[Deleted. See Eatock v Bolt]

What planet are you living one, Evan?! I think you’re the one who needs to read up on some facts. Israel has had to accommodate the majority of >800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries since 1948. Have a look at the 1948 population of Jews in countries such as Iraq and Egypt as compared to the current population, and you will see that if anyone has been ethnically-cleansed, it is the Jewish population. 1948 population of Jews in the Midde East outside of Israel: > 800,000. Current population: < 8000. Israel has more than 1.5 million Arab residents (>20%) who have full voting rights, most of whom have chosen to become Israeli citizens. This includes Muslim women (who do not have the right to vote in Arab countries), 13 members of parliament, and a Supreme Court judge.

The most democratic and prosperous country in the region, population 7 million with 1.5 million Arabs, surrounded by 300 million Muslims who drink up anti-semitism with their mother's milk (MEMRI TV documents this) with a tiny fraction of the land and none of the massive oil reserves - is interested in war?

This ugly prejudice exists because of the complete domination of neo-liberalism in the West. Traditional sources of authority and independence - natural family, marriage, religion, etc loyalties that bind prior to choice - exist outside global neo-liberalism's rule. This is intolerable for the liberal.

It's rule is carried out with its UNIVERSALISTIC and IMPERIAL abstract principles particularly 'equal freedom' a principle abstracted from all living human contexts. Under this imperial rule every culture and group must be MADE equal and but liberalism will rule between and over them. Liberal elites quite obviously find policies that advance their rule enchanting, and present them as examples of leadership and enlightenment.

The Biblical tradition is the most potent threat to liberal rule, and PC is absolutely never extended to Jews or Christians. The market-media-government complex can't help but select and skew a vision of the world that increases their power. The Chairman of the ABC talks about this in The Australian today [20-10-2011].

The destruction of traditional groups and their institutions, disempowering atomisation of the populace, a political class impregnable to popular dissent is the logic of global neo-liberalism and now it is the religion that is the very air we breathe in the West. Liberal media and bureaucratic governments are akin to children unaware of their own political theology, their subjects fideists. Their theology is imposed all the more because it is held uncritically.

Israel knows the One God, a Holy and loving God and will not bow to either of the world religions, Islam nor Neo-liberalism. Their pincer movement of jihad and UN global, bureaucratically enforced equality, as Ms Gora expresses so elegantly, is one of raw power not truth and so there can be only one outcome.

[Deleted. See Eatock v Bolt]

Deal of the century I reckon, for the Jews that is.

To only have to pay 1000 Arabs for a quality Jewish soldier, I'm amazed even the Arabs would fall for it.

[Deleted. See Eatock v Bolt]

Why is there such a torrent of sympathy for Shalit when the much-hyped thousand-for-one prisoner swop leaves 8,000 Palestinians still rotting in Israeli jails, having languished in captivity for much longer than our Israeli super hero.

Anyone need to think further on the media control?.

The Human Rights Council Report (A/HRC/WG.6/3/ISR/3) of December 2008 found some unpalatable truths about life in Israel's prisons, probably familiar to most writers on the Middle East.

Life in Israel's prisons for the 8,000 still there based on 'Zionist justice' in “the only democracy in the Middle East” (Netanyahu)

•Use of coercive techniques to extract confessions
•Use of confessional evidence obtained illegally to convict
•Lack of effective mechanisms for investigating complaints of torture
•Arrests and detentions are based on secret evidence to which neither the detainees nor their counsels have access
•Neither the prisoner nor his/her lawyer has the right to see the evidence against them
•Repeated extension of initial detention without evidence to justify it
•Large numbers detained without charges or any trial procedures
•“Administrative’”detention is grounded on “security reasons” and hearings are not open to the public.
•“Administrative” detention is regularly used against Palestinian children
•Seriously bad prison conditions including overcrowding, family visits denied, arbitrary transfers, torture and ill-treatment by Israeli security, soldiers and prison guards, deteriorating health conditions and increasing deaths in custody.
The UN has laid bare the evil of Israel's “snatch squads” that prey on innocent Palestinian men, women, children and students, and the regime’s cynical disregard for their wellbeing while in its clutches. They then lock them up. No trial.

Even when it's a civil matter Palestinians are dealt with by Israeli military courts, which treat Palestinian children as adults– a flagrant violation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. These courts ignore international laws and conventions, so there's simply no legal protection for individuals under Israeli military occupation

Sympathisers from whatever ethnic background, even in Tasmania, should be aware of the above, but have conveniently disregarded it.

Our totally healthy super-hyped Israeli soldier, would also be aware of it as well

I note that no one has actually disputed a single fact in my article. Seeing as some of you are so concerned about the Palestinian prisoners, perhaps you’d care to read about a few of them.

Here is a summary of just five of them:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8831908/Gilad-Shalit-release-5-most-prominent-Palestinian-prisoners-to-be-freed.html

And here is an article on one of the prisoners who wasn’t a murderer but who is dedicated to becoming one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8836933/Gilad-Shalit-release-freed-Palestinian-prisoner-vows-to-sacrifice-her-life.html

One need only compare the prisoners to Shalit to see the different attitudes the Israelis and Palestinians have to human rights. The Palestinian prisoners were healthy and well-fed and had received regular visits from family members. Shalit was clearly in poor health, emaciated, and hadn’t seen a friendly face in five years. The Palestinians were all convicted in courts of law of serious crimes such as murder. Shalit was abducted and held hostage. The Palestinians emerged from captivity vowing murder and revenge. Shalit expressed his hopes for peace. Any intelligent person with an ounce of morality can see the difference.

My ethnicity shouldn’t matter, but seeing as two of you have brought it up, I am not Jewish. I am fifth-generation Australian of mixed ethnicities, though I do believe I may have some Jewish blood somewhere along the line, of which I am not ashamed. My loyalty as a citizen is to Australia, as a writer to the truth. I don’t question anyone’s ethnicity – the fact you deem it relevant shows your true colours.

I have never claimed Israel is perfect – no country is, no person is – but as the Israeli Arab Journalist Khaled Abu Toameh said "Israel is a wonderful place to live and we are happy to be there. Israel is a free and open country. If I were given the choice, I would rather live in Israel as a second class citizen than as a first class citizen in Cairo, Gaza, Amman or Ramallah.”

I have to question the understanding of history as expressed by Lindy in the first comment above. My understanding is that the Jews of Iraq fled that country after a series of bombs were detonated in Baghdad cinemas used primarily by the local Jewish population. And that those bombs were detonated by undercover Zionists to force the local Jews to flee to Israel where more people were needed.
Then Egypt was emptied, as well as the rest of the Maghreb and Yemen.
The Falasha of Ethiopia were air-lifted out.
Is that why Iran is constantly in Israel's cross-hairs? Because they, the Iranian Jews, are the last extant Jewish culture in the world that can challenge the Ashkenazi Jewish interpretation of Jewish history?

This website has 'jumped the shark'.

You deleted those comment's?! And then cite Eatock v Bolt?

It's actually quite funny.

Of course, anyone could get a statement from all the survivors and relatives of the Sabra-Shatila assassinations as well as the families of the multi-thousands of Palestinians killed since then and trot them out for support for Palestine's cause. Let's not even mention Gaza and on, ad nauseum.

One could also spend a month researching the arrogant statements by Israel's Rabbis, relating all people of the world other than Jews as "cattle", and quote extreme right wing University professors wanting to 'nuke' all the cities of the globe, politician like Lieberman, the list which could go on forever.

Sixty years is a long time when your objective is 'Eretz Israel' alone.

The fact of the matter is that based on the well documented Human Rights Report detailed by another writer, the state you support is guilty of inhumanity for over sixty years and has the undisputed dishonour of having committed the worst attrocities for a longer period in any century and then some. Your feted hero, released in good health after just five years, is made of the same stock and has been taught the same teachings. Seeing him as having experienced a life-changing sentence pales by comparison.

Inhumanity is not a admirable quality.

Explain that to the next generation.

Strange world, although the withdrawel of support for Israel has to happen. Anti Semitism will continue to rise but despite Israel suffering horrendously for her sins God will not break covenant. Like all Israel's enemies of the past they may skite about temporary victories however they have not read the end of the book that never lies. The people of Israel will wake up to the fact that they won't be able to rely on America or Britian for much longer. Those nations have been ruined by socialism and immigration. They have Someone on their side who is capable of wiping out all her enemies very easily.

I’m afraid I don’t see the relevance of a massacre that was committed by Maronite Christians when Gilad Shalit wasn’t even born. But you do, rexw, because you say that Gilad Shalit is “of the same stock”. Well, I don’t subscribe to your racist views, and I won’t be responding to any more comments by racists and anti-Semites. I think most sensible people are quite capable of seeing through your propaganda for themselves.

Our very active (today) Mishka writer from Tasmania, ‘politically unaligned’, has been duped once again or is just another party to the great deception regarding this “Palestinian journalist”, Khaled Abu Toameh who is truly an Israeli journalist recently in Australia on a speaking tour addressing Unions, NSW Officers and interested affiliates.

He was being presented as an "independent" Palestinian journalist and a Moslem, while he is, in fact, an Israeli emissary. His task is to give a poor picture of Palestinians and a glowing picture of Israel. He is on the Israeli payroll and writes for the right-wing Israeli newspaper 'The Jerusalem Post'. Check it out, Graham..

Israel and the Israeli lobby around the world organise visits and speaking tours for him to spread Israeli propaganda just as Gillard sends politicians to Israel for “Leadership Conferences. Check it out, Graham.

Par for the course. We have seen it all before. An Israeli propagandist who seems able to blindside the likes of Mishka. Strange how she quoted him. Does make one wonder?

While it is true he wrote for the Palestinian newspaper Al Fajr in its early years, now known as mainly designed to use at a later date to gain credibility and appear as a sincere critic. Al Fajr is not and never was 'an official PLO newspaper as he still claims.

In an address he gave to the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia, an extremist Zionist organization founded in 1990 by Daniel Pipes, he criticized the Palestinian media and journalists for being progressives and defending their people’s rights
He accuses the Western media as being misled by the Palestinians saying: “People in the rest of the world therefore do not get an accurate picture of what happens in the region. The bulk of the blame, however, rests with the PA, whose tyrannical approach and control of the media creates an atmosphere of intimidation and fear among Palestinian journalists.”

“Control of the media?” Really?

Read him in the Jerusalem Post. He is accredited to them.

Thought you should all know the real story. This may not get printed though

Savvas, you clearly don’t understand the ramifications of Eatock vs Bolt. Online Opinion is responsible for the comments because it publishes them, and the comments were pretty offensive. I personally would have preferred them to remain, because I believe in free speech and the deleted comments demonstrated the character of those criticising my article and Israel. The comments were racist, defamatory, irrational, and totally unfounded. However, whoever moderates this site made the sensible decision to avoid the risk of litigation. There are very few places in Australia where political correctness hasn’t stifled debate, and I would hate to see Online Opinion disappear due to some rather virulent and shallow comments.

P.S. rexw, if you read my post you will see that I (correctly) called Khaled Abu Toameh an “Israeli Arab” so your point is pretty meaningless. Yes, he’s an Israeli like hundreds of thousands of other Arabs. You see, in Israel, you can be Arab and Muslim AND Israeli.

@halduell, I am well aware of the historical debate regarding the Baghdad bombings, but even if they were conducted by Zionists (and I think the evidence suggests otherwise) they occurred in the context of Jews already frantically trying to escape Iraq, and Israel struggling to absorb the massive numbers of refugees. You are ignoring widespread persecution of Jews across the entire Middle East, not to mention the fact that most Arab countries won't even recognise Israel's right to exist, let alone accord Jews basic human rights.

[Deleted on the author's own recommendation.]

Mishka Gòra

The anguish evident in this script may be the price for a life blessed with health, comfort and scarce sensitivity of other people’s needs.

skeptic, you might want to read some of the author's other articles before making assunptions, e.g. http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/without_a_home_without_a_future/

[Deleted for abuse.]

Mishka Gora,

': 'better that ten guilty escape than that one innocent suffer'. It is one of the most fundamental ideas to our justice system, the reason we presume innocence and insist on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Israel's practical commitment to this notion puts us all to shame.'

By this quote you are either completely ignorant of both the basis of Israeli Justice and Western Liberal Democracy's Justice or you are dealing in untruths.

In Western Liberal Democracy such a principle and it's practice is applied to everyone ... openly ... equally ... whether citizens or not.

To say the Israeli justice system is committed to these principles and practices,

to quote David f (Posted by david f, Thursday, 20 October 2011 7:42:07 PM, in the comments to David Singer's article
'Sorry Sarko, your position on Palestine is a mistake :) Comments'

makes 'you seem ignorant and prejudiced.' but some doubt as to whether 'you are a contemptible idiot.'

An Event of No Lasting Substance

The recent announcement that Gilad Shalit would be released by Hamas has been met with mixed feelings in Israel. Indeed the hawks in Israeli politics feel like the death knell has sounded. For them the release of over 1,000 Palestinian militants – many with Israeli blood on their hands – is an absolute tragedy. For the families of the victims murdered at the hands of these convicts it’s a day where justice has been turned on its head. The imminent release of Gilad Shalit is something which should be solemnly celebrated. While Hamas militants and their sympathizers will be blasting their machine guns in anticipation of the release of their brethren, Israelis will be hoping that this will not come back to bite them.

But of course it will. Hamas knows now, as did other terrorist organizations in the mid-80s that Israelis place a tremendous value on the life of each and every one of their citizens. That over 1,000 convicted militants – murderers among them – were released to bring back the body of Gilad Shalit is astounding. And it is the body, because Gilad’s mind has certainly been irreparably damaged by more than 5 years of living in the deepest, darkest hell imaginable. Gilad may well return to rapturous applause in Israel. The French, British and Americans will cheer, but Gilad’s mind has long since been broken by Hamas. The terror group who refuse to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist will be emboldened by their bargaining power and will no doubt seek to abduct more Israeli soldiers or civilians in times to come.

This sad day for Israel is a pyrrhic victory if anything. Gilad will be reunited with Noam and Aviva and the hoopla will die down, for now. But the path to peace is peppered with intransigence on both sides. The sad reality is that Israel will never be recognized by the Hamas rulers in Gaza, so there is no basis for negotiation – period.

imajulianutter,

It might be helpful, if you intend to use david f's quote, to deliver it in context. He used the term "contemptible idiot" in reply to your reference to it in the previous post. You wrote:

"Hundreds of great western thinkers over many generations have re-inforced the teachings of Christ as part of the basis of Western justice and society. We have never looked to our musicians for deep thought and sensible philosophy.That you think we would suggests that you hold us as contemptible idiots who hang onto or adopt shallow and/or unworkable ideas."

He replied:
"I doubt you are a contemptible idiot. You seem ignorant and prejudiced. However with an open mind and a willingness to learn both can be corrected."

Graham,

I believe this article is offensive in the extreme to Christians and Liberal Democrats. It seems to me a deliberate troll.

Christians would find objectional the blatandly wrong assertion Judeaism and Christianity share the same tradition.

The Christian belief is that Christ was crucified at the behest of the Jews because he disputed and rejected the Jewish traditions and beliefs. (Whether the belief is true or not is irrelevant.)

I believe having attended a Catholic School the author would be well aware of this divergence in beliefs and traditions.

To suggest Liberal Democracies, which have as part of their a foundations christian traditions of forgiveness and turning the other cheek, have common beliefs and practises as the Israeli system based on the Judean religious beliefs and practises is offensive to liberal democrates adhering to the Liberal Democratic philosophy and practise.

The author, having grown up in a Liberal Democracy and watched it's justice systems, both criminal and civil at work, would be well aware of the differences with a system based only in revenge... on the principle of an eye for an eye.

Could you please assess this article and would you mind explaining your assessment.

Ok Poirot

I'll amend the last sentence to read

To say the Israeli justice system is committed to these principles and practices,

to quote David f (Posted by david f, Thursday, 20 October 2011 7:42:07 PM, in the comments to David Singer's article
'Sorry Sarko, your position on Palestine is a mistake :) Comments'

makes me 'doubt you are a contemptible idiot. You seem ignorant and prejudiced. However, with an open mind and a willingness to learn both can be corrected.'

imajulianutter, here is a quote from Pope Benedict:

"we Christians must also become increasingly aware of our own inner affinity with Judaism. For Christians, there can be no rupture in salvation history. Salvation comes from the Jews (cf. Jn 4:22). When Jesus’ conflict with the Judaism of his time is superficially interpreted as a breach with the Old Covenant, it tends to be reduced to the idea of a liberation that views the Torah merely as a slavish enactment of rituals and outward observances. In fact, the Sermon on the Mount does not abolish the Mosaic Law, but reveals its hidden possibilities and allows more radical demands to emerge. It points us towards the deepest source of human action, the heart, where choices are made between what is pure and what is impure, where faith, hope and love blossom forth." (http://catholicglasses.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/pope-benedict-addresses-the-jewish-community/)

@imajulianutter, do your homework! You should try actually looking at Israel's laws, the basis for Israeli justice. Here is the text of Israel's Basic Law that protects human life and dignity:

http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic3_eng.htm

@imajulianutter.

A reasonably well informed Christian, particularly one so ready to declare "deep offense" on behalf of their tradition, would have an acquaintance with the theological work done on Romans 11:11-23 and about which Pope Benedict XVI has written beautifully. Or if not well informed, at least honest enough to search the internet about how to think theologically about the Christian-Jewish relationship. You plainly are neither.

So it invites the question; how to characterise your writing? Your use of the word troll accusingly is helpful, and your writing is helping me define the term distinctly.

So maybe, in the light of Mishka Gora's article on "refugees" she'd like to explain why she is sympathetic to Shia Hazara and opposed to Shia Hezbollah?
They're both supported by Iran, they both come into conflict with other groups in their respective countries due to their religion and the fact that they act as provocateurs and terrorists in the interests of their benefactors.Would she support allowing "persecuted" Lebanese Shia a free pass into Australia as well as the "persecuted" Hazara?
I mean, what's the difference?

@Jay, I’ve read that article and Ms Gora doesn’t mention Hazara or Hezbollah. In fact, I’ve done a google search I can’t find her mentioning either anywhere. So what are you going on about? How about you stick to what she’s actually written instead of asking her to explain feelings you imagine she does or doesn’t have?

As for the difference between Hazara and Hezbollah, that’s easy: one is an ethnic group, another is a political entity. The difference is that one you’re born into and one you choose. I think that’s the crux of the issue here. You have failed to make the distinction between someone who’s been imprisoned for a crime (the Palestinian prisoners) and someone who’s been imprisoned for being a Jew (Shalit). I don’t judge people by their race or ethnicity, but I’m getting the impression that some of you guys do.

"You have failed to make the distinction between someone who’s been imprisoned for a crime (the Palestinian prisoners) and someone who’s been imprisoned for being a Jew (Shalit). I don’t judge people by their race or ethnicity, but I’m getting the impression that some of you guys do."
That is a ridiculous statement. Shalit was not imprisoned because he was a Jew. He was imprisoned because he was a legitimate military target, who was caught by those resisting an ongoing military occupation, and then used as a bargaining chip to get some of their own fighters returned. That has nothing to do with him being a Jew.
It would be like saying that Australian soldiers are being targeted in Afghanistan because they are Christian. They are being targeted because they are part of an occupying army.
It interests me how Israeli apologists constantly speak of the "criminality" of Palestinians who kill Israeli's , yet never of the criminality of the Israeli's who kill many, many more Palestinians. It stinks of a deep seated racism, where the only lives of value are Jewish ones.

@Rhys, Shalit was not a “legitimate military target”, but even if he was the only reason he’s seen as one is because he’s a Jew. Let’s face it, the only reason Israel is seen as an “occupier” is because they are predominantly Jews. If Israel were an Arab state, the Palestinians would not be kidnapping its soldiers, sending in suicide bombers or lobbing missiles at them. And the Afghanistan analogy doesn’t work. These are Israeli soldiers defending Israel’s borders, not halfway across the world fighting in someone else’s war. As for criminality, I’m discussing the article, and the article is about Gilad Shalit being swapped for 1027 convicted criminals. Shalit is not a criminal. He was a conscript doing his job. You also clearly don’t know how to distinguish between killing and murder. When Palestinians lob missiles and rockets at Israel from civilian areas, Israel has every right and need to defend itself, and if the Palestinians don’t care enough about their citizens to fight fair it’s their fault if innocent civilians are killed. There’s nothing criminal about self-defence, especially when it’s as restrained as it is. I’d love to see how you’d feel if Palestinians were blowing up buses and cafes and so forth in your local town. You don’t think that’s criminal? But you do think that firing back in self-defence is? You’re warped.

Lindy,

Thanks for the reference. I withdraw my comment.

Montgomery,
Why is it self defence when Israelis kill Palestinians, yet it is murder when Palestinians kill Israelis? Why is it that in the opinion of people like yourself the Palestinians commit wanton acts of violence against Israelis and the Israelis "retaliate". I read the papers and I am well aware that Israel is the initiator more often than not.
You state that the Israeli Army are only protecting their borders. Where exactly are those borders then? In addition to protecting borders they are also controlling a population who are not Israeli citizens, on land they have lived on for many hundreds of years. That is called a military occupation.
Like many Israeli apologists, you make the absurd claim the Palestinians carry out attacks on the IDF due to a hatred of Jews. Of course it has nothing to do with the ongoing occupation, the wanton killing of Palestinians, far too often children, the demolishing of houses and the ongoing theft of land and water resources. Not to mention the blockade of Gaza, the collective punishment of 1.5 million people.
You also talk about the restraint shown by the IDF. I didn't notice much restraint during operation cast lead. I reckon the parents of the 400 children killed during that wonderfully restrained massacre would disagree with you. Or maybe those children were all terrorists too.
People have a right to retaliate against these crimes. Or are you suggesting they should they simply stand by idly and accept such treatment from the ever virtuous Jewish State?

Rhys, it’s absurd to say that Palestinians hate Jews, is it? Perhaps you’d like to explain these Hamas clips:

http://mideastparalleluniverse.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-part-of-hamas-hatred-of-jews-dont.html

350 words is far too little to have a debate about a conflict that’s been going on for decades, and you’ve clearly made up your mind anyway. You really should try seeing both sides of a situation instead of interpreting everything to fit into your worldview and putting your own spin on it. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinians who don’t engage in terrorism, but they need to stop blaming Israel for their problems. The Palestinians have been betrayed by their fellow Arabs and their own leaders. Hamas deliberately builds military installations in the middle of populated areas - what sort of people expose their own population recklessly like that? Israel supports a two-state solution, but the Palestinians refuse to even recognise Israel’s right to exist. Even the King of Jordan saw that Israel wasn’t responsible, saying “Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner.... they have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, even criminal.” And what about the Syrian PM Khaled Al-Azm: “Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees... while it is we who made them leave.... We brought disaster upon ... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave.... We have rendered them dispossessed.... We have accustomed them to begging.... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level.... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ... men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes ....” Israel supports a two-state solution – all the Palestinians have to do is recognise Israel and stop engaging in terrorism, but they won’t, will they?! As Ms Gora noted in her article, if the Palestinians put down their arms today there’d be peace, but if Israel put down its arms there’d be no Israel. Can you deny that?

Montgomery states... "all the Palestinians have to do is recognise Israel and stop engaging in terrorism, but they won’t, will they?! As Ms Gora noted in her article, if the Palestinians put down their arms today there’d be peace, but if Israel put down its arms there’d be no Israel. Can you deny that?"

That is about the most ridiculous quote I've ever read, (other than the "land without a people for a people without a land") and simply repeating it doesn't make it true.
The Palestinians commit acts of violence "because of the occupation". No occupation, no violence.

What sort of two state solution are the Israeli's interested in? They have spent the past twenty years shifting more and more (over half a million) Jews into the occupied territories. They have then built a great wall snaking in and out of the West Bank, dividing it into a series of Bantustans. They have taken control of all the major water resources. The Israelis have done everything in their power to ensure that no viable two state solution can ever come to pass.
Netanyahu accepts the idea of a two state solution, provided there is a permanent Israeli military presence there, they have no military of their own, Israel controls all the borders and air space. Does this sound like a sovereign nation to you?
You obviously feel that the Israelis should not have to live in fear of violence by their neighbour. But do you extend the same curtesy to the Palestinians? Given their track record I certainly would not want the Israelis as my neighbour. And if they were I would want to be well armed.
I strongly oppose all acts of violence against civilians. However, it is the IDF that kills by far the most civillians.
At least the Palestinians have some kind of moral right to resist occupation. This morality is entirely missing with the Israelis, whose objective appears to be to steal as much land as possible and drive out or impoversih as many Palestinians as possible.

Jay of Melbourne, I’m not sure what you want me to explain given that I’ve never said anything publicly about the Hazara people or Hezbollah. However, for the record, I am very sympathetic to refugees in general. BUT, if they engage in terrorism, my sympathy evaporates rather quickly, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, or political views. I think that’s something you’re struggling to grasp – I don’t have a problem with someone being a Palestinian, but I do have a problem with anyone who commits or supports terrorism.

Rhys, you’re not very consistent. You say Palestinians commit acts of violence because of the ‘occupation’. “No occupation, no violence” and that they have a “moral right”. But then you say “I strongly oppose all acts of violence against civilians”. How do you reconcile the two?

Montgomery,
Support for "Refugees" implies support for all refugees, I'm digging here, bear with me until Ms Gora replies.
Hazara "refugees" have around a 70% rejection rate of their asylum claims, that in itself is interesting.
If refugee advocates can only talk about their interests in general terms then that implies a "moderate" stance, the job of a moderate is to compromise, to sell out in other words.
Ian Rintoul isn't backwards in coming forwards to advocate on behalf of specific groups and he's been vocal on the plight of the Hazara, Rintoul is no moderate, most people view him as an extremist and love or hate him he gets his job done, I can't see him ever compromising and that's a respectable quality in my view.
As for one being a political group and the other an ethnicity the line is a lot blurrier than you think, Hazara are politically organised and Nationalistic.
Before the 1980's Shia Lebanese occupied much the same social position as Afghan Hazara so let's agree to disagree and call both groups a "caste" rather than ethnic or political groups.
You say you don't judge people by ethnicity...or whatever, the PC/Anti Racist "get out of jail" card at the end of a controversial post.
I'd say that you most definitely do, looking at your statement logically anti Racists have to judge people by their race, anti Racism is all about defining people by their race.

Mishka states "Rhys, you’re not very consistent. You say Palestinians commit acts of violence because of the ‘occupation’. “No occupation, no violence” and that they have a “moral right”. But then you say “I strongly oppose all acts of violence against civilians”. How do you reconcile the two?"

There is nothing inconsistent. I oppose all attacks on civilians, both those carried out by Palestianians and those carried out by Israel.
However, attacks on military targets such as the capturing of Gilad Shalit are totally justifiable.

Mishka,
Thank you for replying to my post.
I think the problem here is that objective analysis doesn't suit this medium since articles that appear neutral are taken apart by "specialists".
In the real world nobody can get way with "I'm supportive of everyone except the bad people", one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
I think neutrality is a first world luxury for one thing but I also acknowledge the likely sizeable chunk of the community who'd eat up your style of writing.
There's obviously a market for it, Cara Munro is another commentator who loves everyone except "bad people" and she's been awarded for her writing.

Jay, one man’s freedom fighter is not another man’s terrorist, at least not for me. There are causes which I would like to see succeed, but I don’t believe the end justifies the means. I always condemn terrorism, even if it’s by people whose cause I’d like to succeed, because I can differentiate between a cause’s goals and the means to achieving those goals. I am quite capable of seeing that while a goal may be noble, the means employed to achieve that goal may not. I think terrorism undermines causes. It stops people like me from sympathising with or supporting groups like the IRA and ETA, even when they don’t kill civilians. Just because someone’s a soldier doesn’t make them fair game, and there are rules of war, jus ad bellum and jus in bello. A woman in civilian clothing who blows up herself and a group of soldiers is not a freedom fighter, she’s a terrorist. Criminality is about actions, not identity. I condemn the 1027 Palestinians because they are convicted terrorists, not because they’re Palestinian. To give another example, the British Army was sent into Northern Ireland largely to protect Catholics from Protestant attacks, but the IRA’s decision to target these “military targets” simply because they symbolised British rule was not only ungrateful but highly immoral. (It was a great media success for them, though, as it made them look like they were fighting against the military ‘occupiers’ when they were in reality destroying any potential peace.) So, no, terrorists are never freedom fighters, not in my book! That said, that doesn’t make me neutral, and I think my article made it pretty clear that I believe in taking sides. There are valid paths to achieving political goals, and the Palestinian violence against Israel is not only unjustifiable but also wholly irrational. Montgomery has made some good points on this topic – even Arab leaders admit that they have used the Palestinian people as pawns. The only reasonable basis for negotiations is mutual recognition of both states (which Israel has agreed to) and an end to terrorism.

Rhys, this Arab Israeli can see that Gilad Shalit wasn't a "legitimate" target. Why can't you?!

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4136902,00.html

Mishka says "Rhys, this Arab Israeli can see that Gilad Shalit wasn't a "legitimate" target. Why can't you?!"

Is that supposed to be some kind of argument on what is or isn't a legitimate military target? I'm sure I could find a Jew who agrees with me. That doesn't make me right, even though I am right.
When the Nazi's were occupying France, were the German soldiers a legitimate military target? Likewise with the Japanese when they were occupying China? What about the Americans occupying Iraq? The Israeli's certainly felt that the occupying British forces were a legitimate target when they were fighting for independence. They committed numerous "terrorist" attacks against British military targets.

If you carry out a military occupation of another peoples land, you must expect to be targeted.

If you're fighting a military occupation then the occupying military is the only legitimate target. Why can't you see that?

Rhys, I assume by “occupation” you are referring to the areas commonly known as the “occupied territories” such as the Gaza Strip and that you are not implying that Israel should not exist at all (which is the argument of those you seem to be defending). I need to clarify this, because if you take the latter position there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Gilad Shalit was abducted from Israel. He was not in any occupied territory and therefore was not part of an occupying force. His detention was generally considered contrary to humanitarian law, by the UN, ICRC, and Human Rights Watch, for example. Amnesty and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights called it “illegal” and “inhumane”.

As for the “occupation” itself, perhaps you should cast your memory back to 2005 and 2006 when Israel unilaterally decided to withdraw from Gaza. Whether it was sufficient or not, Israel uprooted 25 Jewish civilian settlements as well as IDF installations. How did the Palestinians react to this gesture of goodwill? How did they react to the withdrawal of the “occupying force”? They fired hundreds of rockets at Israel and they abducted Gilad Shalit. These Palestinian attacks were AFTER the occupation had ended, and they were not against a military occupation force. And what did the Palestinians do with their newfound freedom? They fought amongst themselves in a bloody conflict that cost hundreds of Palestinian lives. They elected Hamas, a terrorist organisation, and Palestinians now live in a repressive society in which human rights are blatantly ignored. Frying pan into the fire, eh?! I know that I’d prefer to live under Israeli rule, but you don’t seem to agree. Perhaps you should ask a woman or a gay which they’d prefer – the strict Muslim government of Hamas or liberal secular government of Israel?

Lindy,

Thank you for your reference. I'll quote parts,as it seems the text you supplied has the following qualifications, in many not insignificant places.

‘The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.’

‘There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.’

So you see Israeli Law is predicated on Jewish values... which are contained in it’s bible ... which are often quite different to the Christian values that predicate much of Western Liberal Democratic justice.
As an example, one of the classics is the 'First (Seven)of the Jewish Laws Noahide:
Murder: "Furthermore, I will demand your blood, for [the taking of] your lives, I shall demand it [even] from any wild animal. From man too, I will demand of each person's brother the blood of man. He who spills the blood of man, by man his blood shall be spilt; for in the image of God He made man." (9:5–6)"'

Ah! To champion homework is admirable.

But as I said earlier Western Liberal Democratic Justice in it's courts extends protection to all, even non-citizens ... Israeli Law doesn't.
You have no counter to that simplicity. And it begs the question why would westerners abandon their historical and deeply thought out principles simply to support an oppressive regime because of some ancient long abandoned claimed 'shared' tradition?

Miska Gora, Martin Ibn Warriq

Here is the completion of quote of Ratzinger,

"‘The message of hope contained in the books of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament has been appropriated and continued in different ways by Jews and Christians.'"
“'After centuries of antagonism, we now see it as our task to bring these two ways of rereading the biblical texts – the Christian way and the Jewish way – into dialogue with one another, if we are to understand God’s will and his word aright” (Jesus of Nazareth. Part Two: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, pp. 33f.).’"

That can only be interpreted as attempting to reconcile the traditions of both religions, which Ratzinger explicitly states are quite different. I doubt very much whether the Christian Churches would be sufficiently flexible to abandon the tenets contained in the Christian tradition of the Sermon on the Mount or incorporate or even condone the traditional Jewish tenets of the Noahide.

No Christianity and Judaism have less in common than Judaism and Islam in their source traditions. And please if you wish to argue your case using ancient and superceded traditions then isn't it apparent that the same argument should be applied to Jews and Arabs as both are semetic people descended from the same stock ... and both use very similar books.

Please note the attempt at reconciliation was initiated by Christians and is a very basic Christian behaviour.

Lindy, Mishka Gora and Martin Ibn Warriq,

Compare the following with Ratzinger then assess the monumental task he faces as well as your monumental misunderstandings of the divergent traditions of the two religions.

Rabbi Berkovits said

‘Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism’
Disputation and Dialogue: Readings in the Jewish Christian Encounter, Ed. F. E. Talmage, Ktav, 1975, p. 291.

Jacob Neusner said

‘The two faiths stand for different people talking about different things to different people’
(1990), Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition. New York and London: Trinity Press International and SCM Press. p. 28

"Law professor Stephen M. Feldman identifies talk of Judeo-Christian tradition as supersessionism:
'Once one recognizes that Christianity has historically engendered antisemitism, then this so-called tradition appears as dangerous Christian dogma (at least from a Jewish perspective). For Christians, the concept of a Judeo-Christian tradition comfortably suggests that Judaism progresses into Christianity—that Judaism is somehow completed in Christianity. The concept of a Judeo-Christian tradition flows from the Christian theology of supersession, whereby the Christian covenant (or Testament) with God supersedes the Jewish one. Christianity, according to this myth, reforms and replaces Judaism. The myth therefore implies, first, that Judaism needs reformation and replacement, and second, that modern Judaism remains merely as a "relic". Most importantly the myth of the Judeo-Christian tradition insidiously obscures the real and significant differences between Judaism and Christianity.[]'"

Really the only quote you can supply that supports continuing traditional links between Christianity and Judaism is from Joseph Ratzinger ... you should assess his history.

http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/i/RatzingerNazi.htm

I tend to support Austin Clines conclusions. They are very kind and allow a great degree of understanding and ... Christian forgiveness.

@imajulianutter, where does it say Israeli law only applies to citizens? I applies to all PERSONS: "Fundamental human rights in Israel are founded upon recognition of the value of the human being, the sanctity of human life, and the principle that all persons are free; these rights shall be upheld in the spirit of the principles set forth in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel."

I really can't be bothered commenting any more. You just see what you want to see. You don't discuss, you rant. I don't normally comment on things on the internet and now I remember why....

imajulianutter, you can quote away until the cows come home, but the only quotes that are relevant to this article are the one of Benjamin Netanyahu in the article itself and the one Lindy has used above from the State of Israel’s Basic Law. The Jews believe in sanctity of life, so do us Christians. We share the same scriptures, the same tradition. Whatever differences we may have in interpretation, the tradition is the same. I can have the same tradition as someone but disagree with them on every subject under the sun. A tradition is “something, such as a doctrine, belief, custom, story, etc, that is passed on from generation to generation” (Chambers Dictionary)… such as scriptures. Christians share that tradition with the Jews, and Christians likewise believe in the sanctity of life, as do the Jews. If you want to have a debate about how Jews and Christians interpret that tradition differently, find another article to comment on. This article is about recognising the common ground we have with the Jews, the common ground I would like to think most human beings have with the Jews, a belief in the value of human beings, a belief in the sanctity of human life. People with a shared tradition don’t have to agree, as we’ve seen throughout history – Christians have fought each other constantly, after all – but my article calls on people to agree on the basics, to allow a shared tradition to be the basis for solidarity. You seem to only want to spread discord….

On that note, I won’t be replying to any further comments. I enjoy a good discussion, but most of the comments here have been from people who talk past each other, and I don’t see that as profitable. Some have even been abusive and defamatory, which says more about the person commenting than anything else, methinks.

Dear Mishka,

I am sorry to hear you will not be commenting on further posts but that is the price one pays for coming in late.

While I did find your article myopic I do understand where the myopia comes from and I am not so proud to think that being put in a similar framework I would not exhibit the same. However in my opinion the tragedy for the Jewish people is that myopia so taints the long legacy of social justice contributions made by so many of them to the Western world.

I am also wondering about the fate of the two brothers kidnapped by an Israeli commando incursion into Gaza the day before the taking of Gilad? Their names are Osama and Mustafa Muamar.

The raid occurred at 3:30 am and their father was blindfolded and beaten in the raid. It was the first taking of Palestinian civilians in a full year following the handing back of Gaza.

I was going to ask you if you considered the Israeli kidnapping of the Maumar brothers legal while that of the revenge kidnapping, Gilad Shalit, illegal?

Or is it unfair to be asking for consideration of a wider view from you. If it is then I apologise for the presumption.

Dear Mishka,

I'm glad that you believe in peaceful solutions
and people learning to live together - despite
their differences. It would be great if political
debate on the conflict in Israel focused
not on how (and why) to stay in the conflict, but on how to
get out of it.

As far as the conflict is concerned. It is time
for a radical re-thinking. As Antony
Loewenstein points out in his book, "My Israel Question,":

"Sooner or later, Israel and the Palestinians will
have to meet face-to-face, listen to each other's
grievances and negotiate with honesty. Only then - and on
the condition that both Israel and the Palestinian state
achieve safety and security - will this conflict be
resolved. Neither side has a monopoly on suffering, but
only one party has the power to end the occupation and to
recognise that Israel and Palestine are historically destined
to share the same homeland."

That's fine Lindy,
but point to one Jewish political prisoner or war criminal in Israeli jails and assess again your view that Israeli law applies to all equally and you might gain some credibility.

Oh and Immigration Law definately favours non Jewish locals who want to return to their former homes ahead of non semetic Jews from Eastern Europe doesn't it?

But take your bat and ball and run away ... fine, it's best for everyone.

csteele, given you have asked a polite and reasonable question, I will make an exception. Online Opinion requires its articles to be under 1000 words, which meant I had only 49 words to spare. So, yes, I do think it is a little unfair to ask me to cover a wider perspective in this particular article, and I don’t think I’m being myopic. As a writer, I am trying to convey an opinion, not to present an entire case, and certainly not to present both sides of a case. I don’t think I’ve pretended to do otherwise, and to try to do otherwise in so short an article would be ludicrous. People have written entire books on this subject that aren’t remotely comprehensive.

As for the Muamar brothers, I would be very interested to find out what has happened to them, but it was Gilad Shalit and 1027 Palestinians who were released last week, and that’s what I was writing about. I certainly wonder if the Palestinians requested them to be part of the 1027, but I was not privy to their negotiations. I would also note that their situation is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be – the BBC and LA Times reported they were arrested because intelligence indicated they were in the “final stages of planning a large-scale terror attack". But even if they were “kidnapped” – and I don’t claim to know either way – it wouldn’t change my opinion of the Shalit deal, as two wrongs don’t make a right. Whether the Muamar arrest/abduction was legal, I don’t know, but given that their father was a Hamas leader the Israeli claim is credible.

I would like to think that none of the released Palestinian "soldiers " would go back to their Barracks .
For them to restart hostilities with the Israelis, will simply allow the Israeli Radicals in Government to justify their restrictive Policies to the Western World, and they will continue to build longer Dividing walls encompassing more Palestinian Territory for their own use .
Israeli Radicals as much as Palestinian radicals appear not to want Peace.
Israel and it's wily Radicals have given the Palestinians the means to reduce the chance of the Rest of the Worlds' preferred Middle-east Outcome....that is Peace .

Dear Mishka,

Thank you for your frank and open reply.

The Muamar brothers were not in the list of the initial 477. Perhaps they may be among the others yet to be released.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/10/2011101675220436780.html

It is a rather extraordinary list. As an Australian who is use to 25 or 30 years being a life sentence it makes sobering reading.

I am relieved the Shalit family will get to see their son again. I do hope the family visits from Gaza to prisoners held in Israel can now resume after being blocked after the capture of Gilad. It is a tragedy when mothers and fathers are kept from seeing their children for years and years. While the Israeli Supreme Court judges “family visits are not a basic humanitarian need for Gaza residents” most of us I think would feel differently.

I wonder when you say “the Israeli government is committed to doing its "utmost" to bring home those whom it has sent onto the battlefield.” if you would afford the same licence to the Gazan Palestinians knowing it could entail the capture of another soldier?

Unfair to ask I know.

I apologise for calling your article myopic, while it is something I firmly believe I should not have addressed you directly.

Lastly when I read “This is likewise the Judeo-Christian tradition, a noble tradition we trample upon every time we appease Israel's enemies by calling them political prisoners instead of terrorists. It is a tradition we must champion if we truly believe in a just society, human dignity, and "fighting the good fight". It is the tradition of those who perished at Auschwitz… but it is also the tradition of those who eventually defeated the Nazis – the 'premature anti-fascists' of the International Brigades in Spain and the ordinary men and women who vowed with Winston Churchill to "fight on the beaches". So now we must decide whether to embrace our heritage or shamefacedly deny it.” I felt a deep sadness and want to weep.

Perhaps we are best to leave it here.

Have a good life Mishka.

imajulianutter, I am surprised the others have continued to reply to you for so long. (I’m surprised I’m replying too, but then this is my first foray into web debates and the novelty hasn’t quite yet worn off… and I have this quaint notion that you don’t realise how rude, obnoxious and self-defeating your posts are.) Do you want to engage in meaningful discussion where each side considers the points raised by the other thoughtfully, or do you simply want somewhere where you can “mouth off”? If the former, you fail miserably. The others in this thread, including the author, have addressed your concerns seriously and thoughtfully, but each time you have simply ignored them and gone on another tack. That’s not the behaviour of someone who seeks to get to the bottom of an issue – that’s the behaviour of someone who has an agenda and who has a closed mind.

Likewise, that applies to others who have commented here. Even the relatively polite posts, such as the one above by csteele, ask the author to treat the Palestinian prisoners as morally equivalent. But they are not. Gilad Shalit committed no crime and his first public comments expressed his desire for peace. The Palestinians released were terrorists who have vowed to keep killing. You say you don’t support attacks on civilians, but the Palestinian prisoners did conduct attacks on civilians, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation. You have proved the very point of the article – you keep calling terrorists freedom fighters, and you refuse to see the obvious truth that the Palestinian leadership has failed to make any genuine attempts at peace. This deal is a classic example of how lopsided negotiations are.

The author’s main point, that one shouldn’t appease terrorists and that we ought to be outraged at a deal that exchanges one innocent man for 1027 convicted criminals is so elementary and irreproachable that I’m flabbergasted that so many have reacted negatively to it. Don’t we all believe in the value of a human life, or am I just a silly old fool?

Dear Montgomery,

Since you named me in your post I thought a response was in order.

Ms Gora's bio indicates she is one of the 'good folk' therefore I hope I have been circumspect over addressing some of views I found disquieting. I know how irrational I can be about defending members of my own extended family from attacks by others. I do not generally have the stomach for forcefully challenging those who strongly identify as being part of the Jewish family unless they are hell bent on denigrating others.

But if you would humour another silly old fool I was wondering when you talk about "Gilad Shalit committed no crime and his first public comments expressed his desire for peace" where do you  draw your 'moral equivalence' lines?

We do not know what has happened to the Munmar brothers whose kidnapping triggered this whole sorry mess, however if one of the commandos engaged in raid was captured in Gaza on the night would that have been legitimate in your eyes?

While I have long given up accepting anything claimed by either side the track record of IDF statements being retracted when faced with overwhelming contrary evidence is extensive. While they may claim the brother's kidnapping was to foil a plot no evidence to my knowledge has ever been produced. I am just as open to the scenario that they were taken to put pressure on their father. The fact  he was tied and beaten during the raid tends to give this weight.

Hamas have always said his father was a part of their organization but the sons were not.

So if instead of Gilat one of the kidnapping team was taken during their raid into Gaza would that have changed your assessment?

Montgomery,

yes.

Mishka Gora

It was you who started quoting Ratzinger to me. Is that quote now no longer relevant?

Is it my problem you only quoted the part of Ratzinger which supported your view but exempted the part supporting my view and which was the essence of his message?

Why do you still ignore Ratzngers message about the differences between the religions and Lindy's supplied reference to the basis of Israeli Law?

Why is it so many Jewish thinkers have the same position I advocate?

If anything is said that is abusive then rest assured Graham would delete such.

My view is the differences in beliefs and doctrines preclude any attempt at solidarity.

How can you have solidarity with those who absolutely reject the basis of your own religious beliefs? Especially when any examination, even a shallow cursory one, of the essences of both legal systems and social philosophies are so at odds?

You are attempting to equate western liberal democracies and their religious basis with the discrimatory, militarist bigoted regime of the Israelis on the basis of similar religious beliefs.

To advocate such a position is not only absurd but is offensive to both Christians and Liberal Democrats.

Mishka when you point the finger at talking past people you are the very worst example of that... and is perfectly in unison with all the other usual Israeli apologists.

I must say that the Muamar case seems rather shady to me, and while that in itself is an undesirable situation it makes it difficult to assess. While I have no doubt that all governments get up to things they shouldn’t, I’m also aware that they have access to intelligence that would make our hair stand on end. So, let me use a similar hypothetical to illustrate.

If Shalit had been one of an IDF team who had kidnapped two Palestinians who were innocent of any crimes (including plotting to commit crimes), then I would not alter my overall assessment because:
a) He was a conscript carrying out orders, who may have genuinely believed whatever story his superiors gave him about the identity of the two Palestinians;
b) One illegal act does not justify another;
c) Even if fully culpable, he would be guilty of kidnap, whereas many of the prisoners are guilty of multiple counts of murder; and
d) He is one man, but he was exchanged for 1027.

It would, therefore, still be a gross act of moral equivalence.

As for the actual hypothetical kidnapping, I would consider it a mitigating circumstance, but not a justification, which I think illustrates one of my greatest concerns about this conflict. I think Jews and Palestinians could get along fairly well, if it weren’t for the long history of antagonism that has been fuelled largely by Arab leaders, both Palestinian and otherwise. (May I recommend Ephraim Karsh’s ‘Palestine Betrayed’?) I also can’t help noting that while Israel does have a significant Arab population who are represented in parliament and so forth, the Palestinians have made no such concession to Jews. Israel has accepted a two-state solution, but the Palestinians have not. It’s clear that the obstacle to a genuine peace process is the Palestinian refusal to recognise Israel’s right to exist. And that I cannot countenance.

imajulianutter, one of your posts WAS “deleted for abuse”, as perhaps should the one above. It’s not the author’s fault you can’t distinguish between religious tradition and religious doctrine.

Could someone please explain to me how come
Hamas had only one Israeli soldier while
the Israelis had over 1,000 Palestinians - and
the deal struck was to exchange one for 1027
between Israel abd Hamas. How come? Did Hamas
only have the one Israeli?
It doesn't add up.

Dear Montgomery,

Thank you for your considered reply.

“a) He was a conscript carrying out orders, who may have genuinely believed whatever story his superiors gave him about the identity of the two Palestinians; :

So do we afford the Palestinian team who were sent to capture an Israeli soldier in response to the kidnapping of the Muamar brothers the same justification? Please note that while Gilad was indeed a conscript he “Despite a low medical profile, he preferred to serve in a combat unit,”(Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website).Can I say leaving everything else aside just for one moment the raid through enemy lines to take on Gilad's tank armed with an RPG was a pretty gutsy effort. I am also impressed with how Gilad has borne his ordeal. Not sure I would have the 'right stuff' myself.

“b) One illegal act does not justify another;”

No but in tit for tat the instigator usually shoulders most of the blame.

“c) Even if fully culpable, he would be guilty of kidnap, whereas many of the prisoners are guilty of multiple counts of murder;”

I note you think they are all terrorists. We need to remember that Palestinians in the occupied territories are generally tried under Israeli Military law while settlers are tried under civil law. I would be a lot more supportive of your position if all the Palestinians had been tried in open court with access to proper legal representation. They weren't and we shouldn't forget those being held without trial.

“d) He is one man, but he was exchanged for 1027.”

Or to put it another way the Palestinian's returned 100% of the Israeli prisoners they held in exchange for less than 10% of their own held by the Israelis.

I do know of one terrorist who was convicted in an open court of planting a huge bomb packed with shrapnel outside a school. It was luckily foiled by the Israeli authorities yet he has been granted what are essentially conjugal visits to his home. Fair?

Lexi, this is a reasonable explanation and includes a list of the prominent prisoners and what they did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit_prisoner_exchange

csteele, please don’t be so disingenuous. The military vs civilian court point is a red herring. It wouldn’t make any difference to their guilt. And the Palestinians can’t have it both ways. They say they’re fighting a legitimate war against Israel, but then want a civilian court when their fighters are captured after they’ve committed terrorist attacks (or war crimes if you prefer). They wouldn’t have recognised the court whether it was civilian or military. It’s Israel they don’t recognise.

Are you seriously suggesting that these people are innocent? What of Abd al-Aziz Yussuf Mustafa Salehi who was photographed holding up his blood-stained hands to a crowd after beating an Israeli soldier to death? Are you claiming he’s innocent? What of Ahlam Tamimi who has said she has no remorse? What of the 15 civilians sitting in a restaurant she helped kill? Look up each person on that list of 477 Palestinians and think about their crimes. Perhaps then your sympathy for them will dissipate and you will feel the “tragedy” of the murder victims. One man who had murdered no one was exchanged for 1027 who had murdered hundreds. Whatever the flaws of Israeli justice, I have no doubt that those prisoners were terrorists or criminals or both.

As for your other points, Hamas is a recognised terrorist organisation, not a legitimate army. And if we’re going to talk about instigators, then perhaps we should look at who was firing missiles at Israel. This is what the Palestinians chose to do after the IDF pulled out of Gaza, and this put Israel in a position of having to protect itself. The Muamar case may have been the foiling of a terrorist plot or merely a pre-emptive strike, but either way Israel was under attack.

Why are you defending people who openly advocate the destruction of Israel? Even if you condemn things like suicide bombings, the people you are defending don’t. When you support them, you support terrorism.

Dear Montgomery,

Sorry my last paragraph was a tad silly, please disregard.

I do need to correct one thing you said. “ It’s clear that the obstacle to a genuine peace process is the Palestinian refusal to recognise Israel’s right to exist “.

Arafat, as the leader of the Palestinian people formally recognised Israel as a state back in 1993. Note how the language changed after that. The Israeli government now insist the Palestinians formally recognise Israel as a 'Jewish' state, something that had never been raised before Arafat's concession.

Why would any self-respecting Palestinian leader disregard the fact that Palestinians make up 20% of Israel's population? He would be entrenching their weakened status within Israeli society even further. Why would the Israeli government insist on it? Because they do not want peace, or rather they want to appease settlers who want more land.

You say “perhaps we should look at who was firing missiles at Israel”

From Wikipedia “Between 2005 and 2007, Palestinian groups in Gaza fired about 2,700 locally made Qassam rockets into Israel, killing four Israeli civilians and injuring 75 others. During the same period, Israel fired more than 14,600 155 mm artillery shells into the Gaza Strip, killing 59 Palestinians and injuring 270.”

The expected lethal radius for a 155mm high explosive projectile, such as the artillery the IDF used in Gaza City, is reportedly between 50 and 150 meters and the expected casualty radius is between 100 and 300 meters. The majority of the rockets fired from Gaza were a less than a fifth of that. This was not a one way battle.

You have some quite entrenched views on the issue, similar I will admit to those held by myself until about ten years ago. Mine morphed slowly until operation Cast Lead, now I find it difficult to hold one side in any higher esteem than the other. I still question why it took me so long.

Dear Lexi,

Good question.

Montgomery to hold and express different views in a Liberal Democracy is not abusive. It is abusive to try to suppress discussion.

It is the authors fault to deliberately pretend there is no divergence in the religions of Christianity and Judaeism. It is the authors fault to deliberately pretend the Laws of Israel are equalivant to the Laws of Western Liberal Democracys. It is the authors fault to deliberately try to equal the values of Western Liberal Democracys' with those of a land stealing, militarist, repressive and apartheid regime.

It is obscene to deliberately say the Western Liberal Democracys are shameful because they won't abandon the very basic tenets of their society to stand in solidarity with those who debase and despire those very tenets.

It is stupid to expect Australians to swallow the naieve 19th Century American construct of Judaeo-Christianity.

We understand the traditions of Christanity started with the life of the Son of God. We understand Judaeism places Christ as merely another prophet while continuing to await the Messiah.

Resentment will arise because of the fakery involved in the arguments presented in support of the alternative which is deliberately designed to force the naieve construct into the Australian christian and liberal democratic narrative.

Slimy is the best Australian description of this effort.

Well, there wouldn’t be much point in Israel existing as an Arab state, would there?! Israel was created so that Jews would have a homeland. But once again you are being disingenuous, csteele, because if you cast your mind back to those times you will recall that Arafat was popular with just about everyone except his own people. He failed to convince them that it was right to recognise Israel, which is why the Palestinians have consistently called for its destruction and refuse to recognise its RIGHT TO EXIST. ‘Senior members of Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah have announced that their group will never recognize Israel, and will continue to call for war against Israel. “Fatah does not recognize Israel's right to exist”…’ (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132544#.TqZ1rXKESCg) Likewise, Hamas says its “committed” to Israel’s destruction. There is nothing to correct in what I said. I stand by my point.

Why would the Israeli government insist on recognition as a Jewish state? Perhaps because there’s nowhere else in the Middle East that Jews can safely live?! I think it’s pretty obvious that for Israel to fulfil its purpose it must be Jewish, even if it does accommodate non-Jews.

And don’t pretend to hold them in equal esteem. If you did, you wouldn’t equate 1027 criminals with one soldier. One doesn’t need to be a supporter of Israel to see that the Shalit deal is obscenely lopsided.

As for the rockets, their use is what matters. The Palestinians fire them from civilian areas, deliberately exposing their own people to the justified Israeli retaliation, even killing a child when their own people protested at the use of these rockets in civilian areas. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/23/international/middleeast/23CND-MIDE.html?hp This is the sort of betrayal I’m talking about, the sort of selfish hatred and lack of concern for their own people that makes the Israelis’ concerted efforts to save just one man so admirable in comparison.

I’m not sure you deserve a response, imajulianutter, but you do seem to have a bee in your bonnet, and quite unnecessarily so.

Firstly, the author has not said the things you claim she has. She has never said there is no divergence in the religions of Judaism and Christianity, and she hasn’t asked anyone to abandon their tenets – she’s asked people to embrace their belief in the sanctity of human life. She replied to you at length on Monday and I’m not going to rehash.

At one point you asked “How can you have solidarity with those who absolutely reject the basis of your own religious beliefs?” and I think this demonstrates why you’re having so much difficulty grasping this. The simple answer is that one can have solidarity with all sorts of people. I have friends who are atheists, who totally reject the basis for my worldview, but I can have solidarity with them because they respect human life and abhor people who indiscriminately take life, such as terrorists. The solidarity mentioned by the author is the respect for human life, and she is right that it is shameful if we do not uphold our tradition and condemn terrorists for what they are.

Someone who blows up a restaurant full of diners is not a freedom fighter, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for having so little Christian compassion that you won’t speak up for the murder victims of the 1027 Palestinians freed in the deal just because they don’t believe that Jesus was the Son of God, not that the Palestinians do either. You imply you are a Christian, but you are a disgrace to Christianity. What sort of Christian takes the part of people who have openly admitted to killing civilians without speaking a single word in defence of those who were brutally murdered?! What sort of Christian repeatedly attacks a fellow Christian for writing that we should unite in our respect for human life and “demand that the Palestinians prove they are genuinely committed to peace” by ending their terrorist campaign?

Dear Montgomery,

You're reacting as I used to so I'll not take offence at being called disingenuous or a terrorist sympathiser.

You find the fact that Hamas soldiers, operating in one of the most populated pieces of land in the entire world, would end up using a road or someone's orchard as a site to retaliate against incoming 155mm artillery rounds distasteful. They should be setting up in a bare patch of ground well away from any trees and buildings so they can be spotted by drones and eliminated by Cobra gunships? How terribly unsporting of them not to comply with your version of warfare.

Gaza has three times the population density of urban Melbourne and as stated over a two year period had 14,400 155mm artillery shells dropped into it.

To taint the entire Hamas organisation with the cruel shooting of Hassan is akin to tainting the entire IDF with the bulldozing to death of Rachel Corrie. This is the same IDF who were using human shields until to its credit the Israel's High Court of Justice banned the practice in 2005. The IDF appealed the decision to no avail. However Amnesty International found that during Operation Cast Lead "Israeli troops forced Palestinians to stay in one room of their home while turning the rest of the house into a base and sniper position, effectively using the families, both adults and children, as human shields”.

I mean for nearly every crime you accuse one side of the other is just as culpable. Lets take a favourite, 'those dreadful Palestinians have been known to use ambulances to move men and weaponry around'. Well the man referred to as the 'Nelson Mandala' of Palestine Marwan Hasib Ibrahim Barghouti “was arrested by soldiers of the Duchifat Battalion who had approached the building hidden in an ambulance to avoid detection.”
Forgive me for for thinking they are not more admirable in comparison. 

While I recognise Mishka's perspective I'm not sure why thinking people without that connection continue to echo it so stridently without taking a wider view, my former self included.

Usefull post Mr/Ms Steele.

This type of info rarely raised in the Press in Australia.

Just so much twaddle.

' 'better that ten guilty escape than that one innocent suffer'.It is one of the most fundamental ideas to our justice system, the reason we presume innocence and insist on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Israel's practical commitment to this notion puts us all to shame.'"

this is the total thrust of the argumet put by Gora.

That we westerners have abandoned our basic legal tenets when we don't go along with Israeli refusal to negotiate in good faith and it's attendant barbarism.

But then when she carries on about how the principle of the santity of life is common to both Christian Westerners and Jewish Israelis she shows she is totally ignorant that in the west we hold and apply the principle to everyone equally... including our enemies and those who attack us ... Gora fails to distinguish that this principle is not applied to everyone by the jewish Israelis toward everyone in Palestine.

Then how can anyone possibly share solidarity with such a divergent
basic belief and divergent resulting practises.

If she'd paid attention to the religious teachings of her catholic teachers she'd have known that the western adherence and practise to the principle is fundamentally at odds with the jewish traditions ... and current abhorrant practises.

Let her deny she doesn't know this.

She won't because to do so totally undermines her abusive criticism of us Westerners

How dare I taint a terrorist organisation by associating them with the murder of a child?! That you can even ask that question shows how warped your moral perspective has become. Here’s a list of the people (and their ages) that Hamas has claimed responsibility for murdering in just ONE incident. (The victims were just passengers on a bus, by the way.) Hamas wasn’t accused of murder – Hamas proudly claimed responsibility for it!
• Daniel Biton, 42
• Yitzhak Elbaz, 57
• Boris Sharpolinsky, 64
• Semion Trakashvili, 60
• Yitzhak Yakhnis, 54
• Peretz Gantz, 61
• Anatoly Kushnirov, 36
• Anatoly Kushnirov, 37
• Masuda Amar, 59
• Swietlana Gelezniak, 32
• Celine Zaguri, 19
• Navon Shabo, 22
• Michael Yerigin, 16
• Matthew Eisenfeld, 25
• Sara Duker, 23
• Wael Kawasmeh, 23
• Ira Yitzhak Weinstein, 53
• Yonatan Barnea, 20
• Gavriel Krauss, 24
• Gadi Shiloni, 22
• Moshe Reuven, 19
• Arye Barashi, 39
• Iliya Nimotin, 19
• Merav Nahum, 19
• Sharon Hanuka, 19
• Arik Gaby, 16

God forbid that I should “taint” Hamas by mentioning this.

And here are just 7 of the prisoners released and the number of lives they took:
• Walid Abd al-Aziz Abd al-Hadi Anajas (36)
• Nasir Sami Abd al-Razzaq Ali al-Nasser Yataima (30)
• Maedh Waal Taleb Abu Sharakh (17)
• Tamimi Aref Ahmad Ahlam (15)
• Abd al-Hadi Rafa Ghanim (16)
• Muhammad Waal Muhammad Douglas (15)
• Muhammad Taher Mahmud al-Qaram (15)

I’m sorry, csteele, but I don’t see the point in continuing this discussion. You are more polite than some of the others commenting here and I thought that might indicate you were more reasonable, but you are not. When you won’t have the common decency to condemn terrorists or a terrorist organisation like Hamas, anything you say loses credibility and any attempt at rational debate is a waste of time.

Dear Montgomery,

Since you are not posting here any further I don't expect an answer but I will reply to your post anyway.

To start with I have been assuming you are not Jewish or more specifically an Israeli Jew. If you are I apologise since if I were in their shoes I know the release of these people would have me grinding my teeth in pure seething anger.

However if you are not I can only say I have been where you are now and reacted in much the same way.

I don't think God would forbid you tainting Hamas with the story of Hassan any more than he would forbid me tainting the IDF with the stories of Asma, Ahmed, Ibrahim, Seber, Yousef, and Ayub.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/20/israel

Yet your post has given me hope. The list you have posted appears to be taken from the one posted on Wikipedia here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Road_bus_bombings

Why hope? Because you appear to have stripped out the details showing that eight of the number were soldiers. Why do it? Why not just copy and paste? Why take the time to modify it? I think it is because your conscience knows it matters.

It is important to pause and also acknowledge the 48 injured because many of those will have been maimed for life.

Let me turn to the incident in Operation Cast Lead which finally convinced me I could not longer support one side over the other. It was the al-Fakhura School incident in which 40 civilians were killed plus one Hamas fighter with 55 injured. The school was a UN refugee centre housing hundreds of civilians fleeing the conflict. The IDF were given the coordinates by the UN yet they mortared the street out the front killing Palestinians both in the street and in the school grounds.

Cont,

Cont,

The first reports, erroneous as it turns out, said the school itself was bombed. Let me quote from Wikipedia;

“The IDF originally claimed that Hamas militants were inside the school. The Israeli army stated that Hamas militants were firing mortar shells from the school just moments before the strike. The IDF stated that a number of Hamas gunmen were inside the school, among them Imad and Hassan Abu-Askar, who are known to the IDF as Hamas rocket-launching operatives and claimed to have found their bodies following the attack. Israeli defence officials told The Associated Press that booby-trapped bombs in the school had triggered secondary explosions that killed additional Palestinians there. The IDF has released footage of militants launching rockets from a UNRWA school in a different incident in 2007 to support its account. Israeli army Spokeswoman Avital Leibovich claimed that a mortar had been fired from the school, and that Israeli forces responded with one mortar shell. She stated, "Let me be clear–I am not apologizing," in relation to the bombing of the school.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Fakhura_school_incident

All totally fabricated. Even to this day the IDF puts the casualties at just 12. I now never take any report from either side at face value.

I need to be told why I can not legitimately say a civilian to fighter ratio of 40:1 is worse than 17:9 of the Jaffa bus bombing or is it just me being unreasonable?

I'm wondering if you know the names of any of the 40, many of them children, who were massacred at al-Fakhura?

I remember reading in one of Rabbi Kushner's books about the Jewish custom of spilling a little wine, at Seder I think it was. This was in memory of the Egyptian children who perished through the plagues and Passover in order that the Jewish people be freed. It always impressed me that a very human, non-God ordained, tradition like this would develop.

“Our cup of joy is diminished even when our enemies suffer”

You have an over-active imagination, csteele. I edited the list because there’s a 350-word limit (and I’d already had to wait an hour to post as it was). I also omitted the nationalities, but you don’t mention that there were two US citizens listed. As for there being soldiers on the bus, they weren’t on duty, it was a civilian bus, and their lives are of no less value because they were soldiers. Not to me, at least!

You’ve proven my point in your response. The fact that you think a defence force response to an attack violating the national sovereignty of Israel (however heavy-handed it may or may not have been) is comparable to a suicide bombing by a terrorist organisation demonstrates your application of moral equivalence. As for the incident itself, you cite an out-dated and disputed Wiki article. And it’s not about numbers or ratios, it’s about what’s right and wrong. I believe the Allies killed over ten thousand French civilians when they liberated France from the Nazis, but that wasn’t wrong. Conversely, the Nazis only executed one civilian in Jersey during WWII, a Frenchman who’d landed there trying to sail to England, but that was wrong. Should the Allies be condemned because they killed thousands but the Nazis excused because they killed only one?! As for Hamas, you have ignored my point. Hamas has tainted itself by carrying out and claiming responsibility for terrorist attacks. They have embraced the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians as their modus operandi. Hamas call the Al-Fakhura incident a “holocaust” while in the same breath denying that the Holocaust of 6 million Jews ever happened. In contrast, the IDF have had numerous investigations, issued criminal indictments against its own soldiers, and also punished disciplinary offences.

I did not intend to reply, but you said you “need to be told” and I am a softie at heart. Perhaps you should think about your last paragraph a little more. Can you imagine Hamas, who deny the Holocaust and call for the destruction of Israel, ever remembering Jews as part of their tradition?

Pax.

Montgomery, the crux of your position appears to be that it is OK for the Israeli soldiers to kill Palestinian civilians but it is not Ok for Palestinian fighters to kill Israelis, whether they be soldiers or civilians, because the Palestinians are terrorists.

Why is it so much worse to be killed by a suicide bomb than by a helicopter gun ship?
Do you think that the families of the 1500 people (400 of them children) killed in Cast Lead grieve less because their loved ones were killed by soldiers? Or are Palestinians not capable of grief?

And don't go comparing it with the British killing Frenchmen during WWII. The British were driving out an occupying force. The Israelis are the occupying force.

That’s where I disagree with you, Mr Jones. I do not believe Israel is an occupying force. In fact, if anyone is occupying land they shouldn’t, it’s the Palestinians. After all, Palestinians have only existed since 1967 and are a political construct. I quote Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council: "There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel."
You can read more at http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm
And please don’t put words into my mouth. I never said it was okay for Israelis to kill civilians, and the Israelis clearly don’t think so either, otherwise why would they put their own soldiers on trial for war crimes and punish soldiers for failing to avoid unnecessary risks to Palestinian civilians? But you are quite right in saying that I don’t think it’s okay for Palestinians to kill Israeli civilians and that the Palestinians are responsible for terrorist attacks on Israel. In fact, I see in the news that they’re at it again….
But I see from your previous comments that you don’t actually think about what anyone else has said but simply go off on rants, so I won’t waste any time trying to convince you that terrorism is wrong, no matter who the perpetrator or victims. I just wanted to correct your misleading summary of my position.

It's only Israeli propagandists claim there's no occupation in the non-Israeli UN mandate of the mid East.

There's fundamental flaw in your pretense the Palestinians don't exist.

'... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'

Explain who are these semetic people that existed in Palestine when the UN mandated and created the non-secular state of Israel in 1948?

The following quotes show you don't believe the Palestinians don't exist.

You say

'After all, Palestinians have only existed since 1967 and are a political construct. '

and in the same post,

' I don’t think it’s okay for Palestinians to kill Israeli civilians and that the Palestinians are responsible for terrorist attacks on Israel.'

Now given that Israelis were acknowledged as killing Palestinians and Palestinians of killing Israelis prior to 1967 ... well you should have the jist of the stupidity of your contradictory claims.

Just to reinforce the obvious anomoly here is a few references showing acknowledgement of Palestinians by Israeli pre 1967.

1.

'The Palestinians must learn that they will pay a high price for Israeli lives.'

A conversation between David Ben-Gurion and Ariel Sharon.1953

2. Formation of Unit 101, 1953

'Unit 101 was an Israeli special operations unit founded and led by Ariel Sharon on orders from Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in August 1953. It was created to retaliate against a spate of Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians.'

3. Qibya 1953,

'The widely condemned attack on Qibya made the Israeli leadership forbid the IDF to directly target innocent civilians in the future.'
(Seems such actions forbidden by that edict has gone now ... too)

That these non-Israels now lay claim to calling themselves Palestinians, is quite legitimate and acceptable, regardless of their previously imposed citizenship status, especially in light of the fact non-semetic immigrants from Eastern Europe, lay claim to being of the Jewish religious part of the semetic race?

Dear Montgomery,

 You posted; "I do not believe Israel is an occupying force. In fact, if anyone is occupying land they shouldn’t, it’s the Palestinians." 

Since I rarely see this kind of statement from anyone other than Jewish folk I'm going to make that assumption about you and unless I am informed to the contrary please permit me to adjust my argument accordingly.

I was going to ask if you could regard any of those who are fighting to end the occupation as freedom fighters but it is rather moot since you don't believe there isn't an occupation. Doesn't this rather conveniently allow you to label anyone who responds with arms against arms as a terrorist? See you do have a conscience otherwise you wouldn't be making such an effort to circumvent it, or is just my overactive imagination playing up again? 

Do you see any anything incongruous about claiming the other side where so bad because of a refusal to recognize the Jewish State of Israel while in the same breath denying the very existence of the Palestinian people. 

You then said; "Hamas call the Al-Fakhura incident a “holocaust” while in the same breath denying that the Holocaust of 6 million Jews ever happened."

May I point out that in the same breath you have cast doubts over the validity of the massacre of their own people.

Please see the UN report on the Gaza conflict. The incident is examined from page 131.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/factfindingmission.htm

While I don't expect you to radically change your views, (who does at our age?), I would hope in quieter periods of reflection you will understand why reasonable and rational people, without a stake in this fight, see the absolute intransigence of both sides and can give fulsome support to neither.

Oops! The dangers of posting by phone. The 'isn't' should be an 'is' and the 'where' a 'were'. Sorry.

imajulianutter, it’s not my “pretense” [sic], it’s the Palestinian Liberation Organisation’s: "There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel." (Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council)

And there is a difference between Palestine (a geographical area), Palestinians (people who live in that geographical area), Palestine (a nation), and Palestinians (people of Palestinian ethnicity/identity). It is only the latter two I am disputing as a recent ‘construct’, and that on the word of various so-called Palestinians.

csteele, it seems there are also dangers in using subtlety. I said “IF anyone is occupying land”, but it is apparent my use of the conjunction if was rather too abstract for this discussion. I do apologise. However, I stand by my assertion that Israel is not an occupying force. And, no, it does not allow me “to label anyone who responds with arms against arms as a terrorist”. You clearly have not read my comments properly and I am not going to reiterate. The same goes for the rest of your comment. If you cannot understand what I have said previously, you will never understand. You have failed to condemn the most clear-cut cases of terrorism, and I see no point in continuing the discussion. (Ditto to imajulianutter)

Dear Montgomery,

Since accusing me of failing to grasp abstract concepts is the mildest of the labels you have pinned on me, again I take no offence.

To be clear I totally condemn the terrorism displayed by both sides in this conflict and attacking and terrorising civilian populations whether deliberate or a calculated by product sickens most of us who see this from afar.

Yet of all the incidents I have tabled the only one you found dis-quietening was the kidnap of the Muamar brothers which you said was 'shady'. Clear the mote from thy own eye brother.

With the pace coming out of our postings I am going to take the opportunity to address a few issues. The first is your statement after calling me disingenuous because the “The military vs civilian court point is a red herring. It wouldn’t make any difference to their guilt.”

Viewing the list of Palestinian prisoners released one can see many convictions heralding back to the late eighties and early nineties when the settlements really started to crank up. I felt it would be instructive to see how an Israeli terrorist might have been treated at the same time. Rabbi Moshe Leving was suspected of being heavily involved in the Israel terrorist group the Jewish Underground responsible for a series of car bomb attacks and of planting bombs on six Arab buses in Jerusalem in 1984 which “were timed to go off on Friday afternoon, presumably to coincided with people returning home from celebrating the Muslim holiday of Isra Wal Me'eraj .” Pearlier they had attacked an Islamic College claiming three lives and over 30 injured. The Rabbi was never convicted.

In 1988 the Rabbi again faced charges, this time for shooting dead an Palestinian shop keeper and wounding a customer. His sentence after a plea bargain? Five months in prison for which he served a grand total of 92 days. On his release he said “I hope that next time, I will be more careful and I won't miss the target.”

Yet if he had been a Palestinian?

'And there is a difference between Palestine (a geographical area), Palestinians (people who live in that geographical area), Palestine (a nation), and Palestinians (people of Palestinian ethnicity/identity). It is only the latter two I am disputing as a recent ‘construct’, and that on the word of various so-called Palestinians.'

Utter rubbish, you initially made no distinction at all and your initial comments were aimed at justifying the Israeli occupation by continuing a pretense: because the Palestinians didn't exist, which you now contradict, Israel isn't occupying anything.

Don't you see the absurdity of your position?

To make the positions you espouse perfectly clear to you, answer the following fairly simple questions.

If there is no occupation then why do you try to justifty the occupation?

What is the ethnicity of these Palestinians ... (i) those who live in the geographical Palestine, (ii) your Palestinian nation and (iii)your so-called recent 'construct' who are part of your so-called people of Palestinian ethnicity/identity?

Since you claim Palestine is a geographical region and suggest there is a Palestinian race when all mid-eastern peoples are of the semitic languages, you have left me somewhat bewildered by your explanations.
Do you think there is an Israeli race?

Where do these 'construct' Palestinians of the Palestinian Nation, who you claim don't exist, actually reside?

The description by the Hamas representative is pre-dated, as far back as 1948, by many on both sides, it is disingenuous to suggest it was not.

Montgomery is your reason for 'ditto', because you have you tied yourself up in knots by using just a tad to many weasel word justifications?

imajulianutter, the reason I used “ditto” was that I have had a look at your comment history and seen how you respond to reasonable people who give you reams of evidence for their contentions, and that is with irrational disrespect. Civilised conversation is impossible with you.

csteele, once again you are making totally immoral comparisons. Rabbi Moshe Levinger acted in self-defence, and what he actually said was “IF I'M IN A SITUATION OF DANGER AGAIN, I'll again open fire. I hope that next time, I will be more careful and I won't miss the target." He admitted he felt justified in shooting to kill as he was under attack, but he missed and was not responsible for the death of the man in question. As for the bombing of buses in 1984, that is pure slander. The police question all manner of suspects – indeed, parents are the first to be ‘suspected’ in a child abduction but that is no indication of their guilt – but the Rabbi was released, never charged, and three other Israelis were CONVICTED and given LIFE SENTENCES. So, you see, Israeli terrorists were treated in much the same manner – convicted and given life sentences! (The subsequent actions of President Herzog would be a legitimate object of criticism, I agree, but you cannot deny that justice was served in the Israeli courts.) The reaction of Israelis to these terrorists is also instructive. Unlike the Palestinians who hail Hamas as heroes, most Israelis condemned the Jewish Underground terrorism and it even caused a rift in their own organisation because many were shocked by and unaware of such plots.

Though you say you condemn terrorism, you continue to question the convictions of terrorists who have actually claimed responsibility for their murderous acts. Furthermore, you have deliberately misrepresented Rabbi Moshe Levinger in a defamatory fashion, accusing him of being a terrorist when others have been convicted for the crime in question. I find that abominable and will not be reading/commenting any further. Say what you will – I do not care for your good opinion!

Yep, tied up in your own knots.

My dear Montgomery,

I think the most grateful entity of your refusal to engage in further discussion is that poor high horse you keep leaping on to. One gets the feeling it will welcome the respite.

You again didn't answer a direct question. What if he had been a Palestinian and his victims Jewish? All you needed to do was point me to a single case where a Palestinian had served 92 days or there abouts for shooting a couple of Israelis in 'self defense'.

If I am to be accused of defaming the Rabbi then I should do the job properly. I regard him as a lying, belligerent, aggressive, murdering, bullying, religious fundamentalist terrorist not averse to assaulting six year olds and the fact that you are prepared to leap to his defense illustrates the tragedy of the price the occupation exacts on the Jewish people.

In the case where he assaulted a Palestinian woman and her two daughters the judge ruled evidence from the Palestinian witnesses were from 'interested parties' and so dismissed it. He the proceeded to do the same for the two witnesses from the IDF. The Rabbi again walked free.

What would a Palestinian receive for assaulting an Israeli woman and her two daughters? No need to answer.

Red herring?