Dear csteele:

It is not even a matter of what situation needs to be fixed first. The concern is that criticism is solely directed at Israel, there is hardly any attempt to fix any other issues at all. It is nothing more than an exercise in Israel-bashing. The frequent apologists for the policies of terrorist organisations such as Hamas are interested not in justice, but in the continuous demonisation of Israel. We are getting weekly anti-Israel pieces, but seldom, if at all, any criticism of the caste system in India, to use your example. Most of those critics do not have any real interest in human right issues, unless it involves Israel (or the US).

Israel was shelling Gaza in response to terrorist attacks, not in an attempt to dislodge or exterminate the population there (in contrast to the stated policy of Hamas). The sequence of events is important to note here: The Israeli withdrawal led to Hamas shelling which in turn led to Israeli response. It is the violence from Gaza that triggered Israeli response, not the other way around. In addition, while the Israeli response is aimed at terrorists and their infrastructure, Hamas actions are aimed almost exclusively at Israeli civilians.

I’m sorry, but any comparison to the Tibet situation is still not valid. Israel has signed an agreement with the Palestinians on a two-state solution. It has offered to the Palestinians some 95% of the West Bank territory. How is this offer consistent with your claim that Israel “has little intention of leaving the West Bank”?

Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, uprooting settlements in the process. In return all it got back from the Palestinians was a sharp increase in violence. Israeli settlement activity was frozen for nearly a year at the request of the Palestinians, only to find that the Palestinians were still not interested in having any meaningful discussion. How are any of these actions similar to Tibet?

As you say, no dice my friend.

Dear Shadow Minister,

According to the Nuremberg Principles 'wanton destruction' is a crime. To use weapons which create wanton destruction which has no discernible military purpose is a crime under the Nuremberg Principles whether the specific weapons have been outlawed or not.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390

Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

...

(b) War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

Cluster bombs are an extremely effective weapon against entrenched infantry or personnel. Your claim that they have no discernible military use has no basis in fact, as is your claim that their use constitutes a war crime.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I did not claim cluster bombs have no military use. You either didn't read or didn't understand my post. The manner in which they were used in Lebanon was wanton destruction. They were dropped in the last few days of an incursion by a military which was preparing to withdraw. They were left to be picked up by children or other non-combatants.

That was a war crime. Had the same weapons been used against a military force it would not have been a war crime. There was no discernible military purpose in the way they were used. That makes it a war crime.

Dear davidf,

Thank you for your reply.

I agree with you that fear is such a motivator whether it be promoted by unchecked racism or manufactured by government propaganda, or explicit actions such as drone strikes or rocket attacks, or simply a product of history.

I understand the comment “There is a factor involving Israel that does not exist with many other nations.” as I do with “The fact of the Holocaust is no excuse for present oppression, but it is a factor in explaining it.”. But I'm not sure it explains the Israeli government's actions.

It should be noted that the Palestinian people must surely have a far greater question mark over their future as their occupiers (with what appears to be rather unshakable support from the world's only superpower) are seemingly determined to never accept an independent Palestinian state.

This is my question; if Israel is so fearful about its existence then why is it so determined to upset the rest of the world with its actions, much of which had been supportive of it in the past? Why indeed would it risk the ire of the US, without whose support, particularly militarily but also in the UN, Israel would find the going far tougher?

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the current crop of seemingly hyper-Zionists which control the government in Israel care more about the ideology than the safety and future of their country.

Cont..

Cont..

When you write “Israel might be wiped out by its neighbours.” there is the obvious impression that it would be obliterated as a State and the 'Jewish people pushed into the sea'. I totally agree that many of these neighbours want to see an end to the current incarnation of the Zionist dream if only through granting the right of return to the millions of Palestinian refugees. South Africa did not disappear as a nation when the cancer of apartheid was finally excised from it nor would the State of Israel. Nor would it have to stop being the homeland of the Jewish people, it just would not exist as a Jewish nation with all the oppression, injustice and killing that has come to signify.

Ultimately isn't this is an exercise in utilising oppression, slaughter, brutality and military might to solve a demographic problem? It is however increasingly unacceptable to the rest of the world and unsustainable for the future of Israelis and Palestinians. I share you pessimism.

Dear Avw,

The comparison of Palestine to the Tibetan situation, despite your objections, in entirely appropriate. China has swallowed over 50% of what Tibetans regard as their country. The rest is now called the Tibet Autonomous Region which is governed by a Tibetan Chairman but the real control is exercised by China. It has has young idealistic monks self immolating themselves to protest the continuing occupation, an act that the Chinese government refers to as “Terrorism”. I could go on.

You claim “We are getting weekly anti-Israel pieces”. That is so misrepresentative of the facts as to be laughable. Mr Singer has by far the greater preponderance of articles on this site, all staunchly pro-Israel to the point of outright slander and racism. If the article count reflected world opinion then less than 5% of them would be supportive of the current Israeli regime.