Nothing could justify inviting Palestinian leaders here. Palestinians are enemies of the Free World just as much as they are enemies of Israel.

“Australian journalists should also be ready to cross examine the Israeli Prime Minister in relation to the latest illegal expansion of Israeli settlements”? No. Australian 'journalists', like Professor Rees himself and hard Left drones who the Israeli PM would make mince meat of.

Of course Netanyahu should “thumb his nose” at international 'law'. The manipulators of international so-called law have proven themselves to be deadly enemies of Israel, and allies of the militant Islam that drives Palestinians. International 'law' is a joke - part of the global Left's attempt at World Government.

“If Mr. Netanyahu comes, the Australian government will also be on trial.” What a load of childish codswallop! ''

Professor Rees would save us a lot of boredom if he just stated how much he hates Israel.

Oh dear. more false accusations will now probably
follow the author of this article. Publishing anything
even mildly criticising Israel guarantees an abusive
response as Antony Loewenstein learned with his book,
"My Israel Question." There is a price to pay for
speaking uncomfortable truths. The message is clear
anyone who dares to criticise Israel will receive
abuse. You're either with us or against us.

What a shame. There must be a way for Israel to exist
securely while allowing justice for the Palestinian
people. A sustainable future for Israel and the
Palestinians should be our central concern. We should
all support the rights of Israelis to live in peace
and security, but not at the expense of the Palestinians.
As Loewenstein stated - 'Why do we constantly hear
about Israel's need for 'security', as though that
justifies erecting walls, checkpoints, barriers,
stealing of Palestinian lands and houses, settlement
expansions? Why is the world told to believe that
the Palestinians should only accept peace on Israel's terms?"

Loewenstein says, "I've come to the sad realisation that
many in the West simply don't like Arabs or Palestinians
very much and therefore believe that Israel has the right
to treat them as they wish."

In all of this, the news media plays a crucial role since
they are the major conduit for the debate. Of course the
powerful Zionist lobby helps a great deal, as does the
support of the USA.

It is time for a radical rethinking of the conflict -
and for the world community to finally take a moral
stand. Otherwise sadly things will go on as they have to
date.

Dearest Foxy,

One problem with recognising a state of Palestine is which Palestine do we mean - the one whose borders coincide with the 1967 cease-fire line, or some other model, one with the 1948 borders perhaps ?

Or the one favoured by the PA and Hamas, i.e. including all of Israel ? i.e. by their definition, the 'recognition' of Palestine means the denial of the recognition of Israel.

After all, what does it mean NOT to recognise Israel's right to exist ? One answer: that another state claims Israel's territory as its own. So unless 'recognition' comes with a clear definition of what and where Palestine is, it's a back-door way of denying the right of Israel to exist.

Does Israel have a right to exist ? I think so. As a religious state ? Yes, if that's the case for so many other states: Islamic republics like Iran and Turkey, Islamic kingdoms like Saudi Arabia, and perhaps others.

Can Israel remain formally a democratic state AND one based on Jewish principles ? Yes, if those principles are made to accord with what we consider to be standard rights and obligations under a democracy, equality before the law, etc.

John Kerry battled to get the support for the two-state solution. Of course, Netanyahu and others kept muddying the waters by building new settlements. But that could, perhaps, be justified by the refusal of the Palestinian authorities to recognise Israel, i.e. using settlement building as an 'encouragement' to come to the table.

Ultimately, I would support a single-state, democratic, non-religious state across both countries, but that's probably a 22nd century pipe-dream. In the meantime, I would support a two-state solution, with NO more settlement building.

Love always,

Joe

Hey Guys

Remember Israelis are mostly white. So it goes without saying white rule is worse than brown Sunni (including Palestinian) and Shiite Muslims constently killing many more of themselves in:

- Iraq
- Syria
- Lebanon, and
- Pakistan

The Left feel guilty about Whites actually being in the Middle Eastern Muslim Paradise.

Also the Left have a sneaking hatred of the subset of "Capitalists" who are Jews.

a real friend to the 'Palestinians'will tell them the truth. Israel have been worshipping in Jerusalem for centuries. Read the history books. The 'holy' place for muslims is Mecca not Jerusalem. A real friend of the Palestinians would tell them its not a good idea to fire thousands of rockets into Israel. A real friend would tell the Palestinians not to use their kids as human shields and as one former PM said that when they love their children as much as they hate then peace might have a chance. A real friend would tell the Palestinians that they are not entitled to the land that God gave Israel thousands of years ago. The lefites are no true friend of the Palestinians or Israel.

The road map to a two state solution needs to be back on the table and the illegal settlements must not only stop, but torn down!

Simply put, this patent bastardry is only harming the peace process and moving it ever further away! And at metaphorical light speed! And absolutely needs to be addressed with unwavering resolve, if Israel is to have a future, let alone, peace!

Imagine if Hitler (the empathy of a borrow load of bricks) were instead a far sighted visionary and able to look his and Germany's future in the face, so to speak?

Imagine then if you can, just how many of his decisions would have been rolled back or completely abandoned?

Then apply that logic and rationale to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict! I double dare you!

Nothing less is in play! Understand?
Alan B.

Dear Joe,

I have always supported a two state solution,
with no further settlements.

I'm glad that we agree.

Comparing the democratically elected leader of Israel to a Hamas warlord is ridiculous.

The Palestinians have been offered a separate state with much of the land captured in 1967, but walked away. Today they refuse to even sit at the peace table, and cry victim while trying to murder Israelis.

The way this is going in 2067 Israel will have built its walls around the present West bank and Gaza, settled the rest, and the palestinians will be left with nothing but hatred and nothing else.

Not being too bright, it seems to me that there is Palestine and there is Israel, each in different territories. So why don't they (how naïve !) sit down and agree, then everybody can get on with building their respective states, and even co-operating where necessary ?

From that child-like point of view, if Israel wants to build a wall on its borders, then so be it: every country theoretically has that right. It's not Apartheid to do so, IF one group has its sovereign country (and borders) and another has its too. A wall marks the border. End of.

Of course, yes, there are the daily migrations for work, from Palestine to Israel. Perhaps if Palestine focussed on building up its economy, many of those workers would be employed in Palestine.

But as has been pointed out on another thread, in Islam, once land has been taken over by Moslems, it must forever remain Muslim. For those who are not Muslim, or don't fully agree with Islamic 'principles', that means nothing, it doesn't hold water. After all, in a country conquered by Moslems, what if the pre-existing population declared something similar, that their land would forever remain theirs, regardless of its conquest ? That might accord with international law by the way. But what privileges Islam ? It's all quite unilateral and arbitrary.

Joe

I find it amusing that people pumping for a Palestinian state are totally ignoring fact that Palestinians and their Iranian backers do not believe that the state of Israel should exist.

Come on folks. How about a little rational thinking. Too many of you are confusing blindness with kindness.

Dear Joe,

Here's a few facts for you. They're taken from Antony
Loewenstein's book, "My Israel Question." A thoroughly
researched work and published by Melbourne University
Press and required reading for year 12 high school
students:

Israel's 'security fence' has existed in the minds of
numerous Israeli politicians for many years, even
during the first intifada. The idea of separating the
two peoples gained currency within Israel especially
during the years of the second intifada. Some of the
barrier is wire mesh while other sections are high
concrete walls. In 2003 a total length of 650 kilometres
was approved by Sharon's Cabinet, and building commenced.

The barrier snakes across the West Bank and frequently
surrounds and steals Palestinian land and towns. Israel
claims the fence has saved numerous Israeli lives from
Palestinian terror, while the Palestinians rightly claim
that Israel is using the fence's path to determine future
borders of the Israeli state. Israel's Supreme Court
has ruled that sections of the barrier violate Palestinian
human rights but has accepted Israel's justification of the
fence as a security measure.

The international response has been largely negative. In 2004
the International Court of Justice found that the barrier
broke international law, primarily because of its negative
impact on the Palestinian residents along its route and
because of Israel's attempt to construct the wall on
occupied territory rather than along the 1967 'Green line.'

Loewenstein explains that during his visit to the West Bank
in early 2005, he spoke to many Palestinians who told him
of their inability to reach their land because of the wall or
of the severe difficulty experienced by their children in reaching
schools only a few kilometres away. It was hard for him
not to conclude that the Israeli authorities cared little about
the wall's effects on the Palestinian population.

Loewenstein believes that the true goal of Sharon's plan had
been to maintain control of the most fertile ground while
relegating responsibility for the Palestinian population
to a local administration.

to be continued...

cont'd ...

Dear Joe,

All three major political parties in the 2006 Israeli elections
essentially argued for the same outcome: for the Palestinians
to disappear, or be made invisible to Israeli eyes. Sharon's
unilateral strategy has survived his incapacitation. Some
30 years ago, Moshe Dayan explained the thinking that continues
to this day. Loewenstein tells us that Israelis should tell the
Palestinians in the territories that 'you shall continue to
live like dogs, and whoever wishes, may leave, and we shall
see where this process will lead.' The occupation should
remain permanent in one form or another, Dayan argued.

Loewenstein further tells us that the situation for the
Palestinians remains dire. The death of Arafat in 2004 and
the election of Mahmoud Abbas as President in January 2005
was seen as heralding a new era. However, the Hamas victory
in the 2006 Palestinian elections - primarily intended as a
rebuke to the corruption and stalled peace negotiations
conducted by Fatah - signalled a rocky road ahead, given that
the USA and Israel have refused to negotiate with the
democratically elected Palestinian government.

Loewenstein says that peace will not arrive without
fundamental changes. "Every Western pundit or official who
pontificates about Palestinian terrorism needs to ask how
forgetting the fact of the occupation is supposed to stop
terrorism", Edward Said wrote in 2001. Arbitrary arrest,
incarceration without trial, the killing of civilians,
inhumane roadblocks and settlement expansion all lead the
Palestinians to one conclusion: the Israelis, and their
US backers, aren't serious about peace.

Dear Foxy,

Please let me qualify my throw-away remark:

"..... if Israel wants to build a wall on its borders, then so be it: every country theoretically has that right. It's not Apartheid to do so, IF one group has its sovereign country (and borders) and another has its too. A wall marks the border. End of."

I certainly don't support encroachment by Israeli authorities on Palestinian land - as we've both agreed, a two-state solution requires the recognition by BOTH Israel and Palestine of the borders as at the time of the 1967 War, or some other mutually agreed point in time. So no encroachments: return of stolen lands. UN resolutions have reinforced that position.

Should there be a wall along an agreed border ? It probably wouldn't be necessary IF there was an agreement. It's not a very friendly gesture. But it is a country's right to build one. Still, it's a tragedy that anybody should think that one is necessary.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Thank You for further explaining your position.

We can only hope that as Loewenstein writes -
"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."

If in the 90s Arafat had accepted the settlement negotiated with the UN that granted Palestine the vast majority of the west bank, this issue would have been settled, the PLO at the last minute caved into the right wing of his organisation that couldn't stomach agreeing to recognise the right of Israel to exist or ceding one inch to Israel.

Since then the Arabs have refused to even start negotiations without Israel accepting the 1967 green line as the border even though it includes the old Jewish quarter that Jordan captured in 1948 and then expelled the Jews, desecrated the synagogues and blocked jewish access to their most holy site the temple mount.

What I see is that in another 50yrs, the Arabs will still be as intransigent, and the existing borders will be walled and accepted as the borders between Israel and Palestine.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Loewenstein:

"Arafat refused the offers on the table because
they were too vague and did not appreciate the
requirements of the Palestinian people. The USA
hoped to bring the parties together, but was never
an honest broker and always preferred Israeli terms.
Barak hoped the Palestinians would accept Israel's
rules, then dared to suggest that Arafat was
incapable of accepting the existence of the Jewish
state. All should share the blame, but the power
inbalance of the negotiations - the Palestinians
had already agreed to give up much of their historic
homeland - almost guaranteed a disappointing outcome."

The media coverage of this and of other issues
concerning this conflict is not reported accurately.
We may well question the overall media coverage -
Loewenstein:

1) Why was Arafat's rejection of the 2000 peace deal
rarely presented as anything other than a refusal to accept
peace?

2) Why was there such an incomplete and inaccurate media
understanding of what was offered by Israel in 20003?

3) Why were there so few local Palestinian voices heard in the
Australian coverage?

4) Why do the Australian media run so many overseas reports,
but rarely carry perspectives from the Arab or left-wing
Israeli press?

5) Why do the Australian media seem to accept the argument
that the USA will be a central and constructive participant
in any future peace talks? After all, from 1990 to 2000
the US provided military aid to Israel worth more than
US$18 billion. Since 1993, the Palestinians have received
US1.7 billion in US economic assistance via US aid projects.
It's hardly the record of a neutral broker.

Robert Fisk wrote, "A vicious campaign of slander is being
waged against any journalist or activist who dares criticise
Israeli policies or those that shape them. He concluded
that the situation has only worsened in recent years.
"You've got to fight," he wrote. "It's the only conclusion
I can draw as I see the renewed erosion of our freedom to
discuss the Middle East. It is simply an attempt to shut us up.
It must not succeed."

Fat chance!

Foxy,

Firstly Loewenstein and Fisk are essentially pro palestinian activists who consistently ignore the shocking behaviour of Hamas and ignore the legitimate security concerns of Israel.

The offer that Israel made to Arafat in 2000 included many major concessions that at the time (when there was desire to make peace) many Israelis were deeply unhappy with. Arafat could have accepted, settled his people on an area far greater than they presently have, and then moved forward to ensure prosperity for his people.

His refusal was a prime example where the perfect was the enemy of the good.

Nearly 2 decades from Arafat failure, the palestinians are further than ever from settlement and bear the blame almost entirely.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Firstly neither Antony Loewenstein nor Robert Fisk
are pro-palestinian activists. Nor do they ignore
the legitimate security concerns of Israel. And
saying so is not only vile, but dishonest.

On the contrary both men are journalists and authors
and unlike you, they believe in not accepting the dominant
narrative and getting to the truth of the issues.
Both are Middle East experts who do their research.
Fisk has been the Middle East correspondent since 1976
for various media. He holds more British and International
journalism awards than any other foreign correspondent and
has been awarded the Press Awards Foreign Reporter of the
Year seven times. He's also an Arabic speaker.

Loewenstein is a free-lance journalist and author who's not
only published several books but has written for The Guardian,
Haaretz, The Washington Post, Sydney Morning Herald, The
Australian, The Bulletin, to name just a few.

Foxy,

Pretending that AL and RF are not deeply biased and viscerally anti Israel is vile and dishonest.

They treat Israel's right to self defense on par with a desire for high speed broadband, and Hamas's 20 000 odd rockets fired at Israeli civilians on par with a teenager blowing off steam.

To make it worse, they air brush over the murderous tyranny that controls Gaza, and ignore the regular executions of opposition members and the appropriation of aid money to accrue weapons and build tunnels into Israel.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Have you read Loewenstein's or Fisk's works?
Historians and Middle-Eastern experts disagree
with your false claims. Both men are investigative
journalists and ask relevant questions concerning
this conflict. They don't air-brush anything.
On the contrary. They present both sides of the
conflict not just the accepted Israeli version.

However I am not going to argue with you any further.
I no longer have the patience.

Instead -

I'm off to visit my mum at her nursing home and then
go see the movie, "Lion."

Cheers.

Foxy,

To the contrary, I have read quite a few articles from both authors, and I can see almost constant criticisms of Israel and as yet not one piece of serious criticism of Hamas. Their bias is so extreme that I am comfortable in describing them as activists for the palestinians.

As for Historians, I have read widely on Israel and the middle east from 1914 to today and I have yet to find any historians of renown that are so bent against Israel, and I would contend that far more agree with me than you.

It is patently ridiculous to expect Israel to make concessions whilst the palestinians are unwilling to even sit down to negotiate or even acknowledge the right of Israel to exist.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Dr Ilan Pappe, the former Senior Lecturer at the
University of Haifa, Israel, would totally disagree
with your take on the issues as would one of Israel's
leading journalists - Amira Hass and many others.
By the way Both Fisk and Loewenstein have reported
on the actions of Hamas quite extensively so for
someone who claims to have read both authors your
arguments do not stand up.

Writing a book like "My Israel Question," was as
Loewenstein explains a collaborative affair.
Over several years he did his research with quite
a number of people in Australia, the USA, Israel,
and Lebanon. People like Mohammed Alawi, Tariq Ali,
Uri Avnery, David Bernstein, Barbara Bloch,
Gidon Bromberg, Scott Burchill, the late Richard Carlton,
Matthew Carney, Chantal Chalier, Noam Chomsky, Fadia
and Said Daibes-Murad, Shraga Elam, Dror Etkes, Norman
Finkelstein, Amira Hass, Jonathan Holmes, Jane Hutcheon,
Gideon Levy, Robert Manne, David Marr, Chris McGreal, Alex
Mitchell, Ed O"Loughlin, Jon Henley, Matan Kaminer, Ali
Kazak, Randa Kattan, Ron Pundak, Stuart Rees, Tanya Reinhart,
Craig Roberts, Mumammed Rodaina, Peter Rodgers, Amin Saikal,
Chris Sidoti, Guy Spiegelman, and Mara and Sam Wisel.

There are some whose names Loewenstein is unable to mention -
subject to personal and professional threats - however
he still thanks them for standing up and being heard when it
is much easier to remain silent.

There's many more names - but I won't continue to list
them all. We should all be grateful to all these various
experts and advisers who have provided invaluable
assistance to Loewenstein's work, ironing out the bugs
and improving clarity.

May they continue this conversation until the conflict is
resolved. As for me? - I have no further patience with
you.

I'm not a therapist. Solve your own skewed perspectives.

Foxy,

Your reference to quote:

"Ilan Pappé is an Israeli historian and socialist activist."

A random sample shows that the other references are also anti Israeli activists. Very popular amongst the left whinge.

Secondly here is an article by AL on life in Gaza. Note that while Hamas is mentioned, there is not a jot of criticism.

So Foxy, I would suggest you find you own therapist for your own skewed perspectives

Even Amnesty international thinks Hamas are war criminals:

"Rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian militant groups during last summer's conflict in Gaza amounted to war crimes, Amnesty International says.

Militants displayed a "flagrant disregard" for the lives of civilians during the 50-day war, a report found. Six civilians in Israel and 13 Palestinians are believed to have been killed as a result of such attacks."

Dear Shadow Minister,

Left-Wing Whinge?

How original.

Then I guess Amnesty is part of that "Left-Wing" scenario.
Because it has also criticised Israel (Reuters) and
accused it of war crimes during the conflict.
Apart from the many deaths, at least 16,245
homes were destroyed or rendered uninhabitable.

The Palestinians have joined the International Criminal
Court since the end of the war. A move opposed by
Israel. And, the ICC is examining possible war crimes
in the conflict.

I guess if the results should go against Israel - it
will have been a biased -" anti-Semitic, Left-Wing conspiracy".
And you will be able to congratulate yourself on being
right. Or is it "Right-Wing?"

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote;

“So Foxy, I would suggest you find you own therapist for your own skewed perspectives”

What the hell? How dare you!

You sir are the epitome of shill for Zionist extremism. Most Australians, barring this bunch of rightwing ideologues we have in government, see what is happening to the Palestinians as wrong, that they are not getting a fair go, that the ritual slaughter of hundreds of Palestinians totally offensive to any notion of justice.

Those who are a little more across the issue recognise that the Israeli government is stealing Palestinian land at a furious rate, is occupying, brutalising, imprisoning torturing and Palestinians and have absolutely no intention of ever recognising a Palestinian state.

Most other countries in the world share that view which is why we see UN resolutions against the actions of the Israeli government.

I think we have decided that you sir are not Jewish, that your support for extremist Zionism is bourne purely from your version rightwing ideology, one that lets you ignore what most other nations in the world see as self evident; that the actions of the current Israeli government are morally repugnant, against the Geneva convention, against international law and against any chance of resolving this conflict peacefully.

Your is the skewed perspective and further more it is dishonourable.

Dear Steele,

Thank You.

There's a link that may be of interest to you:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/11/28/10-zionist-arguments-youve-encountered-but-didnt-have-answers-to/

Part of its conclusion states -

"For peace and justice to be realized, the lies have to
be exposed and the true nature of the conflict must come
to light. There needs to be a paradigm shift in which it
is no longer feasible for mainstream media outlets -
which effectively serve the role of manufacturing comment
for the US policy of supporting Israel's crimes against
the Palestinians - to mindlessly parrot US and Israeli
government claims and peddle deceitful propaganda."

"Zionist apologists for Israel's behaviour employ numerous
talking points to try to justify its crimes. Knowing how
to effectively counter the propaganda is key to effecting
the necessary paradigm shift for peace to be achieved."

That is why people like Antony Loewenstein, Robert Fisk
and many others (including yourself) are so important in
having this debate continue.

SR,

You have become synonymous with bombastic hypocrisy, and once again you don't disappoint. Firstly I was simply reflecting Foxy's comment back on her and it goes far further than this, it would appear that you are a shill for the thinly disguised anti semetic racism that is at the core of the so called "progressive" movement.

My "conservative" ideology requires that I apply the same standards to all parties in a situation, an obligation that so called progressives don't share.

Israel is prepared to sit at the negotiating table, but Hamas and the PLO are not. Who do the left whingers want to punish?

Hamas fires >10 000 rockets at civilian areas (Geneva convention violation) in Israel.
Hamas does this from crowded civilian areas of their own (another GC violation)
Hamas stores munitions and materiel in schools and Hospitals (another GC violation)

Israel responds and in an attempt to limit civilian casualties uses precision strikes in those civilian areas from which Hamas are firing (not a GC violation)

etc etc

Dear Shadow Minister,

9 facts about the Israel-Palestine Conflict on Which We
Can all Agree:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/9-israel-palestine-facts_b_5643077.html

Dear Shadow Minister,

This should be pretty easy to determine. A simple question is all it takes;

Do you believe the movement by Israel of settlers in to the West Bank is against the Geneva Convention and if it is why on earth should the Palestinians sit down and negotiate while this war crime continues?

As to the 10,000 rocket figure the IDF fired 30,000 artillery rounds into Gazan population centers in three weeks during the last mass killings, each with far higher lethality than the Palestinian home made rockets. Add to that thousands of tank and mortar shells along with missiles from aircraft and this can be seen for what it represents, a truly horrendous onesided slaughter.

Finally the anti-Semitic slur was expected but coming from a supporter of radial Zionism it really means diddly squat.

SR,

Lying again?

30 000 artillery shells fired into the heart of Gaza would have killed 10s of 1000s not the roughly 1600 half of which were Hamas combatants.

From which pile of excrement did you dig up this drivel?

Foxy,

Quoting from a site that claims that Israel does not have the right to exist pins you as an anti semite racist.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Could you kindly show me where in the link I
gave you does it say that Israel does not
have a right to exist. As a matter of fact
the link clearly states "Israel has the
right to exist and is here to stay ..."

I chose the site because it was in my opinion
an even-handed, well balanced article that
equally blamed both sides for the conflict
and made it quite clear that peace cannot exist
without justice for BOTH sides.

And you call me names for that.

Well Sir, you've truly crossed the line this time.
You owe my an apology and until you apologise
I shall have nothing further to do with you.

Dear Shadow Minister,

First an anti-Semetic now a liar? Running true to form I see.

As to the “pile of excrement did you dig up this drivel” you know me better than that. This figure was taken from the IDF's own journal: “Taking Stock”, BaYabasha, Ground Forces Journal, October 2014, No. 29, p. 47 (Hebrew).

Here it is being quoted by an Israeli human rights group btselem.

During the fighting, the military made extensive use of artillery inside residential areas. An article published in the Ground Forces’ journal noted that about 14,500 tank shells and 35,000 other artillery shells were fired during the fighting. According to a story in Israeli daily Haaretz, a senior general staff officer confirmed that the military had fired more shells than it had planned to, probably four times as many as during Operation Cast Lead.
http://www.btselem.org/download/201501_black_flag_eng.pdf

“In the massive artillery bombardment of the Gaza Strip in Operation Protective Edge, the Israel Defense Forces fired 30,000 shells, many of them into densely populated areas. That, according to figures issued by the army on July 29, after three weeks of fighting.”
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.610733

Actually you are perfectly correct in finding it hard to believe, inflicting this sort of bombardment in one of the most populated areas on the planet is going to cause tremendous damage, widespread injury, death and destruction and severe psychological trauma which it did.

And you are part of the cheer squad that let them get away with it. Supporting extremist Zionism takes its toll.

Dear Foxy,

It really is worrying isn't it.

We have both been longterm forum members you like I will obviously remember Shadow Minister as someone who certainly took a more conservative position but who was still a poster one could hold a decent discussion with. Now it seems it is just alt-right, mantra driven responses slagging off at anyone not lining up behind his alternative, poorly researched (if at all) facts.

He is not alone. The tone of debate has declined dramatically and I am inclined to lay the blame at Mr Abbott's feet but then again I may be wrong.

Dear Steele,

I genuinely did try with my last link.
I chose it because I thought it was a plea
for justice for BOTH sides.

I would like
someone to define what a "Semite" actually
is. False accusations of "anti-Semitism" are
so predictable and are meant as a
deterrance. They're usually done by people
who've run out of arguments. The same applies
to accusations of "racism."
I stand by my record on this forum.
I've never judged people according
to their race, religion, gender, colour,
et cetera. I've always taken people as I find them
and I judged them by their behaviour.

Anyway, Thank You for continuing to post.
It keeps my sane because yes - I have
certainly noticed the dropping of the bar
in recent discussions. Hopefully, things
will again pick up with some new membership.
Please keep on posting.

Steel and Redux,

I doubt very much that the tone of the debate will improve as I believe it to be the intent of SM and his like to become more like the slime and scum in One Nation in a feeble effort to try and court back some of the primary vote.

..

It's the same with the settlements in Israel .. in that my appraisal of them is that they are so prone to fits of paranoia that they have long since avowed never to give any person/group or state the opportunity to do to them again what the Nazis did.

So, knowing full well that building settlements on Palestinian land will antagonise them (not to mention their general inhumane and ill-treatment of them by way of collective punishment) they do wait like trap door spiders waiting to pounce. And when a minority of hot heads attack them out they jump and say "you see, they are nothing if not violent, and we must not give them the opportunity to hurt us."

Thus, for a long time I have been opposed to a 2 state solution but would rather see the Palestinians evicted and sent far away. It is a ludicrous proposition to want to make such mortal enemies to sleep almost in the same bed.

It is a cruel strategy that they employ, as if they wait for an entire people to be cowed into submission before they will extend common decency to them .. food/medicine/housing and so on. And that is where I would pick-a-bone with them .. their policies of collective punishment.

Rather, if they were sincere they would be nice to them, provide them what they need to have some semblance of dignity and I believe that will have a calming effect to some extent. Thereafter they must deal with the militants as they always have.

Foxy,

Your previous link to which I was referring "To say that Israel has a “right to exist” is effectively to assert that the Zionists’ unilateral declaration of Israel’s existence......No state has a “right to exist”. This concept is a propaganda device invented by the US and Israel."

In another article you linked:" firing rockets at a civilian population is by definition a war crime. Just because “not as many” Israeli civilians have been killed does nothing to mitigate the fact that firing rockets at civilians is a war crime. Likewise, Hamas cannot hoard illegal weapons in UN schools, especially near refugees, and pretend they are not putting innocent Palestinians in harms way."

So as widely acknowledged Hamas started the war deliberately firing at Israel civilian positions, and used its own civilians as human shields. Thus the majority of civilian deaths can clearly be laid at the feet of Hamas.

SR,

You said "the IDF fired 30,000 artillery rounds into Gazan population centers" but the link you provided did not support this. After I challenged you, you modified this "many of them into densely populated areas"

As I said before 30 000 artillery shells fired into population centers would have killed far far more people, especially considering that of the roughly 2000 casualties, about 1/2 were combatants.

After the cowardly and criminal use of human shields the relatively low civilian casualties can be attributed to Israeli restraint.

An independent report by senior military staff of various countries (USA, Germany, Australia etc) concluded:

http://www.high-level-military-group.org/pdf/hlmg-assessment-2014-gaza-conflict.pdf

204. We are under no doubt that Israel did not want this conflict and sought actively to avoid it,pursuing avenues of de-escalation in every phase of the conflict. Israel’s extensive civil defence measures played a significant part in allowing its political and military leaders the strategic space to be deliberate in expanding military operations in each phase only once avenues to avoid escalation were exhausted. Ultimately, Israel had no choice but to defend its citizens from the rocket assault launched by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups and the threat posed by the cross-border assault tunnels. The responsibility for the outbreak of the 2014 Gaza Conflict must be squarely ascribed to Hamas, which sought violent confrontation in an effort to seek to improve its strategic situation.

205. We can be categorically clear that Israel’s conduct in the 2014 Gaza Conflict met and in some respects exceeded the highest standards we set for our own nations’ militaries. It is our view that Israel fought an exemplary campaign, adequately conceived with appropriately limited objectives, and displaying both a very high level of operational capability as well as a total commitment to the Law of Armed Conflict. It did this under challenging circumstances on a formidably complex urban battlefield. This is not to say that the IDF did not make mistakes, which are inevitable in the context of urban warfare against an enemy such as Hamas, that purposefully hides behind a civilian population.

Nor does it mean that there are no individual instances of potentially unlawful conduct by individual personnel, as can be expected in all armies. Where such mistakes or violations were suspected and are confirmed however, these occurred in direct contravention of the deep seated ethos of respect for the Law of Armed Conflict throughout the IDF that we observed, as well as of the extensive practical integration into training, planning and operations of measures to ensure lawful conduct.