What difference will boycotting Israeli produce make? Come to that, when have boycotts ever worked?

“it is only by an absolute miracle and the almost unbelievable work of the otherwise collapsing health infrastructure in Gaza that only around 970 have been killed so far.”

That, and the fact that the Israelis are not deliberately targeting civilians (unlike Hamas) and routinely warn people to clear out of buildings before they are attacked (unlike Hamas, who deliberately put women and children in targeted buildings to ramp up civilian casualties).

That, and the fact that the Israelis are not deliberately targeting civilians (unlike Hamas)

I’m starting to doubt the truth of that statement, Mr. E. If they’re not deliberately targeting them – that is, if they make a positive effort to avoid killing civilians, rather than just not really giving a damn whether they kill them or not – I’d say they’re one bloody unlucky fighting force.

Put it another way – splattering 300 children in one not-very-discriminate bombing campaign is seems like misfortune, but splattering a hundred more two years later is beginning to look like carelessness. Having a few of their top generals appear on TV woofing about punishing the Palestinians doesn’t do wonders for the illusion either, I’m afraid, and makes me doubt their sincerity a bit.

“That, and the fact that the Israelis are not deliberately targeting civilians (unlike Hamas) and routinely warn people to clear out of buildings before they are attacked (unlike Hamas, who deliberately put women and children in targeted buildings to ramp up civilian casualties).”

Yet they bomb a UN school that we *know* they had he co-ordinates for…how is that not deliberate exactly?

They must be doing a good of avoiding civilians Mr Eugenides, because only a third of casualties so far are children.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/gaza-city-fighiting-israel-un

and its not like the Interior minister has admitted he doesn’t care about civilian casualties?
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2654

I’m still not entirely convinced yet, because I think there are enough Jewish leftists who can be brought on side.

Its when I read stuff like this piece by Daniel Finkelstein, where he argues that Israel doesn’t care about world opinion, which makes me think why should we care about solidarity then.

Hamas’s leadership wants a lifting of the arms embargo on it, and, ideally, the placing of corresponding restrictions against Israel. With better weapons,and fewer defenders, they think they can antagonise the Israelis more, so get bigger and better pictures of more casualities, and so on.

If that wasn’t true, there would be a pretty strong case for sanctions against Israel, based mainly on the continuing expansion of settlements.

But as it is, I really don’t think those promoting that kind war-based strategy against Israel should get to use pictures of the consequences of the exact war they are promoting as justification for it.

How about working for peace, rather than a more level killing field?

Is it time to boycott Israel?

Would such a boycott serve any useful purpose?

The bottom line here is that nothing short of a wholesale reversal of US Foreign Policy is going to shift Israel of its present course and even with Obama taking office next week that isn’t going to happen – although I think there’s every likelihood of the Israelis announcing that they done what they set out to do and scaling back their military operations sometime during next week, in the knowledge that, privately, the new Obama administration is going to be quite so hands off as Dubya.

As regards civilian casualties and Israel’s conduct of its military operations, we need to be quite circumspect in our view of such issues and appreciate some of the realities that rarely feature in the debate.

For one thing, the Geneva Conventions are based on a fundamentally idealised view of the nature of modern warfare which still very much assumes that the traditional model of two uniformed armies lining up opposite each other across an unpopulated battlefield and WWII/Cold War variation of tanks sweeping across the central plains of Europe would remain the norm.

Arguably that’s not a particular apposition reflection of the reality of WWII, not if you consider the role of Tito’s partisans and the French Maquis or the battlefield conditions found at Caen, Stalingrad and during the fall of Berlin, and that particular style of warfare has become very much the exception rather than the rule, particularly since Vietnam.

The conventions were simply not drawn up with modern asymmetrical warfare and conflicts involving irregular forces in mind which makes their application to a situation like this both complex and highly contentious.

There’s also the matter of public conceptions as to the accuracy and effectiveness of modern munitions and weapons systems, which has been created and systematically fed by the appearance in the media of US propaganda footage of laser-guided bombs dropping down chimneys and through open windows, successful strikes which are, again, far more the exception and the rule.

People, generally, assume that level of accuracy is the norm, when that’s far from being the case, not least because while they get to see the rare bullseyes, what they’re rarely, if ever, are shown are those occasions where things don’t go according to plan and the ordinance narrowly misses its intended target by 20 yards and blows the crap out of the house next door.

These are not straightforward issues to deal with and one cannot necessarily make easy assumptions even the available information seems straightforward. For example, the media unquestioningly and uncritically cite casualty figures women and children on the clear assumption that the gender and/or age of these casualties rules out the possibility of their being either active members of Hamas or of having taken an active combat role in the ongoing conflict. As many GI’s found to their cost during the Vietnam War, that’s an assumption you simply cannot make any more and that alone clouds these issues making it difficult to accurately assess the real dynamics of the situation.

Unfortunately, the fog of war is at its thickest under conditions such as those in Gaza, and that makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reach any definitive conclusions about how military operations are being conducted and whether this is being done within the parameters of international law.

As such, the moral character of the conflict as a whole, and of specific incidents that take place within the conflict, can only be adequately evaluated once the shooting match has concluded.

tim: I think most agree that the various boycotts of South Africa eventually bore fruit. As said, I don’t think we’ve yet reached that point with Israel yet, but more co-ordinated and better organised boycotts of Israeli produce (while at the same time supporting Palestinian farmers and trade unionists, for instance) would at the very least underline that there will be consequences even if governments themselves are not prepared to act.

Mr E: It’s a good thing you know exactly what Hamas is doing currently in Gaza, because no else does thanks to Israel’s banning of both domestic and foreign journalists from the territory. This was defended by Daniel Seaman from Israel’s government press office on the grounds that foreign journalists would become a “fig leaf and front for Hamas”, presumably meaning a: that they would probably confirm what the likes of al-Jazeera are reporting and b: that they would probably end up killing them and then blame it on Hamas because they were firing from inside their bodies.

Are we into double figures for anti Israel posts yet ? Must be surely

My point is not to defend Israeli policy, tactics or conduct over this past fortnight, which I haven’t done here or elsewhere, let alone defend the bombing of schools or ugly rhetoric from generals.

I’m taking issue with the suggestion that the “only” reason more Palestinian civilians aren’t dead is because of the superlative efficiency of the Palestinian ambulance service. It’s clearly not the “only” reason; part of the reason is that – while the Israelis have shown yet again that they’re willing to inflict large numbers of civilian casualties if that’s what it takes for them to realise their goals (as they see it) – they demonstrably are not conducting themselves in anything like the same fashion as their opposite numbers in Hamas. And, since you used the phrase “only around 970 have been killed”, allow me to make the obvious but in-poor-taste point that if the Israelis were actually actively trying to kill civilians as a matter of military tactics, they would have managed to pass that mark by mid-day on the 28th December.

Clearly none of this is any use to the poor bloody Palestinians, of course, but it is enough for me to bridle at the suggestion, implicit in an earlier part of your post, that Miliband had “mixed up Hamas and Israel” when he descibed one as a democracy and the other as “murderous”. To me – and please correct me if I’m wrong – that reads as a stab at moral equivalency between the two (Hamas and Israel, that is, not Palestinians and Israelis) and it is *that* with which I take issue.

I wonder, to put it another way, if Hamas would exercise any similar kind of restraint were the shoe on the other foot, and they had overwhelming military force at their disposal. Given the murderous brutality with which they have treated not only Israeli civilians but also Fatah members in the recent past, not to mention the civilians they deliberately herd into Israeli-targeted buildings in order to maximise casualties and international outrage at their people’s suffering, surely you can agree that even to ask that question is to answer it?

I don’t know – perhaps if Hamas had the capability they too would fire leaflets into Israeli areas they were about to shell, or phone the addresses of houses which they might hit with their notoriously inaccurate rockets. Doubtless if they did that too would be proof of their desire to terrorise the civilian population of Israel even further, whilst Israel’s actions are merely to reduce civilian casualties.

And no, my point was not moral equivalence, it was rather sarcasm. Hamas have indeed been murderous in the past, and murderous towards Fatah, although one of the more notorious videos from the time of the coup in Gaza I recall features a Hamas member being brutalised after he had been killed, but honestly, is there that much of a difference between slaughtering police officers, as Israel did in the first couple of days, when many had been neither members of Hamas or Fatah, and the indiscriminate rocket attacks launched by Hamas? How would we react in similar circumstances?

The difference surely is that however Hamas acts, it simply cannot inflict the same sort of casualties on Israel as Israel has on Gaza. We don’t know how they’d act if they could. That Israel is “holding itself back”, which is in essence your argument, is irrelevant. It could nuke Gaza and be done with it if wanted – but that just might bring some rather harsher criticism upon it. I don’t think it’s going too far to describe Israel’s actions as murderous, because that is clearly what they are, however much they’re either in the right or defending themselves.

Finally, it would be nice to see some proof of Hamas herding civilians into buildings about to be targeted by the Israelis for maximum casualties, because as the Red Cross has said, it seems to have been Israel that has done that during this conflict, then refused access to a building they knew full well had been shelled for days afterward.

The difference surely is that however Hamas acts, it simply cannot inflict the same sort of casualties on Israel as Israel has on Gaza.

Unless, of course, they were supplied with better weapons after the lifting of the arms embargo, and Israeli forces were weakened by military and economic sanctions (e.g. less money to spend on bomb shelters and hospitals, denser and flimsier residential areas, and so on).

You can’t use the current balance of power as a justification for actions that, if at all effective, would change that balance of power.

Scepticisle – I have only ever heard that argument employed by NUS hacks seeking election. Most people I speak to think it was the combination of strike actions and the ANC resistance that brought apartheid rule down.

Except that they’re not going to be supplied with better weapons – one of the conditions that Israel is supposedly fighting for is to stop the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, which is how they’ve obtained the Grad and possibly Chinese rockets which have reached Beersheba and other places. In return for that, Israel has to lift the siege, which it has shown no intention of doing, Hamas’s main demand. If Israel had military or economic sanctions placed upon it, which again there is absolutely no indication that it will, they might well be forced them into a peace settlement. Your balance of power seems to in fact be a cover for the status quo in Israel’s favour.

To me – and please correct me if I’m wrong – that reads as a stab at moral equivalency between the two (Hamas and Israel, that is, not Palestinians and Israelis) and it is *that* with which I take issue.

I know which of the groups has caused most suffering.

What else is there?

I wonder, to put it another way, if Hamas would exercise any similar kind of restraint were the shoe on the other foot, and they had overwhelming military force at their disposal.

When there’s so much reality to deal with I see little sense in getting bogged down in hypothetics. Hamas would most likely not even exist if Palestinians had such power.

back to the issue at hand and yes of course there should be global boycotts of Israeli produce. When even the Red Cross talks of War Crimes then I think it really is time to move beyond marches and demos to boycotts. The Israeli’s are not and do not listen to the moral outrage from people around the world and when their benefactor, America, is silent then what else can the average man in the street do?
Boycotts of produce in the main are usually one way (the only way?) that people can go beyond the politics of their own government. Will it have an effect? Probably not in the short term other than to make the boycotter feel like they are doing something positive. And if that means it sates the appetite for revenge/action of a wouldbe radical then it can only be a good thing.

As for arms embargos, well can anyone really see America stopping the billions of dollars of ‘aid’ that they give each year?

Yes, in the pre-war situation, Hamas was, unlike Hizbollah, unable to freely acquire large amounts of military hardware. The fact that you call that pre-war situation, when hardly anyone on either side was getting killed, ‘the seige’ pretty much makes my point.

‘When there’s so much reality to deal with I see little sense in getting bogged down in hypothetics’

If you just want to make a meaningless protest with no intention of it being taken seriously, whatever. But if anyone is seriously proposing actions intended to change things, especially military actions like arms embargos and sanctions, then thinking through the logical consequences of those actions is hardly ‘whataboutery’.

‘If you invade Iraq, you may end up occupying it in the face of an widespread insurgency’ is not an argument you could have countered in 2002 by saying ‘Look at the reality, not hypotheticals: Saddam is a dictator’.

What would be the point of military sanctions that did not weaken Israel in time of war?

How could the Hamas leadership not take such a weakening as a vindication of its policy of conflict?

Why would they not repeat a policy that had proven successful?

then thinking through the logical consequences of those actions is hardly ‘whataboutery’.

What are the ‘logical consequences’ according to you? The horror of justice for Palestinians maybe? Or is that too terrible a consequence to bear?

As ever, Soru, you’ve left me with a lot of work to do here:

If you just want to make a meaningless protest with no intention of it being taken seriously, whatever. But if anyone is seriously proposing actions intended to change things, especially military actions like arms embargos and sanctions, then thinking through the logical consequences of those actions is hardly ‘whataboutery’.

I didn’t say it was “whataboutery”, I said it was an act of fantasy. Very amusing, I’m sure, but not really helpful in furthering the aims you outline. Unless you imagine that Hamas is going to get a US scale funder and arms salesman any day now?

‘If you invade Iraq, you may end up occupying it in the face of an widespread insurgency’ is not an argument you could have countered in 2002 by saying ‘Look at the reality, not hypotheticals: Saddam is a dictator’.

An interesting example. Other realities were that Iran is run by acquisitive dictators who would happily fill the vacuum, that massive ethnic divisions existed and would endanger the prospects of any nation state, that violent Islam was kept barely restrained by Saddam’s brutality and that his removal would result in its rise, that the American military was incapable of approaching urban combat without committing war crimes, etc, etc….

There were a lot of realities that went ignored in favour of the fantastical narrative of a liberating occupier.

What would be the point of military sanctions that did not weaken Israel in time of war?

Nothing.

How could the Hamas leadership not take such a weakening as a vindication of its policy of conflict?

Oh dear. Watch this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7ej-h6_CQJM

Read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/01/israel

Hamas honoured the ceasefire and has offered a decade of peace (lately it’s started offering more). Its policy is not conflict. There are rejectionist groups within Palestine, indeed there are quite a few of them. Hamas isn’t one of them.

Why would they not repeat a policy that had proven successful?

Why would they repeat a truce which Israel broke?

Meanwhile the “intifada” continues in London E1 – it seems already to have gone just a little beyond boycotts.

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED13%20Jan%202009%2020:43:18:030

Starbucks firebombed and “The new Tesco Metro supermarket in Stepney’s Commercial Road was targeted at the weekend when several windows were smashed and the words ‘kill Jews’ was daubed in paint. The same slogan was daubed on the wall of a children’s playground on Whitechapel’s Chicksand housing estate last week.”

It is not the killing of Muslims which drives this.
How many shoes have been thrown at the Sudanese embassy?

Thank you for that cjcj – its really a scary sight to see in London in the 21st Century.

I just want to make a point about the “act of fantasy” that is being bandied about here.

Why don’t we believe what Hamas and Iran are saying – that thye want to remove Israel off the world map – or the more simple to understand “Kill Jews”. This is not their fantasy, this is their intention and they are very deicated to their cause – to the point of suicide.

Which part of this is fantasy – can someone please explain?

‘There are rejectionist groups within Palestine, indeed there are quite a few of them. Hamas isn’t one of them.’

I did specify the Hamas leadership, rather than Hamas in general. There certainly are factions and individuals within it who would accept peace on plausible terms with Israel, just as there were Iraqis happy to see the US overthrow Saddam. The key point in both cases is the significant group of people with military experience, weapons and followers who didn’t share that view. YouTube videos can only demonstrate the existence of the first, not the absence of the second.

The majority, leadership view amongst Hamas, seems to be that any truce must be conditional on an ending of the arms embargo (‘the seige’, as you call it), and so on Hamas gaining access to heavy weapons equivalent to those used by Hizbollah to fight the IDF to a standstill last year.

If that changes, and I certainly hope it will, it will be because that leadership came to realise that using those weapons in a long-term-strategy to alter the demographics of the region is not something likely to succeed. One reason that might influence such a decision, if they are smart, is a lack of any outside willingness to go along with it, at least outside the ranks of irrelevant idiots.

‘Unless you imagine that Hamas is going to get a US scale funder and arms salesman any day now?’

‘That seems to boil down to ‘It’s ok – sensible people would stop me putting this policy into action’ . Really not much of an argument.

In practise, if such a policy were put in place by the UK or EU, the likely result would be the issue of the military threat to Israel becoming an (even) more prominent issue in the US, and so a definitive end to any chances for pressure to end settlements and sign a peace deal.

PS I predict Sunny’s very moderate anti-Hamas piece at CiF will soon be top of the comments chart!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/15/israelandthepalestinians-india

Which part of this is fantasy – can someone please explain?

You are mistaking intent for capacity. Count the dead.

I did specify the Hamas leadership, rather than Hamas in general.

…It’s the leadership that’s offered the peace.

There certainly are factions and individuals within it who would accept peace on plausible terms with Israel, just as there were Iraqis happy to see the US overthrow Saddam. The key point in both cases is the significant group of people with military experience, weapons and followers who didn’t share that view. YouTube videos can only demonstrate the existence of the first, not the absence of the second.

The majority, leadership view amongst Hamas, seems to be that any truce must be conditional on an ending of the arms embargo (’the seige’, as you call it), and so on Hamas gaining access to heavy weapons equivalent to those used by Hizbollah to fight the IDF to a standstill last year.

Gaza needs food and medical supplies.

If that changes, and I certainly hope it will, it will be because that leadership came to realise that using those weapons in a long-term-strategy to alter the demographics of the region is not something likely to succeed. One reason that might influence such a decision, if they are smart, is a lack of any outside willingness to go along with it, at least outside the ranks of irrelevant idiots.

The condition is a retreat to the 1967 borders, what is required for a Palestinian state to be viable. The real issue here is that Israel isn’t ready to give them that.

‘That seems to boil down to ‘It’s ok – sensible people would stop me putting this policy into action’ . Really not much of an argument.

That’s a “No”, then.

In practise, if such a policy were put in place by the UK or EU, the likely result would be the issue of the military threat to Israel becoming an (even) more prominent issue in the US, and so a definitive end to any chances for pressure to end settlements and sign a peace deal.

What gives you the impression Kadima could ever overwhelm the Israeli Right over the West Bank settlement issue?

Sharon managed to overwhelm everybody on the Gaza settlement issue?

I belive that its possible.

And you’ll note that when the Israeli Centre attempted to remove one settlement their meagre success caused such a fuss on the Israeli Right that it almost toppled the government. Olmert isn’t permitted to attend the site of a school shooting he’s so loathed and it’s become patently obvious to anyone who so much as gives the issue a glance (and a very in-depth examination is given here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/israel ) that the West Bank settlements are there to stay.

Why do you think that there are more of them being built? Would not a government keen on relinquishing the area not at very least have prohibited further expansion of existing occupation?

“One settlement” from the West Bank, that is. The Gaza Strip purging they just about got away with, but that’s a hopeless slum anyway.

“You are mistaking intent for capacity. Count the dead.”

But thats exactly why you don’t give the capacity to someone who has the intent – its from the school of the bleeding obvious.

Israel has the capacity to do a whole lot more damage then it actually does – as it has no intent to completely obliterate the Palestinians.

But thats exactly why you don’t give the capacity to someone who has the intent – its from the school of the bleeding obvious.

Yes, I’ve quite often written articles with titles like “Why we should up our arms exports to Hamas”, haven’t I Lilliput? “Why our funding for Islamic militants just isn’t high enough” is one of my reader’s favourites.

Israel has the capacity to do a whole lot more damage then it actually does – as it has no intent to completely obliterate the Palestinians.

I don’t care if it hasn’t started genocide, I care that it has committed war crimes. Again, you present some absurd hypothetical Israel when the real one has still performed acts such as shelling UN buildings packed full of civilians. Your fantasy butchers are worse, but that doesn’t make the real war criminals any better.

Lilliput – Israel has the capacity to do a whole lot more damage then it actually does – as it has no intent to completely obliterate the Palestinians.

But once again it is doing a damn fine job at the moment. The latest being;
The UN headquarters in Gaza has reportedly been set ablaze after being hit by Israeli shells.
Witnesses and UN officials said the United Nations Relief and Work Agency building was being used as a shelter for civilians fleeing the bombardment of the Palestinian enclave when it was struck. UN spokesman Chris Gunness said: “Our compound in Gaza has now received three hits, reportedly of white phosphorus.
“Buildings in the compound are on fire, there are loaded fuel tankers nearby. Three people have been injured. “It is not clear at this stage if they are UNWRA staff or some of the 700 or so civilians who have taken refuge in our compound.”

Yes Lilliput they could so do much much more damage couldn’t they? How many is it now, 1000 deaths in how many days, 21? What’s that, about 47 per day every day for the last 3 weeks. And how many have been children?
The thing is, you do not have to completely obliterate a country/nieghbourhood(?) to bring it to its knees when you can smash the whole of the infrastructure and inflict deaths and injuries at the rate Israel is. But then your posts smack of ‘Is it because I is Jewish’, ‘oh we are being traeted so badly by the press, Hammas, left wingers etc, etc, etc.

I believe that cjcjc put it (the purpose of my posting against any boycott of Israel) brilliantly when he says:

It is not the killing of Muslims which drives this.
How many shoes have been thrown at the Sudanese embassy?

You guys are being hypocrtical when it comes to Israel.

“Israel has the capacity to do a whole lot more damage then it actually does – as it has no intent to completely obliterate the Palestinians.”

Of course not, only to kill enough to send a message, and to cripple enough infrastructure and control what flows in and out of Gaza to ensure that the Gazan people live in utter poverty and desperation until the next chance to repeat it all over again.

I believe that cjcjc put it (the purpose of my posting against any boycott of Israel) brilliantly when he says:

It is not the killing of Muslims which drives this.
How many shoes have been thrown at the Sudanese embassy?

That’s a very low stance to mimick, Lilliput, and I have to say that I’m actually dissapointed to see you doing so. By avoiding the substance of our arguments and fleeing to the realm of non-falsifiables (I can tell you I’m not an anti-semite until my fingers fall off, but there’s no way that I can prove it, as you well know) you decide to make a cheap smear as you depart instead of engaging properly with our points.

Please cease this slurring immediately and respond to our actual arguments. This assumption of bad faith does nothing to further your argument whatsoever, and if I were a little more thin skinned I’d find the insinuation that I’m a Jew-hater rather than someone who values all sentient life rather offensive.

As it is, I just find you pitifully incorrect.

You guys are being hypocrtical when it comes to Israel.

And you are defending war criminals.

‘Yes, I’ve quite often written articles with titles like “Why we should up our arms exports to Hamas”, haven’t I Lilliput? “’

I suspect BAe would struggle to match the prices Iran offers…

James,

You are missing my point.

I am Jewish and therefore it is very important to me (in light of the massive anti semitism in Europe) that the land of Israel survives and prospers. I believe that Hamas and/or militant factions have been firing thousands of rockets into Israel for the past number of years. I believe there was a ceasefire, but even in that ceasefire a number of rockets still were sent to Israel. I believe that in November, the Israeli army, acting on some intelligence, went to destroy a tunnel as it was going to be used to kidnap another Israeli soldier. The IDF often use these tips in preventing many suicide bombings. There were casualties in that mission – but I don’t exactly know why – and I don’t believe you do either?

Then a barriage of rockets – up to 80/day fell into Israel, so the IDF thought, shit, we have a problem here, we didn’t know they had so many rockets there, we had better go and destroy the ones they’ve got and make sure the tunnels they use to smuggle more in don’t exist, otherwise what will we answer our citizens when one causes major fatalities.

So they go in by air, show the world on U Tube whats going on so that they can see for themselves what they are up against when Hamas militants positioning rocket launchers next to civilians. They destroy arms caches and tunnels filled with explosives. There are a 1000 deaths, but that includes the people that were throwing the rockets in the first place – so we can’t be sure how many innocent civillians actually were killed – but everywhere on the streets of Israel people walk with a heavy heart about whats happening. No-one dances on the streets at deaths of innocent people.

I don’t believe Israel commits war crimes and releases them on YouTube.

I believe the Palestinians are used as pawns by wealthy and powerful Islamic nations who want to see Israel and the Jews wiped out of existence. I know this because they tell me all the time and I can see how they educate their children to follow their mission. I can tell by their holy books which state that jews are monkeys that have to be killed.

So maybe we are at an impasse when you say

“(I can tell you I’m not an anti-semite until my fingers fall off, but there’s no way that I can prove it, as you well know)”

because , I will tell you that I don’t believe that these are war crimes but the desperate actions of a country and a people who have been and continue to be threatened. All Hamas needed to do was stop the rockets. They could have stopped any day of the fighting but not only did they not stop but they called on their friends in Lebenon who fired as well.

Yes, and then you’ll say , but youstole their land and you would fight to if it happened to you – well that’s what we are doing, both sides are fighting for their existence so why don’t you just let them get on with it. Its America and Israel against The Arabic countries and Europe. That seems, at least economically, fairly fair.

If you want war crimes, I can do some more research and find some, but they are more difficult to find you see – nobody puts them on YouTube for easy viewing!

I suspect BAe would struggle to match the prices Iran offers…

Interesting insinuation there, Soru. I’d like some evidence that the Palestinian rockets aren’t home-made, please.

You are missing my point.

*sighs* Your point was that you agreed with someone who called me an anti-semite…

I am Jewish and therefore it is very important to me (in light of the massive anti semitism in Europe) that the land of Israel survives and prospers.

That isn’t going to happen without massive oppression. West Bank desettlement doesn’t seem to be on the cards for the forseeable, and without that you’ll have a Palestinian majority within decades. From there on it’s either denial of democracy (Arab parties have already been banned) or ethnic cleansing of the West Bank by the IDF. Perhaps both. Or else Israel being self-determined out of existence. Its an apartheid state or no Jewish state at all.

Sorry.

I believe that Hamas and/or militant factions have been firing thousands of rockets into Israel for the past number of years. I believe there was a ceasefire, but even in that ceasefire a number of rockets still were sent to Israel. I believe that in November, the Israeli army, acting on some intelligence, went to destroy a tunnel as it was going to be used to kidnap another Israeli soldier. The IDF often use these tips in preventing many suicide bombings. There were casualties in that mission – but I don’t exactly know why – and I don’t believe you do either?

Because they breached the ceasefire.

Then a barriage of rockets – up to 80/day fell into Israel, so the IDF thought, shit, we have a problem here, we didn’t know they had so many rockets there, we had better go and destroy the ones they’ve got and make sure the tunnels they use to smuggle more in don’t exist, otherwise what will we answer our citizens when one causes major fatalities.

So they go in by air, show the world on U Tube whats going on so that they can see for themselves what they are up against when Hamas militants positioning rocket launchers next to civilians.

So thorough were their efforts to make matters open access that they’ve banned all media entering the area, defying the Israeli Supreme Court in the process.

They destroy arms caches and tunnels filled with explosives. There are a 1000 deaths, but that includes the people that were throwing the rockets in the first place – so we can’t be sure how many innocent civillians actually were killed –

Innocent until proven guilty. I’d wager it’s far more than the quarter who are children.

but everywhere on the streets of Israel people walk with a heavy heart about whats happening. No-one dances on the streets at deaths of innocent people.

Except in New York: http://www.alternet.org/story/119372/

I don’t believe Israel commits war crimes and releases them on YouTube.

No, the use of white prosperous and the shelling of targets filled with civilians that the IDF had the co-ordinates of and were fully aware was a UN building is not on YouTube. You are correct there.

I believe the Palestinians are used as pawns by wealthy and powerful Islamic nations who want to see Israel and the Jews wiped out of existence. I know this because they tell me all the time and I can see how they educate their children to follow their mission. I can tell by their holy books which state that jews are monkeys that have to be killed.

Nice demonisation of an entire people there. Highly ironic, actually.

Collective punishment is unacceptable.

So maybe we are at an impasse when you say

“(I can tell you I’m not an anti-semite until my fingers fall off, but there’s no way that I can prove it, as you well know)”

because , I will tell you that I don’t believe that these are war crimes but the desperate actions of a country and a people who have been and continue to be threatened. All Hamas needed to do was stop the rockets. They could have stopped any day of the fighting but not only did they not stop but they called on their friends in Lebenon who fired as well.

They had stopped. There was a ceasefire. Then Israel fired rockets and resumed the blockade. If Israel would but retreat to the 1967 borders then Hamas have offered them at least a decade of peace.

Yes, and then you’ll say , but youstole their land and you would fight to if it happened to you – well that’s what we are doing, both sides are fighting for their existence so why don’t you just let them get on with it. Its America and Israel against The Arabic countries and Europe. That seems, at least economically, fairly fair.

…Europe? When did Europe start backing Hamas? When has anyone advocated that?

If you want war crimes, I can do some more research and find some, but they are more difficult to find you see – nobody puts them on YouTube for easy viewing!

As aforementioned.

lilliput – so there we have it.’I’m Jewish so I’m going to back Israel come what may. Even if they committ war crimes? Even if they kill children?
I’m black and hated what was going on in S. Africa but do you think I would have been happy to see white s.african children murdered? Of course not. Nelson Mandela didn’t come out saying well lets murder them all as they have brought their children up to see us as little more than monkeys.
Your statements stagger me. Thank god (whichever you like) that not all think like you. You make me feel that if your sentiments are the majority for all jews, what with Israel having nukes, then your nation could be the first to use them. Crazy? Not judging by your comments.
And America, well it seems there is a fair amount of christian yanks who back israel simply because they are waiting for the end days – not the greatest of allies.

James

“That isn’t going to happen without massive oppression. West Bank desettlement doesn’t seem to be on the cards for the forseeable, and without that you’ll have a Palestinian majority within decades. From there on it’s either denial of democracy (Arab parties have already been banned) or ethnic cleansing of the West Bank by the IDF. Perhaps both. Or else Israel being self-determined out of existence. Its an apartheid state or no Jewish state at all.”

I don’t believe that West Bank desettlement will not occur – I see it as very possible, but whether it will help at all, in light of the fact that we pulled out of Gaza, and look what has happened now. I don’t know about the demographics because maybe European Jews of Italy, France etc who are fearful are already buying property in Israel – just in case. But you are right – the Israeli’s know this.

Unfortunately, there have been cases of countries where the foreign minority did survive to eventually take over and rule and they are America, Australia, and New Zealand – but please (whatever G-d) that doesn’t have to happen again.

And Ace,

Thank god (whichever you like) that not all think like you

I am but one loony Jew and there is a very well known idea that if you put 2 Jews in a room you will get 3 opinions.

I believe that when the Palestinians want to live more then they want Israelis to die – is when we will have peace. I’m in favour of doing anything that will help that come about.

I hope that I am mistaken, Lilliput.

I believe that when the Palestinians want to live more then they want Israelis to die – is when we will have peace. I’m in favour of doing anything that will help that come about.

Then take the blinkers off and admit that Israel has/is committing war crimes. That this action goes way beyound simple retribution.
Israel may win this battle but the war? Yes you will see anti semites surface just as you see islamaphobes – but the more this goes on the more the average person on the street will say Israel is in the wrong. Jeeze, the UN building in Gaza has been shelled with phosphorous shells – how can you justify this?

Is Israel preventing journalists entering from Egypt too??

Gaza does have a border with Egypt!

Egypt must be denying access too – journalists can’t get in.

Is it time to boycott Israel?
No, it isn’t. For more reasons than I can be bothered to go into right now. It’s late I’m off to bed. And the spectacle of supposed left liberals excusing murderous theocratic fascists is making me queasy.

But, Johnathon, we’ve already said we despise what Israel is doing? Why should that make you queasy?

o u lee

Egypt must be denying access too – journalists can’t get in.

I assume that too, yet every BBC and other report only mentions Israel’s denial of access.

“Then take the blinkers off and admit that Israel has/is committing war crimes. That this action goes way beyound simple retribution.”

Ace, this has nothing to do with simple or complex retribution at all – its a simple case of Hamas having weapons they are using against Israeli citizens and the IDF has to search and destroy the weapons. Where do you see retribution?

and I’d like more discussion about Egypt’s role in all this – you guys have been very quiet about Egypt? Lets take the blinkers off now?

This guy writes quite well about the situation:

http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2008/12/still-in-fields-and-i-have-some-jewish.html

‘Interesting insinuation there, Soru. I’d like some evidence that the Palestinian rockets aren’t home-made, please.’

Well, I doubt the weapons smuggling tunnels are used much for exporting hand-crafted Gazan weapons to discerning collectors…

Given the arms embargo enforced by all neighbouring states, you only currently get missiles of a size that can fit through such a tunnel. But the whole political and military campaign you are lending your support to is aimed at ending that embargo, placing Hamas in the same situation as Hizbollah, which is able to be freely supplied by Iran, Syria and supporters elsewhere.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1910154.ece

As far as I know, the above link is not considered remotely controversial or disputed.

Hamas is pretty much unique in the modern world in being an armed group noone can sell arms to. If that changes, it is possible I suppose that not only will Iran and Syria treat them differently than Hizbollah, but their overseas supporters will abandon them, and every arms dealer in the world will simultaneously develop a conscience and refuse to deal with them.

Doesn’t seem to be a way I would like to bet.

Well, I doubt the weapons smuggling tunnels are used much for exporting hand-crafted Gazan weapons to discerning collectors…

Food? There is a blockade, you know…

Ace, this has nothing to do with simple or complex retribution at all – its a simple case of Hamas having weapons they are using against Israeli citizens and the IDF has to search and destroy the weapons. Where do you see retribution?

When they bombed a mosque, a mortuary, two UN buildings (one with white phospherous) and a university?

and I’d like more discussion about Egypt’s role in all this – you guys have been very quiet about Egypt? Lets take the blinkers off now?

Egypt is maintaining the blockade, but it hasn’t committed any war crimes or killed over 1000 and rising lately, so it gets less attention. War criminals are an eye-grabber, who’d have thought?