religion of Islam itself. 2) Regarding the decent Muslims, I certainly agree; as I said above, “moderates” in Gaza or in Afghanistan under the Taleban, or in Iran; tend to suffer gruesome fates if they do not keep their moderate ideas strictly under their hats; what we are up against here, is the same dynamic as all brutal totalitarian regimes like the Nazis or Commies; moderate people will suffer both under the regime and under the consequences of the regime’s enemies acting against it. But that is the fault of the regime, not the regime’s enemies.
But Brian Smaller and Turpin and others are right about the attitudes of millions of Muslims including millions of those who have emigrated to the West; who still refuse to assimiliate and who expect the West to modify its principles to accomodate them, rather than the other way around, and who do desire to convert us to their faith. Their methods of conversion are somewhat different to the evangelical traditions that we are used to. Also, their attitudes to any territory that ever was conquered by the forces of Islam; such as Spain……..it is these attitudes that are at the root of most of these problems. Are Christians all over the world hankering for the return of Constantinople to their “ummah”?
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Joe average
it is the same mindset at work here too.
people won’t look at the facts and at what must be done to move foward.
1. stop the bombs
2. talk through the positions
or
go to all out warm properly and disarm the offenders for a long time.
it’s the same with all our kids.
what do they do?
they ping every parent and change the law so NO ONE can use a smack on the bum as disipline.
then they refuse to data share the knowledge and profiles of the offenders (all -7% of the pop)
then they refuse to go after them and protect our kids in the future.
its a mindset of fuckwits as D4J says.
its not hard as it s been written up by enough all over the globe already.
So do you think Mr John Key and Mr Sensible and Mr Dancing Yellow Jacket will actually do anything meaningful?
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
“EXPLAIN THIS PROPERLY OF FUCK OFF WITH YOUR PRO ISRAEL PROPAGANDA”
Gee, seem as you put up such a polite request like that here you go………..
If you have a look at the myriad of small boats greeting the 66 foot MV Dignity when it returned to Cyprus, they are all waving Hamas flags to the crew, who are all waving back. – funny that
If you want an explanation IMO this is another Paliwood setup by those dirty rotten Arab terrorists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52wipVOF2eo&feature=related
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Reid, I guess where we differ, is in our willingness to grant the benefit of the doubt to the whole Muslim/Arabic world in the Middle Eastern region, that they would be prepared to coexist peacefully with an Israel based on 1967 borders or 1947 boders or whatever.
I do not blame Israel for NOT granting them that benefit of the doubt. Neither do I blame Israel for not being prepared to rely on any help from the international community, especially the UN, in the event that disaster did befall them. Have you read those comments I have posted repeatedly about Israel’s small size and vulnerability? Like at 1.46 pm above?
Excerpt:
“…..The point that I find is crucial, when discussing these issues with New Zealanders, is that almost everyone has no concept of the size of the territories in dispute. This is not France and Germany; or India and Pakistan. We are talking about a State, Israel, that is about the size of the lower North Island of NZ from Wanganui to Wellington, only, at its narrowest point, no wider than the Kapiti Coast. We are talking about territories disputed by the “Palestinians”, that are about the size of Upper Hutt. Imagine the Kapiti Coast being populated by Jews, and the overlooking ranges being populated by “Palestinians”. Would you deny the Jews the right to hold onto at least the first range of hills overlooking their towns, in the absence of clear, sworn, and demonstrated peaceability on the part of the Arabs? What we are talking about here, is a tacit “Final Solution” that you can either endorse or reject; what you choose says a lot more about you than it does about Israel.
There are surrounding nations that are kin to the “Palestinian” Arabs; Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia; these nations are in total a hundred times the size of Israel, hundreds of thousands of square kilometers. Yet the possibility of the absorption of the displaced “Palestinians” by these nations never comes up; the focus is entirely on 18,000 square km Israel being demanded to relinquish 4,000 square km of strategic territory that virtually cuts it in half, to people who remain avowedly devoted to Israel’s destruction….”
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:26 pm
“Reid, I guess where we differ, is in our willingness to grant the benefit of the doubt to the whole Muslim/Arabic world in the Middle Eastern region, that they would be prepared to coexist peacefully with an Israel based on 1967 borders or 1947 boders or whatever.”
Geez Phil, again I’m not saying anything of the sort. All I’m saying, ALL I’m saying, is that Israel’s behaviour is counter-productive and it would be beneficial to change the approach since evidentally it’s not working. It’s simple logic, writ large and clear.
The question of what should Israel do in place of its current behaviour is a completely separate much more involved question that I didn’t even touch on.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
turpin whats wrong ,my question to hard to EXPLAIN with your bullshit
I have already given you a answer to your question and are not about to go round in circles with you because you can not EXPLAIN the true nature of Israel,
Israel did attack the USS Liberty
EXPLAIN THIS TURPIN
Don’t give me any more of your bullshit until you explain it or fuck off
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Spoff
I don’t have the time to dig up the archelogy sites that confirm the OT as history as I’m going out, but then I suspect you might already know of them.
In so much as I remember that modern archeology hadn’t found anything that disproved the OT accounts rather all that they had found proved the accounts to be accurate.
the french prof has brought to the fore that people need to know the past as when others bring up other versions how can they examine or refute them.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
The Dr. Goebbels of Israeli propaganda, Yardin Vatikai, chief of the Israeli Zionist’s propaganda office known as the National Information Directorate (NID), has his work cut out as he attempts to justify and lie Israel’s way out of accusations by the people of the world that Israel is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Jastowns, using the link you provided, I found this:
“Shortly after the attack ended, Israel informed the U.S. that its forces had attacked the Liberty in error. An Israeli inquiry by Colonel Ram Ron concluded that the attack was caused by a chain of mistakes by Israel Defence Force (IDF) personnel.”
And this:
“Both the Israeli and American governments conducted inquiries into the incident, and issued reports concluding that the attack was a tragic mistake, caused by confusion about the identity of the USS Liberty.”
Explains the true nature of Israel my arse.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Sorry Jastowns
We’re at an impasse as you refuse to answer Brian, so proving that you won’t face the core of the argument.
Which is what will happen to Israel if it goes back to 1967 with an enemy who wants its destruction and has proved it since 1948 repeatedly, not only that an enemy that has the weaponry to annihilate Israeli towns and therefore their people if it had that geographic advantage with the present day weapons it now has.
Secondary to this is are you for Israel continuing to exist or not?
Just so you know, if you were engaging in Elint on my turf and I traced your transmissions, I would just shoot you, I’d blow you out of the water!
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“Israel did attack the USS Liberty”
Jastown in 2002 I got interested in conspiracy theories as a result of 911 and I’ve read a lot of them over the years. I personally treat them as points of view that sometimes lend insight and sometimes don’t. Some are reliable and others aren’t.
What I have found though is that it’s pointless bringing them up as points of illustration to most people simply because it’s a very esoteric field. You just buy yourself a pointless argument where nobody learns anything and who wants or needs that?
If you genuinely want to look into the issue of the Liberty Max and Turpin, then look into the way the crew were bound to secrecy, look into the history of what those crewmen did to identify themselves to the Israelis as a US ship, look into the tactical reasons as to why Israel might have been motivated to do it, there’s quite a few other aspects. Spend a few days skeptically assessing all the available evidence – there’s a shitload of it, don’t forget to check the videos as well. Then make up your minds.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Reid
You deliberately or not choose to misinterpret me.
“It’s about NO PINPRICKS or BOMBS”
No it’s not and if you believe that you’re a child. Listen Turpin, if Israel really wanted to stop the rockets long term they wouldn’t be stirring up the hornets nest they’d do it differently. The only possible way their strategy will work is to destroy the entire nest which means destroy everyone in Gaza.”
This is not the case as you know full well that the Israelis try not to hurt the populace if they can help it, they bend over backwards.
They can’t stop the rockets permanently again as you well understand unless they either destroy all the Arabs in Gaza or clear them out to Egypt, which merely pushes the distance out not ends the problem.
More importantly, you bring in other factors and like jastowns ignore the core discussion.
yes there is an election and yes the pollies have left the southern towns to the missiles trying defensive actions first, but with an election coming they need to satisfy that southern area voters.
also a factor is the regrouping that has gone on since Lebanon and another is getting rid of Olmert and his group, another is the stocks of materials as to go into Gaza means triggering another Lebanon and then there is the old bogey of potentially having the biggest useful idiot of all in the white house for the Islamist lobby.
I could go on and on, but I come back to the core, it will never end the Israelis have to go in again and again because it will never end.
Where do you stand on this is the question?
You could answer brians question of course
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Tell us where you live Jastowns, you cretin.
(I think you write like an angry woman.)
And lets see if we can arrange a few Guantanamo Guests to come and live near you!
THey are lovely and charming.
Honest!
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Maxpower what a load of shit,the attack went on for over two hours,you claim this was a mistake that carried on for over two hours despite the USS liberty repeated attempts to identify its self
who were the Israelis meant to be attacking
turpin as i said you don’t want to answer the question because it can not be answered without the true nature of Israel been shown for what it is,back to the synagogue with ya you smuck
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
“This is not the case as you know full well that the Israelis try not to hurt the populace if they can help it, they bend over backwards.”
No they fucking don’t “try not to hurt the populace” Turpin, as I said above, the Israeli’s metaphorically hold the Palestinians by the throat against the wall. They fucking do.
“also a factor is the regrouping that has gone on since Lebanon and another is getting rid of Olmert and his group, another is the stocks of materials as to go into Gaza means triggering another Lebanon and then there is the old bogey of potentially having the biggest useful idiot of all in the white house for the Islamist lobby.
I could go on and on, but I come back to the core, it will never end the Israelis have to go in again and again because it will never end.
Where do you stand on this is the question?”
I didn’t even know this was a question and I still don’t understand it even after reading it again. What are you asking?
“You could answer brians question of course ”
Wot’s Brian’s question?
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
The news keeps reporting that the Israeli air force bombed refugee camps in Gaza.
Did you ever wonder how those refugee camps got to be in Gaza?
I mean, where are they refugees from? There didn’t used to be refugees in Gaza, before 1948, after all. The grandparents of today’s refugees were living in their own homes, which their ancestors had lived in for centuries if not millennia.
After Germany created Jewish refugees in WW II, it was made to pay reparations to the victims, right?
Israel hasn’t paid a dime to any of the Palestinian families it expelled in 1948, which is itself a violation of international law.
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Christ there are some confused people posting, anti-Semitic , what bollocks, both the vast majority of both Arabs and Jews are Semitic.
Comes back to that old argument that my religion is better than yours.
Yet some in NZ want to help either or both sides.
Fuck the Middle East until they learn some civilisation the whole lot should be sent to Coventry.
Iran must be laughing their tits off, every bugger looking at Gaza while they get on with making more Islamic nuclear weapons.
Stopping Islamists from getting nuclear weapons, a bit bloody late now that Pakistan have them.
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Well as I said to Phil, Brian….
“Geez Phil, again I’m not saying anything of the sort. All I’m saying, ALL I’m saying, is that Israel’s behaviour is counter-productive and it would be beneficial to change the approach since evidentally it’s not working. It’s simple logic, writ large and clear.
The question of what should Israel do in place of its current behaviour is a completely separate much more involved question that I didn’t even touch on.”
See you might want to ponder on the fact that the point I’m making about Israel behaving like a thug has no relevance to the discussion about what Israel may do differently. The fact that question is left unanswered has NO BEARING on the validity or otherwise of that point. Hope that’s clear.
No of course not Brian, I can feel the love. Tell me though, is everyone who worships Allah a “brainwashed bigot” or only some of them?
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
“Stopping Islamists from getting nuclear weapons, a bit bloody late now that Pakistan have them.”
The US will definitely have contingency plans to take them out if they need to, grumpyoldhori. Depends who replaces Musharraf.
“Iran must be laughing their tits off, every bugger looking at Gaza while they get on with making more Islamic nuclear weapons.”
I don’t see Iran wanting to build nukes though – you calculate what they have to gain and what they have to lose and it’s a no brainer, the risk of an Israeli strike means it’s not worth making them. Apart from the fact that if they really wanted one or more nukes they could have easily sourced them during the disintegration of the USSR. I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
And mention of Guantanemo reminds me: let’s not be niave about this, New Zealand is also going to be subject to Muslim anti-Western activities – aided and abetted by the clowns in the last administration who actively encouraged NZ agencies to take in Muslim refugees (including a certain Mr Zhoui). Even though we think we are so far away from anywhere we are not going to escape any of this and to think otherwise is being an Ostrich. It has been suggested with al seriousness that Australasia has been specifically targetted with this in mind. . . Worth thinking about isn’t it?
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Whoa calm down, I was just quoting the reference that you provided. Would you rather I didn’t so you could just pick and choose the bits you agree with and ignore the rest?
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
just another day in religions with supreme deities.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Has anyone else noticed that Jastowns has
postedquoted literate comments like this one earlier on this thread (apart from the first sentence in that comment), only to revert back to classic Jastowns language like this: “EXPLAIN THIS PROPERLY OF FUCK OFF WITH YOUR PRO ISRAEL PROPAGANDA”?Jastowns, I’d say your credibility is already beyond repair, but it helps if you post evidence of your claims – at the very least, a link to webpages which you’re obviously quoting from.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Yes komata why did the govermenrt bring the muslims to NZ
could it be so new terror laws could be passed and our rights taken from us
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Turpin.
“the french prof has brought to the fore that people need to know the past”
Shlomo Sand is the Jewish Professor of History at Tel Aviv University. His book was first published in France and is now a best seller in Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959229.html
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
And then you have “credible” people like Father Mundane (I’m the ausy tosser that likes to pop big spy ballons) writing a letter to the Herald calling the Israeli’s Nazi’s.
A few facts
- Nazi’s wouldn’t use very targeted missiles they would do to Gaza what they did to Warsaw
- Nazi’s would have sent all Palestinians to work camps and killed them off, rather giving them back land and letting them have control
- Nazi’s would have done experiments on children rather than treat them in Israeli hospitals
etc etc
The left is morally corrupt and throughout history has been anti-semetic spewing forth filth and lies.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Whats important is people know the truth from the bullshit,Israel has a lot to answer for and no doubt they will pay for there nazi ways and propaganda to miss-inform the public (its not working, people are waking up all over the world)
For eighteen months the entire 1.5 million people of Gaza experienced a punishing blockade imposed by Israel, and a variety of traumatizing challenges to the normalcy of daily life. A flicker of hope emerged some six months ago when an Egyptian arranged truce produced an effective ceasefire that cut Israeli casualties to zero despite the cross-border periodic firing of homemade rockets that fell harmlessly on nearby Israeli territory, and undoubtedly caused anxiety in the border town of Sderot. During the ceasefire the Hamas leadership in Gaza repeatedly offered to extend the truce, even proposing a ten-year period and claimed a receptivity to a political solution based on acceptance of Israel’s 1967 borders. Israel ignored these diplomatic initiatives, and failed to carry out its side of the ceasefire agreement that involved some easing of the blockade that had been restricting the entry to Gaza of food, medicine, and fuel to a trickle.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
I hope the Christians are all looking forward to being banned from the “holy land” if the Jews do move out. Muslims have a solid history of banning other religions and converting religous buildings to mosques.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Jastown have you started polishing your jack boots, shaving your head and getting some tattoos?
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Jastown the reason for maintaining the 67 borders is security. Same reason for the Golan Heights.
Why would any country agree to give land back to an organisation committed to their destruction and let them even closer to the major population areas?
Under your mentality Israel should let Hamas move into Jaffa and just hope for the best. Hell its with home made rocket range of downtown Tel Aviv, but we can trust Hamas can’t we?
You really are the most stupid, anti-semtic and bigoted arsehole ever to visit this site
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
I take a personal interest in the Liberty affair. A friend of mine, CPO USN, became friends with the commander of the torpedo boats many years later. When questioned about this affair, the commander said that yes, they did know it was an American ship but “orders are orders”.
Here is a link to a couple of articles on the subject and the link to the USS Liberty site. It is a very interesting story.
“Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested. ”
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair1126.html
http://www.gtr5.com/
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
As always in relation to the underlying conflict, some facts bearing on this latest crisis are murky and contested, although the American public in particular gets 99% of its information filtered through an exceedingly pro-Israeli media lens. Hamas is blamed for the breakdown of the truce by its supposed unwillingness to renew it, and by the alleged increased incidence of rocket attacks. But the reality is more clouded. There was no substantial rocket fire from Gaza during the ceasefire until Israel launched an attack last November 4th directed at what it claimed were Palestinian militants in Gaza, killing several Palestinians. It was at this point that rocket fire from Gaza intensified. Also, it was Hamas that on numerous public occasions called for extending the truce, with its calls never acknowledged, much less acted upon, by Israeli officialdom. Beyond this, attributing all the rockets to Hamas is not convincing either. A variety of independent militia groups operate in Gaza, some such as the Fatah-backed al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade are anti-Hamas, and may even be sending rockets to provoke or justify Israeli retaliation. It is well confirmed that when US-supported Fatah controlled Gaza’s governing structure it was unable to stop rocket attacks despite a concerted effort to do so.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Cheers for those Spoff i had been trying to find that for maxpower
youve just raised his IQ by 20 points,now hes as smart as a monkey
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
The NZ Herald informs us that most of those killed in Gaza are militants. Here is the latest toll. I would hope that posters here might consider these numbers very carefully and remember that this is far from the first time this has happened.
Sixteen out of the 30 killed in Israeli airstrikes since New Year’s Eve were children; nine were from the same family and nine of the adults killed were women.
Fifty-seven percent of Palestinians killed so far in 2009 have been children.
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=34488
Thus 25 out of the thirty killed were either women or children.
Here is Fisk on the Shatila and Sabra massacres of 1982.
http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-fisk180903.htm
Ariel Sharon was held to be responsible for this by an Israeli Court.
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I have just read the comments from both sides on this complex issue. Spoff at 3:10 has provided a very thoughtful summary of a number of the historical facts which very rarely see the light of day. Probably because they don’t put either side in a good light.
If I may add a few further historical facts -
Theodor Herzl, Father of the Jewish State, wrote in 1896 – “Let the sovereignty be granted to us over a portion of the globe large enough to satisfy the rightful requirements of a nation; the rest we shall do for ourselves.” As a side note this was his answer not to a military threat but to the problem of assimilation.
The first part of the Belfour Deceleration of 1917 by the British Govt. is often quoted as Britain’s support of the founding of a separate State and as justification for the League of Nations and the U.N. declarations. What is conveniently left off the quotation is the second part – “… it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.
Several have asked where to from here. This is just a suggestion. Israel returns to the 67 green line with those borders guaranteed by all the super powers, who are the main source of military supplies, in return for peace. Israel would need to pay compensation for the extra 25% of land taken in the 1948 war and the United Nations would need to consider the question of the expulsion of Jews from those nations who expelled then in 48. The new state that emerges for the Palestinians would need to be a full state with free movement through its borders and control of its own water resources and all of the people within its borders. The settlements would become towns within “Palestine” subject to Palestinian law just as the “Arab” towns in Israel are subject to Israeli law.
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:22 pm
jastown
This conflict is very very simple. Hamas and its leadership (along with its masters Hezbollah, Syria and Iran) desire for Israel to be annihilated. This goal is part of their maifesto. Israel gave Gaza back to the Palestinians to rule it as they chose. Instead of using foreign aid received from the EU and others to build hospitals, roads and schools, Hamas seized power and embarked on the biggest arms build up in the Middle East. Israel’s reward for the handover – continuous rain of rockets fired into civilian areas to cause as much civilian harm as possible.
Hamas has no desire for peace. It will not do as Jordan and Egypt did and sign a peace treaty and allow Israel to exist. Hamas hides its weapons and leaders deliberately in civilian areas so that any Israeli strike however surgical is designed to maximise civilian casualties in Gaza.
Hamas need only commit to firing no more rockets into Israel and give up its desire to destroy Israel and it will avoid further bloodshed. Israel’s impending invasion is to topple Hamas’ leadership and deal to its capacity to fire rockets and not to recapture Gaza as Israeli territory.
It is telling when former Fatah intelligence officers are helping the IDF with targetting in Gaza. It would appear that Fatah and other moderate Palestinians are happy to negotiate a lasting peace with Israel.
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Phil apologies for not getting to this point earlier. The way I see it, Israel has been invulnerable since the 70′s or whenever it succeeded in getting a nuke. In addition, it has a cross-party decades-old security guarantee from the world’s only superpower. If the worst came to the worst in the ME and it became a case of having to support either say, Saudi Arabia or Israel in a fight against the other, whom do you think the US would choose? If it was the entire Arab League against Israel, whom do you think the US would choose? On top of this, the IDF has both quantity and quality superiority in self-controlled and operated military hardware in every single important combat area across electronic, air, land and sea theatres. I assume one of the diplomatic tools the US uses when it wants to control Israel is the supply of ammunition, but even if that’s the case, there is still no conceivable case whereby if Israel’s security was threatened, that the US would abandon her. Now if I was Israel, about the only thing I’d be really scared about is a rogue nuke. Everything else from an invasion/take-over risk assessment perspective is under control, region-wide. Isn’t it? (Unless Israel bombs Iran, in which case everything heads south, so therefore would be a rather good thing to see Israel try to avoid doing that. Those who believe that Iran is controlled by warmongers aren’t accurate, IMO.
My point is that a nation’s strategic security relies not only on the military but also on the diplomatic band. By that I mean, in peacetime, a nation’s relationships are important for protection and trade. Protection is more important. Obviously on the diplomatic band the first thing you don’t want to do is piss off your own neighbors. Almost uniquely in the world, Israel has struggled with that since her inception. Some argue that Israel is forced to act tough in order to deter the surrounding hatred. Again, that used to be the case, before she gained something like a combination of Batman’s and Superman’s superpowers multiplied by eleventy gajillion +1.
Point is, sure, back in time, Israel was under threat and miracles happened. 6 day war was a genuine miracle. She ain’t however, under strategic now. Whichever way you cut the cake, Israel now, today, has complete and utter security from everything but a rogue threat, unless she attacks Iran.
So don’t do it, is my advice.
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
kiwi in america
see the trouble is i know my history from both sides,you have only heard one side or your a zionest,i couldn’t give a fuck if they wiped each other out but i wont stand by while Israel makes out its the victim
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Its hard to believe your banging on about the USS Liberty, shit that happened over 40 years ago and if it proves anything about Israel then you must, by way of example hold Kevin Rudd responsible for racism, as the Australian aborigines didn’t yet have full civil rights in 1967. FFS it’s history, nothing to do with todays Israel
jastown if you feel so strong toward Hamas why don’t you go over there and become a martyr for them?
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
patrick fizz what happened 40 years ago only proves the nature of israel if you think that dosent matter thats up to you,i know it matters
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Why would you post about any Fisk says? The guy thinks he’s the new Lawrence of Arabia.
Bob100. Nice ideal, but I don’t think it will ever be achieved with Hamas in the picture.
Jastown etc. Why is it you are so virilent towards Israel when even Egypt (in no way Israels ally) warned Hamas numerous times to extend the ceasefire.
You climb we are manipulated by the vast Jewish conspiracy and yet you lap up the lies and false images circulated by Hamas. You treat Hamas as a simple organisation yet they are able to master and manipulate the BBC, UN and every other left wing outpost.
How do you know the bodies shown on TV are real victims? Hamas has been known to store bodies on ice for future use, strip uniforms off Hamas security to make them look civilian and stage events that didn’t happen.
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Okay Jastown so the vicious murder of dozens of ultra-orthodox Jews (who refused to fight or defend themselves) by Arabs (sanctioned by the Mufti) in Jersusalem in 48 by your reasoning then shows the true nature of all Arabs.
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Jastowns claims: “see the trouble is i know my history from both sides”.
I think Jastowns has more fundamental troubles: basic literacy and critical reasoning. Seriously, can anyone actually follow Jastowns’ argument, based on “the nature of Israel”?
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
jastown
Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel: number of wars between the countries since then – 0
Peace Treaty between Jordan and Israel: number of wars between the countries since then – 0
The deal is pretty simple – you recognize Israel’s right to exist and leave them alone, they give you back pretty much all the land you asked for. Barak offered Arafat 97% of the land he asked for at Oslo – not enough because militant Palestinians dont want peace, they want Israel destroyed – the outcome: 1000′s of Israeli civilians die in his bloody Intefada.
Pretty straightforward really.
Oh I forgot one crucial history lesson – it was the leaders of the Arab nations that asked the Palestinians living in the UN mandated Jewish partition zone (that became Israel) to retreat to the West Bank temporarily to allow the Arab armies to wipe out the Jews – they were not forced there by Israel. Israel promised equal rights and freedom of religion to the Arabs who remained. 10% did stay and Israel honoured its pledge 100%. The same Palestinian leadership were offered their own state by the same UN Commission – the two state option – this was rejected because the Palestinians wanted no Jewish homeland of any size shape or form.
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Jastown if you claim to know some much about history then you will be aware of all the positive things Israel has down for the local Arab population.
For example in the late 19th century 99% of the Arab population in the Palestine area was illiterate. Life expetancy was very very low and the general population was peasants controlled by a few landowners. As Jews immigrantly and brought land they also brought schools and hospitals to the rural areas. The peasants were also employed to work on the farms. The initial trouble was caused as per usual by the Arab landowning elite who saw their power disappearing as the peasants became independent and educated.
The same is happening today with the Arab elite throughout the middle east needing a focus point for the general population to distract them from the civil rights abuses in their own countries.
The idea of history is to learn from it yet the left continues to push for failed experiments like Communism to be reignited.
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
“what happened 40 years ago only proves the nature of israel if you think that dosent matter thats up to you,i know it matters”
You’ve already wasted your mum and dads kiddies education fund, The least you could do is stop wasting their bandwidth FFS
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:10 pm
I am reminded of a quote I read somewhere (not sure where now) –
If the Arabs were to lay down their arms tomorrow there would be peace in the Middle East. If Israel were to lay down it’s arms, Israel would cease to exist.
That is very true.
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Spoff? You’re reading Fisk? Really?
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
How much land was stolen from Egypt and Jordon??????
I’m sick of going around in circles with morons
your a bunch of zoinest trying to convince each other your right rather you should repent and save your souls
chow for now
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
“I’m sick of going around in circles with morons”
the Greens call it morris dancing
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:23 pm
ps, check out this clip in which Hamas admits to using women and children as human shields.
Translation is below –
Still think these people deserve anything but our enmity?
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Reid , Israel does not have enough air power to strike Iran.
And you may have noticed that Israel was whining about Russia selling defensive anti aircraft missiles to Iran.
They could knock out Iran’s nuclear facilities, but it would mean they would have to use nukes to do it.
If that happens there would be a damn good chance another nuclear power would treat Israel as a mad dog and reciprocate.
And I can not see the yanks getting into a nuclear exchange for the sake of Israel.
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Kiwi in America
“Oh I forgot one crucial history lesson – it was the leaders of the Arab nations that asked the Palestinians living in the UN mandated Jewish partition zone (that became Israel) to retreat to the West Bank temporarily to allow the Arab armies to wipe out the Jews”
No. You did not learn the lesson in the first place:
This calumny is frequently quoted in an effort to blame the Palestinian exodus on the Arab League rather than Israeli terrorism. We have already seen that the massacre at Deir Yassin occurred before the war began. That in itself would be enough to inspire flight. There is, moreover, not a shred of evidence that the Arab League encouraged Palestinians to leave. Quite the reverse in fact.
”(Benny) Morris, with others of the New Historians school, concur that that Arab instigation was not the major cause of the refugees’ flight[26]. They do acknowledge that Arab instigation during December 1947-June 1948 may have caused around 5 percent of total exodus[27][28]. As regards the overall exodus, they clearly state that the major cause of Palestinian flight was not Arab instigation but rather military actions by the Israeli Defence Force and fear of them.”
“Erskine Childers checked transcripts of all Arab radio services monitored by the BBC in 1948, and discovered that, ‘(T)here was not a single order, or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948’, and that to the contrary broadcasts gave flat orders to civilians to stay put[39]. His point is taken by Glazer (1980, p. 101), who writes that not only did Arab radio stations appeal to the inhabitants not to leave, but also Zionist radio stations urged the population to flee, by exaggerating the course of battle, and, in some cases, fabricating complete lies”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Pal estinian_exodus#Opening_of_archives
“It is telling when former Fatah intelligence officers are helping the IDF with targetting in Gaza. ”
Abbas and Dahlan have sold out which is why Hamas won the election.
This actually goes to the heart of Israel’s current action. Israel has found/bought a faction willing to settle for a non-viable postage stamp of land which it will eventually absorb. The collusion between the U.S., Abbas and Dahlan is very well laid out in this article, with documentary proof, from Vanity Fair:
“The Gaza Bombshell
After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, the author reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04 /gaza200804
Having had the the Gaza bombshell blow up in their faces, the U.S. and Israel are now trying to smash Hamas and return their puppets to power.
By the way, what town are you from?
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Here’s a better link
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Jastowns:
And there’s your problem. You’re convinced you’re right. You’re not prepared to substantiate your claim. You have nothing except abuse for those with other views – especially those who provide reasons for their views. To paraphrase what Patrick Starr said so aptly above, you’re pretty much a waste of everyone else’s bandwidth.
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:09 pm
They could knock out Iran’s facilities but show me precisely at which point we the thinking public have been presented with clear definitive inarguable evidence throughout the entire Iran=boogeyman saga? So far it’s vapour. Show me evidence, not opinion columns and academic analyses. This is a serious issue, is it not? Consequences are horrendous, n’est pas? So pray-tell, what really really hard irrefutable un-spinnable evidence has anyone seen or heard that really nails it to the wall?
I read a report about a year ago about an unusually large shipment to Israel of US-made Bunker-buster bombs. I imagine those may be useful. Personally I think if it happens at all, it’ll be a joint US-Israel strike which makes it even more geopolitically tricky, but I actually don’t think it will happen.
I disagree on the first part grumpy and agree completely on the second. Under which specific scenarios do you see a nuclear-armed country – covert or overt, nuking Israel?
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:10 pm
The Arabs forfeited any “right to return” when they left en masse just before Israel was invaded from all sides. THAT is what this is all about. Clearly this isn’t their land as they refused to defend it from an invasion. Well, they got exactly what they wanted: shacked up in refugee camps and ultimately shunned by their own Arab “allies”. Just don’t blame Israel for it.
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Reid, (I disagree on the first part grumpy and agree completely on the second. Under which specific scenarios do you see a nuclear-armed country – covert or overt, nuking Israel? )
If Israel used nukes to attack the Iranians there would be other countries believing they could be next, then getting in first.
A US strike on Iran while the US has over a hundred thousand ready made hostages to a Iranian attack in Iraq, will not happen.
Nope, the Iranians will call the bluff of Israeli attack.
Much like the Russians knew the yanks were never going to help the Georgians in the military sense during that tiff in Georgia.
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
the Herald could just as well have called for an end to Palestinian aspirations to have their own state. but no, they demand Israel be wiped off the map. one wonders if NZ has come very far since the days of sympathy for White South Africa.
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Iran is history.
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Spoff,
(Benny) Morris does say that –
In his 1972 memoirs, the former prime minister of Syria, Khalid al¬Azm, placed the entire blame for the refugee problem on the Arabs:
Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees . . . while it is we who made them leave. . . . We brought disaster upon . . . Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave. . . . We have rendered them dispossessed. . . . We have accustomed them to begging. . . . We have participated in lowering their moral and social level. . . . Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon . . . men, women and children—all this in the service of political purposes.31Even Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, has accused the Arab armies of having abandoned the Palestinians after they “forced them to emigrate and to leave their home-land and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.”32
Other sources sympathetic to the Arab cause agree. In 1980, the Arab National Committee of Haifa wrote a memorandum to the Arab states that included the following: “The removal of the Arab inhabitants . . . was voluntary and was carried out at our request. The Arab delegation proudly asked for the evacuation of the Arabs and their removal to the neighboring Arab countries. . . . We are very glad to state that the Arabs guarded their honour and traditions with pride and greatness.”33 And a research report by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies concluded that the majority of the Arab refugees were not expelled and 68 percent of them “left without seeing an Israeli solder.”34
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Reid, and of course there is not a damn thing the US or Israel can do about Russia supplying Iran with a few nukes if the Russians wanted to stir the pot and even things up a bit.
Of course both Israel and Iran are nuts but now the cork is out of the nuclear bottle in the Middle East there is no putting it back.
Will Egypt be the next country after Israel and Iran in wanting nukes for peaceful purposes ?
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Israel – the existence of which unites the most obnoxious elements of the Left and Right.
and soooo many demonstrations – almost as many as all those demonstrations against Muslims killing Muslims.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I have no interest in revisiting historical debates about the origins of Israel or who has the moral high ground in this conflict. To be honest, I find them tedious, especially since Israel is here to stay and the Palestinians have yet to show that they can self-govern in a united fashion. Instead, my interest lies in the objectives of the political elites in question, all of whom potentially stand to benefit from the conflict (at the expense of the common folk they supposedly represent). There is no space here for me to explain why, but suffice it to say that with its actions Israel has backed incoming president Barrack Obama into a pro-Israel corner, which Israel needed to do given his stated intention to engage discussions with Hamas as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinians (in Gaza anyway). In this action the Israelis have forced him to reveal his hand.
I believe that this post’s headline was a bit over the top, although DPF is right to note that the implication of one of the editorial’s suggestions could be dire for Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I personally believe that so long as we have self-recognised Muslim and Catholic countries (such as the one I was brought up in), there is nothing amiss about Jews wanting their own state to be kept that way. A recent conversation with a very senior Israeli intelligence official leads me to believe that it is a two-state solution or none at all, and that it is actually a matter for the Sunni Arab states to decide rather than the principles involved. But again–that is the subject that goes beyond this post.
On the topic of the editorial proper–I do not think that it is a coincidence that the editorial and the opinion piece by Fran O’Sullivan came out together. The point was to put pressure on the new government to make a stand on this particular issue in the moral tradition of NZ foreign policy. Since Labour and the Greens have already done so, this is a push from the moderate right for Key and co to do the same, thereby clarifying some of the direction they intend to give to post-Labour foreign policy.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
“Personally I think if it happens at all, it’ll be a joint US-Israel strike which makes it even more geopolitically tricky, but I actually don’t think it will happen.”
Well, they will have to do it now. I really doubt that Obama is a president under which the US and Israel become closer.
“Several have asked where to from here. This is just a suggestion. Israel returns to the 67 green line with those borders guaranteed by all the super powers, who are the main source of military supplies, in return for peace. Israel would need to pay compensation for the extra 25% of land taken in the 1948 war and the United Nations would need to consider the question of the expulsion of Jews from those nations who expelled then in 48. The new state that emerges for the Palestinians would need to be a full state with free movement through its borders and control of its own water resources and all of the people within its borders. The settlements would become towns within “Palestine” subject to Palestinian law just as the “Arab” towns in Israel are subject to Israeli law.”
Given all the evidence to date, what exactly would all that accomplish? Nothing.
Reid is right when he says Israel is too big and strong right now (or at least, the circle of hatred around them is too weak) to be under a threat of invasion or official war. They are being harassed along the border (and from the perfectly retarded area called Gaza) not by a nation, but by a front organisation. This results in skirmishes, and the consistent crushing defeat of the front group. Concessions to this group have been proven to be a waste of time as they dont honor their commitments, or even live up to reasonable expectations.
Giving them territory will not stop them, in fact, it makes them more bold. (It wont even give Israel good press! The news media, almost as one, refuses to report fairly, and will always paint Israel in a bad light. To be fair, journalists are idiots.)
PS. dont count on the UN doing anything. It really is a worthless organisation that does little more in the ME (diplomatically speaking) than give despots and the like a forum to prance an prattle. The sooner is crumbles the better.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Fletch.
Bit of a squib there. Morris estimated the percentage of Palestinians encouraged o leave by the Arab League at 5%.
Have you got a link to the Khalid al¬Azm quote ? It is full of holes and I’d like to check it out. Not that it makes a huge amount of difference, the research by Childers and Glazer is definitive, as is the evidence presented by Morris:
“In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.”
Incidentally, I came across a piece which may give fair-minded folks a slightly different slant on the rockets that hit Sderot:
“Sderot was settled by Jews in 1951. According to Walid Khalidi in All That Remains, it along with the settlement of Or ha-Ner, founded in 1957, were established on the village lands of Najd, which means “elevated plain” in Arabic.
Najd’s Palestinian villagers, approximately 620 in 1945, were expelled on 13 May 1948, before Israel was declared a state and before any Arab armies entered Palestine. According to UN Resolution 194 and also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13, Section 2, the villagers of Najd have a right to return home to their personal property and to their native village…..
Najd is fourteen kilometers from Gaza. Palestinian Arabs own 12,669 dunums in Najd although Israel refuses to honor their rights to their personal property, and refuses them their inalienable right to return home. In 1945 Jews owned 495 dunums of land in Najd and public lands consisted of 412 dunums.
I must be honest. If I were penned up in 4 square miles of Pirongia, unable to return to Te Awamutu where we owned 30 acres inside the borough, I’d be pissed off enough to fire a rocket or two on the Japanese who were living there subsequent to a successful invasion in 1942.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Paul, when was Obama ever not pro-Israel?
The Hamas leadership may have just woken to the fact that Obama was never going to to be taking foreign policy advise from anyone like Keith Locke, but that was pretty clear to anyone paying attention for quite sometime.
On the one hand we have a centre-left govt, on the other a right-wing extremist organisation that is the enemy of all that liberalism stands for. NZ should stand for what it believes in. that would truely be a development of our moral tradition.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:29 pm
“with its actions Israel has backed incoming president Barrack Obama into a pro-Israel corner”
Totally agree Paul, and add this is exactly what the neo-cons wanted. How convenient.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Fletch.
I just checked out the video you posted. I suggest you ask an Arabic speaker to view the video before taking such a stance as “Still think these people deserve anything but our enmity?”
One would be naive to presume that there are not propagandists on both sides of this conflict. We have seen the words of Ahmadinejad bowdlerized out of all recognition through mistranslation. Furthermore, who is the dude speaking? Is he representative of Hamas or one of the extremist factions? Everything I have seen of Haniyeh portrays a rather different, more urbane and civilized image.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:38 pm
“No of course not Brian, I can feel the love. Tell me though, is everyone who worships Allah a “brainwashed bigot” or only some of them?”
Reid – you are a fucking moron. I hate Islamists. I don’t hate any particular race. Islamists want to convert me, enslave me or kill me. I don’t give a flying fuck if that Islamist is Arab, Black, Caucasian, Asian, pakistani or Eskimo.
Jastown – answer the question. What is your solution when one side avows to exterminate the other? How do Israelis defend themselves if, in your opionion, they are not allowed to? You are such a chicken shit that you cannot answer it becasue you know the answer. Israelis have to defend themselves or they will be exterminated.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 pm
If Auckland Jews were rigidly Orthodox and wore those black Homburg hats and sideburn-like facelocks the NZ Herald would be pro-Israel. At present they don’t stand out from other Kiwis.
The Herald is fanatically pro multicultural, and Arabs stand out, the women in scarves or more reclusive garb, and sometimes the men in obviously Middle East dress.
Greek learning and culture and Judaism’s offshoot Christianity are the basis of Western Civilisation, and multiculturalist defeatists like the craven leaders of the NZ Herald suspect the West is in its dotage. They think they can counter the loss of middle class white and mixed race readers by sucking up to Auckland’s new citizens. Unfortunately many of these don’t want to read in English, or can’t be bothered to, and any way are just awaiting citizenship so they can get into Australia via the NZ back door. Too bad for them — and us — if Australia suddenly slams the gate.
Any way stuff the Herald. Multiculturalism won’t keep it afloat in the internet tide. And long may Israel survive and thrive.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:27 pm
“Reid – you are a fucking moron. I hate Islamists. I don’t hate any particular race. Islamists want to convert me, enslave me or kill me. I don’t give a flying fuck if that Islamist is Arab, Black, Caucasian, Asian, pakistani or Eskimo.”
Hey “good” rebuttal Brian, a little hard to see the point but a great effort.
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
“The Herald is fanatically pro multicultural, and Arabs stand out, the women in scarves or more reclusive garb, and sometimes the men in obviously Middle East dress.”
Yes I’ve noticed that as well, Jack. Isn’t it dreadful. Those Allah-loving people. Apparently, they’re the worst people in the world. I used to think lefties were…
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Andrew Bostom heralds the issue with Hamas
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/confronting_hamas_genocidal_je.html
At least some get it about Jew haters in the world.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/protesting_against_israel_or_h.html
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
So Paul a serious question and a plea to visit our threads more frequently, you’re always a valuable insight…
“I do not think that it is a coincidence that the editorial and the opinion piece by Fran O’Sullivan came out together. The point was to put pressure on the new government to make a stand on this particular issue in the moral tradition of NZ foreign policy.”
I agree with you it was no coincidence but surely any diplomatic positions are universally recognised to be subject to change instantly a new govt take the reigns? Surely there is no diplomatic impediment presented to prevent Key from changing even reversing the current policies?
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 pm
To elaborate on the larger issues involved in the current conflict: Having been shown to be an ineffectual government only slightly less corrupt than Fatah or the defunct PLO, Hamas decided to allow free play to its militant cadres in order to garner nationalist/ethnic/religious support for its claim to rule in Gaza in the build-up to the parliamentary elections of 2009. A common ethno/religious enemy, seemingly disproportionate in its response to ongoing armed provocation, is a good rallying pojnt for a weakening campaign on the merits of Hamas’ rule. IIn other words, it is a diversion from the failures of Hamas as government and a return to the resistance struggles that bind all Palestinians (and by osmosis, all Arabs) together. It is a short term strategy that can work, but unlike their Iranian-sponsored counterparts in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Hamas’s rule is disputed amongst its own ethno/religious cohort and could well backfire given Fatah’s challenge and history. Israel is banking on that.
To Neil M and Reid, I can only say that of course it was clear which way Obama was going to go. It took the Israelis to separate his rhetoric of change from the reality of continuity (particularly given his campaign contributions and subsequent cabinet appointments). The more pertinent point to me given the specific subject of the Herald articles is whether NZ is about to change its stance on the Israel-Palestinian equation ( said because the response to this conflict is only one part, or tool, in the calculus of NZ foreign policy in the Middle East).
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Reid. I have posted on kiwipolitico.com on the short-term future of NZ foreign policy under National.
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:38 pm
reid – please tell me – do you equate Muslim with a particular race? If so, which one? You all but accuse me of being racsist because I don;t like an ideology. I really want to know what race that ideology represents.
Jastown – going to enlighten me with an answer to my question? How are you proposing Israelis defend themselves?
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Paul G. Buchanan
Be interested in your take on the Vanity Fair article:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804
January 4th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Brian I’m not sure what to say. How about: “You’re not that racist, after all”
Sung to Mary Tyler Moore’s sig tune.
Paul, I searched for your name but only this appeared:
“Not Found Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here.”
January 4th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Spoff: Will do, but not now as I have to leave my desk.
Reid: Per request of the Kiwipolitico collective I am using my childhood name Pablo as a “pseudonym.”. Just type in kiwiblog.com and you should find it, as we just started up.
Cheers,
PGB
January 4th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Spoff –
Khaled Al-Azm, Memoirs [Arabic), 3 vols. (AI-Dar al Muttahida Id-Nashr, 1972), vol. 1, pp. 386-87, cited by Maurice Roumani, The Case of the Jewsfrom Arab Countries: A Neglected Issue, preliminary edition (Jerusalem: World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries [WOJAC], 1975), p. 61
There is also a very good article on the period at Commentary magazine using documents that have recently become declassified from then, and they even more strongly show the opposite of what you’re saying.
January 4th, 2009 at 1:08 am
“Reid: Per request of the Kiwipolitico collective I am using my childhood name Pablo as a “pseudonym.”
Paul, just want to say thanks for your past and hopefully future contributions. You’re IMO one of the finest political analyst/commentators in this entire nation.
I for one hope you will return soon.
January 4th, 2009 at 7:27 am
Fletch.
I guess it is a matter of taste. I am not much inclined to take Karsh seriously, given his background as propagandist for the IDF, I suspect his aims are more than scholarship. This has been the characteristic most often referred to by his critics.
In a review of Empires of the Sand A.B. Toth says:
“This is a polemical book whose authors have extended the intemperate and unbalanced rhetoric customarily employed by dogmatic partisans of the Arab Israeli conflict to the normally sedate and measured arena of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Ottoman history.”….
“The book relies mainly on Western published sources and official British documents. But their use of even these sources is limited, since they actually ignore most of nineteenth-century history. Instead, the authors emphasize those episodes they feel support their interpretations.”
Benny Morris Middle East Quarterly September 1996
Efraim Karsh’s article on the new Israeli historiography is a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material (his piece contains more than fifty footnotes but is based almost entirely on references to and quotations from secondary works, many of them of dubious value) and the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict. It does not deserve serious attention or reply.
It is a measure of Karsh’s ignorance of what actually went on in the Middle East in 1948 that he writes (p. 97) of “the Arab attack on the newly-established State of Israel, in which Transjordan’s Arab Legion participated.” Quite simply, it did not. …and Karsh employs his usual method of focusing on the one document that seems to uphold his argument-often while twisting its real purport-while simply ignoring the mas of documents that undercut it.
Benny Morris, “Refabricating 1948″, review of Fabricating Israeli History: The “New Historians.” by Efraim Karsh, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2. (Winter, 1998), pp. 81-95.
According to Ian Lustick Ph.D. (University of California Berkeley), Karsh’s writing in “Fabricating Israeli History: the ‘New Historians’” is malevolent and the nature of his analysis is erratic and sloppy. He says the book is full of ‘howlers, contradictions and distortions’. Rustick indicates six instances in which Karsh gives quotes that say the very opposite of what Karsh tells his readers they say. As an example he gives a quote of Golda Meir that Karsh uses to sustain his argument that there was never an agreement between Abdullah of Transjordan and the Zionist leadership. In Karsh’s quote of Meir she explicitly writes about an agreement: ‘The meeting [in November 1947] was conducted on the basis that there was an arrangement and an understanding as to what both of us wanted and that our interests did not collide’.
Karsh is a mouth for hire from Benador Associates:
“In May 2006, Canada’s National Post ran a sensational story by Benador associates and Iranian exile Amir Taheri. The piece claimed that Iran’s government had passed a law requiring Jewish residents to wear a yellow insignia—reminiscent of the policies of Germany’s Nazi regime. The story was quickly debunked and the National Post apologized. Eleana Benador admitted that her PR firm had planted the piece.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Benador_Ass ociates
Benador also lists Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer and Michael Ledeen.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:47 am
While religion was tolerated in previous Muslim regimes the world has changed and the rotweiller tactics of the IDF, which is not to say that all IDF members are rotweillers, has rather spoilt the chances of Juice being accepted. It is a pity that the fiece self preservation tactics of Israel have led to the over-kill situation where a handfull of rocket deaths justify the killing of thousands of Palastinians and other Muslim in their thinking. One solution might be to rein in on the modern weapons that the United States has supplied and force the Israeli to use similar home made rockets … it could reduce the death toll.
The futility of such a situation might bring peace.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Just prior to writing this the New Yor Times reports that ground troops have entered the Gaza Strip and so escalating the problem.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:02 am
It was my impression that Obama’s foreign policy was always going to be a development of that of the Clinton administration. He’s got a lot of people on his team who have first hand experience of how the peace process unravelled in the last years of Clinton’s presidency and one hopes they can put togther something more sucessful this time round.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:05 am
“One solution might be to rein in on the modern weapons that the United States has supplied and force the Israeli to use similar home made rockets … it could reduce the death toll.
The futility of such a situation might bring peace.”
No, it would lead to the immediate extermination of the Israelis. 5 million people armed with sticks will be wiped out by 300 million armed with sticks. Simple math.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Anyway, our everyday Commie Commentator, Matt McCarten has denounced the IDF, and State of Israel in the online edition of the NZH.
His article has to be read. I am gobsmacked that a serious journalist can be that partisan.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Reid tries sarcasm in extending my argument to what I did not post when he writes:”Isn’t it dreadful. Those Allah-loving people. Apparently, they’re the worst people in the world. I used to think lefties were…”
The post was about the Herald, and many Middle Eastern people being more obvious to multiculturalists like the Herald editors, because of their non-Western dress. There was no criticism of Muslims.
If you want to debate like this you would be better off cellphone texting with young adolescents.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:01 am
“I am gobsmacked that a serious journalist can be that partisan”
GM – I’m gobsmacked you call him a serious journalist. McCartens just a pathological liar, (jeez – even Jeannette Fitzsimmons once called him a liar) http://www.greens.org.nz/node/17488
McCarten did a similar bit a year ago in the HOS. It was greeted with this response from the Israeli ambassador Yuval Rotem. I’d imagine the same would be appropriate this time
“Would New Zealanders ask their Government to sit idly by while a terrorist organisation fires missiles on the towns of Tauranga or Hamilton? For this is what is being asked of Israelis — to sit idly by while the residents of their southern town of Sderot are fired on by missiles from the terrorist organisation Hamas. It is asked only that New Zealanders put themselves in the shoes of Israelis for just one day, without a vast ocean to protect them, without a democratic and secure neighbour like Australia, and with a terrorist organisation mere miles away whose only reason for existing is their nation’s destruction. Only then can democratic, informed debate happen.
The terrorist organisation Hamas in Gaza focuses its weaponry on civilians; on children in their schools and kindergartens, on families’ homes and in the streets of Sderot. They fire their missiles from deep within civilian neighbourhoods, taunting Israeli Defence Forces to fire back, knowing that injury to the innocent people of Gaza would fuel their propaganda campaign. Israel acts only in self defence. When they do fire on Gaza it is merely in response to Hamas’ missiles and they are focused on the militants themselves.
The people of Gaza are not the enemy, nor is there any benefit from Israel making them so. The people of Israel, in withdrawing from Gaza in 2005, sought to gain a democratic and secure neighbour; a neighbour with which they could engage and trade. Rather than yielding benefits for Gazans and calm for Israel, Hamas increased violence from Gaza, including raids over the border into Israel to kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers. To see the people of Gaza suffer is not pleasurable for Israelis. They only wish to circumvent the activities of the terrorists Hamas who control the area.
Ever since Hamas won parliamentary elections in January 2006, Israel and the international community – including the UN, EU, Russia and the USA – have put forth a consistent message: to end its isolation, Hamas must recognise Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence and agree to abide by previous agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
These are not very difficult conditions. Indeed, they are the bare minimum that Israel should expect from a ‘partner for peace’ or even a non-belligerent neighbour. Hamas has steadfastly refused to agree to any of the three. Instead it has chosen to steadfastly pursue its sole objective of the destruction of Israel and thus hold ordinary Gazans hostage to its beliefs.
To draw parallels between Nazi Germany and Israel’s current actions is offensive and undermines the indignity that the Jewish people suffered. The security fence was erected along a border for which the sole purpose was to protect the people of Israel against terrorism. What Matt McCarten fails to understand is the horror caused by these extremists using themselves as human bomb carriers; of climbing on buses, seeing innocent children and still pulling the trigger. Of then seeing these same children maimed, blinded and killed by the screws and nails the terrorists have embedded in their bombs to cause the utmost pain possible. The security fence was constructed in order to protect Israeli citizens, as an act of self defence.
Israel acted in self-defence by temporarily closing the borders. It prevented fuel supplies to travel through only after Palestinian snipers killed an Ecuadorian volunteer and continued to fire on a television crew, and only after Hamas continued to fire missiles on Israel. By stopping the passage of fuel, this slowed production by Gaza’s power station, which supplies only 30 per cent of the total power to the area. Israeli-based power companies continued to supply the remaining 70 per cent of electricity to the region. Of the electricity that was available in the area, Hamas chose to divert it to their weapon producing factories, knowing that ensuing suffering by the people of Gaza would inflame public opinion against Israel.
Israel continues to allow humanitarian aid; food, medicine and other supplies into Gaza throughout Hamas’ reign. This continues even though border authorities have foiled, in the last two weeks alone, attempts to smuggle under the guise of humanitarian supplies, tonnes of fertiliser for use in making missiles. In any informed debate on the virtue of Israel’s actions, it is imperative to remember that the Israeli Government continues to aid those Gazans who are suffering under the Hamas regime.
Therefore, it is not asked that Matt McCarten in his opinion piece on Gaza, be denied the right to express his views, nor is it asked that a newspaper limit the freedom of speech by refusing to print them. With the right to freedom of speech comes a responsibility not to distort facts or inflame and play to prejudices. There is a fine line between fair and just criticism, and blunt anti-Israel sentiment which is a camouflage for anti-Semitism.
As the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel is a firm believer in the freedoms of speech and press in a vibrant society. Israel invites debate and council on its actions, but it asks that the dialogue be informed.”
January 4th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Re Paul Buchanan’s point on the NZ Herald editorial:”The point was to put pressure on the new government to make a stand on this particular issue in the moral tradition of NZ foreign policy.”
Some of us, perhaps many of us, are tired of New Zealand trying to be the cartoon-caricature conscience of the world. The Herald represents those who bask in the importance of this self-assigned and probably only self-perceived role.
And how thick the editorials of the Herald are is further illustrated by the piece today demanding National stick to its election pledges. Hell’s teeth! There’s a world crisis on that may rival the 1930s Depression. Sane government is now more important than short-term conjuring that might bolster retail advertising and help the gently sinking, buyer-less, direction-seeking NZ Herald. Expect soon a Herald call for either a Social Credit solution, Maoist economics, or both.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Patrick Starr , for christs sake, do not take propaganda from either side in the dust up in that shit hole called the middle east as golden.
Soldiers are a fair bloody target, and bollocks to armed soldiers being kidnapped, they had a choice of fighting it out, they chose to surrender.
Why do people take propaganda from either side as the bloody truth ?
January 4th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Really Grumpyhori?. Also reported in todays HOS
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10550419
“Hamas said it also broadcast a Hebrew message on Israeli military radio frequencies promising to kill and kidnap the Israeli soldiers. “Be prepared for a unique surprise, you will be either killed or kidnapped and will suffer mental illness from the horrors we will show you,” the message said.”
What was someone saying about acting like human beings…..? …. “kidnap’? “suffer mental illness”? Hamas are just ruthless deranged terrorists
January 4th, 2009 at 11:35 am
also reported in the same article
“Hamas leaders have warned that they have prepared a violent welcome. They have also threatened to resume suicide attacks inside Israel”
didn’t they previously claim they weren’t responsible for strapping bombs to young children?
How can anyone supporting Hamas justify that?
January 4th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I love the way people debate on blogs. It is a real reflection on the vast gaps in intellect and in most cases intellectual honesty in our society. And the funny thing is that the stupidity (though not exclusively) for the most part fall on that pseudo caring supportive side of the field. The supporters who hailed Arrafat (a multi-millionaire from aid, while children under his control starved.) Or Che who loved his fellow man so much that he personally presided over death squads in the prisons (He is even known to have pulled the trigger a few times, to keep his hand in. – Certainly did not shirk his duty for man kind.)
The arguments of Jastown and the like is interesting, in that it gives one an understanding of those who makes up such a large part of our world. The conspiracy theorists, the AGW deciples and the Hamas supporters. They show us how if the speaker wears the right rosette, then what they say must be right ( fundamentalist religious types are fairly similar, just the deity is different, and no I am not an atheist. )
Blogs like this is filled with examples. And no matter how many arguments and bits of proof you come up with, you will never change their mind. However if you change your rosette on your chest… Example: They will stand up and scream blue murder about how the underprivileged suffer and starve, yet have a number of reasons why the same people can be imprisoned, tortured and executed.
The point is that even if the proof is in front of them and they see it, they can fabricate a hypothetical counter argument.
ie: Reid – Israel bully and thugs because they fight back and is acurate in i’s response …. Hamas and Palestinians the sad guys even though they train children and women to suicide bomb (if you cannot google a hundred examples … well)
Another one I find interesting was the case of the waterboarding and the insulting photos in Abu Grabe. Yet the response to the beheading of Berg and others was “a frustrated response by a suppressed people!!?”"
And one last thing. Any-one who comes up with the excuse of the Palestinian rockets not being a tactical or strategic threat should 1) ask those killed by them what they are. 2) Has never been in a war situation and should maybe stick to writing about holiday experiences.
In South Africa the ANC won their battle with stones and sticks, not rockets. (And rightly so, because they were truly oppressed.)
If these rockets are so harmless, Reid, Jastown and the like, why do you sit in NZ and pontificate. Get your arses over there and blog to us from Israel. Take your parents and children as well, because the Israelis have theirs there. No?
War is not a game of score keeping. There never is a winner or a loser. Both sides lose. One just less than the other.
January 4th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Thank you Bok.
Thank Christ you see it.
I thought everyone was insane.
January 4th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Ah Bok, the point I was making is that Israel provokes reaction by its actions. This is counter-productive, ineffective and unnecessary.
It’s quite simple. Clearly however it’s confused the hell out of you. I suggest you re-read all the posts I made on this thread. You might notice that not once did I indicate support for Hamas or any other Palestinian organisation. Your post contains other misinterpretations you’ve made of my positions as well as that one. Not that I care, but if you’re going to suggest someone is taking a particular position, you really should be sure that their words actually illustrate that.
January 4th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Spoff: I am not surprised at all by the revelations in the VF piece. Elliot Abrams–he of Iran/Contra fame–has always had a penchant for working with dirty people. The whole Bush national security cadre saw so-called “grey” or “black” ops (there is a distinction) as a legitimate tool for pursuing foreign policy goals in conflict zones. Plus, the W. Bush administration, as did the Reagan administration, viewed elections instrumentally rather than having intrinsic worth. That is, elections are useful only if they produce the desired outcome (for the US, or at least the Republican leadership of the moment). Elections that do not produce the desired outcome, be they in Latin America or the MIddle East, are branded as fraudulent and subsequently undermined by covert means. In this case the resort to underhanded tactics did not produce the desired results and contributed to the situation on the ground today. That much is clear.
reid: Thanks for the kudos. I just try to see things dispassionately and objectively rather than allow ideological blinders to colour my analyses.
Jack5: It would be nice if there were more public and parliamentary debate about the tone and thrust of NZ foreign policy. As it stands now, it is a quiet argument amongst elites unencumbered by political pressure from the electorate.
January 4th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Reid the point is that Israel reacts… it has every time. Never once was it the original aggressor. And it being counter productive is bullshit. They are fighting for their survival. My point proven again by your post. how many times must iran and Syria and Hamas state that they will not rest before Israel is no longer, before you go:”Ah, I see, they want them all dead and gone! Now I get it.” Yet according to you, even though in modern times (last 30 years), Israel has ever suggested the annihilation of Palestinians, that Israel is the aggressor. They send aid, aggressor. They retreat, aggressor. They sit and get bombed for close on 8 months, aggressor.
Hamas bombs – poor downtrodden victim, preach annihilation – poor downtrodden victim, send suicide bombers – poor downtrodden victim.
How does your very post not support everything I said? I realize that you and me agree on a lot, but here you have missed the bus. I have actually been there and not as a tourist. Israel faces the same no win situation (in public opinion) that the cartoonist faced. It’s okay for some-one to take the piss out of western religions and Judaism, but not Islam. Same with, you can bomb Israel, but they cannot retaliate.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Patrick Starr, kidnap an armed soldier, oh bollocks, are you believing some of what Hamas is saying.
Soldiers have a choice, surrender or fight to the death.
Or one can have a fragmentation grenade with an instant fuse.
Just don’t forget which one it is
January 4th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I think the left live by the maxim.
In war it is not right that matters but victory, for who questions the victors.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
“Same with, you can bomb Israel, but they cannot retaliate.”
Bok you need to understand the difference between a conclusion you yourself have drawn, which, based on your world view, to you follows inevitably from the words I use; versus the actual pure and simple meaning in the words I use. Almost everything you have concluded in your 1:56, I HAVE NEVER SAID.
I’ve taken the post apart to illustrate:
Reid the point is that Israel reacts… it has every time. [I agree]
Never once was it the original aggressor. [I never said it was and why is that relevant?]
And it being counter productive is bullshit. [So why don't you take apart the reasoning I've used at 2:25 above to justify making that claim?]
They are fighting for their survival. My point proven again by your post. how many times must iran and Syria and Hamas state that they will not rest before Israel is no longer, before you go:”Ah, I see, they want them all dead and gone! Now I get it.” [No, this is not a fight for Israel's survival, and I've explained why I think that at 6:32 above, try to take that post apart.]
Yet according to you, even though in modern times (last 30 years), Israel has ever suggested the annihilation of Palestinians, that Israel is the aggressor. They send aid, aggressor. They retreat, aggressor. They sit and get bombed for close on 8 months, aggressor. [I have only said above that Israel is UNNECESSARILY aggressive. That's NOT the same thing as saying Israel is the 'blamable' belligerent. I have NOT said that above, and this is again an impossible conclusion to draw from my words. BTW, IMO the answer to that question is quite irrelevant anyway, since IMO that issue isn't at all relevant to the dynamics in the here and now.]
Hamas bombs – poor downtrodden victim, preach annihilation – poor downtrodden victim, send suicide bombers – poor downtrodden victim. [It's tragic all over, isn't it.]
Same with, you can bomb Israel, but they cannot retaliate. [Another impossible conclusion to draw from the words I've used above.]
January 4th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Reid lets see….Israel bullies, thugs etc. All words you use and then you admit that hey were reacting. Thats like me beating the crap out of a group of 16 year old that that rapes my sister and the world saying that I am a thug and the bad guy.(Something that as just happened here in Aus to some-one. Please explain to me the rules of engagement. What you are allowed 2 deaths and then I am allowed to blow up 4 houses? what a crock.
As for your 6.32 post. It is typical of the “analysis from a distance and no experience” mentality. My brother was beaten to death with a tyre iron for a cell phone. What is my response meant to be? i’ll tell you what it is. If I knew when they came out…. welll. The same goes for Israel. Dont carry on about diplomacy. Diplomats are made up out of foreign ministers and public servants. Let me roll some names past you. Winston peters, mark prebble, Heather Simpson, Murray McCully. Need I explain more?
January 4th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Israel IS acting like a thug, Bok. Not just now, it has for a long time. You just can’t see it because you think it’s necessary and justified. Well Bok, I’ve explained why it’s neither necessary nor justified, in a logical non-emotional way. I given precise and specific reasons as to why I believe the cost/benefit and the risk calculations are heavily in favour of Israel adjusting its tactics on a regional level. I’ve explained precisely why they are not only being able to do this but also why it would be beneficial to them.
Why don’t you therefore, attack the reasoning in those posts?
Your second para alleges a nation’s foreign policy is or perhaps, should be, based not on cold rational objective calculation but on human emotion. Allow me to disagree.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Fran O’Sullivan has nothing to worry about, with National’s policy on ETS and ending the home energy efficiency programme – we have no moral leadership reputation in the world left (let alone our miserly foreign aid level).
Besides nations of the UN are supposed to support the security and survival of nation states, not require them to be defencessless under attack and to appease their enemies.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
“we have no mroal leadership reputation in the world left”
We never had it anyway SPC. The naive nuclear-free stance was our one and only moment in the sun and that sun set a long time ago.
Hulun was throwing NZ onto the AGW bandwagon because she wanted to impress foreign leaders not because it was, or is, good for NZ. Hulun sometimes acts venally and this was one of those times. Think about it: name one benefit for NZ – tourism? Nah, cost vs benefit – cost far outweighs even widely optomistic gains.
Whichever way you look at it, strategically positioning NZ as a fast follower has much better payback. It’s obvious.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Can I commend Spoff’s post linking to the Vanity Fair article:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804?currentPage=1
It adds some interesting pieces to the jigsaw.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Here is a must see video that will sort out any confusion that you may have
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6604775898578139565&hl=en
there are alot at this site that will not want you to see this
January 5th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
appears the reality is getting through someplaces.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-halevi4-2009jan04,0,1975444.story