How about the following: the international community promises that if the Palestinians, including Hamas, renounce violence, and Israel doesn't move towards relinquishing control over Palestine, then sanctions will be imposed on Israel.

It seems to me that such a promise would put the peacemongers on both sides in a stronger bargaining position.

Cheep and Nazi, Stan. But typical.

"by de-humanising others we de-humanise ourselves"

This certainly applies in your case, SG.

"And I hate Hamas because they are evil people (just as the Taleban are evil people) who have no interest in the Palestinian people and have led the Palestinians yet again down a road to inevitable war in order to fulfil their own lust for power and for the destruction of the Jews."

Evil? Or perfectly ordinary men (sadly, men) reflecting both their cultural inheritance and the extraordinary circumstances they find themselves in?

"But I will not sit quietly by as blatant ant-semites are permitted to peddle their loathsome creed, and anonymous jackals creep out of their holes to spread their hatred, and then skulk back to the sewers."

Emotive, or what? But it does, obviously, draw on Nazi imagery of the Jews - albeit substituting jackals for rats - which every schoolchild of the 1990s, and I daresay beyond, will be familiar with after being exposed in class to one famous Nazi news/propaganda reel. I think the point in showing it and discussing its content was to demonstrate how people can be de-humanised by their enemies, and that unacceptable consequences are more likely to follow than not because by de-humanising others we de-humanise ourselves.

Dugsie

"Although it is true that there are propaganda machines on both sides, my point is that many of us opposing the war are not informed by Hamas propaganda, but by a range of perspectives, including simple humanitarianism."

And so are many of the supporters of Israel, myself included.

"Is it true that journalists have been excluded from Gaza City by the Israeli authorities and the City blockaded, so that it is difficult for the world to receive details of the situation in the city ?"

Yes that's true. The Israelis claim this is to protect journalists, personally I'd prefer that of journalists are willing to risk their lives they should be allowed to do so.

"We have been told that far more Palestinian children have been killed than have Israeli soldiers. What kind of war is this ?"

The number of soldiers killed is irrelevant. I hear (as you do) from our media that a quarter of deaths are children, and I find that harrowing in the extreme. I also simply cannot understand it, unless one believes that the Israelis are deliberately seeking out and killing children, which cannot be true. My understanding is that the numbers come from Palestinian sources, so they may be suspect, but if they're even close to true it is appalling.

"I have seen a lot. I lived through WW2 in London,I served in the British army in the Suez Canal Zone and I lived in Derry City for five years during the troubles.This current war has shocked me and so has the support for it."

I've seen a lot, but not as much as you. I can't believe that the slaughters in Congo and Zimbabwe and Darfur and so on ad nauseam are less shocking than this conflict.

The fact that none of those has elicited a "statement by Compass" or vitriolic threads like this one is a cause for concern amongst those who support Israel's right to exist and live in peace, because that casts doubt on the motivation of the discussion and the truthfulness of the stated aims of that discussion.

You should not confuse my position, or that of many other pro-Israel voices here, with "support" for the current war. It is not. When opponents of the war convert that opposition into opposition to Israel, and everything it does, and its very existence, then people like me will oppose that opposition. That is because we know full well where demonisation of Israel will lead.

Anyone who believes that everything Israel has done in, and in the lead-up to, this war is wrong and evil, and that Hamas and the Palestinians are blameless victims, is a fool. Anyone who opposes the war and wishes to criticise Israel SHOULD do so, but unless they are indeed fools they should be aware of the need, in justice, to include Hamas's and the Palestinians' wrongs.

I hate this war, I believe the Israelis are making a strategic error of huge proportions, and that they are morally in the wrong because there were "better" ways of the resolving the immediate problems of Hamas rockets and suicide bombers. And I hate Hamas because they are evil people (just as the Taleban are evil people) who have no interest in the Palestinian people and have led the Palestinians yet again down a road to inevitable war in order to fulfil their own lust for power and for the destruction of the Jews.

But I will not sit quietly by as blatant ant-semites are permitted to peddle their loathsome creed, and anonymous jackals creep out of their holes to spread their hatred, and then skulk back to the sewers. I will speak out against those people, and I will also attempt to engage others in reasoned debate about the rights and wrongs, and try to present an "Israeli perspective" to balance the Palestinian one. I am not afraid to listen to the both sides of the debate, and I am not so bigoted as to be unable to allow proper argument to sway my position.

Nor should anyone here be.

"I'm pretty shocked that this statement is silent on the occupation and the power dynamics at the heart of the conflict in the Middle East."

Yes, Nick, but there have been plenty of comments in this thread answering the points that you make (plus the question of proportionality posed by our latest anonymous caller).

I suggest you and any other newcomers to this thread read up on the arguments against what you say before pontificating on the matter.

""Polarisation" is a euphemism for "movement to extremism", and this is very evident."

Not so. I means that the differences between the two sides are very, very clear and absolutely fundamental.

"Just as a single example (of many) of these refusals to respond, a member here asserted that Hamas were not terrorists but freedom fighters. I then asked if, in that case, the member also accepted that the 7/7 London bombers were freedom fighters. Neither that member, nor anyone else here, responded to that question. What am I to conclude except that the member concerned is immune to discussion, has reached an immutable conclusion, and is therefore prejudiced in the debate ?"

Hamas is a socio-religious movement which has political and military arms and which was supported by a majority of Gazaans in a free election the results of which wre not accepted by Israel, the USA and the Palestinian Authority. Since electing Hamas, Gaza has been subjected to an economic blockade, interference in its affairs by outsiders - including the kidnap, maiming and murder of Gazaan citizens, and an invasion which can only, at best, be described as a calculated and deliberate crime against humanity.

Self defence does not a terrorist make; and I am more inclined to regard Hamas militants as freedom fighters and the IDF and the Israeli goverment as terrorists. I think the comparison you between the 7/7 bombers and Hamas is a disgraceful attempt to score debating points at the expense of both the victims of 7/7 and the Palestinian victims of this horrendous terrorist invasion by Israel. Indeed, it is more sensible to draw an analogy between the 7/7 bombers and the IDF.

As for your next point, Martyn, the essence of political debate is not that it offers the possibility (or, I suspect, from your viewpoint, the necessity) of redemption, it is that the parties are prejudiced - hence the debate - and any observers, who will most likely outnumber the participants, can draw their own conclusions.

Stan

range - assortment, chain, class, collection, file, gamut, kind, line, lot, rank, row, selection, sequence, sort, string, tier, variety

A range of options doesn't mean just the two extremes - it means all the ones in the middle. That's why proportionality is possible.

I'm pretty shocked that this statement is silent on the occupation and the power dynamics at the heart of the conflict in the Middle East. There is an agressor here, and as socialists it's our job to stand up for the oppressed against the bully. This falls into exactly the same ahistorical trap that the British government does. It's like treating blacks and whites in apartheid South Africa as two equal sides. Very disappointing from Compass.

"Martyn,Israel had a range of options to respond to the rocket attacks"

Yes, Lewis, and because a decisive blow against Hamas is hard to stomach many would prefer Israel to suffer death by a thousand small blows and not make too much of a fuss about it.

That's why this commenter is appalled by even the milder responses on this thread.

Martyn,Israel had a range of options to respond to the rocket attacks.It chose the one which was the least effective and will
delay,perhaps fatally,a long term solution.A train wreck indeed,
and people sympathetic to the state of Israel are entitled to ask
"who is in charge of the clattering train?".A dodgy driver perhaps,
and a crew that isn't quite as clever as it thinks it is,and failed
to learn from the previous derailment.Unlike the other crises you refer to this one has has a nuclear dimension,and we may be on the scenic route to End Times via Paranoia Valley!

Martyn

Although it is true that there are propaganda machines on both sides, my point is that many of us opposing the war are not informed by Hamas propaganda, but by a range of perspectives, including simple humanitarianism.I even gave an example of an opponent of the war challenging another opponent, on an anti war march, for apparently anti-semitic slogans.

Is it true that journalists have been excluded from Gaza City by the Israeli authorities and the City blockaded, so that it is difficult for the world to receive details of the situation in the city ? We have been told that far more Palestinian children have been killed than have Israeli soldiers. What kind of war is this ?

I have seen a lot. I lived through WW2 in London,I served in the British army in the Suez Canal Zone and I lived in Derry City for five years during the troubles.This current war has shocked me and so has the support for it.

"I have the impression that there is an Israeli/ Zionist propaganda machine which is organising support for their position. This would account for the similarity of so many of the arguments they produce. Is this false ? "

Dugsie, of course there is an Israeli/Zionist propaganda machine, just as there is a Palestinian/Hamas one. Nothing wrong with that in a democratic debate, is there ? Each of those propaganda machines produce a (fairly) consistent set of arguments. I see no difference between the two in terms of their impact on this thread - the pro-Palestinians in this thread are just as consistent and repetitive (or not) as the pro-Israelis.

I follow both sets of propaganda, and (perhaps for the first time ever) I get the impression this time round that the Israeli machine is working better than the Palestinian one. But whatever, I genuinely try to make objective assessment of which of the "facts" I am presented with are true, and which of the "opinions" I am presented with are valid.

Your post also refers to "polarisation" of opinion on this issue, and I have already commented several times on this important point in this thread. "Polarisation" is a euphemism for "movement to extremism", and this is very evident. It's also hugely disappointing on a website which was designed (I think) to try to develop a moderate progressive position in politics. It's also massively destructive to the principles of democratic debate.

The reason for the polarisation is simple - people on side A steadfastly refuse to respond to the challenges of side B, which gives the feeling to people on side B that those on side A are bigots or extremists. That is what then denies reasoned debate, because both sides start to escalate the discussion to more and more extreme positions, people go into denial, and neither side listens to the other.

Just as a single example (of many) of these refusals to respond, a member here asserted that Hamas were not terrorists but freedom fighters. I then asked if, in that case, the member also accepted that the 7/7 London bombers were freedom fighters. Neither that member, nor anyone else here, responded to that question. What am I to conclude except that the member concerned is immune to discussion, has reached an immutable conclusion, and is therefore prejudiced in the debate ?

I commented earlier that the sheer number of posts on this subject has set a Compass record. Why is that ? It's not because everyone hates injustice and slaughter, because then there would be even lengthier debates on Darfur and Zimbabwe and Congo. It's certainly not because this is an unusually interesting debate, because it's not a debate at all - it's a stream of invective and name-calling.

Stan wondered aloud whether I could still stomach reading this thread. I can, but with a heavy heart. I am starting to despair of this community and its intellectual capability to address difficult subjects, and its moral capability to become a cohesive force in politics. I feel like a voyeur of a train wreck.

Wow!! I've just seen an item on Newsnight during which Alan Dershowitz, formerly the stud duck of OJ Simpson's legal team, said that if the UN Security Council referred Israel to the International Criminal Court for War Crimes it would spell the end of international law. Very sulky, he was, and in a very poutish and petulant kind of way which may be a desirable quality in apologists for crimes against humanity as well as the common run of celebrity wife murderers but not particularly attractive to the more fastidious amongst us. There was more than a little of the, "I'm going home and taking my bat with me 'cos its so..o..o.o..o... unfair!" about it

Personally. to short circuit the various legal conundra which Kirsty prised out of the package supporting the item, I think each and everyone of Her Majesty's subjects should take each and every opportunity to make a citizen's arrest of every Israeli and alleged Israeli we catch wandering around the UK for the next few years for being a party to crimes against humanity, pop them down to the nearest chokey where they will at least have a chance to cough their little hearts out and put up their little hands to all the war crimes to which they have contributed, in however small a capacity, 'cos it really does seem the right thing to do - if only to encourage the others.

What I was trying to say Stan, is that whereas the opponents of the Israeli military action against Gaza have a variety of different political perspectives, the supporters of it appear to me to be informed by the same nationalist ideology.Even if they don't subscribe overtly to that ideology, they seem to accept it covertly.In humantarian terms, it is a disaster.

"Or it might just be that rational minds think alike!"

Or have their brains washed in the same sink.

"I have the impression that there is an Israeli/ Zionist propaganda machine which is organising support for their position. This would account for the similarity of so many of the arguments they produce. Is this false ?"

Fair cop, Dugsie. How clever of you. Yes, we are all receiving our script from the Israeli High Command.

Or it might just be that rational minds think alike!

Martyn (if you can still bear looking at this thread) I would like to say how much I appreciated your kind remarks, especially as we've not exactly seen eye to eye on other matters.

It was also a brave thing to do knowing full well that saying nice things about me will do little for your reputation in Compass circles.

I did try to send this message privately ( to avoid the sneers of our "high-minded" Compass brethren) but your comment to SG enabling me to do this has disappeared.

Incidentally, have you noticed that there have been some new venemous, Cif-type comments on this thread? Someone must be calling for reinforcements.

"Dugsie has referred us to that Guardian article headed "Demands grow for Gaza war crimes investigation".

"I notice that it contains not one word about the need for investigating the alleged war crimes of Hamas. Says it all about where the loyalties of those "objective" UN officials and Human Rights campaigners really lie."

Probably their loyaties lie to truth, justice and a sense of reality. Maybe "the alleged war crimes of Hamas" are just in your head, Stan. But, certainly, I would encourage a full investigation into all allegations of war crimes committed by both sides and, if the evidence justifies it, bringing the alleged war criminals to book at the International Criminal Court.

See, we really do agree on lots, Stan.

"As I said I've no desire to get down in the anti-semitic gutter with salfordgal but clearly if for her Israel is a psychotic nazi state that models itself on the third reich its right to exist at all must be highly problematic.

"And why is 'anti-semite' namecalling while 'zionazi' is perfectly acceptable?"

First point, well, yes but I have never suggested that the state of Israel models itself on the Third Reich; only that it's grown from the same soil and both plants seem to share the most significant features.

Second point, anti-semite implies a (usually irrational) dislike or hatred of an entire racial or ethnic group, and people, like me, who are not anti-semitic find it very offensive indeed; on the other hand, Zionazi is a reasonable description, informed by emprical reality, of those who accept and apologise for those policies and/or the worldview - albeit as each manages to reflect the "other" - common to both Zionists and Nazis. True, for some it may be a fashionable and convenient term of abuse; to others it may be a form of congratulatory (perhaps even self congratulatory) praise; for me it is simply a precise description of the state of Israel's willingness to engage in calculated and deliberate crimes against humanty.

Clearly, the polarisation in this discussion is around support for or opposition to the Israeli assault on Gaza. Beyond this there are not just two positions. Even when I post something written by someone else, it doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with it, but rather that I think that it may be of interest.

Someone who went on the recent London demonstration, today expressed concern, on the LLB forum, at some of the chants being used by some elements on the march. He raised his concern with one of those shouting them, which I think was a good thing to do. The alliance against Israel's military actions is not an alliance of people who necessarily share a world view.

I have the impression that there is an Israeli/ Zionist propaganda machine which is organising support for their position. This would account for the similarity of so many of the arguments they produce. Is this false ?

No it doesn't mean that Stan. You just think it does because of where you stand in this conflict and the prism through which you see every statement.

And stop calling moral arguments sanctimonious and high handed because a moral compass is actually essential and the only real way out of this quagmire and in to long term solutions. You can't bomb people into submission and expect the peace to endure.

I have just listened to Hillary Clinton spelling out the President Elects position to the Foreign Affairs Committee and if she means what she says it's the cavalry.

She says the US is strongest when its own self interest and its moral values work together. She says they are not giving up defensive military force but it has to become last resort. She says hand in hand with military solutions they need to increase effort and money for humanitarian and diplomatic solutions.

So that looks good. And let's apply it right away to Gaza, keep force as a last resort and factor up the humanitarian relief. Follow a moral compass and the path out will be easier. Israel can't keep the status ante as Condoleeza used to call it by engendering fear alone.

the compass position on gaza has good points, but it's remarkably behind the times, almost as if no compass officers had been to any of the panels and demonstrations about gaza in the last few weeks.

for example: there is a call for the israeli ambassador to be removed; a decrying of our government for being, like compass apparently, 'non struggle element'; a call for 'israel out of gaza'; a realisation-duh-that an invaded people have the right to defend themselves at all times;a call for an end to occupation; a reminder that hamas--lest we forget--is the democratically elected representative of the palestinians rather than terrorists to be equated with zionist invaders that compass makes them out to be; there are countless references daily in the progressive press about the parallel with the warsaw ghetto where the nazis calculatingly and irreversibly trapped the jews.how about some of these points to be going on with, compass officers? as for the one state solution beginning to be considered by such thoughtful radicals as tariq ali, i'm guessing it will be quite a long time before compass gets around to that debate, it being a carefully reconsidered, up-to-the-minute, radical proposal.

i stand with compass on their excellent domestic policy and appreciated neal lawson's topnotch 'mission statement' several months ago. the response to the gaza genocide crisis, however, is antediluvian.

Joe Cox: 'I do not think anyone has advocated this position' (denying Israel's right to exist)

Free Palestine: 'Any objective which includes the survival of the State of Israel is racist.'

As I said I've no desire to get down in the anti-semitic gutter with salfordgal but clearly if for her Israel is a psychotic nazi state that models itself on the third reich its right to exist at all must be highly problematic.

And why is 'anti-semite' namecalling while 'zionazi' is perfectly acceptable?

'Closing down debate' - you really think this is a debate?

Frances, your sanctimonious call for the Israelis to stop now in the absence of an enduring settlement amounts to saying in effect that Hamas should be allowed time to regroup, rearm, and resume their rocket attacks at some later date. Very humanitarian!

Dugsie has referred us to that Guardian article headed "Demands grow for Gaza war crimes investigation".

I notice that it contains not one word about the need for investigating the alleged war crimes of Hamas. Says it all about where the loyalties of those "objective" UN officials and Human Rights campaigners really lie.

Your comments only serve to shut down debate. By labelling people either anti-Israel or anti-semitic (not that you did but the Israeli PR machine has used this tactic) it evades debate and responsibility. Lets talk about issues as Tony Benn used to say.

Well said. I don't know how deliberate it is to keep casting the debate in terms of them and us, pro and anti, perceived insult and offence, but it distracts from meaningful discussion.

And there isn't time for distraction. Gaza is currently being bombed, the residents are under siege and can't flee, and are being denied life saving aid. Israel is looking for as long a window to do as much damage as they can before withdrawing and any distraction serves a purpose in keeping this window open.

Israel should stop the assault now and every statesman in the world should be saying this out of pity and humanity. Everyone on both sides or no side should be saying that. Nothing else should get ahead of this priority. Long term peace - enduring peace as a prerequisite for stopping bombing - is another distraction and delaying tactic when it has eluded everyone for sixty years it can't be conjured up in this context. Israel will only stop when the US President makes them stop. But of course he's distracting himself pinning medals on peace envoys.

Let's forget name calling and skirmishing and keep our humanity in focus and concentrate on stopping the death toll mounting and get relief in to Gaza.

"Do you really believe that Zionist and Nazi are compatible terms and that conflating them says anything meaningful in political terms?"

Well, yes, as it happens I do think that it does say something very meaningful in political terms, in much the same way as, amongst others, Norman Cohn's studies of millenarian movements explain a great deal about 19th and 20th century nationalist utopian movements in central and eastern Europe and the dystopias which were born out of them, and of which Nazism and Zionism reflect both each other and their common origins.

As for:
"So to use the idiotic historical analogies you guys are so fond of would you have defended the right of William Joyce and Oswald Mosley to stand for election in 1940?

"Actually I suspect you would."

I not only suspect you're right, I know you're right, Roger. I also suspect that I would be just as correct to say they would have been defeated in any election held before (as was the case with Mosely), again, during or (as was, again, the case with Mosley) after 1940.

"That's transparently foolish. You obviously haven't been reading the posts on this thread. We have had people stating clearly that Israel has no right to exist",

I do not think anyone has advocated this position.

"that Israel as a Jewish state serves no useful purpose in the world",

It may have a negative effect in the world but may be America does, maybe Britain does.

"that Israel is a country led and peopled by war criminals",

Again, that accusation could be levelled against America.

Your comments only serve to shut down debate. By labelling people either anti-Israel or anti-semitic (not that you did but the Israeli PR machine has used this tactic) it evades debate and responsibility. Lets talk about issues as Tony Benn used to say.

Lets not also forget the class dimension as somebody mentioned. Israel may be governed by military aggressors even war criminals but lets not forget most Israeli's, like most Palestinians are innocent.

Poisonous drivel from Free Palestine.

The Nazis were zionists?

Zionists collaborated with the Nazis?

This thread now really has descended to Comment is Free level of fact-free invective.

As for the ban on Arab political parties this actually amounts to a ban on two openly pro-terrorist Jihadist factions - not as implied all Arab parties or even any significant existing Arab political party.

So to use the idiotic historical analogies you guys are so fond of would you have defended the right of William Joyce and Oswald Mosley to stand for election in 1940?

Actually I suspect you would.

As we can't bomb people how do we tackle this problem?
By not bombing them.By not using assasination as a means
to impose a more compliant point of view.By using the
vaunted brain power of the allegedly most efficient intelligence
agency on the planet to establish alliances that will benefit
the preservation of the Israeli state and the welfare of the
Palestinians.By not bombing Iran and then asking the US to sort
it out.By learning the lessons of the Lebanon fiasco.By dumping
a discredited leader.By not pandering to the "sort them out"
mentality that will reap a whirlwind.By avoiding short term
expendiency at the fag end of the Bush administration for a more
prophetic vision.Or we could just stagger on to stages 6,7,8..

For some reason my 4.23 comment quoting Walzer came up as anonymous.

Give me one good reason why 'zionazi' is not hate speech?

Do you really believe that Zionist and Nazi are compatible terms and that conflating them says anything meaningful in political terms?

Left-wing anti-semites like Salfordgal use terms like zionazi precisely because they intend to wound and insult Jews.

I'd no more directly debate with such a person than I would with an out-and-out holocaust denier.

"Israel's parliament yesterday banned Arab political parties from running in general elections next month, a sign of growing confrontation with the country's Arab minority."

So Arab parties have been able to compete in democratic elections all these years and Arabs can 'stand for election in the main Jewish parties and in the mixed list of the Communist Party'.

Not to mention that any proposed ban must go through the Israeli Supreme Court, which in 1980 upheld a ban on a Jewish party that advocated expelling Arabs from Israel.

Can't we have some more rational opponents of Israel on this thread?

I wonder how this accords with SG's description of Israel as a nasty racist state that needs to be replaced by a multiracial state under the rule of law?!?

Gaza is a military testing ground for technologies that will be used to put down poor and working peoples struggles all round the world.
Chomsky explains in The Fateful Triangle how Hamas became popular due to Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure associated with the other groups.
Hamas are organised in quite a horizontal manner which makes them resilient against attack and infiltration.
Any objective which includes the survival of the State of Israel is racist. Israel defines itself through it's Law of Return which denies 7 million Palestinian refugees their Right to Return. The Nazis were Zionists. The architect of the Holocaust visited Zionist Kibbutzim in Palestine. The Zionist Federation supported Hitler. Ref. Lenny Brenner: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis.
No War but the Class War!

All politicians, including our little Milliband should write at the top of the paper "As we cant bomb people, how do we tackle this problem?"

"It will turn out that bombing people in their homes was actually a humanitarian initiative designed to save them."

frances, being fair of mind and absolutely even handed, we must be prepared to make allowances for the Zionazis and never forget the example of the medieval European humanitarian tradition of burning bodies to save their souls, many of which belonged to Jews, and it may well be argued that the Zionazis merely mimic what they perceive as an established practice out of the deep respect for Western Civilization howeve misguided we may think it now. Indeed, we need search no further for the respect for Western values shown by Israel's Jews than this morning's Guardian to witness even stronger echoes of the exemplarly attempts of the Third Reich to free itself from democratic error:

* Rory McCarthy
* The Guardian, Tuesday 13 January 2009

"Israel's parliament yesterday banned Arab political parties from running in general elections next month, a sign of growing confrontation with the country's Arab minority.

"If the ban is upheld by the supreme court, then the two Arab parties would be the first to be banned since Rabbi Meir Kahane's Kach party in the 1980s, which advocated expelling Arabs from Israel.

:The decision was proposed by two hardline, rightwing parties and approved by the Israeli parliament's 37-member Central Election Committee, composed of representatives of all leading parties. It comes after days of protest by Arab Israelis - who make up 20% of the Israeli population - against the devastating military offensive in Gaza but is the culmination of years of discrimination within Israel against its Arab citizens.

"The committee accused the Arab parties of incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognise Israel's right to exist. There have long been complaints about Arab Israeli MPs travelling to Lebanon and Syria - technically enemy countries.

"The two parties, Balad and United Arab List-Ta'al, have seven seats in the 120-seat Knesset, or parliament. Other Arab Israelis are able to stand for election in the main Jewish parties or on the mixed list of the Communist party.

"Ahmed Tibi, of UAL-Ta'al, had spoken out publicly against Israel's invasion of Gaza, describing it as "genocide". "You're murdering children," he added. Tibi said of yesterday's decision: "It was a political trial led by a group of fascists and racists who are willing to see the Knesset without Arabs and want to see the country without Arabs."

"Avigdor Lieberman, who leads one of the rightwing parties that proposed the ban, described Balad as a "terrorist organisation" and said he now wanted to ban the party completely. In 2007, the party leader Azmi Bishara, was forced to leave the country after a mounting campaign against him and accusations that he had given information to Hezbollah during Israel's war in Lebanon in 2006. The allegations were never proven and no charge was ever made. It came after Israel's domestic intelligence agency had described a radicalisation of Arab Israelis as a "strategic threat" to Israel's existence."
(www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/israel-general-election)

I just found out that Israel has been using Phosphorus bombs in Gaza banned by most countries expect Israel and shock horror America

Benjamin Rutland, a spokesman for the Israeli military, said an international investigation of the army's actions was not justified. "We have international lawyers at every level of the command whose job it is to authorise targeting decisions, rules of engagement ... We don't think we have breached international law in any of these instances," he said.

Israel has taken Jesuitical arguing to a hitherto unknown level. It will turn out that bombing people in their homes was actually a humanitarian initiative designed to save them.

From today's Guardian.

Demands grow for Gaza war crimes investigation
Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Tuesday January 13 2009
The Guardian


Israel is facing growing demands from senior UN officials and human rights groups for an international war crimes investigation in Gaza over allegations such as the "reckless and indiscriminate" shelling of residential areas and use of Palestinian families as human shields by soldiers.

With the death toll from the 17-day Israeli assault on Gaza climbing above 900, pressure is increasing for an independent inquiry into specific incidents, such as the shelling of a UN school turned refugee centre where about 40 people died, as well as the question of whether the military tactics used by Israel systematically breached humanitarian law.

The UN's senior human rights body approved a resolution yesterday condemning the Israeli offensive for "massive violations of human rights". A senior UN source said the body's humanitarian agencies were compiling evidence of war crimes and passing it on to the "highest levels" to be used as seen fit.

Some human rights activists allege that the Israeli leadership gave an order to keep military casualties low no matter what cost to civilians. That strategy has directly contributed to one of the bloodiest Israeli assaults on the Palestinian territories, they say.

John Ging, head of the UN Palestinian refugee agency in Gaza, said: "It's about accountability [over] the issue of the appropriateness of the force used, the proportionality of the force used and the whole issue of duty of care of civilians.

"We don't want to join any chorus of passing judgment but there should be an investigation of any and every incident where there are concerns there might have been violations in international law."

The Israeli military are accused of:

? Using powerful shells in civilian areas which the army knew would cause large numbers of innocent casualties;

? Using banned weapons such as phosphorus bombs;

? Holding Palestinian families as human shields;

? Attacking medical facilities, including the killing of 12 ambulance men in marked vehicles;

? Killing large numbers of police who had no military role.

Israeli military actions prompted an unusual public rebuke from the International Red Cross after the army moved a Palestinian family into a building and shelled it, killing 30. The surviving children clung to the bodies of their dead mothers for four days while the army blocked rescuers from reaching the wounded.

Human Rights Watch has called on the UN security council to set up a commission of inquiry into alleged war crimes.

Two leading Israeli human rights organisations have separately written to the country's attorney general demanding he investigate the allegations.

But critics remain sceptical that any such inquiry will take place, given that Israel has previously blocked similar attempts with the backing of the US.

Amnesty International says hitting residential streets with shells that send blast and shrapnel over a wide area constitutes "prima facie evidence of war crimes".

"There has been reckless and disproportionate and in some cases indiscriminate use of force," said Donatella Rovera, an Amnesty investigator in Israel. "There has been the use of weaponry that shouldn't be used in densely populated areas because it's known that it will cause civilian fatalities and casualties.

"They have extremely sophisticated missiles that can be guided to a moving car and they choose to use other weapons or decide to drop a bomb on a house knowing that there were women and children inside. These are very, very clear breaches of international law."

Israel's most prominent human rights organisation, B'Tselem, has written to the attorney general in Jerusalem, Meni Mazuz, asking him to investigate suspected crimes including how the military selects its targets and the killing of scores of policemen at a passing out parade.

"Many of the targets seem not to have been legitimate military targets as specified by international humanitarian law," said Sarit Michaeli of B'Tselem.

Rovera has also collected evidence that the Israeli army holds Palestinian families prisoner in their own homes as human shields. "It's standard practice for Israeli soldiers to go into a house, lock up the family in a room on the ground floor and use the rest of the house as a military base, as a sniper's position. That is the absolute textbook case of human shields.

"It has been practised by the Israeli army for many years and they are doing it again in Gaza now," she said.

While there are growing calls for an international investigation, the form it would take is less clear. The UN's human rights council has the authority to investigate allegations of war crimes but Israel has blocked its previous attempts to do so. The UN security council could order an investigation, and even set up a war crimes tribunal, but that is likely to be vetoed by the US and probably Britain.

The international criminal court has no jurisdiction because Israel is not a signatory. The UN security council could refer the matter to the court but is unlikely to.

Benjamin Rutland, a spokesman for the Israeli military, said an international investigation of the army's actions was not justified. "We have international lawyers at every level of the command whose job it is to authorise targeting decisions, rules of engagement ... We don't think we have breached international law in any of these instances," he said.

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2009

The Middle East peace Envoy is taking a break from peace making today to fly to Washington to receive a medal from George W Bush.

I'm not an experienced peace negotoator like him but in the middle of the current conflict couldn't this make it look as if he is actually aligned with the US/Israeli side. I don't think he should wear the medal when he's peace making.

"No anti Israels ? Pull the other one."

There is an astonishing difference between being anti-Israeli and anti-Israel, oh Another Anonymous One. There are those of us who believe that there is a place for a racially distinct and distinctly racist Israeli, and those who do not for pretty obvious reasons.

Personally, I believe that the racist principles underpinning Israel have led to its leaders being war criminals and has lead to its people being complicit in their crimes, but I am happy for that issue to be determined by the International Criminal Court.

It also strikes me that the destruction of a racist state and its replacement with a secular multi racial and multi cultural state under the rule of law is an entirely proper political objective for all democrats, let alone for those progressives affecting a moral compass. It is also the only credible path to peace in the medium to long term in historic Palestine.

"There are no anti Israelis here."

That's transparently foolish. You obviously haven't been reading the posts on this thread. We have had people stating clearly that Israel has no right to exist, that Israel as a Jewish state serves no useful purpose in the world, that Israel is a country led and peopled by war criminals, that Hamas's stated objective of the destruction of Israel is a proper objective, and much side comment supportive of those views.

No anti Israels ? Pull the other one.

There are no anti Israelis here.

Just people signed up to the beat of the Israeli war drum and everyone else.

That's how war works. Once the drum starts you have to choose to commit or not. As the drum beats the social pressure to join gets stronger. Once you sign up there is no turning back.

Tony Blair thought that it would work with Iraq. If we had followed the drum for war as we were meant to do the dodgy dossier would have got lost in the war mist.

Sadly people in war mode and the others can't debate/argue/discuss meaningfully. War isn't like that. We are in different paradigms marching to different drums.

"...the anti-Israel side of this argument is always long on propaganda and rhetoric, but very short on facts and reasoned interpretation. It is also remarkably unwilling, for such otherwise noisy people, to answer difficult questions."

I love the way "propaganda and rhetoric" is countered by "facts and reasoned interpretation", whilst being itself a perfect example of a device at the service of propaganda and rhetoric.

I also note the rhetorical flair with which the rush to genocide is justified because in some way it is assumed th answer a "difficult" (or, as Walzer would have it, a "hard") question. Truly, this is blah-blah delivered with an unenviable degree of chutzpah.

Stan, don't feel TOO alone. I disagree with some of your conclusions and interpretations, but broadly I support your judgement of the balance of rights and wrongs of the issue.

It's interesting to note that (as you and I have both said in earlier posts) that the anti-Israel side of this argument is always long on propaganda and rhetoric, but very short on facts and reasoned interpretation. It is also remarkably unwilling, for such otherwise noisy people, to answer difficult questions.

The anti-Israel lobby has its own agenda which is unwilling to entertain threats to its own world-view, and it considers that acknowledging the slightest wrong by its own side challenges the purity of its moral position.

I admire your persistence in ploughing and re-ploughing the furrow; I'm sure you appreciate that the people you are trying to educate, or enjoining to enter into a proper, rational debate, are immune to such things. The shame (their shame) is that they shout loudly so that the reasonable people fear to enter the debate.

"Presumably he was referring to the money that Hamas are spending to sustain their ideological rocket attacks against Israel rather than to relieve the poverty of their people?"

If the rocket attacks are ideological, as opposed to being strategic or tactical in any military sense, doesn't it necessarily imply that the Israeli/Zionazi response is not just fumblingly disproportionate but in essence, and from the off, a highly calculated and deliberate crime against humanity?

Perhaps we share common ground after all Stan.

"One of the relief workers remarked on TV how struck he was by the contrast between the poverty on the ground in Gaza and the billions of dollars of military hardware flying overhead"

Presumably he was referring to the money that Hamas are spending to sustain their ideological rocket attacks against Israel rather than to relieve the poverty of their people?

By the way, it's nice to have some rare support on this thread but I note thhat my latest ally left out his name. Could it have been Neal Lawson, I wonder?

Hmmmm... The Anonymous One seems to assume that "hard", "trite" and "inviting a demonstration of sophistryat its least engaging" mean the same thing.

And what's the problem with discussing Zionazis in the context of really nasty little bit of the Central European tradition of genocidal nationalism dumped on the Middle East, analogies with the Warsaw Ghetto, the work of one of my moral and intellectual heroes. Norman Finkelstein, and UN Resolution 242, "and so on"? Or do you think that we should only be allowed to discuss on the terms set by Tel Aviv "when Jews slaughter Muslims", to adopt Martyn's usage?

One of the relief workers remarked on TV how struck he was by the contrast between the poverty on the ground in Gaza and the billions of dollars of military hardware flying overhead.

This is a class issue.

Although I don't agree with him 100% I can't let Stan be the only dissenting voice here.

I have little to add to Michael (Just and Unjust Wars) Walzer's recent article in The New Republic 'On Proportionality' where he points out that proportionality applies not to the means but to the end of the war in question.

Walzer asks three hard questions:

'First, before the war begins: Are there other ways of achieving the end-in-view? In the Israeli case, this question has shaped the intense political arguments that have been going on since the withdrawal from Gaza: What is the right way to stop the rocket attacks? How do you guarantee that Hamas won't acquire more and more advanced rocketry? Many policies have been advocated, and many have been tried.

Second, once the fighting begins, who is responsible for putting civilians in the line of fire? It is worth recalling that in the Lebanon war of 2006, Kofi Annan, then the Secretary-General of the UN, though he criticized Israel for a "disproportionate" response to Hezbollah's raid, also criticized Hezbollah--not just for firing rockets at civilians, but also for firing them from heavily populated civilian areas, so that any response would inevitably kill or injure civilians. I don't think that the new Secretary General has made the same criticism of Hamas, but Hamas clearly has a similar policy.

The third question: Is the attacking army acting in concrete ways to minimize the risks they impose on civilians? Are they taking risks themselves for that purpose? Armies choose tactics that are more or less protective of the civilian population, and we judge them by their choices. I haven't heard this question asked about the Gaza war by commentators and critics in the Western media; it is a hard question, since any answer would have to take into account the tactical choices of Hamas'

However rather than discuss these sort of questions we immediately descended into the standard Guardian ME Comments thread gutter wih 'zionazis', ignorant aned tasteless Warsaw Ghetto analogies, invocations of conspiracy theorists like Norman Finkelstein, exegesis of UN Resolution 242 and so on (and on and on).

All we need is some crazed American Likudniks and the odd Holocaust denier to join us and we'd achieve a perfect Comment is Free 100% heat to 0% light ratio.