My point was, terrorists or whatever you called them, the IRA, along with many other former "terrorists" are now effectively part of legitimate recognised governing processes, so although the stance of Hamas/Hizbollah might seem intractable now, this needn't preclude a future democratic governing role - oh oops they WERE elected democratically but Israel (and "the West") didn't like the result...
"All the evidence I know of, including the Camp David and Oslo Accords, suggest that Israel has indeed tried many times to reach a peaceful settlement, with occasional success" - sorry but that is laughable, what part of the right-wing press/meida did you get that from?! If you are here as a Compass member please read something reliable like the New Statesman and you'll find out the real facts, in fact read this week's editorial for an excellent resume of the whole situation.
Sorry to say but I used to have a lot of time for Israel, with their plucky rebuilding after the holocaust (ok a little bit of ethnic cleansing to set it up but hey, this was their rightful bible lands), the apparently successful collectivist kibutzes (sp), the threatening encirclement of unscrupulous arab countries... but all that good feeling has gone a long time ago, ground into the dust by the Lebanon wars, the settlement encroachments, the new version of the Berlin wall, the nuclear threats etc etc. .. now they just seem like a mini-Bushite USA, everyone's a terrorist who doesn't agree with them and their rules and their power. I'm not holding my breath because of some of his previous pronouncements but it does seem Barack is our only hope to settle this...

Oh, and I find this an astonishingly racist statement:

"Maybe it's because the cream of the Palestinians emigrated in the 1950s rather than stay to help organise and lead their people. Maybe it's because the Palestinians never were a cohesive "nation"."

"AND FINALLY, to SG because I would really like to make a peace settlement with you ... if you want to address my concerns about your borderline "antisemitic language" please email me at martynrosen at blueyonder.co.uk .... it's better that we discuss it in private rather than clogging up this thread"

Sorry, Martyn, I believe in absolute transparency and clogging up this thread is one way to define its success.

"So the conspiracy now encompasses the Foreign Office does it?

"As I said, you can always rely on SG to condemn herself out of her own mouth."

As I say to my friends, and as the Hutton Report demonstrated so definitively, we do not conspire in this country. But are you suggesting that the Foreign Office is so incompetent that it had no prior knowledge of an Israeli invasion and did not indicate its interest in the matter to the BBC in any way, shape or form over the preceding 6 months? If so, what is the point of the Foreign Office?

In responding to my assertion that her comments about a BBC/Israeli plot to show the Diary of Anne Frank this week were spreading conspiracy theories by innuendo Salfordgal says

"Actually, in the trade, it's known as the Foreign Office having a little word".

So the conspiracy now encompasses the Foreign Office does it?

As I said, you can always rely on SG to condemn herself out of her own mouth.

To respond to t-o-s ...

"Regarding this whole business of Hamas as terrorists bent on the complete and utter destruction of Israel - wasn't the aim of the IRA (would have been called terrorists post 9/11) to secure the unconditional handing over of N Ireland?"

The IRA were terrorists, and were CALLED terrorists at the time. A "terrorist" is one whose specific tactic is to terrorise the CIVILIAN population by attacking and killing them. Hamas are, by their own admission, terrorists by this definition. Frances earlier claimed that Hamas are in fact freedom fighters, in which case the July London bombers were freedom fighters. I'm not overly exercised by her (and your) definition, so long as I know what you mean by your words, but if these killers are to be called freedom fighters, then people like Mandela and Gandhi and Castro who WERE freedom fighters (they did not target civilians) need to be called something quite different.

" ... so if Israel SERIOUSLY tried to engage Hamas, Hizbollah etc instead of endless attrition there might be a future peaceful settlement of sorts?"

You're just asserting without evidence that Israel HASN'T seriously tried. All the evidence I know of, including the Camp David and Oslo Accords, suggest that Israel has indeed tried many times to reach a peaceful settlement, with occasional success. Surely you can see that the Palestinians are so awfully divided that reaching a binding agreement must be almost impossible. Right now we have a Hamas "government" in Gaza and a Fatah "government in the West Bank. And then there is a Hizbollah "government-in-waiting" in Lebanon. How can such a tiny, desperate people manage to prove itself so dreadfully fragmented ?

Maybe it's because the cream of the Palestinians emigrated in the 1950s rather than stay to help organise and lead their people. Maybe it's because the Palestinians never were a cohesive "nation". Whatever the reason, it now seems obvious to me that a prerequisite of any peace settlement between Israel and Palestine is a peace settlement between Hamas and Hizbollah and Fatah and all their sponsoring states. For too long the Palestinian people have been used to fight a proxy war between Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia and (once) Iraq.


AND FINALLY, to SG because I would really like to make a peace settlement with you ... if you want to address my concerns about your borderline "antisemitic language" please email me at martynrosen at blueyonder.co.uk .... it's better that we discuss it in private rather than clogging up this thread

"As regards your explanation of your comment about the Anne Frank TV serial appearing at this time I think its known in the trade as spreading conspiracy theories by innuendo."

Actually, in the trade, it's known as the Foreign Office having a little word.

Regarding this whole business of Hamas as terrorists bent on the complete and utter destruction of Israel - wasn't the aim of the IRA (would have been called terrorists post 9/11) to secure the unconditional handing over of N Ireland? And of course the greatest terrorist MR Mandela? And of course Che etc etc? My point being is that circumstances and perceptions change so if Israel SERIOUSLY tried to engage Hamas, Hizbollah etc instead of endless attrition there might be a future peaceful settlement of sorts? Sorry a bit rushed but I hope you get my point.

Yes SG I should have been more precise. By "indiscriminately" I meant not discriminating between combatants and non-combatants as the Israelis at least try to do (albeit not always successfully).

As regards your explanation of your comment about the Anne Frank TV serial appearing at this time I think its known in the trade as spreading conspiracy theories by innuendo.

"So the rockets are fired indiscriminately to kll as many Jews as possible and to sabotage any peace effort. "

Don't wish to appear pedantic , Stan, but wouldn't the rockets be more likely to kill as many Jews as possible if they were fired with greater discrimination?

And just to set the record straight, I did not suggest "that this week's TV showing of The Diary of Anne Frank is some kind of Israeli/BBC plot", I merely reported on remarks made by others who, like me, work in the media sector. Personally, I put it down to a very unhappy coincidence, but I know that others are less inclined to do so - and not least because the programming strategy adopted by the BBC, showing an episode every single evening of the week, is not commonly adopted by BBC1. I suggest, purely for reasons of transparency and trust, that decisions leading to the use of this programming strategy, and the reasons for those decisions, in this instance be made known by the Director-General and/or the BBC Trustees in relation to the BBC's public purpose, as defined in its Charter, of "bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK".

Stan - you are still arguing that Israel is absolutely right and the Palestinians are absolutely wrong which in the end is the extreme position either side comes to in a prolonged conflict. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise because it would be impossible.

So assuming Israel was totally the agrieved party as you believe - how does that make proportionality so lop sided. Being right in a war is not an excuse to ignore the Geneva convention.

What I am arguing is that the way the collateral damage is justified on one side so unevenly is not because of the rightness of the case - it is the distorted ex colonial value that was put on different lives and it is very shaming to see it in 2009.

Israel is making the case that the Geneva convention does not apply in asymetric warfare and that is a claim that we need to think about and I would want to challenge. It gives the US and their allies carte blanche to bomb at will because they are known powers and civilian populations which freedom fighters/terrorists choose to fight to free are then at the mercy of extermination without protection. Do we really believe this?

See below my replies to Frances, the-incoming-storm and SG on the Gaza situation (which I forgot to sign off).

Frances, you're right. Israel does need a history it can be proud of. But it also needs a future free from acts of terrorism annd threats of extirmination by Arab and Iranian neighbours.

Turning the other cheek simply doesn't work with the kind of fanatics they are up against, much as I wish it were otherwise.
Consider for example the statement by Hamas Commander Mahmoud Zahar that Jewish children EVERYWHERE are now legitimate targets and the recent introduction of the Islamic penal code into Gaza whereby thieves can have their hands chopped off and adulterers can be stoned to death (no doubt Salfordgal will be writing in to applaud these developments).

As for the-incoming-storm's criticism of media bias, I suppose any media reference to the case Israel is making is regarded as bias by people like him.

And if he wants an explanation of why Hamas are firing those the rockets you need look no further than the Constitution of Hamas which calls for the eradication of Israel. Hamas just does not want any kind of two-state solution (that was accepted by their predecessors by the way).

So the rockets are fired indiscriminately to kll as many Jews as possible and to sabotage any peace effort.

It's as simple as that. All other explanations are just window-dressing.

I do not have to respond to Salfordgal wild utterances (the latest being that this week's TV showing of The Diary of Anne Frank is some kind of Israeli/BBC plot) since she is obviously condemning herself out of her own mouth.

Apparently, there is a problem with arms being smuggled from Egypt to the Palestinians. Apparently, there is no problem at all with arms being sent openly from the West to the Israelis.

Is this because the Palestinians are aggressive and the Israelis are pacific ?

Probably the answer to the strange moral distortion comes from a colonial history here and a view as masters of the universe in the US.

Unless seen through this perspective the idea that a million people are locked up in a ghetto without a state being killed and terrorised as collective punishment would be intolerable.

But right through the war on terror one casualty from a Western power was a tragedy and hundreds of casualties from the other side were collateral damage. It has to be the ex colonial perspective that distorts and accepts these equivalences.

The UN spokesman in Gaza is saying tonight this assault is against the Geneva convention.

The Israeli spokesman was saying that proportionality and the Geneva convention doesn’t apply in the war of terror – it’s for wars between two states conveniently forgetting that the Palestinians don’t have a state for some strange reason like it was given to someone else.

"Does anyone challenge this distorted presentation?"

I think most people under the age of 25 assume distortion, slant, spin, PR moment after PR moment and total fiction in mainstream TV and radio news programmes and the press, and give it very little credence. It's all a part of our entertainment/celeb/alcohol'n'drug-fuelled fantasyland culture. Most news we filter through previous experience, our preferences on the internet and the people we come into contact with, and we usually end up reversing the meaning by 180 degrees. An example: one question I've heard a few times over the past couple of days is what caused the BBC to decide to run The Diary of Anne Frank at 19.00 every evening THIS week? What did the BBC (and the Westminster government) know that the rest of us didn't? Happy coincidence or conspiracy to distract from murder? I think we should be told.

I suppose what would really be confusing is an attempt to provide enough information about any issue to enable someone to come to a reasonable conclusion on anything ranging from the merits of contestants in Strictly Come Dancing to Gordon Brown's stewardship of the British economy. I do notice, though, that the character of the BBC's reporting has begun to shift and is reflecting reality a little more as public opinion asserts itself more forcefully against the Gaza Holocaust. Odd that the Compass management hasn't yet opened a dedicated thread on the political wisdom of maiming and murdering the people of Gaza. Or possibly not.

What I would like to comment on (if it hasn't already been alluded to here before) is the appalling media coverage. When I say appalling I refer to the continuing practice of implicit bias to Israel - and I am referring primarily to BBC and Sky News. This doesn't take the form of overt propaganda as it is more sophisticated than that (and therefore more dangerous for more casual viewers) but to anyone like myself (and I hope yourselves) there is a detectable in-built proclivity to the Israeli - or is it "Western"? - point of view/agenda/framework/ideology, call it what you will, in all this coverage. A classic example is about the main Israeli assertion for this action, that it is to stop the firing of Hamas rockets into Israel - and we hear this Israeli justification repeated time after time - but despite listening very carefully to daily news coverage, I haven't heard once ANY explanation of WHY these rockets were being fired in the first place, i.e. the Hamas justification.
That is just one prominent example, another more general one is the complete lack (as far as I have seen) of well-informed critical comment on this incursion from any prominent UK figures - we might get a moderate Israeli interviewed who regrets this and that but basically can't see any alternative - whereas what the viewer needs for a balanced account is to have an external (suitably intellectually rigorous of course) critique (a basic analysis of the grotesque disproportionality of the whole thing would be a start), instead of just having Brown wringing his hands and saying that "there must be immediate action to stop this..urm..in the next few days".
Does anyone challenge this distorted presentation? (apart from John Pilger of course!) Can anyone change this significantly?? Is this another aspect that the neocon collapse can help change? Or are we all doomed to be forever effectively a sub-part of a Fox News culture?? (sorry going a bit wider there!)
NB - I am not anti-Israeli per se, but I hope a good international socialist that abhors any disproportionate and unjustified use of force against the people.

I thought I would weigh in concerning Royal Mail, rather than Palestine, since that was what the original post is about.

I used to work in the City years ago, including a spell as a director of an exchange, for what that's worth. In recent years I've been working in the area where the Internet and markets converge, and become interested in alternatives to the conflicted and inequitable legal and financial frameworks - or "enterprise models" we take for granted.

I am currently working with a Scottish Charity - Nordic Enterprise Trust - to develop partnership frameworks, and we had a little Norwegian government funding for a while to refine the concepts, which are now getting a lot of interest in view of the fact that the conventional methods have seized up, as I have been forecasting they would for several years now .

I posted what follows on a Facebook group re keeping Royal Mail a public service, since I reckon we have identified a simple but radical approach which might best be described as a networked "Co-operative of Cooperatives" operating on a "Not for Loss" basis - as the Nobel Prize-winning Dr Yunus - of Grameen Bank - put it. ie without returns to "rentier" shareholders.

The conventional view is that there are two mutually exclusive alternatives: Public and Private.

By "Public" is meant "owned by the State" - by "Private" is meant owned by a Limited Liability Company. But these two are no longer the only games in town.

For instance Glasgow Council (Labour) now has three municipal Limited Liability Partnership ("LLP") joint ventures, albeit they use conventional debt funding for working capital.

I advocate the following "Royal Mail Partnership" framework, constituted as an LLP. Note that this LLP will not be an "Organisation": it won't do anything; employ anyone; or own anything: it is simply an agreement between "stakeholders".

Firstly: the "Custodian" is the State, which will continue to own the assets in the public interest and have certain veto powers aimed at preserving the aims and objectives set out in the LLP agreement (which is a totally "open" agreement);

Secondly: the "Investor" - Day One, the State is entitled to 100% of revenues.

Thirdly: the "Operator" - this is the management and staff of Royal Mail, currently working for a Plc in state ownership.

Fourthly: the "Customer" - ie a User group.

These would be the "stakeholder" members of the Royal Mail Partnership framework.

The Users pay for the use of the service, and for the use of the capital employed in the service, and this revenue may then be divided PROPORTIONALLY into %age "Units" or "n'ths" eg a billion Units, each of which carries the right to one billionth of GROSS Royal Mail revenues.

These Units are shared in agreed proportions between Investor and Operator. The interests of the Investor (State) and Operator are therefore aligned, and if efficiency savings are made, they are shared between them in agreed proportions.

The ownership of Royal Mail Plc - which becomes the key "Operator" partner providing the service - will be passed to and remain with (possibly through a Trust arrangement) the staff - as with John Lewis Partnership, or Tower Colliery - and there is no reason why there need be any further fat-cattery.

The staff and management are capable of working out among themselves how best to organise the work efficiently and to spread the revenues fairly. The Scandinavian approach - where salaries and benefits are spread much more equitably between management and other staff, is a good example, as is the John Lewis Partnership.

A proportion of the "n'ths" / Units would be transferred by the State to the Post Office pension scheme - thereby plugging the pension hole. For tax reasons these Units would necessarily be sold either to overseas investors - particularly Islamic investors (this structure happens to be Sharia'h compliant at a basic level) - or to any UK investor without pension tax treatment. But note here that that this will not be to sell "Ownership" or "control" of Public assets: it is merely to share with investors "Unitised" rights to revenues.

Such revenue sharing with investors allows necessary working or development capital to be raised in a much less risky way than the alternative of secured borrowing, where a failure to pay debt would put Royal Mail at risk. "Unitisation" replaces BOTH conventional toxic "Equity" in a PLC, and equally toxic secured debt created by credit institutions and creates a simple but radical new continuous class of finance in "nth's" or %age Units.

If it is thought fit to bring in new partners (eg for new business lines such as generic public interest Post Office banking) then this may be done simply by sharing the revenues from the joint activity.

It's not Rocket Science , but you won't hear about it from anyone paid by the hour, rather than by the outcome.

"No doubt the likes of Salfordgal would prefer this even harder-line approach from the Israelis so that they can wallow in their self-righteous hatred of all things Zionist (or Jewish)."

Stan, I choose not to conflate Zionism and Judaism. I believe that Zionism is, at best, a typically deadbeat Central European nationalist corruption centred on an imagined people with an imagined history who, as luck (an possibly God) would have it, were and are, in reality, bound very loosely by real, distinctive and valuable religious traditions. I also believe the modern gangster state of Israel is the absolute anti-thesis of Herzl's essentially humanitarian nationalist vision of the Jews'-State which he outlined in both "Der Judenstaat" and his novel, "Altneuland".

I also believe that Israel is locked on course for its own destruction, like so many other states in the past and, I've no doubt, so many other states in the future, not because of any need on my part nor on the part of others like me to "wallow in their self-righteous hatred" than because, in the circumstances, it is the only rational outcome of a tragedy that's been in the making since the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916.

Stan - I'm glad you recognise that I care about all the people involved so you will understand that the advice I am giving is in the interests of Israel and that is why so many Jewish commentators are now speaking out and saying exactly the same as me.

Israel has gone too far. No acts by other people should be allowed to provoke Israel in to this kind of terrible action and Israel will be the losers both in regard from the rest of the world and in their own hearts.

You seem to be saying that the ends justify the means but after a bit you become the means you use and the means become who you are. That's why I say step back and rethink.

Israel is better than this. It needs a history it can be proud of.

Frances, if Israel had "stepped back" before this engagement, this would have been interpreted by Hamas as a green light for firing their rockets with impunity. Quite apart from anything else this would have resulted in certain victory for the even harder-line parties at the forthcoming election, who would have no truck at all with negotiated settlements, or the humanitarian arrangements just agreed by the present government.

No doubt the likes of Salfordgal would prefer this even harder-line approach from the Israelis so that they can wallow in their self-righteous hatred of all things Zionist (or Jewish). But I would expect better from you, Frances, since I think you genuinely have the interests of Israel and the Palestinians at heart.

Rabbi Michael Lerner in the Times today is joining other Jewish commentators like Michelle Hanson in the Guardian and Jenny Barnet on LBC in speaking out as a true friend and asking Israel to step back here.

"SG has a well-earned reputation for intemperate language and I quite enjoy her acerbic wit; but on this subject I think she has uttered one intemperance too many, and has used language which comes far too close to antisemitism for my liking."

I suppose if I haven't given you a single example of antisemitism, it may be as well if you were to provide an example of language which i have used "which comes far too close to antisemitism for my liking," and clearly explain why it does so.

In the Leopard, Lampedusa had one of his aristocratic characters outline the guiding principle of political success: “If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change." Perhaps I offend you by stating the obvious all too clearly: Israel cannot survive without changing, especially as American power declines; after the invasion of the Lebanon, the genocidal killings and destruction of infrastructure in Gaza, and as the stakes become higher for many third parties, Israel will be unable to change. In time, it will remain the same, paranoid, watching its enemies increase, first slowly, then more quickly, as its disruptive presence continues to irritate, so that all patience is lost and finally, even the Americans will feel it essential to be seen giving its external foes the nod as well.

Israel has wished upon itself a future in which there will be no suggestion of a two state solution (which, after all, has never really been on the cards), but there will be a one state solution imposed bloodily and brutally from outside, one in which the Palestinians will be dominant numerically, politically and militarily, perhaps in the context of a nuclear exchange as Israel blindly threatens to implement its Samson option.

By treating every concession and every enemy as an existential threat, Israel has become its own, perhaps its only existential threat. Israel's strongest and most determined enemy lies within. It's not rocket science, Martyn, but it's also not anti-semitic either: it is just good sense.

I think Dugsie gets the context about right. In that context the traditional concept of Israel as the eternal victim is reaching the end of all historical credibility.

Many Jewish people here are finding they cannot do what they want to do and defend Israel this time when what we all are watching is so brutal that it makes us weep and that in the context that Dugsie gives it isn't defensible whatever the provocation. Step back and wonder whether as a true friend of Israel it wouldn't be the time to say - for pity's sake - enough is enough.

Apparently the message of the film premiering tonight in London about The Forest where Jewish people formed a hidden comunity in WW2 is that - our answer to the Nazis is to continue to live well and in a civilised way. The danger is that Israel will succeed in holding on to land and power but will lose its soul.

"Following Martyns' observations he is right to say that Hamas has
many Islamic states and factions that oppose it.But the reckless invasion is unlikely to make them amenable to Israel.It is often said that the Palestinians are burdened by disastrous leadership."

You're right, Lewis, but when presented with two bad alternatives, I guess either choice gives a bad result. Hamas's problem is that it has left itself without the credibility to threaten escalation, which is an impossible negotiating position. It has been arming and sending its suicide bombers, it has been launching its rockets, it has been demanding the destruction of the state of Israel, it has committed itself to killing ll the Jews in Israel, and it has now asked its supporters around the world to kill Jewish children wherever they can be found. What is left for them to threaten ? How could they (even before the latest invasion) be any LESS amenable ? I think the Israelis have chosen the worse of the two bad alternatives, but then that's easy for me to say - I'm sitting here in my comfortable room 2500 miles away without the threat of a rocket exploding in my living room.


"I don't agree with SG on the future of the State of Israel,but,unlike Gaza,she isn't the target for today,and merits due respect for her arguments."

You know, I'd really like to agree with you on that, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult. SG has a well-earned reputation for intemperate language and I quite enjoy her acerbic wit; but on this subject I think she has uttered one intemperance too many, and has used language which comes far too close to antisemitism for my liking. Note that I do NOT confuse antisemitism with anti-Zionism, and you will have seen from my previous posts that I am not an automatic supporter of Israel nor am I instinctively an opponent of the pro-Palestinian view. I have chosen not to respond to SG's posts because I don't think I would be respecting the views of other participants by my comments to her.

As a secular socialist I have little natural sympathy with Hamas.I regret that the secular Palestinian forces were incapable of providing the Palestinian people with the effective leadership of integrity and wisdom they needed and deserved.

Palestine is under military occupation, one way or another. The war of resistance is asymmetrical, with all that implies. Israel is a small state but a relative military super power, thanks to the USA. It is a part of a world power bloc. The only peace settlement it offers is one on its own terms. It offers no genuine negotiations and has a record of incorporating parts of Palestine into its own territory. The is no prospect of a genuinely independent Palestinian state.The present aggression can only be clearly seen within this context.

Following Martyns' observations he is right to say that Hamas has
many Islamic states and factions that oppose it.But the reckless invasion is unlikely to make them amenable to Israel.It is often said that the Palestinians are burdened by disastrous leadership.
The intellectual bankruptcy of "teaching Hamas a lesson" without regard to the terrible long term consequences is a dreadful indictment of a floundering Israeli administration.The emphasis now will be on the siege and intervention,not on the integrity of Israel as a nation state.Incidentally,I don't agree with SG on the future of the State of Israel,but,unlike Gaza,she isn't the target for today,and merits due respect for her arguments.

"Her assertion that the Israelis are far worse than the Nazis says it all."

Stan always seems to have great difficulty with facts, and the simpler they are, the more confused he becomes. I certainly didn't make any such course value-judgement. What I actually said was: "When you think about it, Israeli brutalism has evolved far beyond the basic Nazi model by an amazing degree over such a relatively short period", which is a very different thing entirely, particularly if you have a pre-disposition to take the Whig view of history.

As I've said, SG has never been able to make or follow a logical argument.

Her assertion that the Israelis are far worse than the Nazis says it all.

"The "100% probability" of civilians being killed by Israeli retaliatory action results from weapons being stored in and fired from densely packed civilian areas not from civilians DELIBERATELY being targeted as Hamas terrorists tend to do."

Even if we were to accept your (frankly absurd) assumptions about the purity of Israeli motivation, the non-deliberate targeting of civilians when there is an absolute certainty of civilian injury and death is, however whimsically you chose to define the term, deliberate, and cold blooded murder. And, as for:

"What are the Israelis supposed to do in these circumstances? Just accept that they cannot fire back if Hamas conducts its war from family apartments, schools and mosques? Just offer themselves up like lambs to the slaughter? Well, most Jews were forced into that situation during the Holocaust and I can tell you that the Israelis are NOT going to allow that sort of thing to happen again"

Well, from where I sit, inflicting a Holocaust on Gazaans (literally, in this particular instance - but then you don't seem to take the meaning of words as seriously as I do) is just the latest example of the Israelis, not only allowing "that sort of thing to happen again", but initiating it and gleefully carrying it out with the most despicable and bloodstained efficiency. And what about:

"The whole point of this dispute is that it's Israel (and moderate Palestinians like Fatah) who are prepared to live peacefully with their neighbours on the basis of a two-state solution whereas it is only the fanatics of Hamas who reject such an approach."

Oh, that's alright then But living in peace on whose terms, and on whose land? Oh, I get it. The terms set by fanatical Zionist butchers who make the Third Reich's treatment of its neighbours look like an exemplar of liberal civilisation. But then all these third rate Central European nationalisms have always been much of a muchness: kill the neighbours, steal their lands, and practice even harder to get even nastier. When you think about it, Israeli brutalism has evolved far beyond the basic Nazi model by an amazing degree over such a relatively short period. Wonder if the climate has anything to do with it?

New Paradigm After the Victory of Hamas

The US and Israel shouldn't set pre-conditions on duly elected leadership
By Sam Bahour


Policies have repercussions, sometimes bitter ones. The historic election landslide victory of the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, in Palestine on January 25 was merely a confirmation of this basic fact. Palestinians simply voted in a manner that reflects their reality.

Secular Palestinians, such as myself, are not thrilled to see an Islamist movement come to the forefront of the historically secular Palestinian struggle to end the occupation and continue with the state-building process. However, those of us willing to look beyond the daily headlines, which emerge out of professionally spun mainstream media, are fully aware that Hamas' victory does not emerge from a vacuum.

Palestinian reality in year 2006 is three-fold. There is the bitter reality of 39 years of a non- stop Israeli military occupation that has battered the Palestinians beyond recognition, but failed to break the Palestinians' will and determination to ascertain the basic human and national rights that are justly due to every indigenous people.

Then, there is a decade, some would say four decades, of a monopoly on Palestinian politics by the moderate Fatah movement which mismanaged and abused its position of power to a point where the average Palestinian saw their governance serving the Israeli occupation more than serving the needs of a people hemorrhaging from an unrelenting Israeli onslaught.

Non-violent resistences have failed

Lastly, Palestinian reality today, after trying all possible non-violent methods to jerk the international community, particularly the U.S., into assuming its responsibility toward a people under occupation (as per the Geneva Conventions) have been left naked to take on their occupier single-handily, all the while, being coerced into becoming totally dependent on the crumbs and political agendas of donor aid.

Initial knee-jerk reactions from Washington D.C. and Tel Aviv indicate that, not only have the U.S. and Israel failed to acknowledge that decades of aggression against Palestinians was sooner than later bound to result in bitter repercussions, but they arrogantly abolish themselves of any responsibility for this reality. Palestinians under occupation were left with little other choice, but to express their despair and frustration by electing into government a movement that many believe speak the same language as Israel has been speaking to Palestinians for almost four decades now, the language of force, both political and military.

The U.S. and Israel seem overly surprised at Hamas' victory. We must ask why? Back in 2002, following a suicide bomb attack in Jerusalem the United Press International's Terrorism Correspondent, Richard Sale, wrote the following:

Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.

Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official.

The UPI article went on to say,

But even then, some in Israel saw some benefits to be had in trying to continue to give Hamas support: "The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the others, if they gained control, would refuse to have any part of the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place," said a U.S. government official who asked not to be named.

"Israel would still be the only democracy in the region for the United States to deal with," he said.
All of which disgusts some former U.S. intelligence officials. […]

According to former State Department counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson, "the Israelis are their own worst enemies when it comes to fighting terrorism."
"The Israelis are like a guy who sets fire to his hair and then tries to put it out by hitting it with a hammer."

"They do more to incite and sustain terrorism than curb it," he said.
Although the magnitude of Hamas’ victory took all by surprise, the fact that the Palestinian electorate booted from office the 40-year ruling party of Fatah was no surprise to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground.

Bankrupt in its ability to frame the just Palestinian struggle in a manner understandable to the external world and after reaching levels of corruption and nepotism unheard of in occupied Palestine, Fatah deserved to lose, and lose big.

This writer wrote back in May 18, 2001, following the start of the second intifada:

Israel grasps to solve the conflict by inventing new political jargon and by engaging well- designed public relation blitzes instead of facing its core international obligation of ending occupation. The truth is becoming harder to hide with every passing Israeli warplane. The world has spoken -- Israeli occupation is the source of contention and must end, illegal Israeli settlements must end, imprisonment of Palestinian political prisoners must end. There is no other way.

Mr.[Ariel] Sharon has returned the Palestinian society back to a culture of resistance. Soon, he will move the international community to a new culture of responsibility toward protecting Palestinian civilians and realizing a negotiated solution to the conflict based on peace with justice. In the meantime, a new generation of Palestinians will learn and live the meaning of Intifada while the State of Palestine continues to be built amongst the backdrop of Israeli bombings.

A month later, in a subsequent article on June 13, 2001, I continued,

If Sharon's Israeli war drums are translated into an all-out war on the Palestinian people or its leadership, the world -- Americans and Israelis in particular -- should not expect the frameworks of the Oslo Peace Accords, the Mitchell Report, or the numerous antiquated UN resolutions to remain as reference points for any future resolution of the conflict.

If Palestinians must choose between their annihilation and their collective memory, their choice is most likely to be the latter and their time frame, the future. Likewise, Israel must choose between continuing an illegal occupation and preserving the State of Israel. To think that both can peacefully co-exist is an utter ignorance of history and human development.

The end of Israel's occupation should be the priority

So as we move forward, we cannot but remind ourselves of all the warnings that were made, mostly by Palestinians, over and over, advising the U.S. and international community that without intervention and without a serious approach to ending Israel's occupation, once and for all, moderate secular voices in Palestine would be drowned out.

Instead of heeding to Palestinian’s advice and to the facts on the ground, the international community preferred to only send international observers to oversee the most democratic elections process that has ever happened in the Middle East, despite the occupation's boot remaining on the neck of the Palestinians.

Now it is the world's duty and responsibility to accept the outcome of the elections. Each and every country will need to redefine how it will deal with the sober reality that, once again, now by way of the ballot box, the Palestinians have provided them.

The U.S. would be wise not to continue to set pre-conditions on yet another duly elected Palestinian leadership. That policy has failed twice already, once with Yaser Arafat and again with Mahmoud Abbas. The

As expected SG has ignored key parts of my argument to score her feeble point.

The "100% probability" of civilians being killed by Israeli retaliatory action results from weapons being stored in and fired from densely packed civilian areas not from civilians DELIBERATELY being targeted as Hamas terrorists tend to do.

What are the Israelis supposed to do in these circumstances? Just accept that they cannot fire back if Hamas conducts its war from family apartments, schools and mosques? Just offer themselves up like lambs to the slaughter? Well, most Jews were forced into that situation during the Holocaust and I can tell you that the Israelis are NOT going to allow that sort of thing to happen again

And SG's attempt to turn my words about locking up people who are not prepared to live peacefully with their neighbours, against Israel is also typically pathetic. The whole point of this dispute is that it's Israel (and moderate Palestinians like Fatah) who are prepared to live peacefully with their neighbours on the basis of a two-state solution whereas it is only the fanatics of Hamas who reject such an approach.

As I have said before in another context, those who live by the sword must die by the sword.

But, of course, SG could never follow a logical argument.

"Is this the correct place to discuss the Israeli invasion ?"

Not so sure, and it's only a guess, but it may be that we have intuitively, albeit unconciously, drawn the obvious analogy between New Labour's unthinking, brutal and immoral treatment of the postal service and the Iraeli's murderous invasion of Gaza. Or it may just be the Compass management assumes that we have so little interest in Israeli war crimes that it's just not worth posting a dedicated thread.

Stan - I don't mind you condemning violence as long as you condemn it all equally. Violence is a symptom of a political failure.

The solutions are not going to be found in violence - certainly not this regime change by violence. It's failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I suspect Blair here of trying to do it again.

The solutions are going to be political not violent which means righting the wrong that was done to the Palestinians and giving them a state where they can be free. Any negotiation with them while they are occupied or encircled and imprisoned without free borders will always be pointless negotiation under duress.

You know I'm right.

Is this the correct place to discuss the Israeli invasion ? If not, then where is it on this site ? You would hardly expect this issue to be ignored at a time like this, but I can't see it indicated.

"Frances, those who DELIBERATELY target civilians are terrorists" Precisely. Couldn't agree with you more. And the statistical probability of the Israeli invasion of Gaza killing civilians is precisely 100%, which by any definition has to be deliberate. And I also agree with you that it is the act of terrorists. But, then, Israel, a state founded on the blood of innocents spilled by Jewish terrorists, has never really evolved beyond that, has it?

"And what's wrong with locking people up who are not prepared to live peacefully with their neighbours?" Again, I agree with you, Stan. But I'd take their state away from them as well - a thought of mine which I see you neatly preempt when you say, "Nor should there be any complaints if the people suffer the consequences of what they have voted for".

Nice to know that we are in such close agreement, Stan. There's hope for you yet.

Frances, those who DELIBERATELY target civilians are terrorists, not freedom fighters. More so, when they use their own women and children as human shields for their murderous activities.

Such acts of aggression do not become legitimate just because a population has voted for them. Indeed these acts are even more worthy of condemnation since they have the support of the people as a whole. Nor should there be any complaints if the people suffer the consequences of what they have voted for.

And what's wrong with locking people up who are not prepared to live peacefully with their neighbours?

Martyn - I don't think you do agree with me. You seem to accept that Hamas are terrorists as against freedom fighters and that their most extreme pronouncements define them.

You seem to think the coalition of the willing - the proponents of freedom and democracy engaged in bombing these values in to the region can ignore the democratic election of Hamas, lock the Palestinians up in some sort of caged non state like prisoners and then make all sorts of demands on them to be reasonable and pacific before you will deal with them. It's such absurd bullying it is even beginning to be apparent to the European electorate who have so far felt enough guilt over the past to continue to shoe horn Israel in to its chosen role of poor little victim.

Israel may have been generously awarded by the colonial powers to its people as compensation for a terrible wrong and that should have been a great gesture and very healing. Unfortunately it wasn't ours to give and has created another terrible wrong which needs similarly generous righting. Ghettoisation and control of the wronged is never going to do this. As for all out assault to bring about regime change - not the way to right this wrong. Absolutely nuts. Right the wrong. Get Israel out of the West Bank and give the Palestinians a country. Right the wrong and give them respect and then you will have the right to make demands on them.

I don't think a whisper of this reality has permeated the US yet and I'm very depressed about Obama.

"And don't forget Russia and France and indeed every other country which was a member of the UN in 1948 and voted for the formation of the state of Israel."

Wikipedia (and the record) tells it rather differently:

"The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine or United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 was a plan approved by the General Assembly on November 29, 1947[1] to terminate the British Mandate of Palestine by August 1, 1948, and facilitate the creation of two states, one Jewish and one Arab.

"On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan, while making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states proposed by it. Switching their votes from November 25 to November 29 to provide the two-thirds majority were Liberia, the Philippines, and Haiti. All heavily dependent on the United States, they had been lobbied to change their votes.[88] The State Department noted that it had been shown that unauthorized U.S. pressure groups, including members of Congress, sought to impose U.S. views on members of foreign delegations.[89]

"The division was to take effect on the date of British withdrawal from the Mandate Territory of Palestine. Both the United States and Soviet Union supported the resolution.

"The 30 countries (53%) that voted in favour of the partition were: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukrainian SSR, United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Venezuela.

"The 3 countries (5%) that were previously not in favor but voted in favor to the resolution due to United States pressure were: Haiti, Liberia, Philippines.

"The 13 countries (23%) that voted against resolution were: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

"The 10 countries (17%) that abstained were: Argentina, Chile, Republic of China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia.

"One state (2%) was absent: Thailand."

And, Martyn's odd point, which seems to have such resonance with the settler state of the USA, and the Scots of both the Six Counties and the Scottish Labour party: "In the current context, never forget that Hamas has as its fundamental objective the destruction of the state of Israel - and they mean it." What do they mean, precisely? Well, states come - like Yugoslavia, the USSR and Israel - and states go - like Yugoslavia,the USSR and, we can be sure, Israel. The important thing to recognise is that contemporary Israel is, as far as I know, the only State in the world which recognises and seeks to enshrine the superiority of one racial, ethnic and historical religious culture over all others in its Basic Law and to both emphasise and practise its military superiority over its neighbours at the whim of its genocidal leaders, but only with a wink and a nudge from its paymasters in the United States, of course.

I think, with the continuing decline of the USA, we really need to be asking whether there is any value in pretending that a sovereign Jewish state adds value to the human experience overall, or whether its effects are purely de-stabilising and, on balance, ultimately negative. I can see as little objection to the destruction of the Israeli state as my parents did to the destruction of any of the colonial states held by American or the European powers or, indeed, as I do to a malignant cancer which has all too evidently infected its British and American sponsors.

In real terms, the end result of Israel's latest genocidal attack on Gaza will be to extend the waiting game played by both the Zionists and Hamas to the advantage of future Palestinians and to bring the destruction of the Israeli enitity a lot closer.

As a matter of interest, do you know that the population of the Gaza concentration camp is more than 4 times that of the Warsaw Ghetto on the eve of the Uprising in 1943?

Frances, I find myself largely in agreement with you. Of course we should expect more of the US, Britain and Israel than Hamas. And don't forget Russia and France and indeed every other country which was a member of the UN in 1948 and voted for the formation of the state of Israel.

But all of those countries can do nothing without the agreement of the Palestinians. They can't impose a solution, they have to negotiate a solution with the Palestinians. And the problem is that the Palestinians have, since 1948, allowed themselves to be ruled by people who don't seek a negotiated settlement, but just want to impose THEIR solution.

I unequivocally agree with you that Israel has acted badly as an occupying power. That has doubtless exacerbated the resentment of the Palestinians. Acknowledging that doesn't bring us nearer to a solution.

I have always believed that reparations to the Palestinians are a prerequisite to peace, but the same applies to this. The Palestinians would firstly have to ACCEPT reparations, but more importantly they would have to accept the political settlement which would be a precondition of those reparations. In the current context, never forget that Hamas has as its fundamental objective the destruction of the state of Israel - and they mean it. Since gaining elected power, they were offered a state of Palestine on condition that they recognised the state of Israel, and they refused that condition. They actually offered a "truce" with Israel instead.

As to your final point, I'm not sure that removal of the "wrong" would be sufficient to satisfy Hamas in Palestine, or in general other terrorists elsewhere in the world. All the evidence that I see suggests that fundamentalists the world over will find new wrongs to replace those righted; to them, the ultimate wrong is everyone else's existence. Al Qaeda are trying to assert wrongs done to them a thousand years ago and more - there is no appeasement of reparation possible for people like that.

I believe that the best that can be achieved in Israel/Palestine is to reach a modus vivendi between the two sides sufficient to allow the establishment, and then the prosperity, of a state of Palestine. Maybe in the far distant future a more self-confident Palestine and a less aggressively defensive Israel will achieve more than that.

alk about having your name taken in vain!

"SG's need for professional help is monumentally eclipsed by that of George W's"

“Lewis, I think not. I don't believe that George W Bush has ever suggested that we give nuclear weapons to a group of self-acknowledged genocidal terrorists who routinely recruit mentally deficient compatriots and children to act as suicide bombers.”

“Self-acknowledged”? “Genocidal”? “Terrorists” (who nontheless win elections)? But Bush and the Americans have been supplying the Israelis with weapons for donkeys years to terrorise and ethically cleanse the Palestinian population.

I merely made the modest, impartial and utterly rational suggestion to Lewis that “... the UK, the USA and Israel seem to feel the need to get lots of practice imposing mini-Armageddons on people they feel able to push around without any obvious comeback. Indeed, the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons would tend to act as a constraining factor on these three highly militarised countries more used to pursuing aggressive wars of choice than searching for realistic poitical and diplomatic pathways to peace and prosperity.

“The way to peace in the Middle East and Europe is to close all American bases, including those in the UK, and to make sure that Iran, Iraq, Syria and the Gazzans have adequate and effective supplies of nuclear bombs and delivery systems.”

Given the fact that on November 5, 2008, Israel infringed the truce standing since June 2008 by attacking Gaza, it seems reasonable to ask the question, would the initial Israeli attack and subsequent genocidal attacks leading to the invasion of Gaza have been likely if there had been widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. I think not, and not least because proliferation itself would change the parameters of the problem and make a peaceful solution more likely. And as I said, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction worked well for peace throughout the Cold War. But, then, perhaps Martyn prefers to retain his partiality despite the fact that Israel, by the very fact of its occupation of Pakestinian land since 1967, long ago chose to retire from the body of civilised nations.

For the more patient of you with a real desire for truth, here’s an unspun account from palestinethinktank.com/2009/01/05/gaza-chronicle-of-a-predictable-slaughter/

“Wednesday 5 November an Israeli paratrooper unit carried out a “targeted” attack over the little town of Deir-al-Balah in the Gaza Strip, reportedly at the aim of destroying a tunnel used for introducing men and materials in Palestinian territory: a Palestinian fighter died during the operation. Hamas’ answer was a mortar shell towards Israeli territory. Israel then launched an air attack during which a further five Hamas fighters died.

“Under the pretext of the rocket launches following the killing of the six militants, at that point Israel started closing all the border crossings thanks to which all the food, fuel and medicines could enter to bring relief to the 1.5 million Gazans.

“The attack comes shortly before a key meeting this Sunday in Cairo when Hamas and its political rival Al-Fatah will hold talks on reconciling their differences and creating a single, unified government. It will be the first time the two sides have met at this level since fighting a near civil war more than a year ago”, is the comment by Rory McCarthy, Jerusalem-based correspondent from the Guardian.

“According to the Associated Press, the decision of the attack came directly from the Minister of Defence Ehud Barak: hence, not a mere routine operation but a military one which was politically motivated, since it infringed the truce standing since June 2008 and just at a time when the Palestinians had the first serious chance, after a year, of re-establishing a unified government to negotiate, in a united way, with Israel.

“Yet, the importance of the attack didn’t only lie in making a détente between the 13 Palestinian fighting factions impossible: the political stakes for Israel were much higher, by investing a strategic element, preventing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from getting internationalized and to keep handling the negotiations within the Jewish State.”

Martyn,doesn't the notion of Libya as a force curbing terrorism
give you a little pause for thought?

So if Hamas is so bad why leave the agony of the people in Gaza to be decided by the actions of Hamas. You can't go round killing people and blaming Hamas who you don't respect. You have to take responsiblity for your own behaviour.

Israel, the US, Britain are supposed to be modern responsible democracies. They all know that they caused this problem by forming the state of Israel and are occupying powers. They don't seem to accept the implications of occupation which means you have to behave better than the occupied.

Why can't they proceed to make amends to Palestinians and put things right. They have all the strength here except the strength of being right which in the end undermines all their hardware. They should use their arms only defensively and press ahead with a solution and behave well and generously.

This particular violent response to Hamas is part of the whole misconceived war on terror which thinks the way to deal with violent extremists is pour petrol on the fire of violence. Mad or calculated madness - it's wrong. Violent extremists can only exist if they have a wrong to right. So right it for them.

"SG's need for professional help is monumentally eclipsed by that of George W's"

Lewis, I think not. I don't believe that George W Bush has ever suggested that we give nuclear weapons to a group of self-acknowledged genocidal terrorists who routinely recruit mentally deficient compatriots and children to act as suicide bombers.

Nor has George W Bush ever attempted to echo the finest works of Josef Goebbels in his writings.

But to return to a more sober assessment of the situation in Gaza, it's interesting (and potentially even hopeful) to hear that many of the Arab countries, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya and even (allegedly) Syria are taking a more balanced view of the cause of the current tragedy. It is an open secret that those countries have been verbally assailing Hamas for their intolerable termination of the ceasefire and resumption of shelling Israeli civilian targets.

It is only out of such balance that a solution can conceivably be found. It takes two sides to negotiate, and it takes two sides each of whom is willing to listen to the position of the other, and then to concede the rights of the other side and their own wrongs.

Personally, I am unconvinced that Hamas is capable of doing any of the above; but if the Arab states present themselves as active partners in future negotiation, and independent and credible Palestinians put themselves up at the forthcoming election, perhaps the Palestinians could elect a government which (for the first time) will truly represent the interests of the people and enable the creation of a Palestinian state.

It's all well and good talking about the Middle East peace protest, but what about my fancy dress costume that I ordered for the New Year? Still not here and I've been waiting for over 2 weeks now, Royal Mail are a disgrace.

Brown could send an important letter to the leaders of Israel/Hamas but chances are it will be left at a postage depot in Margate or somewhere.

All very 1930s really, innit?

I thought Miliband was being even handed in saying he stood shoulder to shoulder with the EU on the attack on Gaza when Sarcozy made his statement. But I hadn't realised that the new right wing president of the EU from January 1st was going to support Israel. And Brown today was pro Israel along with Obama. So the more it changes the more it stays the same. I'm ashamed of Brown and this government.

Martyn,SG's need for professional help is monumentally eclipsed by that of George W's.Callous to the last;at least Pontius Pilate
listened to both sides before finding the excuse to side with the
powerful,and wash his hands of collateral suffering.

SG, I urge you to get professional help LOL

What about those MPs who moonlight, earning extra money over and above the full-time wage they are paid for their job as a public representative ? Should they not be required to wear, as a badge of shame,a large 'MP Moonlighter' on their backs ?

Any better ideas. Come on Lewis, get your fecund imagination to work.