We can't bear pictures of the dead. Hezbollah want to see nothing else

AT 6.30am on Sunday, from a two-tree hillock on Hampstead Heath, I stood looking out over London — me, a few feral parakeets and a little black dog. The city was mauve and placid; no sirens, no explosions, no dead children. I had just heard the overnight news from Qana, and I wasn’t imagining that I loved my three children any more than the Lebanese man who that night had lost his three.

They’d been given warning to leave their homes, but it seems that the Shalhoubs and the Hashems — the two large families who were wiped out in the bombing — just didn’t have the money or the ability to make the journey. Even before the events at Qana, David Miliband is said to have asked at a meeting of the Cabinet: “Where will this all end?” On Monday a moderate member of the Lebanese Cabinet told the BBC that the violence was putting Lebanon back years. Ann Clwyd MP — a woman I greatly admire — lent her voice to the call for a quick ceasefire.

How, after all, can this be borne? We should stop it now. There should be no more killing. We should stop it even before Israel has secured its border, even while Hezbollah’s military force is still intact. How can you argue with the impulse to save innocent life?

“Asymmetrical warfare” is a term usually employed to describe the deployment of insurgent and terrorist techniques against a massively better-armed adversary. It almost suggests that such an approach is defensible. But there is a second sense in which the phrase might be used. We weedy democrats and life-loving liberals cannot bear what the ideologues of Hamas and Hezbollah find all too bearable. We argue about whether we even want to see the pictures of the dead. They seem to want to look at nothing else.

We understand the problem. Israeli violence may damage the democratic and reform movements in Lebanon and Syria. But Hezbollah’s violence, apparently, serves only to strengthen the forces of religious ecstasy. To us, hitting a UN force is a humanitarian outrage. To Hezbollah it’s a tactic. To Hezbollah every civilian is a warrior.

Take the Israeli killing of four UN soldiers last week, condemned by Kofi Annan as “deliberate”. On July 18 one of the doomed officers e-mailed home to say that Israeli ordnance was landing nearby and that, “this has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity”. A retired Canadian general interpreted this for Canadian television. “What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favourite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields, knowing that they can’t be punished for it.”

Reporters from Qana said that, the day after the Israeli attack, “there was little evidence of fighters”. But the Israelis have released footage claiming to show rockets being fired at Israel from within the village. Other aerial sequences clearly depict rocket launchers being fired from behind apartment blocks and launcher trucks being driven to hiding places in garages and under houses. It was this kind of action that prompted Jan Egelund, of the UN, to call upon Hezbollah to stop this “cowardly blending . . . among women and children”. He added: “I don’t think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men.”

Today, on the website of Hezbollah’s own propaganda agency, al-Manar, you can find the boast that on one day at the end of last week: “Islamic resistance fighters launched barrages of rockets at northern Israeli settlements . . . According to Israeli media, some 20 settlers were injured in today’s attacks.” “Settlements” is Hezbollah for towns and villages, and “settlers” is Hezbollah for civilians. So when a 240lb Hezbollah rocket slammed into the Israeli countryside last week, it should have prompted the thought that when the Israelis miss their targets they hit civilians and when Hezbollah misses, they don’t.

Getting in among the UN positions and the civilians, firing at “settlers” while seeing the other side condemned for its inhumanity, is part of the new asymmetry. Unfortunately, Hezbollah is pretty good at hitting the soldiers too. If you recall those TV pictures in the 1980s of chaps in keffiyehs blindly firing off their RPGs and Kalashnikovs round a corner and then running like buggery, that has all gone.

Some clue as to how things have changed was offered on Sunday night’s Panorama. Though it was incidental to its story, what the programme showed is how organisations such as Hamas propagandise the children and adults in their care, exulting martyrdom and teaching them to embrace death. We saw schools that celebrate suicide bombers and school computers full of jihadoporn. Had you been watching the evening drama on al-Manar recently you could have seen a Syrian drama series on the Jewish plot to take over the world. One scene was set in a brothel where a Jewish prostitute thinks she is dying from some disease. “I implore you,” she tells the Madam, “send me only Christian clients. I don’t want any Jew to be infected by me.” It’s The Forsyte Saga as scripted by Heinrich Himmler.

If that’s the cultural you can imagine the political. But just in case you can’t, let me help you. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah (thinks, how exactly did he become leader of Hezbollah?) is a prolific speaker, but is credited with meaning what he says. Nasrallah believes that the Jews “invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities”. That Israel “is a cancerous body in the region” that “must be uprooted”. More magnanimously: “Let us spare bloodshed. Let the Yemenite Jews return to Yemen, the Moroccan Jews to Morocco, the Ethiopian Jews to Ethiopia, the European Jews to Europe, and the American Jews to America.” Though even that is generous because: “Anyone who reads the Koran . . . sees what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history . . . Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer.”

This is the chap with the long-range missiles (getting longer range) sitting on Israel’s northern border. And while Hezbollah might bring out the Lebanese flags for the press in Beirut, in their southern fastnesses the only banners are theirs. And what do we say, knowing this? That Bad Blair should lean on Worse Bush who should put the squeeze on Murdering Olmert and it’d all be over. That’s the new orthodoxy.

God alone knows, the Israelis have, in their history, committed crimes and terrible errors. Sabra and Chatilla, the refusal to recognise for many years that Palestinians actually existed, the brutalities of the occupation, the settling on the West Bank and in Gaza and so on. The Palestinian organisations have their own track record of deceit and murder. Consequently, each slow step towards a peace has been agonising, and now the new asymmetry makes progress almost impossible. As of today, I have no answer.

Comments

[Moobs]

You are right that there is an asymmetry in the standards that we apply. We expect our own troops and those of our allies to meet higher standards than we expect of those they are fighting. I think implicit in your piece is a feeling that there should be symmetry and that it should be achieved by imposing a common high standard. If that is what you are implying I agree entirely.

I get angry when it is suggested that Israel should be free to behave in any manner it wants because it's enemies are brutal. Similarly, my skin crawls to listen to some of my former friends on the Left who say implicitly or (increasingly) explicitly that every terrorist act of the last 5 years has been about the West and its allies getting what they deserve and justifying any atrocity on the basis that there are, somewhere, historical or contemporary wrongs that justify the acts like blood-soaked indulgences.

[Robin Bather]

A well balanced calm article David but with no solutions unfortunately.

What say you about the theory that the Greater American Empire, with no balance from the ex USSR, is now hell bent on expanding into every corner of the earth with its banners flying and its war cry of "Regime Change" and "A new Middle East" --presumably with the dream of countless millions of moslems and arabs eating at McDonalds, drinking Coke and enjoying fun filled weekends at the Tehran Disneyland instead of planning trips to Mecca.
All of them concientious voters, and, who knows, a local AIPAC office could be set up in Damascus to lobby and hand out free fact finding trips to Israel for lawmakers and their wives.

PS
Today is Monday 31st July 2006 the Day of Mourning for 37 Lebanese children and 20 Lebanese adults killed by an Israeli bomb.

[Nick (South Africa)]

>As of today, I have no answer.<

Good article David, but you studiously avoid discussion the underpinning ideology of Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqusas Martyrs brigade, Jamaat-i-Islami,the Muslim Brotherhood, The Taliban, Al Qaida….even the MCB as well as the rest of the Helal alphabet soup – Koranic Literalist Islam.

What's happening in the Eastern Mediterranean is but one part of a global war. It is but one theatre in a pan-global Jihad. A Jihad committed and supported by Koranic literalists whose ideology is totalitarian, completely intolerant of non-Muslims, seeks global hegemony, and has been bought to fever pitch all over the world with by petro dollars and modern travel and communication technology.

Until the problem is identified in clear by a critical mass of folks, it's not going to be addressed....It's rather like alcoholism, the first step to recovery is recognising the problem. There is still massive denial in the Western in general and in the media in particular as to what's going on, we still need to recognise the problem. To continue with the alcoholic analogy, we are still binge drinking and in denial that there is a problem.

Sadly, amongst the 1.3 billion Muslims globally, the dominant, prevailing ideology amongst the devout is Koranic Literalism, the Koran is the literal world of Allah dictated by the angel Gabrial to the ‘prophet’ Mohamed and transcribed without flaw as the Koran. That premise underpins almost all interpretations of Islam, given the content of the Koran it’s a recipe for extremism. It brings forth an ideology which is imperial in aspiration, totalitarian, rabidly intolerant and unbelievably barbaric. Moderate Muslims - those whose values are egalitarian, liberal, genuinely tolerant and not at odds with the values of enlightened, reason based liberal democracy - are very much on the back-foot in terms of Islamic Jurisprudence.

For those that confront this problem, that identify it for what it is accusations of ‘Islamaphobe’ and ‘racist’ follow in short order, not just by Koranic Literalist Muslim extremists such as the MCB, but by quite a few supposed educated folks who are genuine advocates of egalitarian liberal democracy. For you personally to do it David, being of Jewish origin, will – as night follows day – identify you to many, as a shrill for Israel and bring up great gobs of Jew-hatred, which seems to be undergoing something of a resurgence, particularly on the left of the political spectrum.

[Al]

Well said, David, to the point as usual. And there are no magic answers, only to keep "buggering on" as Churchill would have said, until the West "wakes up" to the threat from these medieval terrorists who want to take us all back to the 7th Century. Meanwhile, those who see the dangers and try to do something will continue to be villified by the smart-arses in the media. All very depressing -fortunately I wont be around when it all ends in tears!

[Ali]

Violence is frequently the last resort. It comes from frustration, helplessness, feeling ignored. As Bob Dylan said: "When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose". The source of this frustration is America's apparent blind support for Israel, no matter what they do. The US can not even bring itself to publicly condenm the massacare of 54 civilians, mostly children. The feeling among most arabs and islamic nations is that the US doesn't care about their people, only about their oil. Unless there is a clear shift in US's tone and policy towards the Middle East, I have to say not only today we can not see an answer , for many tomorrows any amount of diplomatic activity and UN resolutions will not solve this problem. The hatred, distrust and frustration is deep rooted and will require major concessions by all parties, and a transparent shift in the US policy, to have any hopes. Let us not forget that Hezbollah was born out of these feelings of helplessness, grievances and frustration.

[Wombat]

I thought it was rather a rambling piece but it made some valuable points that too often go unmade. Hezbollah, Hamas and their fellow travellers represent a nasty, intolerant, violent creed that abuses genuine political grievances for short term advantage. As you say, it is very much in Hezbollah's advantage that we see the dead and dying innocents of Qana. Perhaps Israel should do the same, but maybe they've more pride.

That said, I remain to be convinced that the best way to fight irregular, guerrilla forces (terrorists if you prefer) is with conventional force. Even modern laser-guided ordnance is only accurate to a few tens of metres and that is quite enough to completely miss a target the size of a small truck. When that ornance is a 500lb bomb it still does a lot of damage but in the wrong place.

The stupid thing is that we in Britain know this. We learned the hard way in Ireland that using regular forces against irregulars just ends up radicalising the civilian population. Some will take up arms themselves, others will support and shelter them. That is surely more of a disaster for Israel than a couple of rockets? Just because you've warned the civilians to get out doesn't make it alright to bomb indiscriminately. Hopefully Israel's military leaders can learn from this. It doesn't make their campaign wrong, just that some of their tactics need improvement.

Ultimately what will make Israel safe is a stable, peaceful, prosperous and democratic Lebanon. They almost had that and we can again. But the violence has to stop first.

[kitefighter]

It's hardly a surprise to read that pro-war pundit David Aaronovitch has no answer. In his monomaniacal mind, he tries to imagine an immediate call for peace and like his hero Tony Blair (and his hero's heroes, George Bush and Rupert Murdoch) he gets the answer, "does not compute"

Some of the comments above consider David Aaronovitch "balanced". Really. In his article above, 8 of the 13 paragraphs are critical of Hizbollah, 1 critical of Israel, 1 critical of peace and the rest is just meaningless handwringing.

Ironically,in an article supposedly critical about asymmetry, his own views are hopelessly one sided.

[ian]

David - if the threat to us all is as you describe it, and I believe that it is, then there is no need to trouble yourself with the 'question' let alone the 'answer.'

Defeat for our enemies and victory for us and our allies is the only outcome that is acceptable - anything else does not bear thinking about.

[Hanna Hofbauer]

I read your article and have to congratulate you on how you have grasped the situation and had the courage to put it down on paper
Thank you so much for putting just one or two points in writing about the UN Officer who sent an email home also about the tactical approach to the UN and using civilians woman and children as human shields. Same goes for ambulances, food tracks which hidden arms were found by the Israelis
Israel values and worships life and would never destroy innocent people on purpose
Unfortunately this human way of the IDF in Israel does not appear in the papers and is never written about in the UK
So Thank you again for wrting the artice

[Rippon]

"As of today, I have no answer."

Well shut up then. What a load of drivel Aaronovitch writes.
The answers are simple:
*The US and Israel should change their attitude to the UN from contempt to respect (and stop vetoing UN resolutions) - then they might have some credibility in insisting that others, eg Hezbollah, respect UN resolutions.
*Israel should withdraw to its '67 borders.
*Israel should negotiate prisoner exchanges to get their soldiers back (after all, they have thousands of Lebanese in their dungeons to choose from); their past leaders, including that dove Sharon, have done plenty of this in the past. This would be better than bombing Lebanon to oblivion.

Their captured soldiers are not actually a concern of Israel. If they were, then Israel wouldn't have started its bombing orgy because there is the obvious danger that their own bombs would kill their own soldiers (who they claim they want back but, actually, whose capture is just their flimsy, transparent pretext for unleashing their rage).

[Richard Holt]

It is true that in our criticism of Israeli actions we sometimes forget to condemn the actions of Hezbollah. But this is because most intelligent commentators are reacting to a willingness in western political circles to accept Israel's Orwellian language.

We need to judge each side on what they do. Israel says the difference between them and Hezbollah is that they don't deliberately target civilians. But if the results of your actions (air strikes and artillery fire) is inevitable (the repeated killing of civilians) then your intention to target civilians becomes implicit in your actions. The actions of both sides should be judged, not the ability of each side to deal in western diplomacy.

[arnoldo]

So Rippon has the answer that David finds elusive. Israel and the USA merely have to follow his prescription and all will be well - Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and all Islamic fundamentalists will then recognise Israel's right to exist and Jihadist dreams of the Caliphate will be abandoned.
Just imagine - Peace in Our Time!

[Francis Sedgemore]

Out of respect, I think it's worth naming the fallen Canadian UN observer who provided the information on Israeli shelling, and Hezbollah activities around his observation post, to General Lewis MacKenzie and the Canadian media. He was Major Paeta Hess-von Kreudene.

Maybe I'm wrong, but of all the more well-known media commentators offering their opinions on the Qana tragedy, it seems that only David Aaronovitch has seen fit to give name to the victims: i.e., the Shalhoubs and the Hashems. RIP.

[Rippon]

arnoldo offers us the usual cliche garbage about Israel's right to exist. This is the usual drivel about Israel being under siege, surrounded by enemies, blah blah blah.

Israel does exist. Israel is not going anywhere. It doesn't matter what mad mullahs might say - no country in the Middle East can lay a glove on the regional superpower. But Israel loves to milk its fraudulent 'victimhood' ad nauseum - and this is how it 'justifies' (attempts to) its terrorist attacks, which, btw, we're not meant to label as 'terrorist' because laser-guided-made-in-the-usa is more moral than katyusha.

The US was condemned by the World Court back in the 80s for pulling a similar stunt with Nicaragua. The US 'justified' its terrorism against that minnow by claiming Nicaragua threatened the USA's existence.

Words are cheap and meaningless. Actions are the only things that count.

If mad mullahs want to spout words about the 'end of Israel', so what? The US, UK and Israel exploit these meaningless words of fantasy to sell us the lie that the world is at risk from them.

Israel would be very secure behind its '67 borders. It only faces a terror threat (miniscule compared to the terror it inflicts on others) because its always grabbing more and terrorising those who attempt to resist. As Paxman put it very well last night: "The message is, 'If you can't love us, then you WILL fear us!'"

F. Sedgemore (in classic Aaronovitch style) is going on about 'giving name to the victims RIP' [violins and tears] - what's that all about? Sedgemore and Aaronovitch didn't even know those people (did they?). If they want to milk the event to prove they 'feel' and 'respect', then wouldn't it have been more respectful to seek next-of-kin permission to 'give name' to these victims (whose killers' they implicity condone and excuse).

[Nick (South Africa)]

>srael says the difference between them and Hezbollah is that they don't deliberately target civilians. But if the results of your actions (air strikes and artillery fire) is inevitable (the repeated killing of civilians) then your intention to target civilians becomes implicit in your actions<

No it does not. I think you need to read the Geneva convention to which Israel is a signatory...the relevant part of the 4th convention reads...

"The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations"

[Rippon]

Thats rich - the suggestion, from Nick, that Israel gives a damn about international conventions.

But note, Nick quotes a part which proves useful to Israel's purposes and intentions - its appetite for bombing.

Israel does 'care' about international conventions in a mendacious kind of way: It keeps bleating on about Hezbollah's breach of UN resolutions - while conveniently ignoring its own shameful record in this respect.

[eliXelx]

To those who defend the point of view that there is a hidden Islamist agenda, that what is happening in Israel, and what happened on 9/11, 3/11, 7/7 and countless other dates and places are all part of it, let me refer you to the last time history saw this kind of confrontation when Islam was feeling its oats--Spain between the 8th and the 15th century!
Everytime during those years that the Muslims managed to unite, there was hell to pay for the Christians. Everytime the Christians pushed back they seriously weakened Muslim power.
The important point is that the front line was NEVER at the centre of the Caliphate, always on the far outskirts.
And it was never well-organized;
Razzias (blitz attacks on villages);kidnappings for ransom or slaves;targeted assassination by "hashishin";
all were tried and tested tactics for whichever new usurper sheikh had a little momentary power and the will and desire to use it!
Like in backgammon--you throw the dice and if you win you win! If you're in a promising position you up the ante; after all winning and losing aren't within man's control; It's god's will!
So it behoves us to read and learn from that history.
THERE IS NO ISLAMIST AGENDA, JUST A LOT OF PISSANTS THROWING DICE AND HOPING FORTUNE FAVOURS THEM.
Taking out their leaders is useless! there is always another mindless mullah available to start another deadly game!

[Al]

With respect to UN Resolutions, the most important one in the ME conflict is the one that created the State of Israel. Assuming that all "UN Resolution Quoting Correspondents" accept that Israel is thus a legitimate state, then Resolution 242 is the next most important. 242 has two key clauses, neither of them binding.
1. Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
2. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;.
So when we quote Israels failure to adhere to 242 Clause 1, we must not forget to also condemn the Muslim States or groups that do not adhere to the second clause. Simple, really.

[Al]

Quite so Eli, the Muslims were involved in Crescentades long before the Crusades - why do our media types never make that point when the Muslims call us Crusaders?
We need to ask our peace loving Muslim brethren what a Muslim army was doing in France in 732 - but I don't imagine that fact is taught much in Muslim schools. But Eli, I digress, what exactly was your point?

[Rippon]

"Simple, really," Al says.

What tosh. He's suggesting that Muslim states and Israel are equally to blame: condemn one, condemn the other too.

If there's no bad guy here, then it's certainly not "simple". With no bad guy, upon whom we must apply pressure, then the conclusion is both sides are to blame. Well, that's simple for those of us who are comfortably living far away from the catastrophe. But then it's hideously complex for Arabs and Jews in the region because, if no one / everyone is to blame, then the cycle of violence continues.

What is simple is part 1 of Resolution 242. And part 2 is obviously just a footnote of wishful thinking about the respectful attitudes one hopes the different states will adopt. Like I said before, actions are all that count. And part 1 calls for clear simple action: Stop grabbing other people's land through terror (forcing them into poverty and destitution). Part 2 is just words. But part 2 is also far more relevant to Israel than any other state: States (eg Palestine) shouldn't have to suffer "acts of force" from others who exceed their "recognised boundaries".

So, Israel, go back to your recognised '67 boundaries and stop terrorising those who try to resist your Zionist expansion. We get it: You're far tougher than anyone else on the block. But mankind has evolved beyond the law of the jungle. Your terror and violence is not going to cow your opponents. You have generated so much hatred that those sub-humans (don't pretend you regard them more highly than that - with your sickening crocodile tears over civilain deaths) who keep getting in your way now embrace death if that's the price in opposing you.

[greenmamba]

rippon handily illustrate's Israel's problems:

"no country in the Middle East can lay a glove on the regional superpower."

Well what do you call 100 rockets a day?

Add to that a worlwide outcry whenever it tries to defend itself and they're screwed. (And if you think there's a different way to dislodge Hizb'allah, let us know what it is.)

As for the '67 borders, they weren't OK for the Arabs in '67, what on earth has changed to make them OK now? There's just uneasy peace with Egypt & Jordan but their populations are still anti-Semitic. We now have Iran, Hamas & Hizb dedicated to no Israel.

"1967 borders" is a lefty bleat spewed by do-gooders prepared to sell out their allies.

[Charles Simmonds]

I thought that this article was a fair analysis but Aaronovitch did not follow it through to its logical conclusion which must be a ringing endorsement of Israel.

Hizbullah deliberately and quite cynically places innocent civilians in the line of fire

a) to exploit the reluctance of the Israeli military to inflict civilian casualties, thereby tying the Israeli army's hands tactically

b) to precipitate incidents such as Qana which are grist to Hizbullah's propaganda mill. From Hizbullah's point of view the more innocents killed in such incidents the greater the beneficial propaganda effect. Therefore Hizbullah has a clear incentive to maximize such casualties.

Israel has no choice but to eliminate Hizbullah as a military force. If this means more civilian casualties, the blame clearly lies with Hizbullah.

[Rippon]

greenmamba says:

"What do you call 100 rockets a day?"

Well, given the quantity and technology of those rockets, I call that peanuts - compared to the awesome firepower of Israel, which glories in demonstrating its strength, and then boasts that this is 'restraint' because it's only a tiny fraction of the hell they could choose to reign down. Of course, Israel is absolutely correct in this, but it is truly sickening when a gangster boasts how strong he is ('you ain't seen nothing yet'), in the smug confident knowledge that the Godfather will continue to supply his arsenal, and defend his crimes.

100 katyushas a day vs the Israeli army and airforce. It's like Palestinian teenagers throwing stones at Israeli soldiers and tanks. 'We had to fire rounds and shells at those boys - with evil in their hearts - because they were threatening us.'

"And if you think there's a different way to dislodge Hizb'allah, let us know what it is."

Well, first of all, Hezbollah's birth was a consequence of Israel's invasion in '82 and subsequent occupation of South Lebanon. So if Israeli aggression hadn't created the problem in the first place, they wouldn't now be feeling the need to destroy Hzbh.

It is impossible to 'destroy' Hzbh (or Hamas); they are only growing politically stronger. This is not difficult to see or predict, so it does make you wonder what Israel's true agenda is.

What you can do is drain the swamp of support for such groups. Negotiate with Hzbh - exchange prisoners. Reverse your invasion of Lebanon completely (Sheba Farms). Get out of the occupied territories. Stop treating the Palestinians as sub-human, and stop grabbing their resources (eg water).

The problem, of course, is that the Zionists construe such options as concessions, and, worse, signs of weakness - because, remember, their proudest quality is their strength. They simply cannot stomach the truth that they have committed crimes for which they should be paying reparations. It's unthinkable that the Jews could be guilty of crimes against other peoples and war crimes; they can never be oppressors, only victims, as history shows. (- so the script goes)

"1967 border is just a leftie bleat."

So you are clearly of the opinion that land and resources are not major issues leading to conflict. That's a truly ostrich position. Well done.

And on this site there's also plenty of that drivel about civilian maiming, killing and misery: It's all Hzbh's fault, because they keep running away and hiding from us when we want to fire at them. When we have our surgical-strike ordnance trained on them, then, if they had any decency, they would stand still, in open fields well away from civilians, and give our surgery a chance to work its magic.

[Joy Springreen]

We are all horrified by the pictures of dead women and children. There is nothing to celebrate in their deaths. Only to mourn.
I have to ask one question though: Where are the bodies of their men?

[sonic]

Oh those evil Hezbollah with their human shields, making sure Israel killed children through the evil tactic of not actually being anywhere near the place.

"As the Israel Air Force continues to investigate the air strike, questions have been raised over military accounts of the incident.

It now appears that the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time.

The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday.

The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were carried out in the past. However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745185.html

But hey they might have been there! whats a few dead civilians between friends.

[scoobydude]

I find it utterly extraordinary, the density, extent and intellectual inadequacy of knee-jerk Left Wing/Moslem bias. No one, I mean NO ONE, enjoys seeing what's happening in Lebanon - EXCEPT the people Aaronovitch refers to correctly as death-loving nutters, psychopaths inspired by centuries old doctrines of totalitarian intolerance. There is indeed a worldwide problem with Islam, making it a cancer that Israel isn't. Jews do not perpetrate worldwide terrorism, Moslems do (and that is true, despite the slippery equivocations and bullshit logic suggesting what Israel does is terrorism - it isn't, and anyone who says it is is a fool and should be ignored, because they use confusion as a rhetorical tactic).

Islam is not like any other religion - including Judaism. It began as a belligerent and violent campaign, with Mohammed wielding a sword in one hand, and the Koran and a pre-pubescent girl in another. These are historic facts that need public scrutiny, that would be inevitable and desirable in any other ideological debate. The fact that it is religion, and Islam in particular, encourages a heinous denial incompatible with the critical scrutiny normal in th emodern world. Further, Islam has a massively violent history ever since, and what we are currently seeing is that its old Middle East values - tribal aggression, pathological oppression of women and intolerance towards nuanced or contrary interpretations of their boring old book. And nor is this backward cancer confined to the middle East; the Times reported 10,000 UK Al Qaeda sympathisers, there is 60% Dutch Moslem sympathy/support for the murder of Vin Gogh and frankly, in France, Holland, Spain and all across Europe we are troubled with this cancerous invasion that threatens our advanced society with backward and intolerant values.

There are of course, plenty of decent Moslems; but that is not the point. The point is to identify and name the problem, regardless of the irrelevant counter examples. Further, the Moslem community has to some extent be held to account for this because of their tribal sympathies which provide, like ordinary Belfast and Ulster citizens did with the IRA, a sympathetic and implicitly supportive culture. This has got to stop. Why don't we see Moslems demonstrating in London against Hezbollah, who target Israeli civilians and hide amongst Lebanese and UN (semi) civilians as a murderous tactic they KNOW will provoke moral horror from a West that has a respect for life they don't. Why don't so called moderate Moslems do that? Answer: because of clear, historic and DIVISIVE tribal affiliations further associated with Moslem non-integration in the UK and all across Europe.

This has got to stop - and what's happening in Lebanon has to be seen in this wider, worldwide, and historic/ideological context. The Middle East is not part of the modern world, and much of that is predicated on it being Islamic. What we're currently seeing is a confrontation between those backward values/countries, and the free speech, democratic and egalitarian West: a viewpoint from which Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranian regime, the Saudi oppression of women, hate-filled leaders like Omar Bakri, Abu Hamza, and large numbers of semi-human creatures in the Middle East - have to be named for what they are: backward Islamic evil, which has been the Number One global problem since 9/11.

It's sick: morally, psychologically, and culturally. And what Israel is currently doing, whether they will succeed or not, is attempting some surgery to remove a cancer that is an intimate threat to their very existence. We all know Moslems will get angry, resentful, humiliated and always "insulted" at situations like this, and it's time to elevate these political and ideological conflicts to a new level of philosophical and humanitarian values: what kind of society do you want? In particular, do you value free speech, religious choice, and equality for women? Do you - whoever you are - integrate into the modern world and if not why not, and do you understand and accept the problems that causes?

Hezbollah are, as Aaronovitch correctly notes, an emblem of and expression for this bullshit Islamism which has spread around the world. Removing them is a laudable, enlightened and humanitarian concern of huge gravity and integrity, consistent with UN resolutions. The tragic loss of innocent life, while it has to be addressed, should not distract from this. The existence of Hezbollah, its Iranian support and the worldwide tribal Moslem bullshit - is ultimately the more serious and problematic concern.

[william]

“As of today, I have no answer.”
Why should you David? No one else has.

Given there isn’t one single truth to base ‘the answer’ on, how can there be?

Contributors to your various pieces and other wider forums seem to underline this even (especially) when suggesting an answer, again and again.

Depressing as this is, it would appear to be the reality, until perhaps, some event so shocks the humanity in all concerned that there has to be a line drawn under this? (god help us that nothing to date has)
Deserts of glass?

[Rippon]

scoobydude refers to 'left-wing bullshit logic'.

But it's very simple logic. If you defy international law and common human decency by: grabbing other people's houses, land and water, then bash their heads when they try to resist; and for decades you spit on people (eg the UN) who condemn your crimes, in the safe smug knowledge that the world's biggest thug will back you; then you will necessarily sow the seeds of hatred and hostility towards yourselves.

scoobydude employs the well-worn tactic of obfuscating the simple issues of aggression and theft into his/her own actual bullshit (compared to his delusion about 'left-wing bullshit') - drivel about a 'clash of cultures / ideology'.

All humans share the same culture and ideology here: "Moslems will get angry, resentful, humiliated." Well, Israelis would too if they were on the receiving end of the theft and concomittant violence and subjugation that they mete out to Arabs.

There is the underlying assumption that, because Isaraelis (feel they) have a monoply on victimhood through history, they should be exempt from charges of crimes against humanity.

It is deeply ironic that, having suffered so hideously at the hands of fascist regimes, Jewish people can do so well at embracing that mind-set. Don't forget that Israel, after the US, was the principal supporter of the fascist apartheid regime in South Africa; and, like that regime, Israel is similarly acquiring international pariah status (or already has).

(It is true that there is very much about Muslim regimes which is thoroughly abhorrent; but that's a completely separate debate. It is deeply mendacious - with a hint of racism - to avoid the issue of Israel's crimes by bleating about the backwardness of other people.)

[greenmamba]

Rippon:

100 rockets a day: are causing the strangling of Israel's economy. She simply cannot allow Hizb to be able to sustain this for long periods.

"What you can do is drain the swamp of support for such groups. Negotiate with Hizb - exchange prisoners. Reverse your invasion of Lebanon completely (Sheba Farms). Get out of the occupied territories."

That could possibly be a solution if it were clearly demonstrated that Israel's neighbours want peace. Unfortunately Hizb and Hamas are BOTH dedicated to Israel's destruction - '67 borders be damned - AND the death of all Jews. Maybe they're just foolin'?

No time to fisk you any more, although I could, so I'll leave it at that.

[Tim Coulson]

"Islam is not like any other religion - including Judaism. It began as a belligerent and violent campaign, with Mohammed wielding a sword in one hand, and the Koran and a pre-pubescent girl in another."

This isn't true and is also written in deliberately inflammatory language. Christianity has been responsible for some pretty foul acts in it's time and I suspect virtually every religion has had followers who have committed atrocities in it's name. To single out Islam as evil is just parroting the rubbish we hear from Mad Mel in the Mad Mail and doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Sure Islam has some fairly practitioners with some fairly backward social attitudes. Are they any more unpleasant that the attitudes of plenty of fundamentalist Christians or Hindus? I'd argue not. I reckon the problem is with those who take their religion or credo to extremes and to the detriment of others, whaetever that credo may be.

[john gregory Flinn]

"Why don't so called moderate Moslems do that(demonstrate about Hezbollah's attacks on Israel)?"
The so-called decent/moderate muslims have no political clout in the theocratic world of Islam. They do not set the agenda nor will they in the forseeable future. The recent election of Hamas in Palestine surely demonstrates this. And, as David A. says - 'to Hezbollah every civilian is a warrior', the same applies in Europe (and elsewhere) when necessary.
Muslims have very little national patriotism, their duty is to agitate until the country is converted to Islam. They are loyal to the one nation of Islam and its people - wherever they are. This helps to explain their 'non-integration'.
Their presence in Europe, for example, is, as far as they are concerned, not one subject to the same philosophical and humanitarian values that we are familiar with, and cherish. Thus, this presence can be described as "asymmetric" also - perhaps in a 'third sense'. Because it brings a worldwide medieval politics to bear against our (relatively weedy) liberal democracy.

I saw Sunday's (30th July) 'Panorama' too, and watched the missionary Sheikh Youseff Karadawi describe how he expects his prophetic dream of an Islamic Europe to arise. Without the need for the sword, nor armies, he sees ideas and teachings winning the day!
Tony Blair may believe his version of 'ideas and values' becomes the 'terminator' of what he describes as an "arc of extremism", but I'm not convinced. Even Israel's right-wing democracy is at a disadvantage against this Islamist strategy of "asymmetry"......!

[Rippon]

greenmamba says:

"That could possibly be a solution if it were clearly demonstrated that Israel's neighbours want peace. Unfortunately Hizb and Hamas are BOTH dedicated to Israel's destruction - '67 borders be damned - AND the death of all Jews. Maybe they're just foolin'?"

I've said before: Words don't matter. Actions do.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if Hizb & Hamas spout fantasies about the destruction of Israel. But it does matter that, through their actions, they clearly demonstrate that, not only are they completely incapable of destroying Israel, they're not even capable of resisting Israel's continual encroachment upon the territory and human rights of Arabs.

Similarly, Israel's (disingenuous) words, assurances that they have no quarrel with Lebanon but only Hizbh, don't matter. What matters is that, through their actions, they demonstrate clearly that they have no hesitation in destroying another country if a tiny unrepresantative number of its inhabitants irritate them.

It is an open secret now, revealed by Rice and Olmert, that the agenda is a 're-configuration' of the Middle East. No one believes that Israel fears for its security and that is the motive behind this gratuitous bombing.

And why should Israel be waiting for Hizbh & Hamas to demonstrate anything? It is inconsistent to characterise such groups as irrational terrorists driven by savage fundamentalist ideology, and then, in the next breath, demand that they demonstrate their decency and commitment to civilised values. Israel constantly boasts that it is the only democratic nation in the region. Well, behave like a civilised nation then: Abide by UN resolutions (Israel has a far worse record here compared to many undemocratic nations), reverse your brutal occupations and expansions, and make/pay reparations for raping your neighbour in your latest orgy of violence.

[greenmamba]

Rippon: "reverse your brutal occupations and expansions"taking land i

I'm taking aim at this expansion business because it's the sort of statement that exposes the propaganda on your side to this argument.

Since the 1967 war, Israel gave back land to Egypt, including oil wells. It's out of Gaza. Under Oslo the Palestinians started establishing their own territory and Israel has gone out then in because of security. The dreaded "Wall" sets absolute limits on Israel’s borders. This talk of “expansion” is a bloody lie and exposes you as disingenuous.

A further point is that both Egypt and Jordan refused to take back certain portions of land but they should be part of the Palestinian solution rather than being allowed to just walk away from the problem created by their belligerence. The UN and others are to blame for accepting this.

[scoobydude]

Ripon is clearly a master at obfuscation, calling obfuscation what is in fact naming it for what it is. Such people should be ignored; its simply not possible to have any constructive or meaningful dialogue with people a) motivated by selective issues b) driven by current-affairs emotionalism and c) inspired or fooled by Islamic victim politics established all across Europe.

I note, his nonsense ignores almost all of what I say which concerns the historic and widespread violence of Islam since its beginning. Only a fool would take selective examples of the last few decades, and ignore the wider historic context. Only a fool would use polarised emotionalism, claiming foul play against Israel while ignoring the extensive foul play of Palestinians/Moslems, and their desire to "wipe Israel off the map", as the Iranian president said. Israelis/Jews are not driven by victimhood - their culture is mostly vibrant and successful, regardless of the wound to their people from the holocaust. Moslems, on the other hand, are frequently motivated by hostile resentments instead of taking responsibility for the mess of the Islamic world: thus, when Israel withdrew from Gaza, instead of using that land to build hospitals, schools and houses, they used it to launch closer attacks against their hated enemy, the people they represent in child school-books as pigs. You Sir/Ms., are not so much Rippon as Ripoff - your logic and argument is biassed, propagandist cant.

"All humans share the same culture"? - what does that mean? Moslems, and only Moslems, are capable and infamous for elevating being "offended" to a political position - as we've seen with fatwas, and the huge Danish cartoon protests, opposing free speech and demanding that Islam be regarded as a special case, unlike other religions who have to accept they can and will be criticised or satirised. If Bush was motivated by being "offended" in the same way, or indeed Putin or Blair, the world would probably have been nuked some years ago. Don't be ridiculous, Rippon, suggesting the West have the same responses and acts on them in the same way: we do not.

My call for a wider examination of history remains; nothing I said has been refuted by Ripoff's nonsense.

We KNOW Palestinians have been treated badly. Now, take a deep breath before your knee jerks automatically......WHAT OF IT? By which I mean, what does that indicate in itself? And the answer is, taken in the context this needs, very little. Moslems do not have a superior attitude towards other religions to theirs and none; on the contrary, its far worse. Do you really think if they'd had the power, they'd have treated Israelis with respect? Of course not. Therefore, arguments based on the moral failure of Israel, and the moral rights of Palestinians accordingly, are disengenuous nonsense. Do you want to gossip about current affairs, or consider wider historical context? I think the answer is clear, as is its deficiency. Islamic hostilities are epic, widepsread, and centuries old; I have great sympathy for Israel, bruised after 1945, living next door to Moslem theocratic/autocratic countries. Deride that as "racism", or whatever you want; it merely obscures and dismisses what is relevant and pertinent - and conveniently forgetting the fact that what I've referred to is itself racism - from Islam, against everyone else, which is causing problems all around the world.

If anyone wishes to respond to what I actually said, please do. If all you wish to do is express your own agenda, which of itself does not refute what I've said, I suggest its a waste of everyone's time.

[Rippon]

"Why don't so called moderate Moslems do that(demonstrate about Hezbollah's attacks on Israel)?"

Because moderate Muslims recognise that the source of the violence is Israel's crimes.

Indeed, the fact of Israel's current crimes in Lebanon has increased Hizbh's support. So-called moderate muslims who might have shunned or even condemned Hizbh before now focus their vitriol on Israel. Moreover, Lebanese Christians also hate Israel now where they didn't before.

The scale and wanton savagery of Israel's violence means that it is far more likely that Jews will demonstrate against Israel than Muslims demonstrate against Hzbh.

[David]

Hizbollah took hostages (and killed soldiers inside Israel) convinced that the Israelis would exchange them for 1000 Hizbollah militants in Israeli prisons. They have been completely caught by surprise and now they are bleating about "Israeli aggression". They must think we have the memories of goldfish if they think we don't remember how this started only a few days ago.

[Rippon]

Scoobydude says I’m merely propagandising and not addressing his points.

Very well, I’ll try to be clearer.

Scoobydude: “what Israel is currently doing, whether they will succeed or not, is attempting some surgery to remove a cancer that is an intimate threat to their very existence.”

The problem with Israel’s ‘surgery’ is that they are killing the patient and feeding the tumour. Foremerly neutral Muslims, and non-Muslims (eg Lebanese Christians), now hate Israel and cheer Hezbollah.

No one (who’s honest) believes that Israel feels a threat to “their very existence”. This notion was valid at earlier times in history; for example, the non-existence of Jews was the Nazis’ goal. But this claimed fear of ‘threat to existence’ is now simply a ploy, an abuse of Holocaust memory, something Israel shamelessly milks as cover for its aggression.

Scoobydude: … Palestinians/Moslems, and their desire to "wipe Israel off the map", as the Iranian president said

I say again: It doesn’t matter what people say – words are cheap and easy. You must judge people by their actions. Muslims have proved by their actions that ‘wiping Israel out’ is not within their capability; it is just a wild fantasy of the most rabid amongst them. However, Israel has proved by its actions that it can easily wipe out other countries (and actually boasts how ‘restrained’ it has been in deploying just a tiny fraction of its firepower), and Israel won’t hesitate to do so at will. Spare us the bullshit that the capture of two of their soldiers was an ‘act of war’. This illustrates Israel’s contempt for international opinion because they cannot be bothered to fabricate even a minimally credible pretext. This also illustrates Israel’s cowardice because we know they only display this degree of arrogance because they are safely reassured that the world’s hyperpower will continue to arm, finance and lie (usually called ‘diplomacy’) for them. Therefore, it is no surprise that other countries in the region might want nuclear weapons – to deter the aggression of the regional superpower.

Scoobydude says I am motivated by Islamic victim politics.

Forget the ‘Islamic’. Scoobydude keeps banging on about Islamic culture, fundamentalism, theocracy, jihadism etc.. But the issues are land, prisoners, water, poverty, humiliation and violence. The ‘victim’ bit is right – the Palestinians and Lebanese certainly are victims.

Scoobydude, on the other hand, is certainly motivated by victim politics. He shamelessly plays that Holocaust card: “Israelis/Jews are not driven by victimhood - their culture is mostly vibrant and successful, regardless of the wound to their people from the holocaust.”

Scoobydude says: “Moslems, on the other hand, are frequently motivated by hostile resentments instead of taking responsibility for the mess of the Islamic world: thus, when Israel withdrew from Gaza, instead of using that land to build hospitals, schools and houses, they used it to launch closer attacks against their hated enemy.”

This is the obfuscation I refer to - broadening the debate to the mess of the wider Islamic world when the issues are simple and local, eg Palestinian land, Lebanese prisoners.

The Palestinians don’t build hospitals, schools and houses because Israel keeps its vice-grip around the neck of their economy. Moreover, whatever building work they do manage cannot keep pace with the knocking-down again by Israeli shells – that’s when the Israelis aren’t firing at even softer targets like families on the beach.

Scoobydude reveals part of the truth of the psychology behind Israel’s behaviour: “Do you really think if they'd had the power [referring to Muslims], they'd have treated Israelis with respect? Of course not.”

So, Israel is justified in bludgeoning others because, if those others possessed this power instead of Israel, they would not have behaved any better. This warped reasoning does at least concede that Israel doesn’t treat its neighbours with ‘respect’ (to put it politely).

[scoobydude]

Biassed, propaganda cant I will waste no more of my time in even acknowledging except to reinstate a few points Ripoff persistently obscures.

1) Israel is not adopting holocaust victim politics, and it is stupid and offensive to suggest that. That's a rhetorical trick, and nothing more. Israel are legitimately concerned about Islamic violence, like the unacceptable threats of the Iranian president and widespread Middle East hatred of Jews - like school books referring to them as pigs. For myself, I expand this further with reference to hundreds of years of epic Moslem hostilies, India being just one example and there are plenty more at this site:

http://www.historyofjihad.com

Ignore that if you wish (or deride it; its all very predictable). It makes no difference because it is a fact - and a significant fact.

2) It is not obfuscation to refer to relevant history, and your persistent accusations of obfuscation from me starts to get very boring, irritating and propagandist. I have made a case that their Palestinian neighbours are not nice people to live next to, to put it mildly. The territorial disputes are part of a two-way antagonistic relationship, that is unsurprising: they are enemies. Palestinians would not have treated Israelis with respect, if they'd had the power. And power - the fact that Israel has it and Moslems don't - is crucial to this conflict, and the Moslem sense of humiliation and resentment that is hundreds of years old, based on displacement and a sense of powerlessness.

3) I am not "playing the holocaust card" - and frankly, such nonsense accusations are both worthless and irritating: another rhetorical trick. Moslem hostility, especially since 9/11, is a serious fact and that is what concerns Israel as it does the entire world. Israel, unfortunately for them, live in the midst of the hostile Moslem world as the sole democracy - and have, when its not being attacked, a vibrant and successful country Moslems probably resent. Jewish people do not export wordlwide hostility, and they integrate with the modern world. Moslems DO export worldwide hostilities, and all across Europe they fail to integrate.

Understand? Apparently not.

Basically, all you are doing is expressing resentment and victim politics: which is emotive, irrational, oblivious to deeper and wider concerns, and a waste of my time. I've stated what I wish to state, which is logical and intelligent, and will argue no further with your propagandist nonsense typical of the worldwide problem: an inability Moslems have to consider any criticism. Whether Ripoff is Moslem or not I don't know, but the point I'm making stands either way. There is no indication these worldwide hostilities are healing; on the contrary Moslems are increasingly becoming more radical and hostile, with growing sympathy for Al Qaeda and everyone like them. Anyone who ignores this greater issue is a fool and Hezbollah, with their network of Moslem support, is implicated within it. This has go to stop - Moslems have to learn to integrate into the modern world, and cease this "ummah" poor-me narrative.

[Moobs]

I have to confess to having had some difficulty understnading what is going on in Lebanon at the moment. Rippon, you look like the person to help me in that you seem well-informed and are not trying (at least so far as I can discren from your last messgae) to be partisan.

As I understand it Hezbollah had managed over the past few years to amass a large number of rockets. Do we know where they have been getting them from?

They have been firing missiles into Israel for a number of years? Do we know specifically what that "killing Israelis" is too simplistic an answer but are they aiming to miss or is it simply a question of their having a perceived justification for trying to kill israeli civilians?

As I undesrtand it Hezbollah arose as a result of an Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and were a "resitance" movement. Until recently, Israel were not, so far as I can tell, any longer occupying Lebanon, what were Hezbollah's post-occupation aims. I am assuming that, contrary to appearances, it wasn;t to provoke the Israeli's into re-invading as that would seem to make no sense at all.

In May 2006, the Security Council welcomed a decision on the part of the Lebanese to disarm militias. Do you know whether that included Hezbollah and, if so, what if anything was done about it?

[Nick (South Africa)]

I got this far....>No one (who’s honest) believes that Israel feels a threat to “their very existence”.<....and then stopped reading, because Rippon is living in an alternate universe.

There is absolutely no doubt about it, Israel does feel a threat to its existence and that feeling is by no means paranoia, it is founded in absolute fact. It is the avowed aim of Hammas, Hezbollah and Iran to abolish the state of Israel. It is the tacit aim of huge tracts of the Arab world and of Muslim opinion – from New York to Jakarta so to do. I suspect that Rippon may tacitly share this aim as his/ her screed seems to amount to taking exception to Israel having the temerity not to aquiese to it's own destruction.

For those intellectually challenged, this is not a blanket endorsement of all Israeli policy, strategy or tactics in how they go about countering that very real threat. It is simply to point out a huge flaw in Rippon’s premise, one shared by oh so many who seem to see the issue of Israeli security one worthy of so much hot air in proportion to what else is going on in the World. Candidly I am highly suspicious of Rippon’s real motives, I think there is some kind of 'special interest' at play here.

[william]

Circular Circular Circular

Ok then, lets try this:
Will any of you, on either side, let the rest of us know just how your solution will bring the other side on board?
Which is required to arrive at any solution short of annihilation or rolling war.

Mind you, as I read it, some of you see annihilation as the answer.

Don’t you.

[Moobs]

Actually Rippon, no need to reply until my typing improves.

[Rippon]

Moobs suggests I am well-informed.

Well, I only know what I hear and read and, over the years, I have discerned who are the reliable sources of information and understanding.

So, for example, on the question of where Hzbh's rockets are coming from: I trust Robert Fisk, so when he says (I'm pretty sure he said this) Hzbh's rockets come from Iran, I take that to be true.

Regarding other questions on the wider context, I trust Moshe Machover. Here are extracts from an interview article:

Machover is an Israeli dissident and long-standing anti-Zionist. He was born in Tel Aviv and studied at the Hebrew University (Jrlm) before coming to Britain in '68.

"The majority of Israelis believe that they are the victims, just like the settlers in America believed that they were the ones threatened by the indigenous people there. This perception is fed by Israeli government propaganda. Israeli public opinion for the most part believes that Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon and Gaza.
In fact the Israeli government removed troops from Lebanon because they were defeated by Hzbh, but they didn't quite withdraw. They retained part of Lebanese territory - the Shebaa Farms.
And neither the British nor the Israeli public is aware that Israel has been making incursions into Lebanon all the time – snatching people sometimes. It has also violated Lebanese and Syrian airspace and territorial water.

There's a similar situation in Gaza. Israel withdrew its army and settlers, but it has been besieging the region and making raids into it. Two days before Hamas and others captured this Israeli soldier, Israel abducted two people from Gaza. And of course it had killed many Gazans by shelling and ‘targeted’ assassination.
Despite this you find a lot of people who say the captures of Israeli soldiers were gratuitous attacks by Hamas and Hzbh – they are blamed for starting it.”

Machover argues that this perception among the Israeli public has been strengthened by Hzbh sending rockets into Israel in response to the invasion of Lebanon.
“Israel’s missiles and bombs are accurate. When the Israelis hit a civilian target or the United Nations observation point, it is clear that they meant to hit it, for political reasons.
But the Katyusha rockets of Hzbh are not accurate. They fall randomly and kill mostly innocent people, including Arab citizens of Israel.
This, and the fact that they are not shown the devastation Israel is creating in Gaza and Lebanon, makes Israelis believe that they are the victims.

In the late 60s, Machover, with Akiva Orr, wrote The Class Character of Israel.
The essay argued that Israel was “financed by imperialism without being exploited by it” because it was a “watchdog” for the US in the ME. This pays for a Western standard of living for Israel’s Jewish majority.
This fact, together with Israel’s settler society status, explains why Zionism and oppression of Palestinians are taken for granted by Israelis.

“There was a period during the 70s and 80s when Israel relied much more on Palestinian labour. There was a beginning of a convergence towards South Africa’s model under apartheid.
This convergence came to an end with the first Palestinian intifada [uprising] in 1987. Israel has since reverted … . Palestinians are not regarded even as a source of exploitable labour power.
Now the people doing the most menial work in Israel are migrant workers. There are thousands of Chinese workers, Filipinos, Romanian, Polish, Thai and others. They have replaced Palestinian workers.
So the Palestinians are now surplus to requirements. This makes it much worse than South Africa, because it is possible to reverse apartheid.
There is no economic equality in South Africa yet, but the blacks are still there and can fight for equal rights. But once ethnic cleansing is implemented, it is very difficult to reverse.”

Last year’s withdrawal from Gaza led many to argue that Israel was finally ready to allow an independent Palestinian state.
But Machover says, “The withdrawal from Gaza was a consolidation of the occupation. A large number of settlers were implanted in the West Bank. Gaza, from a secular Zionist point of view, had little value as it has too many Palestinians in it – it was too costly to maintain.
So they turned it into a big prison camp – they are ‘putting the Palestinians on a diet.’
And they have been bombing and assassinating Palestinians. Hamas kept a ceasefire for 16 months. But Israel was always provoking Hamas, until finally it made a successful military operation against Israeli soldiers who were manning a post from which Gaza was being shelled.”

Hamas and Hzbh actions “were used as a pretext for the huge devastation of Lebanon. … This war was prepared long ago – it is a US-Israeli war. The aims go beyond Hzbh. This is a public demonstration – with the whole world as the audience, especially the Arab world, in particular Syrian and Iran.
Hamas, Hzbh, Syria and Iran are the only forces remaining in the ME that are not subservient to the US and its local junior partner.
The US didn’t just give the Israelis the green light – it is also giving Israel the jet fuel. It is encouraging Israel.”

“The oil and arms industry is making a massive profit out of the ME wars. Bush and Cheney are linked to these kinds of companies. Israel is allowed to be strong because it serves the interests of US capitalism.
As far as Israelis are concerned, world public opinion is the US. The rest of the world doesn’t count – they have the world’s sole superpower as their backer. Israel is not under international pressure. That is why it is so important to campaign to boycott Israeli goods.”

“A resolution can only take place when the Arab east is transformed and the balance of forces is different. It cannot be confined to just Palestine-Israel.”

Enough of Machover, here’s my bit: I too believe the solution lies with a transformation of the corrupt, puppet Arab regimes in the region, and a concomitant redress of the power imbalance. Israel has made it clear that they only make moves towards peace if they are confronted by people with self-confidence and (at least some) power, as their Hzbh-forced retreat (they did not ‘withdraw’) from South Lebanon demonstrated. Those Arab regimes should be ashamed of their abandoning their Palestinian comrades, and this is increasingly the message, amongst other points of protest, that they are hearing from their citizens. The UN is completely neutered by the US, so there isn’t much hope there. Indeed, the very basis of the UN is window-dressing to (try to) give third-world countries the impression that they have some say in international affairs. Boycotting Israeli goods is a good idea (like the 80s, with the boycott South Africa campaigns of that time). Israeli gangsters need to be made to feel the heat of opinion outside the circle of their fellow-gangsters in the White House.

Scoobydude says: “There is no indication these worldwide hostilities are healing; on the contrary Moslems are increasingly becoming more radical and hostile … ”

I think there is truth in that. But scoobydude, and his ilk, simply refuse to see that it is the US and Israel who are stoking that fire because, bottom-line, peace, they have decided, does not particularly suit the most powerful vested interests – oil and arms, and regional Zionist hegemony (as opposed to peaceful Jewish co-existence).

[Rippon]

Actually, there's no need for me to write so much.

People who want enlightenment can simply read this excellent article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.htm

[Nathan Sturman]

Recall how Britain played US opinion during the period 1914-17. They had a blockade against Germmany enforced with a surface fleet that could hail merchantmen, board them with overwhelming power, tow them to port and prize court, and even pay them for their cargoes, with a warning to "deal with us next time".
Germany had the U-boat, which could only surprise, kill, and couldn't rescue survivors. A U-boat couldn't board a merchantman, because exposure meant death.
This played out to Britain's advantage and when America entered WWI on April 17th, 1917, it was due to the U-boat issue.
Moral: more discretionary force, more fists, fewer jets and missiles. Take prisoners, compensate. Take a page from Britain's book, not Germany's.

[Moobs]

Rippon, that gives me a picture of what is thought to be the Israeli mindset. It is this Hezbollah mindset I am interested in, hence my question. When, before the present invasion, the order was given to fire a rocket into Israel was the intention simply to kill Israelis (or anyone else in the way) or was it to kill Israelis with a view to achieving something and, if so, what specifically do you think they were they trying to achieve?

You make an important point when you say that Israelis killing Lebanese promotes violence. I presume it follows that Lebanese killing Israelis is likely to have exactly the same effect. In your view, does Hezbollah realise this and are they deliberatly provoking the reaction or are they simply misguided in the way you think that Scoobydude is?

[Rippon]

Moobs asks what I think, eg about Hzbh’s motives, tactics.

Mmm, I will (later in this post) come to that, but I would reiterate first of all that ‘my thoughts’ are generally not ‘mine’. I simply convey, as faithfully as I can, what I hear from voices who, over the years, have proved themselves to be the most reliable sources of enlightenment on the subject (eg Moshe Machover, the anti-Zionist Jew – and, I forgot to say, emeritus professor of Philosophy at KCL).

Now, again using Robert Fisk (the legendary ME correspondent who has lived for decades in Beirut): One motive in firing katyushas into Israel is to provoke violence from them. Hzbh knew that Israel would react cruelly and, it seems, Hzbh’s intention was to use this predicted reaction as a tool in the propaganda war.

Now, when it comes to violence, Israel is always happy to oblige. But, the degree of barbarity of the reaction has taken everyone by surprise. And that is why while, at first, there were a number of people who hated Hzbh for jeopardising their lives in playing this propaganda game, despite that, now all Lebanese are united in their hatred for Israel.

Hzbh, and others, fight the propaganda war with Israel because, as everyone knows, they could never fight anything approaching a real military war – because Israel is armed to the teeth (including nuclear) by their Godfather, the US. (The analogy is a good one: Hzbh firing katyushas at Israel is as meek a threat as Gazan boys throwing stones at Israeli tanks.) “Wiping off the map” are empty words, hot air. On the other hand, “Israel is a peace-loving nation” are also empty words, simply a blatant (Blair-faced) lie. That is why it is so tiresome to hear people bleating about threats to Israel’s existence. It is others, eg Syria, Iran, who should be worried about their continued existence. After all, peace-loving Israel actually has wiped Palestinian land off the map, and effectively now wiped-out Lebanon too, certainly as a functioning nation.

But a bit of context is pertinent: Since their retreat (not a ‘peace-loving withdrawal’) out of South Lebanon in 2000 (driven out by Hzbh), Israel has persistently been making incursions into Lebanon; moreover, Israel never completely withdrew – they still occupy the Shebaa Farms area. So katyusha rocket attacks upon the invader are not wholly unreasonable.

Hzbh has always stated plainly that they will only fire katyushas in response to Israeli aggression, and that has been the pattern. Moreover, the Israelis, for decades now, still possess (about nine) thousands of Lebanese prisoners, and Hzbh has always stated clearly that they will continue to capture Israeli soldiers as bargaining chips in prisoner exchanges. Hzbh and Israel have done plenty of this (exchanges) in the past, so we know that return of their soldiers is not a concern of Israel, merely a convenient pretext for unleashing their bombardment, which (according to Machover, but I’m sure many others are saying the same) had been planned well before this latest border skirmish.

Now for the thoughts which are genuinely mine …
The interesting question (one of many) is: Why bother with any military action (eg firing katyushas) when you know that you are hopelessly out-gunned and you know that you will precipitate Israel’s hell and rage upon your fellow citizens?

I can only speculate.

Maybe there is some feeling that they would like Israeli citizens to get some taste of the fear, maiming, misery and killing that Arabs have to live with. Maybe it is too much to bear – the idea that Israel can keep subjugating and humiliating Arabs yet not receive any response. Non-violent avenues of response, particularly the UN, merely add insult to injury when others, eg Blair, pretend to be concerned about your oppression; it would actually be preferable and refreshing if Blair had the guts to say ‘I always back US-Israel no matter what, so don’t whine to me.’

On the other hand, here is a motive which is based on rational reasoning rather than anger at injustice: Israeli propaganda successfully keeps Israeli citizens in the dark about the IDF’s actions and behaviour in occupied territories and who really are the victims. If you can fire enough rockets, and sustain that for sufficient months/years, then maybe you can get Israelis to wonder why their government still does not deliver peace and security for them; and then they might start to ask searching questions of their leaders; then they might discover some truths about terrorism, eg firing a hi-tech laser-guided missile at civilians is ‘not’ terrorism but doing so with low-tech katyushas ‘is’.

[scoobydude]

And if you fire rockets from land you now have as a result of a painful Israeli withdrawal, you lose all moral credibility consistent with the violent historical facts of Islam:

http://www.historyofjihad.com

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Its about time this is put in context, instead of this tiresome gossip concerned only with immediate affairs. Moslems are notorious for their inablity and unwillingness to accept any criticism (fatwas and Dutch cartoon protests), so its not suprising you see violence and conflict almost wherever you see Moslems, all around the world. Ask the Hindus about that. In 50 years' time, ask the Jews about that. Moslems are notorious for playing obfuscating rhetorical games, where twisting truth is a named koranic strategy: evident at this blog, accusing Israel of "playing the holocaust card", a disgusting remark also evident in public Moslem protests - I recall one placard saying "wait for the REAL holocaust", denying the facts of Hitlerian history and using primitive emotional tactics as an end in itself, in place of logical argument.

Hezbollah go home, if they have homes, to imprisoned wives and daughters and a pathological obsession with an old middle east book that preaches violence towards non-moslems. They are the epitome of ignorance and evil, emblematic of a worldwide prolem.

9/11.
7/7.
Bali.
India, just recently.

Conveniently forgotten by propagandist osbscurantists, neither forgotten nor ignored by peacable citiziens like myself tired and disgusted with endless Islamic hostilities.

[sam davies]

Rippon, it is not worth arguing with you, as you are clearly a hypocrite. You call on people to boycott Israeli goods, yet you yourself utilise a computer. And parts of your computer were developed in Israel.

[Rippon]

scoobydude says: " … painful Israeli withdrawal … "

‘Humiliating retreat’ is more accurate than ‘painful withdrawal’ – in the same sense that America’s retreat from Vietnam was humiliating.

It is humiliating for the world’s most powerful armies not to be able to prevail over primitive enemies. And, in fact, this might explain the degree of rage Israel has displayed in its bombing (the euphemistic media phrase is ‘disproportionate’).

scoobydude keeps suggesting that the arguments I present are motivated by Islamic fundamentalist ideology.

But the most damning inventory and analysis of US-Israel crimes comes from Jews, eg Machover, Finklestein (‘The Holocaust Industry’), Chomsky.

Thus, the Zionists have had to create another term of abuse for people like that (because phrases like ‘Muslim jihadist’ obviously don’t work) – I think the most common one is ‘self-hating Jew’, the warped logic being that, if you are Jewish and you criticise Israel, then you must hate yourself.

(I make my own little contribution to the debate, and I’m not Muslim either.)

It would be interesting to hear of Muslims who fervently defend the Zionist cause.

[Henry]

Hezbullah is by no stretch of the imagination a "primitive" organization; morever, a crucial part of their overall strategy is for the world to perceive them as such-i.e.,Hezbullah (David) of the "Katyusha sligshot" against the I.D.F.(Goliath)of the laser-guided bombs. If any group ever deserved an Oscar for "Theatre of Warfare", it is Hezbullah.

[Rippon]

Henry is being ridiculous if he seriously means to suggest that Hzbh's weapons are not primitive compared to Israel's.

It is also ridiculous to suggest that Hzbh have any control over or strategy for how they are portrayed in the media. They are perceived as David (vs Goliath) simply because that is the reality.

Propaganda-wise, all that Hzbh can achieve is to provoke Israel into revealing its true colours, the true degree of its rage and savagery. And, as usual, Israel is happy to oblige.

sam davies makes a valid point regarding economic boycott: It is a tricky issue and difficult (perhaps impossible) to be 100% consistent in one's approach - assuming s/he is correct about Israel deserving credit for parts of my computer.

But like South Africa under apartheid, I think the power of boycott campaigns against powerful countries is more psychological than economic. The campaigns succeeded in highlighting the issues of fascist-style oppression and contributed significantly in conferring the international pariah status such regimes deserve.

Therefore, a sporting-cultural-diplomatic-academic boycott campaign might also be useful. Israel certainly deserves this compared to Hamas. Of course, it's easy to spurn Hamas because, true to the form of our gangster-style system of international relations, cowards like Blair will only dare to cross others who can command no fear and pose no threat to you, eg Saddam, Hamas. By contrast, Blair will rush to kneel (or bend-over) before Bush, whatever the line on Israel (or, indeed, any other issue), because he loves his Clinton-Lewinsky style relationship with that man. (Blair euphemistically calls this the "special relationship".)

On a different tack, I would like to hear someone refute (if possible) this point of mine:

The fact that the most damaging (and perspicacious) criticism of Israel comes from high-profile, highly-respected Jews proves that the issues - eg oppression, terror, lies - transcend religious/ideological allegiances.

Does anyone know of any high-profile, highly-respected Muslims who condemn Hzbh and/or Hamas the way such Jews condemn US-Israel in their analyses? My guess is that such Muslims must exist (somewhere), and I would be fascinated to read their stuff - to see if it matches the standard of the other camp (Machover, Finklestein, Chomsky, ... the list is very long)

[henry]

There are several different concepts here. One is the notion that Hezbullah is a "primitive" organization. On the contrary, it is highly sophisticated and highly intelligent-and certainly concerned with its' media image-which it knows how to manipulate-not always successfuly.
In reality, is it is very easy to be a "David" these days. Ketyusha rockets are just one way for a small group of individuals to disrupt an entire society. There are others ways that have been tried by other groups of "Davids" that have been more spectacular and just as leathaly effeictive. Of course by weaponry, we don't mean particular weapons per say, but the entire manner in which that weaponry is deployed. It is the manner in which David throws the stone that makes it so lethal and effective.

[Frank Schnittger]

Rippon - your PC probaly has an Intel processor Chip, and Intel has factories in Israel. However most Intel processors for the European market are made in Ireland. (You can boycott us next time we whip your ass in rugby).

As regards your other query, you are no doubt aware that the vast majority of Islamic regimes oppose terrorism and indeed actively suppress terrorist/militant groups in their own countries.

It suits Zionist/Bush foreign policy apologists to ignore this and highlight the very few Islamic regimes who do support the "Push Zionists into the Sea" rubbish and give some support to terrorist groups claiming to be dedicated to this end.

The reality is that whilst such Governments/terrorist groups can make life very uncomfortable for Israel, they know that they have zero prospect of defeating Israel militarilly.

The "Push Zionists into the Sea" rhetoric is mostly for domestic consumption - but regretably - Bush Blair can use it for precisely the same purpose. So while everybody can get hot and bothered about a largely imaginary Global Islamic/Christian confronatation - the real issues are conveniently forgetten - the expropriation of Palestinians from their own homeland, and the failure of the West to defeat the real terrorist groups like Al Qaeda.

[Rippon]

"Rippon, it is not worth arguing with you, as you are clearly a hypocrite."

Hypocrites are precisely the people who should be argued with - to make them see the error of their ways.

"It is not worth arguing with" people who are already correct in the position they take.

[Rippon]

I thought that henry and I were arguing different positions, but, in fact, it seems we are in agreement:

Hzbh has primitive weapons
Israel has sophisticated weapons.
Hzbh uses its weapons in a sophisticated way.
Israel uses its weapons in a primitive way.

[Rippon]

It is not worth arguing with Frank Schnittger.

[Rippon]

There is a colourful phrase in Frank Schnittger's post - "whip your ass".

Made me think of Blair & Bush again. That's a very sub-dom relationship, but I think Blair enjoys it.

[henry]

My point is that in today's world, a primitive weapon is just as effective as the more sophisticated one. So in fact David and Goliath are equals. It doen't take an Einstein to figure this out. In effect, the man in his designer jeans and flashy t-shirt, riding his motorcycle, darting here and there from timer to timer, is just as effective in his own way as the I.D.F. Kudos to Hezbullah for figuring this out.

[Rippon]

Mmmm, I don't think that's a feasible argument, henry.

I'm sure that Hzbh would love being privileged to the kind of weapons that Israel receives from the US. If the offer was made, I don't think Hzbh would say, 'That's ok, we're just as effective with our simple katyushas.'

Similarly, if the US said, 'Look Israel, guys, good buddies, this is costing us a packet. How about we just supply you these simple, cheap rockets we got instead?'
I don't thinnk Israel would say, 'Yeah, fine, what the heck - we can be just as effective with those!'

On a more serious note:
It is becoming increasingly clear that Israel has (had all along?) an agenda of actually destroying Lebanon, turning it into a non-functioning entity - hence the deliberate targeting of infrastructure. For that project you really do need the world's most powerful, sophisticated weapons (unless, I suppose, you choose to do it with nuclear weapons - in which case, I concede, you're right henry, crude devices would suffice).

[MichaelG]

It is not worth arguing with Rippon

[scoobydude]

Not only is Ripoff not worth arguing with, s-he also represents an aspect of the widely held, ignorant, disgusting victim politics widespread amongst Moslems and throughout the Middle East. S-he says, Israel and anyone who doesnt condemn them is "playing the holocaust card". S-he now says, Israel is intent on "destroying Lebanon". Its one thing to see this mindless wittering at an internet blog, being irritating nonsense "not worth arguing with", its another thing again to recognise that is a serious and emphatically held posiiton amongst Moslems and the entire Middle East. Iran has recently repeated again, their desire to eradicate Israel. Meanwhile Israel are trying hard NOT to target civilians, and they fail when they do, whereas Hezbollah succeed when they do. The moral inversions, the logical obfuscations and childish, irrational victim narratives of the Moslem world make them incompatible within it. The holocaust, in particular, was used by them in terms of a childish argument fought not with logic and thought but with the tactics of emotion and "being offended". Its like this: feel "offended", react by saying something offensive, like a game of tit-for-tat the disgust for which eventually confirms their cherished and entrenched victim narrative: "look! all the world hates moslems!" - meanwhile, what disgust for Moslems really concerns is their inability to think, talk and act in neutral, civil, and rational terms.

Islam is predicated on a tribal us-against-them division, going all the way back to the sword-carrying Mohammed rampaging across across Arabia slaying the infidel and acquiring money, land and power. The "humiliation" Moslems feel is fundamentally based on a loss of imperial power now manifest in ghetto communities all across Europe, including the UK, where Moslems fail to integrate and then suffer the social and economic consequences. While average Brits feel embarrassed about the former British Empire, as a kind of imperial evolutionary stage we have outgrown and will never repeat even if we could, Moslems worldwide are fed doctrines of displacement and ummah resentment, identifying worldwide conflicts as part of their own core identity, regarldess of where they live and what relevance it has. They like the idea of the old Moslem empire - just one difference between the Western and Moslem mind.

Much easier, by far, to get angry about Palestine and use that to justify your Moselm discontentments in Bradford. Meanwhile, black and Chinese communities have integrated into multi-cultural Britain quite nicely because Britain is, despite the propaganda from the Islamic camp, a remarkably tolerant nation. Too tolerant, in my opinion, because its been abused: by immigrants, vile people like Omar Bakri and Abu Hamza who preached klu klux klan style hatred for years, and by Moslems who protest against Britain while their first generation forbears were accommodated and supported while they were fleeing places like Kashmir where - surprise surprise - Moslems were involved in a bloodbath against Hindus. One generation later Moslem hostility is turned towards the place they live (with their mosques and schools paid for by the government), and we see the Bradford riots. And the same tensions exist all across Europe: France and Holland being good examples.

No one with a reasonable education and enlightened outlook will deny that Israel should not occupy stolen territory. But this has become a massively over-simplified, out of context victimhood chant convenient for the Moslem cause. In fact, on the subject of territory alone, Jews have always been driven off land by Arabs:

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

What I'd like to see is an examination, an historical account, of Palestian attitudes and behaviour towards Israel since 1945. Because I do not accept Palestinians have any moral superiority whatsoever, that they have always been hostile and nasty neighbours, that Israeli encroachment on their territory is just part of two-way hostilities that have to be seen in context. Fact is, if neighbours are constantly spitting and shouting at you, plotting against you, then your opinion of such people spirals downward and you don't feel like treating them with respect - why should you? The result is, Israel occupied land illegally, which has become the SOLE factor in this argument which it clearly isn't: its an effect, not a cause; part of a complex situation not a simple one, leapt on and chanted by the worldwide moslem Ummah as yet another example of poor-me treatment of Moslems. It was the same with the anti free speech cartoon protests (a massively wordlwide phenomenon) - Moslems behave badly, intolerantly and violently, and then say "ha! see? you all hate Moslems!". Islam is stuck in a cycle of totalitarian bigotry and victimhood accusation, which is a core part of their identity alongside their koranic superstitions. Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri, Bin Laden, Dutch fatwa killers, the regime of Iran and all the rest of worlwide Islamism is just the current expression of an infamous historical tendency - which the non-moslem world has to contend with, because so called moderate moslems are unable or unwilling to civilise and police their own members of the tribe. On the contrary, substantial numbers sympathise with terrorist action; may not detonate bombs themselves and disagree with violence, but nonetheless identify with their moslem cause: over 10,000 UK Al Qaeda sympathisers, 60% Durch moslem sympathy/support for the murder of Vin Gogh, and further statistics you see reported here:

* Muslims who see the 7/7 bombing attacks in London as justified on balance: 6 percent.
* Who feel sympathy for the "feelings and motives" of those who carried out the 7/7 attacks: 24 percent.
* Understand "why some people behave in that way": 56 percent.
* Disagree with Tony Blair's description of the ideology of the London bombers as "perverted and poisonous": 26 percent.
* Feel not loyal towards Britain: 16 percent.
* Agree that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end": 32 percent willing to use non-violent means and (as noted above) 1 percent willing to use violence "if necessary." Just 56 percent of Muslims agree with the statement that "Western society may not be perfect but Muslims should live with it and not seek to bring it to an end."
* Agree that "British political leaders don't mean it when they talk about equality. They regard the lives of white British people as more valuable than the lives of British Muslims": 52 percent.
* Dismiss political party leaders as insincere when saying "they respect Islam and want to co-operate with Britain's Muslim communities": 50 percent.
* Doubt that anyone charged with and tried for the 7/7 attacks would receive a fair trial: 44 percent.
* Would not inform on a Muslim religious leader "trying to 'radicalise' young Muslims by preaching hatred against the West": 10 percent.
* Do not think people have a duty to go to the police if they "see something in the community that makes them feel suspicious": 14 percent.
* Believe other Muslims would be reluctant to go to the police "about anything they see that makes them suspicious": 41 percent.
* Would inform the police if they believed they knew about the possible planning of a terrorist attack: 73 percent. (In this case, the Daily Telegraph did not make available the negative percentage.)

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2797
- some of which has also been reported by the Times.

[Rippon]

scoobydude makes some observations about Muslim culture/ideology around the world.

It is true that there is much about Muslims and Islam that is thoroughly abhorrent - Sharia law is an obvious example.

But scoobydude suggests that such people are the sole source of condemnation of Israel.

That's like suggesting that only black people condemned South Africa and Apartheid.

I still think my strongest - and irrefutable - point, which scoobydude does not even attempt to address, is that damnation of Israel transcends religious/ideological differences, because: The most piercing criticism of Israel comes from Jews; only a fraction of people on demonstrations like today's in London are Muslim.

[henry]

Quoting Rippon, "But the most damning inventory and analysis of US-Israel crimes comes from Jews, eg Machover, Finklestein (‘The Holocaust Industry’), Chomsky.

Thus, the Zionists have had to create another term of abuse for people like that (because phrases like ‘Muslim jihadist’ obviously don’t work) – I think the most common one is ‘self-hating Jew’, the warped logic being that, if you are Jewish and you criticise Israel, then you must hate yourself.

(I make my own little contribution to the debate, and I’m not Muslim either.)

It would be interesting to hear of Muslims who fervently defend the Zionist cause."
Rippon writes as if the flow of free and critical discourse was somehow equivalent on both sides. The work of Machover, Finkel and Chomsky-which I largely disagree with-are of course welcome within the parameters of an "open society". There may well be "Muslims who fervently defend the Zionist cause", but I am sure that first and foremost these gentlemen are concerned with keeping their heads on their shoulders-horizontally.

[scoobydude]

Very nice:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2299560,00.html

Except, Mr Manji, your essential premise is an absurd, totally absurd one: you use minor anecdotal details to counter what is massively and overwhelmingly the fact, that Islam worldwide remains massively intolerant, imperialist, backward, and primitive. So a few peple murmur that koranic law is man-made? Wow, welcome to 2006 about 500 hundred years too late. Except the vast majority of moslems disagree, which is why we saw those violent cartoon protests resulting in over 30 deaths: they do not accept criticism. A few people murmer that Islam is itself violent? Wow, welcome to the exceedingly obvious that began in the beginning with The Paedophile Mohammed. The more moderate forms of Islam we see in the West occur because of the restraints of the secular societies; what you see in the Middle East is what Islam is like in its essential nature.

I don't know what people like Manji think they are doing with their propagandist nonsense; maybe its just a career move they see might be successful in the absence of any modern Islamic voice. Maybe he wants to be invited on TV, write columns in the Times, or write a book. And as the saying goes, "whatever" - because he manifestly does not reflect the facts of Islam. It would be great if he did, but he doesn't; the evidence is to the contrary, that moslems worldwide are turning to increasingly hostile and radical positons, as they feel the pressure from the modern world with which they are incompatible. People like Manji address an educated Western audience, not mainstream moslems. If they believe in the need for a reformation, they should go into the communities where it needs to be done and make it happen - not talk complacently and disengenuously with readers of the Times. But don't hold your breath; on the contrary, expect reactionary hostility from moslems consistent with the the free-speech cartoon protests, the murder of Vin Gogh, and the fatwa on Hirsi Ali. Why? - because they dared to question and criticise.

Not only is this a disturbing political sickness all around the world, its also - and in fact derives from - a primitive philsophical ignorance. Thus:

"Spinoza's reaction to the religious intolerance he saw around him was to try to think his way out of all sectarian thinking. He understood the powerful tendency in each of us toward developing a view of the truth that favors the circumstances into which we happened to have been born. Self-aggrandizement can be the invisible scaffolding of religion, politics or ideology.

Against this tendency we have no defense but the relentless application of reason. Reason must stand guard against the self-serving false entailments that creep into our thinking, inducing us to believe that we are more cosmically important than we truly are, that we have had bestowed upon us - whether Jew or Christian or Muslim - a privileged position in the narrative of the world's unfolding. Spinoza's system is a long argument for a conclusion as radical in our day as it was in his: that to the extent that we are rational, we each partake in exactly the same identity."

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/07/30/opinion/edgoldstein.php

Moslems are incapable of the common-humanity reason which Spinoza extolled as a humanistic and unifying force. Salman Rushdie and others have characterised this as "obsurantism", which then manifests in real political situations as skewed victim politics narratives, as dear and integral to moslems as the koran.

[Frank Schnittger]

scoobydude - you are as entitled as anyone to dislike Islam and to proselytize against it. By all means promote Christianity or your own philosophy as a superior way of life if that is what you believe in.

But that has nothing whatever to do with the essential injustice of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their own land initially by Zionist terrorist groups (pre-1948) and then by the Israeli state when those terrorist groups where officially incorporated into the Israeli Defense Forces in 1948.

The current situation, where millions of Palestinians are displaced into refugee camps and tribal reservations and homelands which have no prospect of becoming economically viable or politically stable is simply institutionalizing a state of perpetual war.

Facts are facts, and it doesn't matter whether they are annunciated by Islamic extremists, Jewish dissidents, "wet behind the ears" liberals, victimologists, or religious utopians.

Palestinians are being used as pawns in a larger ideological/religious battle. The Israeli/Palestinian issue requires a local political solution. Let Islamists and those who oppose them fight their battles elsewhere. Human dignity and justice requires that the Palestinian issue be addressed.

No Frank, you have not acknowledged my point.

While I acknowledge the problematic actions of Israel, YOU fail to acknowledge the larger context of historic and worldwide Islam. My view is more comprehensive than yours, because I address both - and suggest that the wider context, and an examination of Palestinian and Arab attitude towards Israel, needs addressing. The dialogue needs opening up, not closing down and simplifying in the way you suggest which, incidentally, is convenient for Moslem discontent all around the world: the Ummah us-against-them narrative, where Palestine is used to feed and justify local and unrelated resentments, eg. in Bradford. Palestinians are indeed suffering, and now so are the Lebanese. But using blame tactics against Israel is an absurd act of denial in relation to the hostile politics of Islam all around the world, especially in the Middle East. The tactics of Hezbollah and Hamas are at least as responsible as Israel for the loss of innocent life; they use civilians and UN personnel as a deliberate and cowardly tactic, knowing the accidents of Israel will cause worldwide protest. How evil is that?

Israel tried to address the Palsetinian issue by withdrawing from Gaza - and look what happened. What do you suggest exactly, after Israel has a