Harry's Place

It would also keep the writer of the comment piece well within the range of opinions permissible for a member of the metropolitan commentariat to hold

As opposed to HP where posts on the subject of the current conflict have of course reflected the full spectrum of opinion.

Deborah Orr and every other elbow and arse confusing commentator need ask one question only: if Hamas accepted Israel’s right to exist, brought the curtain down on weapons smuggling and stopped all terrorist activity emanating from Gaza, do they still think Israel would fire a single shell or send a single soldier over the border?

Anyone looking into their heart to find the honest answer to this question will quickly understand to whom we should be apportioning blame.

London demo tonight:

There are two pro-Israel demos in London coming up. One is tonight in Kensington High Street, 7.45pm

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/event.php?eid=68300403624

The second is on Sunday at 10.40 am for 11am in Trafalgar Square

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/event.php?eid=59114330154

As opposed to HP where posts on the subject of the current conflict have of course reflected the full spectrum of opinion.

Andrew Adams, half the usual writers are on holiday. Gordon posted his opposition a few days ago and I’m doing my usual of stalking the comments boxes – where I have criticised Israel and called for a ceasefire – rather than putting up blog posts.

I would also support a ceasefire, combined with an undertaking by Hamas not to launch missiles into Israel in the future, and effective international measures to prevent Hamas from re-arming.

As opposed to HP where posts on the subject of the current conflict have of course reflected the full spectrum of opinion.

So we have HP compared to the entire London press? Not very realistic is it? Anyway, I bet the (virtually unpoliced) comments boxes here reflect more opinions than most media organs allow.

I have also said that I thought Israel’s actions were not wise. However, discussions on the subject tend to polarise rather quickly and I find little point in joining in after I have registered my opinion.

As Hamas have made it clear that they would only agree to a ceasefire in order to regroup and re-arm, the point at which they would agree to a ceasefire is too soon if the aim of the invasion is to seriously undermine Hamas’ capacity to wage terror.

So any ceasefire agreement that does not close the weapons tunnels from Egypt and allow Israel to ccontrol and monitor that situation would be useless, and a pointless loss of life to result in such a pointless outcome.

David T.
“I would also support a ceasefire, combined with an undertaking by Hamas not to launch missiles into Israel, and effective international measures to prevent Hamas from re-arming.”

Because the international measures work so well in Lebanon? And you think Hamas can be trusted to do whatever it undertakes because…?

I see that this is also the view of Tony Blair:

“There are circumstances in which we could get an immediate ceasefire, and that is what people want to see.

“These circumstances focus very much around clear action to cut off the supply of arms and money through the tunnels that go from Egypt into Gaza.

“I think if there were strong, clear, definitive action on that, that gives us the best context to give us an immediate ceasefire and start to change this situation.

“From my conversations, not just with Tzipi Livni but the Israeli Prime Minister and Defence Minister and others, I think that is the one basis on which we could bring a quick halt to this. Otherwise, I think we are in for a protracted campaign.”

If we are to bring an end to this conflict, it is imperative that we push for these measures.

And you think Hamas can be trusted to do whatever it undertakes because…?

I think Hamas cannot be trusted.

That is why the arms smuggling must be ended in an effective manner, that is properly policed. Hamas needs to understand that if they continue to launch rockets, and continue to import rockets for launching, then Israel will blow those rockets up.

The solution to this situation is entirely in Hamas’ hands. Hamas gambled that Israel would not take direct action to end the threat to its civilian population. It lost. It must not be permitted to think that it is worth taking that gamble again.

So any ceasefire agreement that does not close the weapons tunnels from Egypt and allow Israel to ccontrol and monitor that situation would be useless, and a pointless loss of life to result in such a pointless outcome.

I understand why it is unacceptable to Israel that we simply return to the status quo ante (I’m not Israeli but it’s unacceptable to me, also), but Israel could agree to a ceasefire whilst expressing its resolve that it wouldn’t allow this to happen. A ceasefire is just that, not a end to hostilities on the back of a peace accord.

The solution to this situation is entirely in Hamas’ hands. Hamas gambled that Israel would not take direct action to end the threat to its civilian population.

That would be correct if Hamas had ceased to be a terror organisation. However as this hasn’t happened the logic doesn’t apply. Hamas operates by waging war on the population in Gaza in order to wage war on Israel. If the leadership survives they will continue to do this.

Brownie,

Andrew Adams, half the usual writers are on holiday. Gordon posted his opposition a few days ago and I’m doing my usual of stalking the comments boxes – where I have criticised Israel and called for a ceasefire – rather than putting up blog posts.

OK, but the endless cut and paste jobs from The Z-word are getting a bit tiresome. Nothing wrong with the occasional cross-post but if we are that interested in what they have to say we are perfectly capable of going there ourselves.

Deborah Orr and every other elbow and arse confusing commentator need ask one question only: if Hamas accepted Israel’s right to exist, brought the curtain down on weapons smuggling and stopped all terrorist activity emanating from Gaza, do they still think Israel would fire a single shell or send a single soldier over the border?

Orr’s point is not about Israel firing shells or sending troops into Gaza. In fact she fully accepts that Hamas’s actions provide Israel with justification. Her point is that ending the blockade of Gaza must be part of any agreement to stop the fighting, including the rocket attacks, and without that Hamas cannot be expected to stop the attacks.

and without that Hamas cannot be expected to stop the attacks.

Er – but with the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, why should Israel not prevent Hamas from re-arming?

Surely that would be the height of foolishness.

A terrible coincidence occured last weekend. A Taliban rocket aimed at Australian forces in Afghanistan, which “should have missed”, like the ones bombarding Israel, didn’t, and killed a Jewish soldier. The Talibani who fired it should have been employed elsewhere throwing acid in the face of girls trying to go to school. It was just this Australian Jewish soldier’s (un)luck that the Talibani decided to (mis)serve Allah with a rocket projectile.

So we have HP compared to the entire London press? Not very realistic is it?

I don’t know, was Marcus’s “metropolitan commentariat” remark referring to the entire London press? Does it include those renowned lefty-liberal Independent columnists Bruce Anderson and Dominic Lawson? Methinks it was a bit of a cheap shot and I concede that I answered it with another.

Graham
“I have also said that I thought Israel’s actions were not wise. However, discussions on the subject tend to polarise rather quickly and I find little point in joining in after I have registered my opinion.”

I think that’s because this site has changed its remit and moved from being one that represents left-wing thought to one that’s basically pro-Israeli. Nothing wrong, with that. It represents a legitimate shade of opinion, and one which is interesting to read about, but it’s probably why some of the more interesting commentators aren’t heard any more, and a lot of crazies have moved in.

Basically there’s not a lot of point in joining a debate if you’re just going to be abused, sometimes by one of the so-called moderators here.

I would have thought that “metropolitan commentariat” was quite specific (but we don’t want to go giving Marcus the generous interpretation of meaning which is so obviously enjoyed by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown!

Oh dear that’s another cheap shot!

Orr’s point is not about Israel firing shells or sending troops into Gaza. In fact she fully accepts that Hamas’s actions provide Israel with justification.

She ahs another point, which is that Israel’s actions were first cause, not Hamas’ hostility towards her. Which as Marcus points out, is arse about face.

About this specifically:

Her point is that ending the blockade of Gaza must be part of any agreement to stop the fighting, including the rocket attacks, and without that Hamas cannot be expected to stop the attacks.

Israel accepts that a durable peace will include an end to the blockade. Does anyone believe Israel wants to blockade Gaza just for the hell of it? But where you state that Hamas cannot be expected to end hostilities without an end to the blockade, the Israeli view – and my suspicion – is that Hamas cannot be expected to end hostilities even with an end to the blockade. See the difference?

Even so, Israel is clear that a simple declaration by Hamas matched by deeds on the ground would be enough to secure that end to the blockade and pave the way to peace. What possible reason does Israel have to trust that Hamas – sworn to Israel’s destruction – would take these steps in response to a unilateral steps by Israel to end the blockade (for which read ’stop monitoring the arms supply routes’)?

Er – but with the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, why should Israel not prevent Hamas from re-arming?

Well I don’t think that a simple promise from Hamas not to fire any more rockets would be a basis for a meaningful cease-fire agreement. There would have to be certain guarantees built in, maybe involving some kind of independent monitoring group (although I concede that such groups do not have a great track record).

I think that’s because this site has changed its remit and moved from being one that represents left-wing thought to one that’s basically pro-Israeli.

I’m not sure this is quite true (although I can see why someone would think so.) Basically, the posters you would call “Pro-Israeli” are just more energetic and creative than the rest of us I’m afraid.

Basically there’s not a lot of point in joining a debate if you’re just going to be abused, sometimes by one of the so-called moderators here.

Good luck finding the political blog where you’re guaranteed not to be abused in the comments boxes.

Also, if you read this blog often enough, it’s not difficult to distinguish between the commenters with whom a sensible and civil discussion is possible and the looney tunes.

Discussions about Israel/Palestine also tend to polarise fast outside the comments boxes here in the great wide world – so I’m not sure that any change of political tone at HP would make any great difference even if it were true.

Israel’s ambassador to the US appeared to contradict assertions that Cast Lead is part of a wider military escalation or the inchoative aperitif to a strike on Iran; and his failure to elaborate on the long term strategy in Gaza is perplexing.

I think any sort of ceasefire at this stage with military objectives not yet met, would allow Hamas to regain their feet both diplomatically and militarily. There’s no evidence online or amongst the international community of anywhere near the same level of indignation or outrage as that levelled at Israel during the Hizbullah conflict in 06: the same pro-Hamas voices are voicing their tired objections and conservatives of all stripes are backing the campaign in sufficient numbers. Outside the UN, Western politicans have offered hubris with no ostensible diplomatic efforts underway to seek a ceasefire resolution.

The UK can learn 3 things from the conflict:

1) Islamists can never be trusted: recent developments to integrate UK Muslim citizens into mainstream public life based on their religious identity are doomed to failure and only serve to store up problems for the future.

2) Israel is the West’s natural ally against Islamic totalitarianism; the EU, that monument to arrogance and nepotism, has been as ineffectual as ever. News that UK subs. to this corrupt institution will spiral this year and next, the French vanity project of EUMed and its greasy, poorly-scrutinised aid programmes, and the failure of Javier Solana to secure a just peace between Israel and its neighbours in the wake of his ‘heroics’ in 06 all serve to highlight why Britain must dump the EU. Some Czech voices aside, other EU countries have been queueing up to condemn Israel.

3) Turkey is not an ally: from Erdogan’s early visits and self-serving comments made in the presence of Arab leaders, most notably in Damascus, to the drip, drip of anti-Israeli propaganda issuing from the Turkish media, it is clear which side Turkey knows her bread is buttered. Fetullah Gulen’s mouthpiece az-Zaman has led the chorus of anti-Israeli rhetoric and serves as a useful barometer for the vox populi.

Cast Lead should be seen in the light of the Taliban’s recent eastern gains, the continued leverage of the Sadrists in Iraq and the Islamist gains in Central Asia.

“Good luck finding the political blog where you’re guaranteed not to be abused in the comments boxes.”

Fair point, although there’s a balance. And just reflexively being called an anti-semite if one makes a comment critical of Israeli is just a bit tiresome.

Graham
“I think that’s because this site has changed its remit and moved from being one that represents left-wing thought to one that’s basically pro-Israeli.”

So a left-wing site has to be anti-Israeli and pro-Sharia-driven Arab?

Based on my (admittedly) limited experience working with Israelis and Arabs, I think a smoking ban throughout the middle east should be the first demand of the international community.

And just reflexively being called an anti-semite if one makes a comment critical of Israeli is just a bit tiresome.

Happens to us all (as equally does being called a bigot or racist when criticising the excesses of Hamas etc.)

You surely have to treat such stuff with the contempt it deserves (whilst never losing site of the fact that your argument could be leading you across the line of acceptable discourse.)

“Anyone looking into their heart to find the honest answer to this question will quickly understand to whom we should be apportioning blame.” Look into your heart = decide on the basis of your prejudices. Look at the evidence, I say, if you even vaguely serious about these things.

I support a ceasefire, obviously. That ceasefire has to include Hamas ending the rocket attacks, as best it can (other groups, including Fatah, also launch rockets – a fact consistently ignored here), and Israel withdrawing, ending its attacks, and lifting the siege. I can agree with monitoring weapons smuggling on the Israeli and Egyptian sides of the border – fine. I hope this happens. Its going to be seriously hard since the hatred in Gaza will have increased by orders of magnitude. Do you think children who’ve lost parents, and parents who’ve lost children, are going to want to make peace with Israel? The cause of peace has been set back massively. Anyway, a ceasefire is the way to go.

I’d also favour arresting the Israeli planners of this action, and seeing them in the ICC. They have clearly broken international laws. I’d say arrest Hamas militants too, but of course, they are simply assassinated.

Fair point, although there’s a balance. And just reflexively being called an anti-semite if one makes a comment critical of Israeli is just a bit tiresome.

Like I said, it’s not difficult to spot those looney tunes and reject their invitiations to converse. I’ve been critical of Israel over this conflict and no-one has labelled me such.

I would, however, agree that this blog has in recent months acquired more far-right, reactionary, fruitloop commenters than I would like to see here, but these things go in cycles. And it’s not as if there is a shortage of hard-left, totalitarian-suporting scum to balance them, is it?

Michael L meet Mike S

(The quote you attribute to me was his.)

Irie, do you think Israel would attack Gaza if Hamas ceased all hostile activity against Israel? Give me a simple a yes or no.

I would have thought that “metropolitan commentariat” was quite specific

Yes, I would normally take it to mean a certain section of liberal-left opinion. It was you who widened it to encompass the whole of the London press, which would be a bit meaningless given that it would encompass everyting from the Graun to the Telegraph.

David T> The solution to this situation is entirely in Hamas’ hands. Hamas gambled that Israel would not take direct action to end the threat to its civilian population.

j.r.> That would be correct if Hamas had ceased to be a terror organisation. However as this hasn’t happened the logic doesn’t apply. Hamas operates by waging war on the population in Gaza in order to wage war on Israel. If the leadership survives they will continue to do this.

I agree with j.r. but I think it’s ultimately the responsibility of the citizens of Gaza to realize that it is in their best interests to wipe out Hamas

Yes, I would normally take it to mean a certain section of liberal-left opinion.

Really? I would take it to mean the commentariat of the Metropolis (which would go quite beyond the London press.) I am not sure at all where you get the bit about it meaning “liberal-left opinion” from.

I think that’s because this site has changed its remit and moved from being one that represents left-wing thought to one that’s basically pro-Israeli.

Perhaps what has change is that the left has become unremittingly antisemitic and HP’s cause is criticism of such serious flaws that mar the left.

Based on my (admittedly) limited experience working with Israelis and Arabs, I think a smoking ban throughout the middle east should be the first demand of the international community.

You’ll fit in nicely when Anjem Choudary raises the black flag over Downing Street.

You should visit the ME, people here have more of that thing we used to call ‘liberty’ than you’d think.

QED.

Quite right – spike up the Marlboro of freedom (Right, that’s me in hock to American multi-nationals, and with that I’m off for a while.)

Brownie – yes. We know that it did. Israel broke the ceasefire. But this will turn into a circular argument, one side saying every Israeli action is a “response” the other saying the same of every Palestinian action. So, that’s my opinion, and you have yours, and we’ll never agree.

However, your continual appeal to “do you honestly believe”, “look into your heart” and so on, is, as I said, a straightforward appeal to prejudice. You basically believe Israel is a liberal democracy, the New Labour of the Middle East, and therefore, everything it does is an accident with good intentions. I think, this is not credible, given the long historical record of extreme brutality meted out. Avi Shlaim reviews it today in the Guardian: “This brief review of Israel’s record over the past four decades makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with “an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders”. A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism – the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it. Israel’s real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination.”

Now, we won’t agree on that. You’ll probably say something about Shlaim’s character. So the only way to proceed, is to make arguments based on evidence – not appeals to prejudice.

I would, however, agree that this blog has in recent months acquired more far-right, reactionary, fruitloop commenters than I would like to see here, but these things go in cycles.

Compare and contrast…

…I think a smoking ban throughout the middle east should be the first demand of the international community.

Are you Denis ‘mealy mouthed disingenuous worm’Macshane?

Brownie – yes. We know that it did. Israel broke the ceasefire…

Uhm when your entire comment is based on this lie, I have to wonder why you bothered writing it at all.

Josh – check this out:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn…h? v=KntmpoRXFX4

I’ll try again. Check this out:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4

I love that when he gets to the evidence and starts reading the Guardian he says “this report in the Guardian, questionable, but none the less”

Israel’s real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination.

Plausibly its likely to be both.

Oxymoron, j.r. – how can you peacefully, militarily dominant your neighbour?

TheIrie – Was the launching of rockets by HAMAS at Israel a proportional response to Israels raid into Gaza? Do HAMAS share a blame for escalating the fighting? Why did HAMAS not talk to the Israelis about reinstating the ceasefire as reported here but instead continued the rocket barrage?

Obviously, since both Fatah and Hamas (and all the other groups) say that the eventual elimination of Israel is a non-negotiable goal, permanent peace can only be achieved if Palestine is hopelessly militarily dominated.

“As Hamas have made it clear that they would only agree to a ceasefire in order to regroup and re-arm, the point at which they would agree to a ceasefire is too soon if the aim of the invasion is to seriously undermine Hamas’ capacity to wage terror.

So any ceasefire agreement that does not close the weapons tunnels from Egypt and allow Israel to ccontrol and monitor that situation would be useless, and a pointless loss of life to result in such a pointless outcome.”

I couldn’t agree more.

The Irie he means that Palestine must not be allowed the ability to seriously harm Israel. Domination can be by capability.

Certainly the US militarily dominated Europe throughout the cold war

Hmm, tell me more about these tunnels. If they were such a threat to Israeli soldiers, then couldn’t building tunnels, preparing an attack, be considered breaking the ceasefire?

Both sides risked escalation at every step – and Hamas made the first step and had the most to lose and nothing at all to gain.

Brownie,

She has another point, which is that Israel’s actions were first cause, not Hamas’ hostility towards her. Which as Marcus points out, is arse about face.

The headline of the article says this, I don’t think she is actually making that argument. It’s a poor piece of sub-editing, something which seems to be increasing common in general. Her piece is about how the conflict is going to end not about who started it. What she does do is consider the blockade as an injustice in and of itself and not something that can be justified by just citing the rocket attacks.

Israel accepts that a durable peace will include an end to the blockade. Does anyone believe Israel wants to blockade Gaza just for the hell of it? But where you state that Hamas cannot be expected to end hostilities without an end to the blockade, the Israeli view – and my suspicion – is that Hamas cannot be expected to end hostilities even with an end to the blockade. See the difference?

Yes, as I said in my reply to DavidT I don’t think it is merely sufficient for Hamas to say “we promise not to fire any more rockets”.

Even so, Israel is clear that a simple declaration by Hamas matched by deeds on the ground would be enough to secure that end to the blockade and pave the way to peace. What possible reason does Israel have to trust that Hamas – sworn to Israel’s destruction – would take these steps in response to a unilateral steps by Israel to end the blockade (for which read ’stop monitoring the arms supply routes’)?

Firstly, virtually everyone I have seen arguing for an end to the blockade (including Orr) has agreed that there would still have to be monitoring to prevent the supplying of arms. And I’m not expecting Israel to unilaterally end the blockade – I would expect them to do so as part of a wider agreement that included the ending of Hamas’s rocket attacks. As I have already said I don’t expect Israel to trust Hamas’s word, but then do not expect that the Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza will entirely trust Israel’s good intentions either. There has to be some way of securing any cease fire otherwise it will break down just as the last one did.

Brownie – yes. We know that it did.

Right, so you’re a born liar. I’ll go spend my time doing something more productive, like sticking needles in my eyes.

Are you Denis ‘mealy mouthed disingenuous worm’Macshane?

No, but I think your sense of humour needs some work. And your blog.

My concern is this. Israel need only continue its action against Hamas, for as long as Hamas continues to attack Israeli civilians. It has no other interest in Gaza at all.

By contrast, Hamas appear to believe that they are on a mission from God to kill Jews, and establish an Islamic state in place of Israel. They have said so, in their constitution.

So I really do wonder whether Hamas will ever stop trying to achieve that aim.

This makes me very pessimistic about the future.

David T:

I would also support a ceasefire, combined with an undertaking by Hamas not to launch missiles into Israel in the future, and effective international measures to prevent Hamas from re-arming.

I posit these will be pretty much exactly the Israeli military objectives of operation Cast Lead.

All quite reasonable. I also understand that the IDF is ceasing offensive ops for 3 hours every afternoon. If Hamas wants a ceasefire, perhaps they should try not firing rockets during that period, and see what happens.

That said, I suspect Hamas’ command and control is rather significantly degraded.

“Right, so you’re a born liar.” Very grown up. Sounds like a man whose just lost an argument to me.

Of course if Israel had waited for tunnels to Israel positions to be used, while no one would be accusing them of breaking the ceasefire, they might, say have their soldiers kidnapped.

TheIrie, is that your idea of a preferable outcome? Say, exactly the current situation but with Israeli soldiers held hostage?

Firstly, virtually everyone I have seen arguing for an end to the blockade (including Orr) has agreed that there would still have to be monitoring to prevent the supplying of arms. And I’m not expecting Israel to unilaterally end the blockade – I would expect them to do so as part of a wider agreement that included the ending of Hamas’s rocket attacks. As I have already said I don’t expect Israel to trust Hamas’s word, but then do not expect that the Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza will entirely trust Israel’s good intentions either. There has to be some way of securing any cease fire otherwise it will break down just as the last one did.

Right so neither you, nor Deborah Orr if your interpretation of her article is correct, is asking Israel to do anything that Israel herself has said she isn’t already willing to do. No Israeli spokesman has said: “No matter the details of any peace plan, Israel must maintain the blockade”.

I would like Israel to call a ceasefire today while the details are worked out, but what I can’t in all conscience pretend is that I think Israel is obliged to call such a ceasefire. The obligation lies squarely with Hamas. Stop attacking Israel, and you can live in peace.

There is, in my view, a tendency to overstate the complexity of this and other ME conflicts.

This makes me very pessimistic about the future.

Welcome to my opinion of the future of the Middle east since 2004.

TheIrie, you are either deeply dishonest or deeply stupid.

When Brownie asked you

do you think Israel would attack Gaza if Hamas ceased all hostile activity against Israel? Give me a simple a yes or no.

you responded

yes. We know that it did. Israel broke the ceasefire.

Now according to you, this breaking of the ceasefire by Israel involved the killing of six Hamas militants.

What were these militants doing?

Building a tunnel into Israel. Which is hostile activity.

Let’s repeat Brownie’s question again -

do you think Israel would attack Gaza if Hamas ceased all hostile activity against Israel?

Well?

Latest figures, by the way, are that 205 Palestinian children have been killed so far.

Also David, you mischaracterized the problem slightly. If the problem were JUST Hama and not the Palestinians then the Palestinians themselves would help Israel destroy Hamas and then live in peace. This could still happen but it is rather unlikely.

Latest figures, by the way, are that 205 Palestinian children have been killed so far.

From the same sources that claim hundreds died in the “massacre” of Jenin?

TheIrie I can’t believe you are that naive. Since its creation Israel has lost more than 50,000 people in war, defending itself from its neighbours, all of whom at one time or another have tried to destroy it, vowing to annihilate its Jewish population.

The peace with Egypt and Jordan was achieved only because Israel established that it had better than military parity in a series of wars. Losing any one of those wars would have meant the end of Israel. Having established military superiority (dominance) and maintained it, Israel got to live in peace with those neighbouring countries that responded rationally to the reality.

Understand this?

Latest figures, by the way, are that 205 Palestinian children have been killed so far.

And not a solitary tear shed by Hamas. They really are a shower, are they not?

Mark T – Depends how you define hostile activity. Digging tunnels did not, so far as I’m aware, amount to a breach of the ceasefire. If you have evidense to the contrary lets see it.

Can you give an explanation for those tunnels that is not “hostile”, Irie?

Morgoth
I think we can all agree that:
1. Hamas places its fighters in built up areas, particularly near schools and hospitals in order to cause civilian casualties

Because

2. Israel is not exactly squeamish about killing Palestinian civilians.

3. The result of both approaches is lots of dead children.

This is what Hamas want. Yet again Israel is being played like a fiddle by the Islamists.

I wonder how many children have to die before people turn against Hamas terror and Israel’s foolish response?

Having said that I seem to remember you really don’t care for the lives of Palesinian children much, do you?

“And not a solitary tear shed by Hamas.” Yes, and not a solitary tear shed by the IDF or by you either. Jonathan Freedland is much more human, and sensible, than you are:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/07/gaza-palestine-israel

TheIrie – Any deliberation on my comment of 10:43?

“Digging tunnels did not, so far as I’m aware, amount to a breach of the ceasefire.”

For fuck’s sake!

Could we also not agree that both:

1. Hamas rocket attacks are wrong.

2. The Israeli blockade is wrong.

A chilling thing I read on Marburys blog was that a senior State Dept ME Specialist had worked with six US SoS over 23 years and at no time has the US ever discussed Israeli colonisation/land grab/settler movement and how this was damaging Israel in the long term.

And I think we can all agree that Israeli must withdraw to the ‘67 line and remove the Settlers. A land grab is a land grab is a land grab. It is wrong, pure and simple.

Mark T – Sticking up two fingers is “hostile”. There are rules of engagment, and in this case terms of a ceasefire. You can’t just make it up as you go along.

meh – you are asking about the period between the formal end of the ceasefire and the being of hostilities. I haven’t read much about this – give me a link.

What are you suggesting?

That Hamas would run through the tunnel, stick two fingers up, then run back again?

Please enlighten me – what do you think the tunnel was for, if it was not hostile?

You can’t just make it up as you go along.

Keep repeating that, Irie, until it sinks in.

A terrorist organization that publicly states its desire to capture Israeli soldiers and taunts the family of Gilad Shalit is found to be digging a tunnel towards Israel, and Irie claims this does not amount to a breach of ceasefire terms?

Holy mother of God!

TheIrie – The period I’m referring to is the 4th of November raid that you claim broke the ceasefire onwards. The raid gave HAMAS the excuse to retaliate with rocket fire (as shown on the graph you like linking to) was this a proportionate response by HAMAS? Due to this rocket fire is HAMAS to blame in escalating the level of violence? The report about Israel attempting to end hostilities and return to the ceasefire conditions is linked below and was linked in the post I initially asked the questions.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jZiRW2KrA-SGBdp6VKgWxChCEdow

Mark – “hostile” is a subjective term. I’m only interested in whether the actions were a breach of the truce. I’m not going to continue this discussion, Mark, until you show me some evidence of what happened regarding the tunnels, and how it consistuted a breach of the ceasefire.

But Brownie’s question was

do you think Israel would attack Gaza if Hamas ceased all hostile activity against Israel? Give me a simple a yes or no.

Not

do you think Israel would attack Gaza if Hamas didn’t break the ceasefire? Give me a simple a yes or no.

Now in what possible universe was that tunnel digging not “hostile activity”?

meh – Oh, I see your point. Yes, you’re right. There should not have been a violent response to the Israelis violent breach of the ceasefire. Rockets should never have ever ever been fired, under any circumstances. It was not proportionate. I hope that is clear.

You know, we have enough experience with TheIrie that I can’t imagine why we bother arguing with him.

Irie, why are you making a defence of the tunnels that not even Hamas are making?

On Freedland, there are large chunks of his article with which I agree. But his last paragraph:

Perhaps Israel’s leadership will see this danger and hold back, pushing for a ceasefire that would be robust and externally supervised but would ultimately, if indirectly, amount to a deal with Hamas. If that is the outcome, it will be a strange kind of victory. For Israel could have got that through diplomacy, without causing the death, mayhem and damage to its international reputation now unfolding before our eyes. If it goes further, it will have removed one danger – only to have replaced it with one far greater.

What is the evidence that Israel could have secured the safety of its southern population using diplomacy? When someone like Freedland writes this simplistic nonsense, what they are in effect alleging is that Israel eschewed diplomacy for a chance to kill a few hundred Palestinians.

There is a reason Freddland ends his article with this wishful thinking and doesn’t begin with it. Doing the latter would demand some kind of elaboration, exploring the diplomatic avenues that were available to Israel that she simply chose to ignore in order to sate her voracious appetite for the blood of Palestinian children.

Mark – the implication of Brownie and your comment is that Israel was justified in breaching the ceasefire and attacking Hamas if Hamas (or whoever it actually was the dug the tunnels – again I’ve seen no evidence) acting in a manner they considered “hostile”. I reject that premise. Now, I’m not going to continue this, until you give me some evidence about the tunneling.

Josh Scholar,

“If the problem were JUST Hama and not the Palestinians then the Palestinians themselves would help Israel destroy Hamas and then live in peace.”

This is the story in a nutshell. The ‘rejectionist front’ runs throughout the Mideast, even amongst those who have signed peace treaties. This is why egypt turned a blind eye to rocket smuggling – pleased that Israel would be attacked, but did not want those attacks to originate from its own turf.

See this extract from the Times, showing egypt knowingly ignored the smuggling problem:
“Mr Blair, the Middle East envoy, said Hamas and Egypt are in contact over the supply routes that run through the Egyptian border into the Palestinian enclave and Cairo is prepared in principle to take action in order to dry up the flow of missiles and guns into the area.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5457724.ece

In other words, conflict resolution is not even remotely possible. All Israel can aim for is conflict management.

TheIrie – But as there was a violent response by HAMAS and HAMAS ignored the diplomatic overtures made by Israel what should Israel have done about the continuing rocket fire?

Now, I’m not going to continue this, until you give me some evidence about the tunneling.

I don’t understand. Do you want me to provide evidence that the tunnel was going to be used for hostile purposes, rather than, say, delivering chocolates and teddy bears? Is that it?

The tunnel was being dug by Hamas, btw. That is why six Hamas militants were killed in the firefight that started when Israel went to destroy the tunnel. So when you say “I’ve seen no evidence”, what you actually mean is “I haven’t really got a clue”.

Mark – the implication of Brownie and your comment is that Israel was justified in breaching the ceasefire and attacking Hamas

No. The clear statement – not need for inference on your part – is that the ceasefire had already been breached and that Israel was responding to that breach.

When a belligerent is tunnelling towards your territory, you are entitled to view this as a hostile act and not some covert attempt on their part to install broadband.

So when you say “I’ve seen no evidence”, what you actually mean is “I haven’t really got a clue”.

The basic facts are ths: There were six armed Hamas jihadists killed whilst making a tunnel to capture Israeli soldiers from INSIDE Israel. IF TheIrie won’t even accept this is even a tiny bit wrong, what hope is there for him?

Answer: none.

He’s just another anti-semitic jew-hating cunt.

As soon as the Israeli Hamas equivalents in Likud are elected then this is all going to get much worse.

Hamas and Likud are so similar and so irrational it is painful to watch.

If only the Israeli far right hadn’t murdered Rabin perhaps this mess wouldn’t have occured. Who can say.

But I think we can come to a concensus on the Islamist Right and Israeli Right are the problem in the Levant.

For once I agree with Morgoth

Neil W: Agreed with you in principle, but not sanguine about prospects for peace. I think dismantling the settlements wouldn’t wash with Israeli public opinion given the current political climate (a shift to the right). Depressing, because the security situation on the West Bank had been improving, but is now likely to hinge on the outcome of events in Gaza. And Fatah in power are seen as (and are) too corrupt by Palestinians to be a useful partner in preventing the rise of Hamas. More importantly, the situation in Gaza is going to develop through a logic of its own, which for the foreseeable future will mean no propitious time to dismantle the settlements without it either looking like a defeat for Israel (would require a very bold and unideological administration – hardly likely) or a success for Hamas. Who are not going to be destroyed.

Good piece in the NY Times about Israel’s strategic handling of the Gaza invasion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/world/middleeast/07military.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

um in response to your earlier post

“The clear statement – not need for inference on your part – is that the ceasefire had already been breached and that Israel was responding to that breach.” Ok – let’s see the evidence for this then.

meh – just as I have advocated complete non-violence by the Palestinian side, I advocate exactly the same for Israel.

Waseem:
Sometimes Govts in democracies have to lead their people rather then let the hate mob lead them. Sometimes the electorate are wrong about an issue – this is one of them.

Does anyone seriously think it is right that Israel has stolen post 67 land and built on it?

Honest question.

I think the Somali-isation of Gaza is something that should be taken seriously.

Again I see that the Ummah and specifically the Arabs don’t give a meaningful hoot for the Palestinians……

TheIrie, you ignore any comment addressed to you which you can’t deal with. You are a dishonest correspondent.

Like what, j.r.? I adress every serious comment.

TheIrie
Just as I have advocated complete non-violence by the Palestinian side, I advocate exactly the same for Israel.

Are you a pacifist then?

By the by you didn’t actually answer the question. So what should have Israel done (non-violently) to stop the attacks on it’s own citizens when HAMAS were not willing to negotiate?

Brownie’s question was -

do you think Israel would attack Gaza if Hamas ceased all hostile activity against Israel?

Now, when it was put to you that tunnel-building was itself hostile activity (and I’ve yet to see any explanation from you as to how it wasn’t), you equivocated that

“hostile” is a subjective term

Now that’s funny, because you were perfectly prepared to answer Brownie’s question in the first place. You just ploughed straight in with a “yes”, without any need to clarify what Brownie meant by “hostile”. It was only when the question became difficult for you to answer that you decided to start getting all mealy-mouthed about what is “hostile”.

Honest you are not.

So Theirie, what do you think Hamas’ strategy is?

TheIrie is quite clear about what constitutes hostile behaviour by Israel.

Yet somehow he finds that the word becomes very “subjective” when it is applied to the behaviour of Hamas.

“Are you a pacifist then?” Normally.

“By the by you didn’t actually answer the question. So what should have Israel done (non-violently) to stop the attacks on it’s own citizens when HAMAS were not willing to negotiate?” When were Hamas unwilling to negotiate, exactly? This seems to be a rather futile line of questioning – you are picking some point and saying what should this side have done at this point. Isn’t this rather academic? Still, maybe you’d like to make your point – was there something that Israel or Hamas did wrong that we are overlooking?

Neil W.
You have a rather weird view of the political parties in Israel. Comparing the Likud with Hamas is beyond ridiculous. You obviously need to be reminded who started the peace talks with the palestinians (clues: “Gaza first”, “Madrid” – does the name “Shamir” ring a bell?).

As for the worned out argument of the blockade, open air jail, world’s largest concentration camp – can’t you people do a little google search? Just type “gazans at Mecca” and see who’s doing the blockade:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/06/mecca-palestinians-fatah-hamas-dispute

Surprise surprise! Were jews in nazis concentration camps allowed to visit Jerusalem? Umm…were they, Neil? TheIrie? But, of course, when you read the Guardian is just the anti-Israel posts for you.

What do I think Hamas’ strategy is – you can read it in yesterdays Guardian, here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-hamas

I believe that stability is the root of peace. If Hamas stop firing for long enough, if Palestinian democracy is strengthened, not undermined, then they will eventually lose elections, and, I hope, a progressive government will evolve in their place. My strategy for Hamas, is not to support their goals, but to support any action they are prepared to take on the path to peace.

Bloody hell, you’ve suddenly become quite sensible.

Except that you seem to take Meshal’s absurd propaganda at face value.

The logic of those who demand that we stop our resistance is absurd. They absolve the aggressor and occupier – armed with the deadliest weapons of death and destruction – of responsibility, while blaming the victim, prisoner and occupied. Our modest, home-made rockets are our cry of protest to the world.

I mean FFS.

Pisa
And recently? have you heard Natanyahoooo?

And why bring up a nazi reference?

And criticising Israeli policy towards the Palestinians is ‘anti-israeli’?
Really? Do keep taking the tablets. Am sure an accusation of anti-semitism is coming next. Am I anti Muslim for criticising Hamas?

Muppet.

“My strategy for Hamas, is not to support their goals, but to support any action they are prepared to take on the path to peace”

Good luck finding a genuine effort from the far right islamists but don’t hold your breath.

Except that you seem to take Meshal’s absurd propaganda at face value.

TheIdiot has a track record of doing that with any nutter who happens to have a sufficient amount of melatin in his upper epidermus. He is really, after Hundal, one of the most racist people I’ve ever come across (and I’ve had the misfortune to know some really sick fucks in my time)

Right so neither you, nor Deborah Orr if your interpretation of her article is correct, is asking Israel to do anything that Israel herself has said she isn’t already willing to do. No Israeli spokesman has said: “No matter the details of any peace plan, Israel must maintain the blockade”.

Yes that’s basically it, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to stress the importance of an end to the blockade being included in any peace deal.

I would like Israel to call a ceasefire today while the details are worked out, but what I can’t in all conscience pretend is that I think Israel is obliged to call such a ceasefire. The obligation lies squarely with Hamas. Stop attacking Israel, and you can live in peace.

I think both sides have a moral obligation to call a cease-fire. Unfortunately I don’t think either will do so unilaterally because they don’t trust the other side to respond in kind.

There is, in my view, a tendency to overstate the complexity of this and other ME conflicts.

Well I have often thought this, yet these things still drag on relentlessly so I tend to think there must be something I must have missed. Maybe it’s the unfortunate tendency of some human beings to continually act against their own interests.

TheIrie – My point is simple; since Israel are on record as being willing to negotiate as of December the 13th my point is simply that HAMAS should have taken them up on that. Rather than… well… continuing the rocket fire.

My point was simple but my execution was poor. :(

Yeah, I’m basically in agreement with Andrew Adams and TheIrie,

The thing is, the only way that this can end is for there to be a definitive end to Hamas’s rearmament. Anything less that that will simply postpone the conflict to a later date.

Particularly this:

particularly this:

“I believe that stability is the root of peace. If Hamas stop firing for long enough, if Palestinian democracy is strengthened, not undermined, then they will eventually lose elections, and, I hope, a progressive government will evolve in their place. My strategy for Hamas, is not to support their goals, but to support any action they are prepared to take on the path to peace.”

The trouble is, I think Hamas KNOWS this. That is why it must constantly create a military crisis.

I wasn’t asked whether I endorsed what Meshal said. I was asked, what do I think Hamas’ strategy is, and I simply linked to their own statements.

meh – “My point is simple; since Israel are on record as being willing to negotiate as of December the 13th my point is simply that HAMAS should have taken them up on that.” Israel explicitly will not recognised the right of Hamas to exist, and have never said they would enter direct negotiations. If you watch the news, I think you’ll find that the whole world is calling for a ceasefire (except of course the US), but Israel refuses. This seems rather hard to reconcile with your view that Israel are willing to negotiate.

Graham,

Really? I would take it to mean the commentariat of the Metropolis (which would go quite beyond the London press.) I am not sure at all where you get the bit about it meaning “liberal-left opinion” from.

With this kind of thing I tend to go by the source of the comment to an extent. Guardian/Indie-reading liberal-left bruschetta-munching metropolitan middle class types are a regular bête-noir of HP, so I took this to mean what Marcus was referring to, especially as it was in relation to a piece in the Indie. If he actually meant the commentariat of the Metropolis in general then I stand corrected but in that case it seems to me that their views are too diverse for his comment to be particularly meaningful.

David T:
Nail on head there Me thinks.

Hamas needs conflict to justify its existance. Peace will mean having to…..get a real job! I’m not being trivial – people become conflict junkies and without the conflicty their lives have so much less meaning in their eyes and therefore the conflict becomes a very necessary sub concious crutch to lean on.

Come back at 3pm for more cod psycho analysis…….!

TheIrie
If you watch the news, I think you’ll find that the whole world is calling for a ceasefire (except of course the US), but Israel refuses. This seems rather hard to reconcile with your view that Israel are willing to negotiate.

On the 13th of December Israel were saying something quite different. Whether the negotiations are direct or not is not as important as actually agreeing to ceasefire. If that had been agreed before the Israel attack all the better but whilst Israel is explicitly on record saying they are attempting to negotiate, at that time, HAMAS is not.

TheIrie

if Palestinian democracy is strengthened, not undermined, then they will eventually lose elections

How is Palestinian democracy to be strengthened by allowing Hamas to cement its grip on power, arm and increase the terror on its own citizens and Israel?

TheIrie
7 January 2009, 10:42 am
Oxymoron, j.r. – how can you peacefully, militarily dominant your neighbour?

theIrie, didn’t Israel achieve peace with Egypt and Jordan after establishing military superiority? Would the North be quiet if it wasn’t for military superiority?

TheIrie, you answered my question “what do you think Hamas’ strategy is?” by linking to a Guardian article by Khalid Meshaal. Nowhere in that article is Hamas strategy discussed. You are a waste of time.

“TheIrie, you ignore any comment addressed to you which you can’t deal with. You are a dishonest correspondent.”

Indeed.

“Like what, j.r.? I adress every serious comment.”

TheIrie, you have been asked many times whether you think Hamas would ever reject its charter. The question is at the heart of any sensible analysis of why the current conflict is taking place, what should be done to stop it, and what can be done to bring peace to the region.

By ignoring the question, you are being dishonest with yourself.

For what it’s worth, I agree your comment that:

“I believe that stability is the root of peace. If Hamas stop firing for long enough, if Palestinian democracy is strengthened, not undermined, then they will eventually lose elections, and, I hope, a progressive government will evolve in their place. My strategy for Hamas, is not to support their goals, but to support any action they are prepared to take on the path to peace.”

Your answer to my question will clarify your views as to whether your if onlys will ever come to be, and indeed whether you think that Hamas will ever take any actions on the path of peace.

Peace will come, if they want it.

Palestinian ‘armed struggle’, was a relaying cry of leftists throughout the last century and seems to be the only one left in this century. Although it seems the Islamist agenda and struggle is included despite being the most reactionary and right-wing agenda on Earth and would make Hitler blush.

Support the guerillas, the armed struggles against oppression. Support the Soviets, support the Sandinistas, support the Maoists, support Mengistu, the FLN, support Ghadafi, support the IRA, support the PLO.

Nevermind that guerillas rapidly and inevitably turn into mere criminal gangs with loony ideological justifications. It’s the loony ideological justification we support too. Even if it means mentally turning the world upside down, we prefer it that way.

Nevermind that every single historical ‘armed struggle’ has meant a shit storm of death and when such armies have won the population finds itself under far worse circumstances. Whether in Spain, Algeria or China, South America, Africa or Asia guerilla armies and revolutionaries of all stripes have proved that they are incapable of providing even basic material needs, let alone the freedom which is the currency of the human soul. They are simply never government material which is why they all fail in that regard. This is more tragically pertinant to the Palestinians more than anyone else I can think of and is the reason they are in another shit storm now.

End the armed struggle and the shit storm ends too. And no amount of self-serving Marxist pseudo-science in conflict/peace studies will change that.

The Palestinian armed struggle has led to nothing but death and despair for the Palestinians and that is the harvest they will continue to reap until they stop sowing.

That supporters like the Irie justify and twist and turn against the easily verifable factual time-line demonstrates not their support for Palestinians to live in a vibrant and productive country (which cannot be done whilst all political and religious life is turned to war) but his or her undiminished support for armed struggle even when that brings the inevitable shit-storm.

One day soon, if it has not already, the penny might drop for the Arab states but it never will for The Irie or that ilk.

so I took this to mean what Marcus was referring to, especially as it was in relation to a piece in the Indie.

Fair enough Andrew, there is obviously a lot of room for interpretation in the comment. Personally I took it to mean the whole metropolitan commentariat because let’s face it bias againt Israel is certainly not limited to the liberal left.