No, "Professor", I didn't think you could, and you didn't.

You continue to peddle the same tired slanders. Tiresome.

I think we can now safely leave this "discussion" to the evaluation of the readers, as there is little point in myself and BigC continuing to refute your points and for you to then continue repeating them.  I'm happy that anyone with an open mind will find quite adequate material here to help make a satisfactory evaluation. I suspect that we'll see a couple of posts from the good "Professor" repeating his nonsense and claiming victory, but I for one will be ignoring him, unless he comes up with something newly outrageous.

I think it's clear who is the racist here.

Clear skies!

1a. BC, the problem is that while you "deplore" the parallel actions of "normal" states' histories, you only excoriate the Israelis as "Nazis" for having a similar ideology of nationalism. You only use over-the-top and violent and grossly-insulting rhetoric against the israelis. Don't you see the historical relevance of other histories when you seek to make the Israelis uniquely evil and call them "Nazis" and having a "Nazi-like" ideology when no one else is called that here? In the real world, "deploring" is one thing, constant fulmination with the N-word is something else.

You can deplore nationalism as an ideology if you wish (I think you have); but the Israelis are one of 200 peoples taking part in that ideology; you cannot single them out as "Nazis" and claim they have a "Nazi" ideology when they share that ideology of nationalism so widely around the world. No one calls Poles, Czechs, Romanians or Pakistanis Nazis.

Those immune from the use of this term around opendemoc include of course the Sudanese govt; on the blogs concerning Darfur--a place where 400,000 civilians have been killed by the Sudanese govt--no one on those blogs called the Sudanese govt "Nazis"; most people call for "understanding" in that typical bien-pensant way. Taking opendemocr as a whole, the term "Nazi" is only--only-- to describe Israelis and (more widely) Jews. Don't you see the point?

The Sudanese govt which sits on the Human Rights Commission of the UN and issues condemnations of Israel for killing 1/1000 that number of civilians who were in any case being employed as weapons, human shields, by Hamas...

1b. The pre-1948 land was bought, including from the Husseini family. It wasn't stolen. You can't get around it. Thousands of Arabs--thousands--sold land to the Jews. Some were absentee landlords (it was still their land--this has to do with Turkish social structure 100 years ago), some were fellahin small-holders. Some did it for the good money, others thought that the Jews would bring economic prosperity to their locales. On all this, see Hillel Cohen, "Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948, and the review of this book by Benny Morris (remember: you like him), "The Tangled Truth" in The New Republic for May 7, 2008. That is, BC, if you want to cease being a propagandist and actually learn some history.

1c. The Palestinians started the war of 1948, not the Jews. The Jews accepted the UN Partition, the Palestinians did not. Early important events were the ethnic cleansing of Jews from east Jerusalem by Palestinian militias. It wasn't all the Palestinians, to be sure--but the radicals were the ones who reacted, and acted violently, to the partition plan. Hajj al-Amin al-Husseini (remember--you thought he wasn't important?) was a ringleader in this; his relative Abd al-Husseini raised the army responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from east Jerusalem (March 1948) where they had lived for thousands of years.

2. Calder, I respect the lives of everyone, and I said so: Hamas respects the lives neither of Israeli or Palestinian civilians; it targets the one and uses the others as human shields. The use of human shields is a war-crime ab initio under international law: I have cited the provisions on this thread. I have also cited important Hamas members boasting of doing it.

The other side has a duty to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as it can in such a situation; but that does not mean it can't strike back. Richard Kemp, whom I suspect knows a lot more about military operations than you do, says the israelis did what they could, and better than anyone he knows, in avoiding civilian casualties in a situation where the strategy of the other side (both military and public relations) guarantees there will be civilian casualties.

The Israelis have the right to annex territory when they are attacked: the U.S. owns the southwest by annexation from Mexico on that very basis. Iran owns the northwestern third of that country (populated not by Persians but by Azeri Turks, who are often discriminated against--ask an Azeri) by right of conquest. Most of current northern and northwestern Poland is a territorial gift from the victors of World War II: it used to be Germany. Defeat carries consequences and when you start a war it's a difficult moral position to go crying that you've been defeated and demand back land from the very people you intended to commit genocide on if you won.

I've already made clear, however, that I think the West Bank settlements were a strategic and moral error. I don't support them for those reasons. At the same time, Jordan happily accepted the West Bank as legally part of Jordan from 1948 until 1967, and no one protested.

Calder, you must learn to give the Palestinians responsibility for their own actions. Stop being paternalistic and racist (in several ways simultaneously: blaming Jews for everything on the one hand, and not giving Palestinians agency in their own situation on the other). Actions have consequences in the real world: shooting 6,000 rockets at your neighbor's civilians is likely to result in punishment, first (as occurred) economic, then (if the terrorism continues) military.

The Palestinians were given a good deal in 2000/2001 for a state: President Clinton bitterly blamed Arafat for not taking it, in 2002 Arafat blamed himself for not taking it.

Like BC, Calder, you must learn that the world is complex.

I won't give up on BC and Calder because I don't like to see ignorance and outright lies (1300 civilian dead, Calder--not one Hamas soldier there--that's what you said) spread around on opendemocr.

"Professor" Ethan.

You don't stop, do you? The same arguments, the same refusal to face reality, the same propaganda.

On the other hand, Big C and I try to point out that the real world is more complicated.  Both sides are doing bad things.

You say everything comes from the Arabs attacking in 1948 and their subsequent bad actions.  You totally ignore the Israeli attack in 1967, the occupation of Palestine, the totally disproportionate number of Palestinians killed by Israel, the failure of Israel to either give up control of the Occupied Territories or to administer them properly according to international law, the de-facto annexation of parts of the West Bank, and the blockade of Gaza effectively being collective punishment of a whole population - I could go on, but this is too long as it is.

You're very fond of setting "simple questions".  Here's a few.

Do you count the life of a single Palestinian as  worthy of as much respect, sustenance, and protection as an Israeli Jew?

Do you accept that fighting your way to your enemy through the bodies of civilians is a war crime?

Do you believe that Israel has the right to annex territory gained by war?

Do you believe that corralling an entire population into a limited space, refusing them access to the outside world, and refusing entry of food, fuel, and medical supplies is a legitimate means of political control?

Again, there are many more, but your answers to these alone would be instructive. Let me make a prediction; if you do make any kind of answer, it will be of the form "Yes, but...", followed by a litany of excuses along the lines of "We only do it to bad guys", "Other people do as much and far worse", and "Look what you made me do".

Clear skies!

I'm not sure this went through. I'm not trying to post twice.

"The colonization of Palestine would not have been possible without ethnic cleansing."

1. All land before 1948 was either Jewish land from time immemorial (as in Jerusalem and Hebron) or was bought from willing sellers at high prices. Repeat: willing sellers; high prices.

2. In 1948 the Israelis were attacked, with genocidal intent; there was ethnic cleansing, and it started in Hebron and east Jerusalem, where ancient Jewish settlements were destroyed. The Israelis won, the Palestinians who began the war lost; there were consequences to that victory and consequences to the defeat. During the war the IDF engaged in some bad examples of ad hoc ethnic cleansing, thus matching the Arabs in bad deeds. But only the Israelis ever get blamed here, and called Nazis. BC you cited Benny Morris: I suggest you actually read his latest volume, "1948", based on the latest research in the archives. None of this ethnic cleasning --Arab or Israeli--was 1/100 as bad as what happened in Pakistan/India in the same period. How many Hindus in Pakistan, BC? How many Christians? And wasn't that the intent from the beginning? Again: how many Arabs in israel, for comparison?

3. Then the Arab countries engaged in additional ethnic cleansing, which doesn't seem to have made an impression on anyone here. 850,000 Jews were expelled, their property confiscated, some Muslim is enjoying that property as we speak, they arrived in the US or Britain or israel penniless. This is 100,000 more people than Palestinian refugees from 1948. The difference between these Jews and the Palestinians is that the former had not attacked their neighbors and weren't involved in a war.

4. The settlements on the West Bank should never have been made; that is certainly a mistake both morally and strategically in my view.

5. But considering the other side, and what it has done, I don't see any special evil in the israelis.

6. BC, I think you confuse nationalism with Nazism. You equate Zionism with Nazism. Do you equate Polish nationalism with Nazism? Germans can't go back to Poland. Do you equate Czech nationalism with Nazism? The Czechs drove out all the Germans and they can't come back. Do you equate Romanian nationalism with Nazism? (The national language of Romania is Romanian, Hungarian has no language rights, the Hungarian minority is what it is--a minority--and the Germans were driven out and cannot by law come back.) Do you equate Pakistani nationalism with Nazism? But they have a state religion which determines laws for all, including relgious minorities, but most of those have been driven out or killed. Yet...I think you do not.

7. No, your spleen is reserved for Israel. No nation is born without original sin, and the Israelis have sinned. But they have not sinned worse than anyone else, more Jewish refugees were intentionally created by Arab govts than Arab refugees were created by a war the Arabs started, and the Israelis have behaved better than many--especially when faced with a continual genocidal threat. But no--it's only the Israelis who are Nazis here.

8. BC, your distinction that Zionist ideology is comparable to Nazi ideology (Really?--Nazism is exterminationist, to begin with, like, say, the Hamas Charter), yet Israelis aren't Nazis isn't worth a dime's worth of difference and the proof is your sarcastic use of German, which I have quoted. Your over-the-top rhetoric isn't analysis, and it isn't analogy. You should now know what it is, and I've told you, in the hope that you will become conscious of what you are doing.

"the colonization of Palestine would not have been possible without ethnic cleansing."

1. All land before 1948 was either Jewish land from time immemorial (as in Jerusalem and Hebron) or was bought from willing sellers at high prices. Repeat: willing sellers; high prices.

2. In 1948 the Israelis were attacked, with genocidal intent; there was ethnic cleansing, and it started in Hebron and east Jerusalem, where ancient Jewish settlements were destroyed. The Israelis won, the Palestinians who began the war lost; there were consequences to that victory and consequences to the defeat. During the war the IDF engaged in some bad examples of ad hoc ethnic cleansing, thus matching the Arabs in bad deeds. But only the Israelis ever get blamed here, and called Nazis. BC you cited Benny Morris: I suggest you actually read his latest volume, "1948", based on the latest research in the archives. None of this ethnic cleasning --Arab or Israeli--was 1/100 as bad as what happened in Pakistan/India in the same period. How many Hindus in Pakistan, BC? How many Christians? And wasn't that the intent from the beginning? Again: how many Arabs in israel, for comparison?

3. Then the Arab countries engaged in additional ethnic cleansing, which doesn't seem to have made an impression on anyone here. 850,000 Jews were expelled, their property confiscated, some Muslim is enjoying that property as we speak, they arrived in the US or Britain or israel penniless. This is 100,000 more people than Palestinian refugees from 1948. The difference between these Jews and the Palestinians is that the former had not attacked their neighbors and weren't involved in a war.

4. The settlements on the West Bank should never have been made; that is certainly a mistake both morally and strategically in my view.

5. But considering the other side, and what it has done, I don't see any special evil in the israelis.

6. BC, I think you confuse nationalism with Nazism. You equate Zionism with Nazism. Do you equate Polish nationalism with Nazism? Germans can't go back to Poland. Do you equate Czech nationalism with Nazism? The Czechs drove out all the Germans and they can't come back. Do you equate Romanian nationalism with Nazism? (The national language of Romania is Romanian, Hungarian has no language rights, the Hungarian minority is what it is--a minority--and the Germans were driven out and cannot by law come back.) Do you equate Pakistani nationalism with Nazism? But they have a state religion which determines laws for all, including relgious minorities, but most of those have been driven out or killed. Yet...I think you do not.

7. No, your spleen is reserved for Israel. No nation is born without original sin, and the Israelis have sinned. But they have not sinned worse than anyone else, more Jewish refugees were intentionally created by Arab govts than Arab refugees were created by a war the Arabs started, and the Israelis have behaved better than many--especially when faced with a continual genocidal threat. But no--it's only the Israelis who are Nazis here.

8. BC, your distinction that Zionist ideology is comparable to Nazi ideology (Really?--Nazism is exterminationist, to begin with, like, say, the Hamas Charter), yet Israelis aren't Nazis isn't worth a dime's worth of difference and the proof is your sarcastic use of German, which I have quoted. Your over-the-top rhetoric isn't analysis, and it isn't analogy. You should now know what it is, and I've told you, in the hope that you will become conscious of what you are doing.

1. What Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing, or even professed policy of ethnic cleansing, are you talking about, BC? This is more over-the-top language.

BC, what percentage of the Israeli population is Arab? Comparison: what percentage of the Iraqi population, the Libyan population, the Egyptian population, the Syrian population or the Jordanian population is Jewish--and what were the percentages before 1948? Please compare the percentages.

There was a lot of ethnic cleansing that occurred, all right.

2. As for calling Israelis Nazis, just look (for instance) on the opendemocracy thread called "Deja vu in Gaza" (early January) and consider the following postings:
maryp; yourself, BC (Palestinians as "untermenschen"); Faraz Ahmed; yourself again ("the intention of the Zionists is pretty much the same as the Nazis: Ein Volk, Ein Land"); yourself again (Zionist ideology is comparable to Nazi ideology).

That's just one thread.

3.

300,000 people died in the Warsaw Ghetto.

1,000 Hamas and IJ terrorists and 300 human shields they used died in Gaza. Every death is too much, but there is no comparison between these statistics.

On the other hand, 400,000 civilians have died in Darfur. There, there IS a comparison in statistics. But no one here on opendemocracy, not only not on these Israel blogs but even on the (few) Darfur blogs, calls the Sudanese government Nazis. Only Jews and Israelis are called Nazis on opendemocracy. If those "humanitarians" who post here were really concerned with civilian casualties per se, the situation would not be like this.

There are two explanations for the Jews-as-Nazis language around here: the outrageousness of the accusation, its ignorance and viciousness, has its rhetorical and political use as a weapon to delegitimize Israel's existence ab initio; and, in debate, its purpose is lip-smackingly to wound Jews with reference to their most anguished history and to punish them with their own grief. It's not analysis, it's not fact--it's simply a weapon. And since the "humanitarians" (i.e., far left ideologues) who do this actually don't ever use such language with reference to, say, the 400,000 dead civilians in Darfur, the disgrace of such conduct and rhetoric is made even more grotesque.

"Professor" Ethan.  Accusing a group of lacking the sensibilities and common decency of humanity is, I admit, strong; but given the total lack of any contrition by Israel and its apologists of whom you are clearly one, for what can only be described as mass murder is, I believe, justified.  You could prove me to be unjustified by shewing a response not totally one-sided and that shows that you count the victims of Israel's crimes amongst a humanity to be valued as much as the members of your own tribe.

It may be strong; it may be offensive; it was certainly intended to be.  The intention was to shock into existence those very sensibilities whose absence I was bewailing.

It was not, however, nor could it be construed to be, by any person possessed of an iota of knowledge of what the Nazis were, and what logic is, the same thing as "calling Israelis (and Jews generally) Nazis".  To suggest that it is is to devalue language and the memory of the crimes the Nazis committed in a way as stupid and ignorant of history as those who deny the historical facts of the crimes of the Nazis, and to reduce the word "Nazi" to a meaningless term of abuse. 

Once again, you accuse me of being anti-semitic by attacking all Jews indiscriminately.  There are in fact many Jews who do not believe as you do, that Israel can do no wrong, and believe that it is guilty of abominable acts.  They share my sensibilities to a greater or lesser extent.  I have said this before many times, but you refuse to read those words, or edit them out of your consciousness, because they are uncomfortable for you to hear.  Far easier to slander me as a racist and anti-semite than address the real issues.

1300 was probably, roughly, the number of people killed in Gaza in the three weeks of the latest incursion.  By some magic of gnosis, you claim you are granted the wisdom to define two-thirds of those as terrorists or combatants or whatever the accusation du jour is.  In fact, you don't know, no more than I do.  However, given the wild and careless nature of the killing, I suspect the number of non-combatants to be much nearer the 1300 total than the 400 or so in your version of reality.  I quoted the 1300 number because that is the only approximate fact we know.

In a sense, it doesn't matter, because many more have been killed before, and many more will be in the future, because to you, and to Israel, those deaths do not seem to matter.

Clear skies!

Mr. Calder, on Friday 2-20 at 15:04 you referenced a book of concentration camp photos you saw as a little boy and then said that those who were the victims now viewed such photos as trophies.

Are you saying that this isn't calling Israelis (and in fact Jews generally) Nazis? Really?

On Saturday 2-21 at 18:23 you also claimed that the Israelis killed 1300 civilians in Gaza. In other words, every single death in Gaza caused by the Israelis was a civilian according to you.

Why should anyone here, then, believe anything you say?

Repeating the same old song, and so much at length, does not improve
the argument. As an argument, "we can do what we like, ignore law and any restrictions, because the other guys are bad guys, and do bad things", is pathetically transparent, no matter the degree of culpability of the "bad guys".

Accusing me of being supportive of Hamas'  conduct, when I have
expressly condemned it, shows that you either do not listen, or do not
care about accuracy, or wish to slander gratuitously, or all three.

It is true that I have accused Israeli leaders of provoking Hamas into their actions by the illegal blockade and other actions; that is not to excuse Hamas; it is to condemn the Israeli provocations.

Sudan is irrelevant; any other evil-doing is irrelevant, to the
argument in hand. You cannot justify murder by saying someone else is
doing it as well. Oh, and by the way; I've called nobody "Nazis";
name-calling is juvenile and pointless; what I've been doing is
condemning specific clear breaches of international law and common
humanity; the "Nazi" and "anti-semitic" jibes and name-calling come
from an entirely different direction.

As I believe I've pointed out before,the act of accusing others of that
which you yourself are guilty is a well-known trait in psychology; it
is called "projection".  You accuse me of smelling of hypocrisy; I call
"horse feathers".

Clear skies!

The continuing attacks on Israel from those who claim to favour civilised values are based on a perverse inversion of reality. When theocratic devotees of a Jihadist death cult launch murderous attacks on Israeli civilians, the fashionable approach is to ‘understand’ these criminal actions. And when Israe fights back against this violence being directed at its civilian population, including 6,000 rockets aimed intentionally at civilians within the 1967 borders of Israel, it encounters a firestorm of criticism and abuse, being accused of ‘racism’ and painted as a bloodthirsty monster that delights in ’slaughtering’ and ‘massacring’ women and children."

Here is what the political philosopher Michael Walzer wrote about what we are witnessing:

When Palestinian militants launch 6000 rocket attacks intentionally from within civilian Palestinian areas intentionally aimed against Israeli civilians, they are themselves responsible--and no one else is--for the civilian deaths caused by Israeli counterfire.

Period.

The use of civilian shields, or moving civilians into places to protect troops, is a violation of international law.
How could the angry chorus denouncing Israel, and only Israel, have missed this? It is unambiguous in the laws of war what Hamas's responsibilities are. Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
Article 51/7 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (adopted in June 1977) specifies:
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

Does Hamas respect these constraints? They do not. Here are some examples from press reports. There are many reports like this one of Hamas using houses occupied by civilians as cover from which to fire on Israeli troops:
Palestinian civilians have accused Hamas of forcing them to stay in homes from which gunmen shot at Israeli soldiers during the recent hostilities in Gaza, the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported Thursday.

And there are reports of their using civilian facilities for the launching of rockets:
Every day, the Hamas rocket teams sneak through the fire and fury of Gaza to launching sites concealed in tunnels, trucks, rooftops and courtyards of schools and mosques.
In similar vein, there's this from the New York Times, quoting a 'man close to Hamas':
They have more experience and they have training from Syria and Iran. They helped them rethink their strategy. They fired rockets in between the houses and covered the alleys with sheets so they could set the rockets up in five minutes without the planes seeing them. The moment they fired, they escaped, and they are very quick.

Then there's the forcible use of farms as rocket launching sites:
Members of a Gaza family whose farm was turned into a "fortress" by Hamas fighters have reported that they were helpless to stop Hamas from using them as human shields.

Again:
[H]e went on to blame Hamas fighters for causing his predicament. Israeli soldiers had bulldozed his orchard of orange and olive trees, he said. "The Israelis destroyed my orchards because Hamas was using the cover to shoot rockets.
"I asked them to stop once and was told they would shoot me in the legs as an Israeli collaborator if I asked again."

And ambulances and hospitals (the most notorious being that the Hamas leadership hid in a bunker underneath a hospital actually built for Gaza by the Israelis).

Hamas intentionally put Israeli children at risk; and it intentionally put Palestinian children at risk.

Calder is more supportive of Hamas' conduct than the population of Gaza, where according to the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, Hamas now has only 30% support. This is the result of criticisms of its decision to go to war with Israel and the destruction that resulted. The Palestinians in this poll are willing to take responsibility for Palestinian action; Calder won't allow them that agency.

In any case, if Calder were really concerned about civilian deaths in general he would be 1000 times more angry about the 400,000 civilian deaths caused by the Sudanese govt than the 400 civilian deaths caused by the Israelis in Gaza (out of 1300, the rest being Hamas fighters), and he'd be calling the Sudanese govt "Nazis." But there's no fire in his belly for that, no anger, is there? No, only for Israel. The hypocrisy smells.

I am truly disgusted with the "human shield" argument.

To rationalise what is, let's be frank, the murder of civilians as the fault of someone else because they were reputedly hiding behind them is pure moonshine.

It might have some validity in the case where, say, a policeman is given the unenviable task of sorting out a situation where third parties are immediately at risk from a mad gunman blazing away holding a hostage in front - but even there, we expect the policeman to act so as to minimise possible harm to the hostage.

The case in Gaza was where large-scale weapons were used in stand-off mode without any concern for civilian casualties.  A target was selected, for whatever reason, and the artilleryman pulled the lanyard, the helicopter or fighter-bomber pilot pressed the button, in the full knowledge that the result was likely to be more civilians killed than active fighters.

The statement that "no army takes more care than the IDF to reduce civilian casualties" is a plain lie.

If they wished to reduce civilian casualties, they would have sent in infantry with strict rules of engagement to not blaze away at anything that moves or hurl grenades into any accessible building, to take their time and only to shoot at well-defined and clearly identifiable targets.

Of course, that  would be to put the soldiers at risk, which is seemingly unacceptable.

After all, a soldier is trained to avoid the enemy's fire, has accepted the risk of injury, and is prepared to give up all for the sake of his side.  He is far too valuable to risk.

Far better to stamp out a few hundred children and non-combatant adults by the use of indiscriminate weaponry.  After all, they bear the responsibility for the war, don't they?  Who cares about them? 

It will also send the message that they are not to mess with Israel, that to stand against its will means that you, your family, and your posterity will be destroyed - for that is the logic of a war which is not to be ended. 

We see this yet again just now - there was a chance that progress could be made, a ceasefire agreed - so Olmert pulls the plug, changes the rules and the demands, and kicks sand in the face of the Egyptian mediators. 

Clear skies!

1. Big C does not accept Hamas claims of using human shields (including welcoming their deaths) as very accurate; on the other hand he accepts Hamas claims about civilian deaths as accurate, and Israeli information as lies. His position on Hamas truth-telling is revealed as depending on what is "good" for his position politically or in rhetorical debate.

2. Big C's definition of who and who is not on the Left has to come with his declaration to me that there is not a dime's worth of difference, from HIS political perspective, between McCain and Obama.

3. As for Sudan: I ask BC again: given that the Sudanese govt has killed 400,000 civilians while the Israelis have killed 1000 Hamas soldiers (plus, yes, 300-500 civilian human shields whose use by Hamas is a war crime), why is it that the Israelis are consistently called Nazis on this blog but the Sudanese government is not? This is a simple question. Please answer it.

Here's another simple question: given that the Hamas charter explicitly calls for the genocide of all Jews (just to take one example of their behavior), how come people on this blog rush to defend Hamas from the charge of being Nazis, or excuse their conduct, or blame Israel for it, while accusing the Israelis of being Nazis? Don't you see the problem here? Don't say, "No one defends Hamas". Why isn't a group with a genocidal ideology called Nazis here, or a govt that has massacred 400,000 civiians called Nazis here, but only Israelis (and Jews in general) are called Nazis here? It's grotesque.

4. BC and many others accuse the Israelis of acting as Nazis, or thinking like Nazis (Calder; Not Logged ("monsters"); BC on Sunday at 21:11); now BC denies doing it. He can't be helped.

1. Big C, what one finds in the Fathi Hamad video is not a declaration of loyalty of Palestinians to Hamas, but rather a gleeful declaration of the Hamas use of Palestinian civilians as human shields to protect Hamas fighters as they shoot at Israelis, and a gleeful proclamation of the glorious death of these civilians if they get killed by counterfire. This is a violation of the Geneva Convention but it is Hamas standard operating procedure. This is the reality: the only people who celebrate the death of civilians are Hamas.

2. The Red-Green (as in Islamicist) alliance? One speaker, yes--who evoked huge cheers; and take a look at Caryl Churchill or Ken Livingston or Jenny Tonge or David Miliband or George Galloway. or google image "We are Hamas" + London demo.

3. Nazi-like is killing 400,000 civilians, as the Sudanese govt has done, but the Sudan govt is never called Nazi-like on this blog. Only Israel is. This needs to be explained, Big C. Don't just go, "I fail to see your point".

4. Big C repeatedly accuses Zionists of acting like Nazis (or, when pressed about actual Israeli action, it is simply ideologically thinking like Nazis), then says he's not accusing anyone of being a Nazi.

Big C, we've discussed the vicious alliance between the far left and the islamicists before: Remember, "We are all Hamas?"

There is simply no comparison beween Gaza and what the Nazis did, and it is grotesque to suggest it. When the Israelis have intentionally killed 500,000 civilians in Gaza, not 1000 Hamas soldiers out of a population of 1 and 1/2 million, then we can talk again. (There were hundreds of civilian casualties as well, of course, and they are overwhelmingly the fault of Hamas too, since Hamas not only intentionally targets civilians but intentionally and gleefully use human shields, a violation of international law from the start: Again, for all you blind bien-pensant Lefities, google "Fathi Hamad + Human Shields" and see what you come up with.)

Of course, and oppositely, in Darfur the Sudanese govt really HAS killed 400,000 civilians; yet, oddly enough, no bien-pensant Leftie on this blog has ever accused them of being Nazis or being like Nazis--including Big C, who is otherwise so ready to use this term. One can only wonder why. Only Jews on this blog get accused of being Nazis. Again, one can only wonder why.

Here's a parallel: the British empire is breaking up; the British want a unitary state in the region and so do 2/3 of the population, which has a different culture from the other 1/3. The other 1/3 demand partition. They get it. In the fighting that occurs, 7 million people of the majority population are forced to flee, and 1 million of them are killed.

That is Pakistan--except that Pakistan is far more a Muslim state than israel is a Jewish state (look at the comparative percentage of religious minorities). What occurred in the Palestine Mandate is no different, except that the 1/3 minority were not only attacked by their neighbors but their neighbors were backed by 5 foreign states. The majority lost. People here cannot forgive the minority for surviving, nor do they accept that sometimes the losers have to face the consequences of choosing violence.

The people here insist that the Israelis be held responsible for their choices--rightly so. But the Palestinians have made terrible choices too, starting in 1948 and including shooting 6,000 rockets into Israel from Gaza between 2005 and 2008. As the leading film actor in the Arab world said, "Did they expect the Israelis to respond with flowers?"

Yet no one here wants to hold the Palestinians responsible for their own actions. It is a paternalistic and racist attitude. Most people here want to hold the israelis responsible not only for their own actions but for the Palestinians' actions as well, as if history were a Pavlov experiment and the Palestinians' response was natural; to combat that attitude was the point of my list of tragedies that did not end in 60 years of terrorism. Those Palestinian terrorist and genocidal fantasies--when they meet reality the result can be tragic. No one here wants to accept this fact (and Calder's response to is despicable).

I deny the charge of being right wing. I supported Obama and gave money to his campaign. This is yet more slander.

Big C, in using the term "thugs" to describe Hamas I was quoting Mr. Calder himself. Do you actually object to the term "thugs" to describe Hamas as "over-the-top"? Please answer specifically.

As for "out of the Middle Ages"--the Hamas Charter is explicitly based on the Koran (7th century A.D.) and it cites the Koran's most genocidally anti-semitic passages as justification for its current behavior. So why do you object to the term "Islamicist thugs out of the Middle Ages" to describe Hamas? Please answer specifically.

This language "thugs out of the Middle Ages" really in a totally different category than the use of the term "Nazis" on this blog continually to refer to the Israelis. People who use this term evidently have no real knowledge of what the Nazis did. They ignore Britian's own military experts, such as Kemp (whom I cited). It's simply a vicious rhetorical weapon being used to delegitimize Israel in particular and to attack Jews in general.

Big C, if you're actually interested in eliminating over-the-top rhetoric here in order to have a useful conversation, obejct to this "Nazi" usage, which is continual on this blog.

Regarding Jenin, Mr. Calder implies a cover-up but fails to note that there was an official UN Report, based on the reporting of Independent human rights groups in Jenin. It was issued by Kofi Annan in May 2002

Conclusion:

There was no "massacre": in Jenin, 52 Palestinians were killed in the fighting (out of 4,000 people in the refugee camp); of these, 25 or 26 were Palestinian soldiers, and 25 or 26 were identified as civilians (a not surprising percentage, given the "human shield" tactics of the Palestinians); in addition, 23 Israeli soliders were killed in the fighting. .

Saeb Erekat, the media's favorite Palestinian, had originally claimed 3,000 dead, and this was a figure picked up and carried around the world, including by the BBC. The BBC never reproved Erekat for his gross misinformation to them, which they repeated worldwide.

The PA was satisfied with this report.

In fact, an alternative Palestinian propaganda is the exact opposite of the 'massacre" fable: it is that Jenin was a 'great victory' over the IDF in view of the 23 Israeli soldiers killed.

Sorry to bother you with FACTS, Mr. Calder.

Mr. Calder,

12 million Germans were expelled from eastern Europe in 1945, 1 million died, almost 1 million women were raped, and these Germans spent years in Displaced Persons camps in the West. The trauma was terrible, and by law, these people cannot return to Poland, the Czech Republic, or Romania. But you don't find Germans blowing up supermarkets in Danzig.

7 million Hindus were expelled from Pakistan in 1947, 1 million died. They arrived in India penniless. Some Muslim is enjoying their property as we speak, and this is never an issue. But you don't see Hindus blowing up busses in Karachi.

850,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim lands between 1948 and 1960. This is 100,000 more people than in the Palestinian Nakhba--and THESE people hadn't attacked their neighbors. They arrived in Britain, the US or Israel penniless. In israel they spent years in bleak DP camps. Some Muslim is enjoying their property as we speak, and this is never an issue at the UN. But you don't see these Jews or their descendants blowing up university dining halls in Tunis.

300,000 Greeks were expelled from Egypt in the mid-1950s by the Nassir government; some of them had been living in Egypt for 2,500 years (some for only a couple of hundred). It was a classic case of religious and ethnic cleansing. They arrived in Greece penniless, and spent years in bleak DP camps. Some Muslim is enjoying their property as we speak and this is not an issue at the UN. 50,000 more Greeks were expelled from northern Turkey at the same time and under similar conditions. But you don't see these Greeks or their descendants blowing up discoteques filled with teenagers in Ankara.

300,000 Hindus were expelled from Uganda in the 1970s, by Idi Amin, who was viewed as a hero in the Muslim world. They arrived in Britain penniless. But you dont see these Hindus or their descendants firing rockets into Ugandan cities.

The choice for violence, in other words, is not a natural reaction to trauma. It is, as a Palestinian proudly proclaimed to me, a cultural choice. Or (if you wish) a fantasy. But that is their choice, and there are consequences when you shoot 6,000 rockets at your neighbors. This choice is backed by increasingly violent Muslim fantasies of conquest. When those fantasies are confronted by reality, the results can be tragic. The answer is compromise but the Palestinians won't. They've been offered compromise many times.

Images of destruction are tragic and moving, but comparisons made between Israelis and Nazis is merely a vile propaganda intended to hurt Jews via their own memories of the worst trauma suffered by a civilian population in human history.
1300 dead out of 1 and 1/2 million, and 2/3 of those 1300 being soldiers, is war; it is not "mass murder". That few Israelis were killed is not proof of mass murder, but of defeat brought on by a terrible miscalculation by Hamas. The Palestinian support for Hamas in Gaza is now under 30%, according to the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, and thus confirms the Palestinians' own judgment on that miscalculation.

The use of over-the-top language, including on this blog, does not originate in humanitarianism but in the vicious alliance of the far Left with Islamicist thugs out of the middle ages.

It seems to me that Israel must always want to grab more land. A few more generations and it will be overpopulated.

I'm having trouble posting, so I'm using a new name and email address, but it's the same me, people will be happy to know...

Now:

When Michael Calder writes that images of dead Gaza civilians would be viewed
as trophies by the Israelis (or perhaps he means Jews), it is a grotesque slander.

Mr. Calder there is a govt in control of Gaza (people keep saying so), and if
there is, then its decisions are responsible for conditions there: and that govt is
Hamas, not Israel.

The people who DO view those images of dead civilians as trophies, Mr. Calder,
are Hamas.
I urge Calder to google Fathi Hamad + human shields, and see what Hamad, a
major Hamas figure, gleefully says about the intentional employment of civilians, children,
women and old people.

Mr. Calder, you make snide remarks about my position, but you have facts to dispute it, and so: do you dispute that this material about Hamas glee over human shields (including their deaths) is authentic? And do you acknowledge the consequences for our understanding of the situation since it IS authentic?

As for "lebensraum", the Hamas Charter foresees a worldwide Muslim Caliphate.

BTW, the "great Israeli atrocity" at that UN school? It turns out to have been
false--it was Hamas propaganda eagerly swallowed by the Israel and Jew-
haters, by Islamists and the bien-pensant Left. The UN itself now says that the
school \itself was not hit, nor its grounds, nor the building, and no one in the school was hit by the Israelis. The UN retraction came from Maxwell Gaylard, UN Chief Humanitarian Coodinator in Israel.

The number of people killed in the street outside (from where the firing was
coming, according to Palestinian sources of the Associated Press) was 12, of whom 9 are identified by the IDF as Hamas soldiers.

But who will read the UN retraction, buried in the back pages, when all over the
world the headline was the false "Massacre of the Innocents"?

Like the "Jenin Massacre" of several years ago, the "UN School" is simply a lie.

Richard Kemp, former commander of British troops in Afghanistan and a senior
advisor to the current Labour govt, said on the BBC at the height of the Gaza fighting: "I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare where any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties than the IDF
is doing today in Gaza."

The people who blog here will no doubt snicker at Kemp. But I suggest that it is
a contribution to the argument from someone who is somewhat more informed
on military matters than most of us who blog here, and thus it is worth
considering.

& when will international community start to put pressure on Israel. There is a limit to what they can achieve by putting more n more pressure on PA.

"(Of course, the Palestinian Authority should be regarded as the legitimate government)."

Good article but it is worth reminding readers that Hamas is the elected body in Gaza and until there can be free and fair elections for the Palestinians, Hamas must be respected as their representative body in Gaza. 

Denying this plays the Israeli game of divide and rule and marginalising so there is no party to negotiate with.

In the meantime land grabbing continues.

Your article seems to accept that current tactics by both sides are a strategic objective in themselves.

If so then it behoves some external party to call a halt and impose some form of just and lasting settlement. Is Obhama listening?

I venture to say that the road to political solution is a long and tricky one. The reason is the Israeli lebensraum thesis. Since such Nazi like behavior will not be permitted by the US, the $ placenta on which this 60 year old Jewish fetal state depends, it faces a demographic nightmare. It's solution has been to do EXACTLY as the Germans did on the Warsaw Ghetto: to surround Palestinians, starve them, deny them water, tax them but don't give them any infrastructure and, when some group rises up in rage-- as happened in the Warsaw Ghetto-- then use your "gift of the American people" WMDs to massacre all those vermin Arabs. Sounds very familiar to any Holocaust survivor still able to deal with the truth. A careful look at the Gaza assault will show that the IDF troops did not go into the cities. Why? Because Barak said it himself: there's no HAMAS army as there is a Hezbollah one. So why suffer casualties when, FROM THE AIR, it is truly: "like shooting fish [Palestinians] in a barrel [Gaza}." A careful look at the data presented by Cordesman, is that the ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCES (IDF) HAS BECOME THE ISRAELI VERMIN PALESTINIAN EXTERMINATOR (IVPE). But I can tell you that shell-shock infertility is only temporary in most cases. So is the paralyzing effect of the Holocaust Industry used by the Israelis as a ring in the bull's nose of the Diaspora Jews. They are beginning to have had enough of the weak corrupt politicians and the totalitarian politico-generals of the IDF. It is no surprise that Netanyahu will be the PM, because his idea of putting a "time out" on political issues while concentrating on integrating the Israeli and Palestinian economies with an end to settlements building (78% of these homes built at US taxpayer's expense, according to the US DeptState, are empty. This should be no surprise as Israel is suffering a reverse aliyah with Jews running away to LA right after they get those prestigious Israeli degrees.

 Netanyahu talks like a Mafia capo, but he is very much a pragmatist. He will focus on rebuilding Gaza and even on the West Bank (where Zionist hasbara claims that they happened under Olmert) without getting into the political issues right now. HAMAS is an Islamic Extremist group from Egypt that wants to impose a Sharia. But Palestinians are the most secular Arabs in the world, 30% Christians. What they want is what the Israelis want: a good future for their children. For that to be more than a dream, economic integration must be first. Afterall, the US is broke and can't pay the bills for an all-wlfare Israeli state anymore.

Daniel E. Teodoru

Michael:I read your opinion at REZA`S article,and there I saw somo explanation of the" Egyptian"wall,yes off course they are responsible as well...

In general I would agree with the author's assessment. However, her blithe assertion - "(Of course, the Palestinian Authority should be regarded as the legitimate government)" - suggests a serious lack of understanding. The PA / Fatah is known to be corrupt, inefficient, and worst - in the eyes of many if not most Palestinians - an Israeli collaborator. It is not "legitimate" under any definition.

Like them or not, Hamas remains the legitimately elected government of Palestine. Abu Mazen's term has expired (despite Fatah's attempts to claim otherwise) and he has virtually no standing. Nor do any of the other aging 'Tunisian' dinosaurs.

If Israel and the international community want stability in Palestine, they need to allow Hamas to attempt to govern, without subverting them through assassinations or blockades, which in fact confer legitimacy on the resistance.

If Hamas then succeeds and brings forth stability and prosperity, everyone wins. If they fail, they lose legitimacy (and elections) and fade away.

Opposing Hamas is just as counter intuitive as the US embargo of Cuba, which has allowed the Castro brothers to stay in power by blaming the Yankees for their own failure to provide a better life for the Cuban people.

Michael,there are web sites showing the pictures of corpses in GAZA...what I found on those places was people denying the Jewish Holocaust,and muslims swearing revenge...I see that it is possible to criticize Israel actions,even you are doing so,and like you a lot of people.It is not antisemitic,but the edge is very near...for example,you have a reasonable position,and know the facts and players very well...no let`s say you go to a march in support of the palestinians,and a lot of people there start yelling "death to the jews"...and also you notice that Chavez,Ahmadinejad,etc. are part o this movement,then I think again,it is very important for people like you,to speak out and say it:I DON`T AGREE,I DON`T HATE EVERYBODY.It is also common that when there is a bad thing done by an individual or a group of people from Israel,then all the isreali`s or jews are pointed.it does not happen when something good is done,then people mention "the individual"no "collective judgement"...can you understand the point?And please I need your opinion about the wall that divides GAZA from Egypt,I can`t find info about the legal situation of that one...it would be important for me to learn,since I am looking for a wide open and olural picture of the whole conflict...please answer,you are the only one that does answre and I appreciate it!!!regards.

Michaelca, you are wasting your breath! These monsters know what they're doing in Gaza! What should also be of world concern is they are a nuke nation, what else are they planning in "self defense" ?

When I was a little boy, only a few years after the Second World War, my grandmother showed me a book that an English newspaper had published; I think the title was "Lest We Forget".  The contents I remember were simply photographs taken by the English and American troops who freed the concentration camps.

Looking at that book (Iwas only about five) made me physically sick, but I've always been grateful that I saw it.  At various times in my life the memory has restored my sense of proportion and confirmed me in my hatred of ideology of whatever kind, and the dangers posed by one group having total power over another.

For one moment I thought that what should be done now is to publish a similar volume, with photographs of the corpses of Gaza.

Then I realised that times have changed.  Sensibilities are no longer what they were.

And the people who should have been the audience for it would now see it as a book of trophies.

I think I preferred the 1950s.

Clear skies!

there can be no long term solution until Israelis and Palestinians are ready to live together"

This is de ideal of Hamas: to have a single state with Palestinians and Jews living together in peace again.

The Zionists however insist on their Jewish State. The problem is that most of them, at best, have a hard time giving up the ideal that the Jewish State should include all of Palestine.

"One of the most chilling sentences of the war was the Hamas spokesman who said: "Every time they attack our homes, mosques and schools, it legitimises our attacks on their homes, synagogues and schools.""

It is indeed Hamas's position that they attack Israeli civilians in retaliation for Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians. Hamas has proposed to Israel an agreement not to attack civilians, similar to the agreement Israel made with Hezbollah in 1996 in Lebanon (see http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/26/cease.fire/index.html). Israel does not want such an agreement though.

FYI: I think it's immoral (for both sides) to target the other side's civilians even if the other side targets yours.

"the Israelis did try to minimise casualties by, for example, dropping warning leaflets, telling the inhabitants of places they were about to hit to get out of the way."

If the Israeli's wanted to fight Hamas, this was not the way. If you warn them they will be smart enough to leave. If, on the other hand, the Israeli's wanted to destroy as many buildings as possible, without killing a lot of civilians, this was a perfect tactic.

It is an interesting article but as much for what it does not say as for what it does. What Israelis need to do is recognise the wrongs inherent in their foundation and the appalling wrongs they have inflicted and continue to inflict on the Palestinians through occupation and colonisation. Israelis need to recognise they are brutal and murderous occupiers and colonisers.... the rest will follow naturally. this article, like so many others, seeks to infer that there are two equal partners or opponents in this 'war.' There is not. There is a massively armed and murderous occupier and coloniser and a pitifully armed and imprisoned people.

Good article,I don`t see that it puts all teh guilt on only one side.Anyway,I think that education could have an important influence on this conflict.It would be impossible any solution if the education promoves the antagonism...And in my opinion the U.N plays a key role,and could create the conditions for a change.I mean if they are feding the people in Gaza,they shouldn't overlook the fact.It is needed to take responsability,and stop throwing "empty of sense"articles of U.N resolutions that were not created estimating the specifications of this conflict....that I WOULD CALL:TEH CONFLICT,THE MOTHER OF MOST OF THE WORLD`S FUTURE PROBLEMS.regards.

Mary Kaldor writes:

"Ultimately, there can be no end to this new war unless and until Israelis begin to view Palestinians as fellow human beings."

1. The Hamas Charter mandates genocide of all Jews. Hamas overtly supports suicide bombing of civilians, with its genocidal message. "Mein Kampf" is a best seller in the PA and Gaza. Hamas fired 6,000 rockets into pre-1967 Israel at Israeli civilians (and Sdorot is a town consisting of...ahem...Jewish REFUGEES from Morocco) before there was a massive Israeli response. Hamas and its ilk view the intentional murderers of Jewish little girls as heroes: just google Samir al-Quntar and read about it. (Samir is a Lebanese citizen who was given honorary Palestinian citizenship after he murdered the little girl--by bashing her head in, after he murdered her father before her eyes.)

And the problem is...the Israelis?? The Israelis have made many mistakes, especially (imo) in setting up settlements on the West Bank. But to put the blame on them alone is beyond absurd.

2, Support for Hamas declined in Gaza by 50% after the fighting, and now stands at under 30% according to the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion.

That means that many Palestinians blame Hamas for what occurred. Many more than blame Hamas on THIS blog, including Mary Kaldor!