You make a fair point and then fatally undermine yourself. The DEC issue is separate from whether the BBC is “institutionally biased”. It is. Talk to reporters socially, as I have done, and they will admit as much. Pretending it isn’t just makes you look a fool.

Admiral: An institutionally biased organisation would have run the DEC appeal because of said bias.

It is of course Hamas who have politicised suffering not the BBC and not Israel who would dearly love to be fighting them in the Desert miles from the schools under which they have placed their munitions . Sadly the terrorists have been successful thanks to the unremitting support of left wing anti Israeli and anti American Liberals and the issue is now politicised to the point that ordinary sympathy is an attack on Israel
Clear evidence of this the extent of exaggeration of causalities. It now appears the numbers are vastly below those reported by Hamas and stand at about 600 many of whom are Hamas fighters . In an incursion into the West bank town on Jenin in 2002 reports of 1500 were later revised to 100.

This is a tiny number and bears no comparison to the casualty rate in the Congo now flaring up again and as for Sudan its a dust particle . Liberal Conspiracy have published I would guess up to 20 pieces sympathising with Palestinians while other equally sever humanitarian tragedies are all but ignored . This gives the lie to the weak claim that humanitarian concern is the chief motive

good article!

“why aren’t we talking about the congo” is a distraction by people with a compassion byepass.

You tell em Newmania !

“You make a fair point and then fatally undermine yourself. The DEC issue is separate from whether the BBC is “institutionally biased”. It is. Talk to reporters socially, as I have done, and they will admit as much. Pretending it isn’t just makes you look a fool.”

No, people who claim the BBC is biased are the fools. The BBC gives both sides of the story, and that is something Right wingers can’t deal with. They are so used to getting their news filtered through the lens of the Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph that they don’t understand the first thing about impartiality.

Right wingers talk often about bias but they can’t even spot it in the publications they buy and read. Anyway, most right wingers don’t want impartiality, they just want total propaganda all the time. Effectively, that is what they have created in the American news media which is now almost soviet in it’s bias towards the Right. Anybody who wants a market solution to News does not want impartiality.

The BBC is increasingly making the mistake of trying to appease the Right wing. Whether it is allowing Nick Robinson, or Andrew Neil to be the face of their political reporting, or letting Jeremy Clarkson turn its motoring show into a giant party political broadcast for the Conservative party or hiring Frank Luntz, American Republican pollster to do it’s polls for news night, or having neo con Irwin Stelzer on almost on a weekly basis to clutter up Newsnight, ignoring the fact that he has been wrong about just about everything for the last 5 years. I could go on and on about the Right wing presence in the BBC. It’s mistake, because you can never appease the Right wing. Total destruction of the BBC is the only thing that will satisfy the Right.

The International Right wing has changed it’s position on Israel from one of anti Semitism indifference, to total support of Israel because of Right wing Christian bible thumpers in the US who believe their beloved Jesus can’t come back to earth until Israel is totally secure. So the BBC is once again caving in to the demands of the Right wing.

New troll “It is of course Hamas who have politicised suffering not the BBC and not Israel who would dearly love to be fighting them in the Desert miles from the schools under which they have placed their munitions . Sadly the terrorists have been successful thanks to the unremitting support of left wing anti Israeli and anti American Liberals and the issue is now politicised to the point that ordinary sympathy is an attack on Israel
Clear evidence of this the extent of exaggeration of causalities. It now appears the numbers are vastly below those reported by Hamas and stand at about 600 many of whom are Hamas fighters . In an incursion into the West bank town on Jenin in 2002 reports of 1500 were later revised to 100″

Well, if you want to play the numbers game, the number of Israelis killed by rockets over the last 5 years is about 40. But that apparently is enough to justify the total destruction of Gaza .

And it is Israel who have pollicised the killing of those 40, much more than anything else by the Palestinians.

There’s no bullshit piece of propaganda that Newmania won’t dribble out on demand.

Did I say demand? My mistake. There is no demand for his bollocks.

But on and on and on he goes, regardless.

This is a humanitarian issue, you “proud to be a hard-faced tosser” bore.

Last night on Channel 4 things became as clear as day for me. An Israeli representative acknowledged that the areas where they bombed civilians contained civilians that weren’t willingly harbouring Hamas or their resources, and yet they bombed them anyway.

How is it not a war crime to acknowledge that you know that you used weapons that are illegal to use on civilians, on innocent or cohereced civilians. How is it not absolutely sickening that you then pass that off as somehow being of Hamas’ doing?

By the numbers Sally the Nazis were the moral superiors of the Allies and a soldier the moral equivalent of a murderer. The option of sending a stiffly worded memo was not available to the Jews whereas the option to agree to the offer of 90 % of what hamas are now supposedly fighting for was open to the PLO .
I agree with you if you are saying the motives and rationale of killing are the key to how judge it .Israel , who can only lose once , have conspicuously better justification then others of comparatively little interest to Lib Conspiracy.

This shows that humanitarian concerns are secondary to anti Israel and anti American political motives which is obviously true . Many on the left after all in effect sided with Saddam Hussein against the allies and especially America when he was clearly responsible for genocidal use of WMDs and torture on a large scale.

Anything to be against America

“The option of sending a stiffly worded memo was not available to the Jews whereas the option to agree to the offer of 90 % of what hamas are now supposedly fighting for was open to the PLO .”

I repeat myself. The palestinians claim such an offer was never on the table, clinton claims it was his idea not Israels, and it’s just Israel that claims it made the offer. The fact you appear to be unaware that there is a different point of view regarding what happened in negotiations says a great deal about how seriously you approach matters. The fact you think its justified for civillians to be dying in large numbers because of an alleged negotiating failure on the part of their imposed leaderships 8 and a half years previously shows just how much work Cameron has left to do to to remove the nasty part of his party.

Newmania: Piss off, the feelings of people here against the crisis against the Gazan population are nothing to do with political point scoring and everything to do with being incensed at the level of disregard the IDF has had for international law and simple ethics.

Carry on trying to spin this in to some political issue, you only make yourself look like a moron anyhow.

OK Lee why then is Palestine an issue for the left and Sudan and Congo not ?

Planeshift “I repeat myself. The Palestinians claim such an offer was never on the table, Clinton claims it was his idea not the Israelis, and it’s just Israel that claims it made the offer”

Clinton certainly blamed the Palestinians and the fact that they have come up with an alternative history neither surprises nor concerns any balanced observer . I agree with you that the suffering of innocent civilians is appalling and deeply regret that Hamas have chosen to cause it as well as aim their rockets at schools in Israel who are trying to avoid civilian casualties . To actually offer up their own people as a bloody propaganda weapons is a depth even the IRA would never have sunk to. It appeasr the number of civilian dead has been hugely exaggerated by Hamas for political purposes which nicely demonstrates that humanitarian concern cannot be a-political in this arena .

Lee Griffin, I watched that Channel 4 report last night. In fact I watched it again on Channel 4 + 1 so that I could record Jon Snow getting both agitated and defeated by Mark Regev in debate. Anyway…he never said Israel bombed civilian areas where they knew there were no Hamas soldiers. What he said was that there were serious accusations against Israel and that as a result Israel was investigating them. Israel investigating doesn’t mean they are automatically guilty.

Besides Lee, you don’t know who caused those civilians those injuries. You have no evidence to suggest that it is either Israel or Hamas. It could easily be either. Israel obviously went in with soldiers, tanks etc…but Hamas is known for using civilians as human shields etc and its actions are deplorable. You are seeing for yourself on the news phospherous that hasn’t gone off and is being set off to show us what it does. Is it not possible that Hamas militants may have found some of this and fired it at their own civilians for propaganda? I wouldn’t put it past them…

Oh, and…I think the BBC should air that commercial for aid to Gaza. It’s important that civilians get help if they are suffering, regardless of the political issues surrounding it. I also believe though, that if they are going to show this advert, they should have an appeal for the people of Sderot who have been suffering for years and years and years now…

Newmania.

Just. Shut. Up.

“What he said was that there were serious accusations against Israel and that as a result Israel was investigating them. Israel investigating doesn’t mean they are automatically guilty.”

Does not matter if they are guilty or not, nothing will come of it. Israel is now a law unto itself. As long as America is in the tank they can kill as many as they like. In fact, many in America would like Israel to kill all the Palestinians. The Jewish lobby is so powerful in both the 2 main parties in America they practically own and run America now.

“Besides Lee, you don’t know who caused those civilians those injuries. You have no evidence to suggest that it is either Israel or Hamas. It could easily be either. Israel obviously went in with soldiers, tanks etc…”

Ah, so you bought in to the Israeli propoganda, and are trying to accuse me of buying in to Hamas propoganda? How Ironic.

I think I’ll believe the report of an independent and experience reporter, along with multiple humanitarian agencies, over Mark Regev.

Also, Israel admit to using white phosphorous bombs, and I have to wonder why it is that Hamas would not have used these weapons, given their scant disregard for injuring civilians, against Israel before now?

“Anyway…he never said Israel bombed civilian areas where they knew there were no Hamas soldiers. ”

That doesn’t matter. He accepted that the civilians were either under duress or coerced by Hamas, thus accepting the civilians were entirely innocent and indeed victims of their own country (from his view). So he accepted they were innocent, and still bombed them, that’s all there is to it. There’s no more spin, thats the bottom line.

Sally, that last sentence makes me cringe. You need very strong evidence to back that up if you’re going to refute allegations of it being anti-Semitic.

“OK Lee why then is Palestine an issue for the left and Sudan and Congo not ?”

You’re short sighted and clearly blind if you believe that the Sudan, at the very least, isn’t an issue for the left. Even American broadcasters, for example the creators of ER, were making political statements about Sudanese suffering for a period of time. It’s just convenient for you to forget what has already been done.

I’ve also explained the difference between civil conflicts and the amount of impact individual civillians outside that country can have, and conflicts like Israel/Gaza. But again, you choose to ignore this.

In fact you generally choose to ignore anything on this issue that isn’t something which diverts attention away from the pressing and present need for people to concentrate on this issue of the Gazan Crisis, you’re quite frankly despicable.

“Newmania.

Just. Shut. Up.”

I got criticized by many on here for taking a hard line on Right wing trolls. Some people seem to think it is illiberal to ban them or tell them to fuck off. But that is what you have to do with these brown shirts.

It is not as if there is any shortage of Right wing sites they can use, In fact they are always telling us how superior right wing sites are. How much funnier they are, how much better the debate is. Well, if that is the case , why don’t they just fuck off and keep away? Trolls by name, trolls by nature.

the best policy is always to ignore newmania. The troll is there merely to detract from the real issue. I wouldn’t be surprised if a few years ago he was standing around carrying a sign saying ‘Hang Nelson Mandela’ and saying why people weren’t crying about East Timor instead of South Africa…

“Sally, that last sentence makes me cringe. You need very strong evidence to back that up if you’re going to refute allegations of it being anti-Semitic.”

Well, first off, the charge of anti Semitism is totally devalued these days because the Global Jewish lobby has decided that even the tinniest criticism of Israel amounts to anti Semitism.

The Democrats have been the traditional home for the Jews in the US. Mainly because the Republicans were, REALLY anti Jew. Go back and listen to the Nixon tapes to hear what the Right really thinks of the Jewish people. This has changed in the last 20 years as the Christian fundies have taken over the Republican party, and now believe in a very literal interpretation of the bible. For them, Jesus can not return for his second coming until Israel is safe and secure. Of course, once this happens ,according to the very same bible, all non Christians will go straight to hell, including the Jews. So this love of Israel is only a marriage of convenience to help the greater good, The speeding up of the end of the world. One could laugh at this nonsense, but these are the people who are running the Republican party these days. And they can raise big amounts of money and have control of the appointment of Republican candidates.

Obama will have very little room to move on Israel. He may want to take a more even stance, but he won’t be allowed to. Only 2 weeks ago The Prime Minster of Israel rang Bush and demanded that he get Condie Rice to abstain a resolution at the UN. This is not in itself unusual, but this resolution had the support of Rice. Israel got the President of America to veto his own secretary of states policy. The Israel Prime Minister then boasted in a speech about how he told the American President what to do.

Sally. “The Democrats have been the traditional home for the Jews in the US. Mainly because the Republicans were, REALLY anti Jew. Go back and listen to the Nixon tapes to hear what the Right really thinks of the Jewish people. ”

My great-grandparents were (apparently) Labour voters, because they felt at the time that it suited them, living in the East End and wanting a better world. I would not vote Labour now, for exactly the same reasons (other than the fact I live in Birmingham). But according to that logic, I should, because I am ethnically ‘east-end Methodist’. Perhaps if you dropped the racist (in its non-offensive meaning) overtones and actually considered that Jews, like all American citizens chose who to vote for, you might get a better understanding. After all, by your logic the black population of the US should be voting for the Republicans. There may well be a major lobby of religious fundamentalists who back Israel, but people chose to vote for them in a democratic system. I strongly suspect you are not anti-semetic nor racist; you are guilty of assuming people have to behave in certain ways because of labels, rather than acting as individuals.

However, the strength of the American Republican party’s now fading militant Christian tendency seems to have very little to do with the BBC. Most of those accusing it of bias (which it has, in many directions – Sally, do you really think the BBC could justify not showing Jeremy Clarkson, but retain all those left-wing comics on Mock the Week for example?) are not Christian or Jewish fundamentalists, but secular right wingers in the British tradition (i.e. not Nazis, not bigots, irrelevant as to whether they believe in God) who do not like its take on stories. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are idiots. Such is the nature of human opinion, and human editorialising. Perhaps a more constructive debate could be had if we stopped demonising everyone?

I strongly suspect you are not anti-semetic nor racist; you are guilty of assuming people have to behave in certain ways because of labels, rather than acting as individuals.

Possibly, but its still a fact most Jews and blacks in the US overwhelmingly vote Democrat because of history.

because the Global Jewish lobby has decided that even the

Sally I think this can be interpreted as grossly offensive. It sounds rather like the frequently touted Mad Mel paranoia about a global Islamic conspiracy. The Israel lobby exists, but Jews do not in any way think the same about issues. And its offensive to lump peoples together.

I rest my case.

I said the tinniest critism of Israel is now viewed as anti Semitism and along comes someone to confirm that. Ok, if you don’t want to use the term “Global Jewish lobby” that is fine.

But a lot of Jews who are in influential positions in politics, and Newspapers all around the world defend Israel to the hilt, and attack anyone who dares say a word against The State Of Israel. That is fact, and branding me as anti Semitic for pointing that out only makes my point for me.

Sally you said:

“The Jewish lobby is so powerful in both the 2 main parties in America they practically own and run America now.”

That is not “the tiniest criticism”, it doesn’t even mention Israel, so don’t even insult our intelligence

“The Jewish lobby is so powerful in both the 2 main parties in America they practically own and run America now.”

Yea, I stand by that, don’t know what your problem is. As long as you fail to aknowledge the power of the Jewish lobby on American poltics you will be disappointed with the lack of progress in Israel.

Even if you do acknowledge it there is nothing you can do unless you act anti-semitically, so there’s little point bringing it up as a point of action, is there?

“Even if you do acknowledge it there is nothing you can do unless you act anti-semitically, so there’s little point bringing it up as a point of action, is there?”

Well on that basis you might as well not bother having a site and talking about these issues at all. Shut down all debate.

Just what Israel and it’s supporters would like.

What are you going to do when Obama, having restricted the power of lobbyists, maintains a pro-Israel stance?

Lee Griffin, so Regev admitted that Israel bombed civilians he knew were under duress etc? I know, I realise that! The whole world knows that. Israel wasn’t trying to hide that. Were the US and UK and their NATO allies hiding that they were bombing areas with civilians when they attacked Bosnia?

And as for why didn’t Hamas use phospherous bombs before against Israel…oh my god!! Can you not figure this out yourself? Do I really have to spell out that Hamas don’t have their own phospherous bombs, and simply would have used what Israel fired that didn’t explode!

Anyway, you can accuse me of listening to propaganda, I can do the same to you. And if that reporter was balanced then I am a penguin. The reporter didn’t make mention of the fact that the tunnels being rebuilt were used for weapons. Anyway Lee, tonight John Snow admitted that they had discovered that Hamas coerced the people and won’t allow individuals to speak freely to the press. What have you got to say about that now?

In fact Lee Griffin, I’d like to hammer the point home. Yesterday Jon Snow wouldn’t reply to Mark Regev asking him whether Hamas were authoritarian or not. After being asked three times, Snow cut Regev off.

Today, Snow admits that Hamas have shot opposition leaders and dissenters, and prevented individuals from speaking. Does this not demonstrate that Channel 4′s reporting is shoddy and unbalanced, the fact that they were forced into such an embarrassing retraction as the result of Snow being thoroughly out-debated by Mark Regev.

All day controlling puppet political Parties ,capitalism and socialism as well . Tell me Ephraim when do I to poison the wells and steal children , and with my back Ephraim , oi vay

Sunny which are the ‘evil’ white S Africans here then the Jews or Hamas who are committed to exterminating them ? I `m not quite sure what point you are making .There is not a protocols of Islam but there is a degree of international cooperation , why do you deny it , the plots and conspiracies are daily followed and have on occasion be foiled . You are making an equivalence where none exists as usual .

It’s really sad when a thread on a broadcaster refusing to show a plea for aid descends into the same tedious taking of sides. Regardless of the number of deaths, which despite the claims here stands at close to 1,300 still, no one can claim that the Gaza strip has not been pulverished with large parts of it having to rebuilt. No one is denying there is a humanitarian crisis there; it’s only because of the partisanship that this is in the slightest bit controversial. The BBC, as always, are pathetic.

“Lee Griffin, so Regev admitted that Israel bombed civilians he knew were under duress etc? I know, I realise that! The whole world knows that. Israel wasn’t trying to hide that.”

My question is why is this not a war crime? I can’t see much of a case as to why it isn’t.

“Were the US and UK and their NATO allies hiding that they were bombing areas with civilians when they attacked Bosnia? ”

I don’t know anything about Bosnia I’m afraid, however trying to draw equivalences with previous conflicts is pretty much irrelevant.

“And as for why didn’t Hamas use phospherous bombs before against Israel…oh my god!! Can you not figure this out yourself? Do I really have to spell out that Hamas don’t have their own phospherous bombs, and simply would have used what Israel fired that didn’t explode!”

Well then your argument is fairly flawed then, because acknowledging that Israel was firing them, and knowing that Gaza being gaza that has to be in to civilian areas, and knowing that Israel acknowledges from their perspective the civilians are under duress, means Israel was firing munitions illegal to fire upon innocent civilians on to innocent civilians.

If Hamas did or did not use unexploded ones to then actually explode in civilian areas is pretty fucking irrelevant at that point, is it not?

“Anyway, you can accuse me of listening to propaganda, I can do the same to you.”

That was my point, but thanks for the “I know you are, but what am I”.

“And if that reporter was balanced then I am a penguin. The reporter didn’t make mention of the fact that the tunnels being rebuilt were used for weapons.”

The fact they’re used for weapons, or even being rebuilt, is irrelevant to the point of the report…which was that Israel is firing illegal munitions in to civilian areas.

“Anyway Lee, tonight John Snow admitted that they had discovered that Hamas coerced the people and won’t allow individuals to speak freely to the press. What have you got to say about that now?”

That it doesn’t change anything about the complicity of the Israeli government and IDF in firing illegal munitions on to civilians. What have you got to say about that now? Or are you too busy spinning this away from the actual subject at hand?

“Yesterday Jon Snow wouldn’t reply to Mark Regev asking him whether Hamas were authoritarian or not. After being asked three times, Snow cut Regev off.”

This is irrelevant to whether or not Israel were firing illegal munitions in to innocent civilians.

“Today, Snow admits that Hamas have shot opposition leaders and dissenters, and prevented individuals from speaking. Does this not demonstrate that Channel 4’s reporting is shoddy and unbalanced”

It’s all they’re able to do, since Israel and Egypt wouldn’t let them in during the attacks to actually see what was really going on at the time. And, you guessed it, this is irrelevant to the issue of Israel firing illegal munitions in to civilian areas, something that is easily a war crime.

I’m not defending Israel’s actions here but can we please remember that while much of what they have done over the last few weeks is indeed a war crime, so is using a civilian population to shelter rocket launchers?

Shatterface. Hamas have their case to answer no doubt…but are you realistically trying to say equal weighting should apply to a body firing “normal” rockets and not killing anyone compared to another body firing enhanced munitions under illegal conditions and killing over 1,000?

I don’t think anyone here is denying Hamas is wrong, is evil, whatever you want to call them…but can we please have proportionality here? This constant attempt to claim that what Hamas is doing in reality and in outcome is just as bad as the IDF is tiresome.

It also doesn’t excuse the fact that the IDF are the ones that ultimately have the choice to bomb civilians placed around such munitions against their will. They make the choice to kill civilians. Do you think we’d be sitting here trying to claim that Hamas was any more justified if they got a huge resource injection and started killing Israeli citizens because the IDF had adopted the same tactic of placing their stockpiles in civilian areas?

Look, Israel are shelling Gaza

Trite reply: “But it’s only in self-defense.”

Alright. But aren’t they going too far? What’s the need to kill 1,300 people in such a short period of time?

Trite reply: “the death toll is the Palestinians’ fault. Hamas deliberately hide their stuff amongst civilians”.

Ok. But why then use white phosphorous anyway? What’s the need?

Trite manipulative reply :”But if Hamas could they’d use white phosphorous too, so why not Israel”.

Unbelievably pathetic.

P.S. NEWMANIA, really, aren’t you ashamed of yourself? Cos you really give a fuck about Congo and Sudan, don’t you???? Ohhh…and you forgot to mention ZImbabwe. What is it, you don’t care about them?
So how does your 6th form type of argument work? Everytime you discuss a proble do you go…”yeah but how about that then?”…. If you go to the doctor complaining you’re having the shits, does he turn “Oh stop going on about your bleeding diarrhoea, how about your pathological obsession for spamming left wing site?”
You’re a joke you are…!

No, Newmania is racist because he didn’t mention the Pakistani massacre of Bangladeshis in 1971… it just goes to show he doesn’t care about Bangladeshis either!

And at the end of the day, after the petty bickering and name calling, the issue is still the suffering of the Palestinian people. Until their humanitarian needs and aspirations for a say in their future are met there will be no peace and no security for Israel. Their rockets are pinpricks to the adjacent superpower, the tantrums of a child in pain. Until they see a genuine future this will not change.

Lee (39): No, I’m not saying EQUAL weight should be given SOME should – and I don’t see any reference to Hamas’s war crimes in the comments above. Your reply claiming Israel fired under ‘illegal conditions’ seems to suggest the possibility that Hamas’s attacks were carried out under ‘legal conditions’: and what’s a ‘normal’ rocket? It’s never normal to have missiles rain down from the skies. Also, are you really suggesting nobody has ever been killed by a Hamas rocket attack?

Israel’s response was grossly disproportunate but there was bound to be SOME reprisal and it was Hamas which put civilians in the firing line. This is a war crime and should be denounced as such. It’s not a zero-sum game: recognising Hamas’s culpability in no way lessens Israel’s responsibility here but ‘proportionality’ does not mean applying the phrase war crime to the side which leaves the biggest body count.

I didn’t mention Hamas at all, as my primary concern is about the IDF, and Hamas’s involvement is irrelevant to the IDFs actions. They’re all big boys now, and they need to take responsibility for their actions on both sides.

I don’t think you can claim that Hamas is irrelevant here: the IDF’s actions did not come out of the blue. Israel did not decide to attack Gaza on a whim.

Most people here would not count themselves among the ‘We are all Hamas now brigade’ and will agree that Hamas is reactionary and anti-semitic – but I still sense a reluctance to criticise their rocket attacks for fear of being seen as in some way as supportive of Israel’s response.

Launching attacks from a civilian area should be denounced unreservedly wherever it occurs. Even if Israel’s response had been ‘proportunate’ (whatever that means) it would still have almost certainly lead to civilian casualties.

“the IDF’s actions did not come out of the blue. Israel did not decide to attack Gaza on a whim.”

Well, no, they broke a ceasefire with Hamas because of rockets being fired (and claimed) by non-Hamas related militants in to Israel, most likely to provoke Israel to attack.

As for the rest of your comments, we’ll have that debate when one side isn’t slaughtering 1,000′s, firing on known UN safe havens, using illegal munitions, and destroying infrastructure that is vital to quality of life, while the other is taking pot shots with rockets, as damnable as that is, and causing only minor injuries and minor damage.

Both are wrong, one is just so much more wrong that it is a waste of time to even bother getting in to the “balance game” of condemning them…especially since so much time is spent condemning them whenever there is a period of “peace” anyway. People on this site have said their piece about Hamas, we all agreed…the problem is the IDF and Israel in this specific conflict, that’s why we’re talking about it more.

No-one’s ignoring Hamas or failing to condemn them, can we all stop being blind now?

Oh what a delightful soufflé of cant has risen .Yummy. Claude , my new best friend , I don’t have to join your jejune fiction that we care desperately about “ World peace” . Perhaps you see your self as a flaming sword of moral protest .To me you sound something like a prattling beauty queen.
I`m not going to get into the screaming delusions of those who boycott improperly sourced fruit to the point of catching scurvy , at another time it would give huge pleasure .Here I am only pointing out that the claim , made by Sunny Hundal , that he motivated by humanitarian conscience does not stand up to scrutiny
It will not , as his delicate antennae is demonstrably more delicate when the Jews are involved . Simple , obvious and true . Similarly the left still will not admit that Stalin’s slaughter was as bad as Hitler’s ,that black Africa tribalism is a s bad as white African tribalism , and often worse, that a police mistake is not as bad as the deliberate slaughter of innocent Londoners , that the left were wrong over unilateral disarmament ( and ok right-ish on S Africa),wrong on Zimbabwe
You see little Claude ,this is the problem with the left , so long as you tell yourselves you mean well , you are safe to sit in the stink of your self delight . It was pathetically stupid , for example , to believe a dictatorship the Soviet Union would give up their weapons if we did first, but not evil , oh well that’s alright then . It was absurd to start excusing a genocidal gangster just to be against America , dumn dumn dumb , but not evil oh no . The utter inability to understand the threat of militant Islam is motivated by god knows what , puerile , fatuous catastrophically self regarding and useless , but not evi.l oh no.
It is quite ridiculous not see that the state of Israel is vastly better than its opponents and the fact it is better at defending itself than ,thus far, they have been at destroying it , is a cause for celebration not hand wringing . If you want to do a body count sod off and hand out some Winter woolies , you might actually make a difference .

Sunny , I did not accuse you of being a racist , only you cannot get through four consecutive words without slinging around that allegation , which in my case is hardly likely

Lee Griffin, firstly as for ‘it’s all Hamas can do’, as a response to me asking why they kill civilians and opposition who disagree with them, how exactly? Couldn’t they be isolated and cut off from the world and not have to kill their opposition?

Anyway, back to the point. Israel and war crimes. You say it is irrelevant that the US and NATO attacked Bosnia. Well, for someone so opinionated, I’m surprised you know nothing about Bosnia. Anyway, when NATO attacked Bosnia in 1999, civilians were there, living under duress, yet they attacked anyway. By your standards this is a war crime is it not?

As for Mark Regev admitting Israel used phospherous bombs, Channel 4 themselves, the not so impartial broadcaster, said that these weapons were only illegal in certain circumstances, and not in others. They have no proof that they were used illegally, and it is not illegal to use them in themselves, as long as you use them for certain reasons.

If you want to go down the war crimes argument, you’re going to have to apply that to so many countries to have any credibility. Should Britain have been tried for war crimes for bombing the hell out of the people of Dresden? The US for bombing the Afghans whilst trying to liberate them from the Taleban? The world is full of examples of nations attacked by others, retaliating militarily. Civilians will die. It’s the saddest fact of all, but maybe you should look at the cause of the problem, not the result, to get angry about.

If Hamas would just recognise our right to exist and give up fighting, we’d all have peace. I’m sure that won’t happen though…

Lee Griffin and all other proponents of balance. How exactly would you fight a war? Would you wait for someone to be killed and then go and kill just one for one all the way? Your argument is ridiculous. Do you really think Israel can prevent these rockets by killing just 4 people???????! It takes a military operation and unfortunately the combination of a war, the close proximity of the population, Hamas’ reluctance to stop firing and their ‘maximising civilian casualty’ tactics made it impossible to avoid such huge death numbers…