"I am both disappointed and surprised by Martyn's arguments. I had imagined that we had much in common. "

Me too in reverse, Dugsie. Just goes to show ya that this issue is not covered by a "one size fits all" political package. Perhaps we should both be MORE surprised by how many issues we DO agree on.

On 1) "you say you cannot agree with the bombing of innocents. Yet how can those who make, store and fire rockets from these houses be innocent? Unless you are arguing that if they pack their homes with innocent women and chidren they should be left to it. In which case the Israelis might as well surrender to their demands, as some countries do with hostage takers."

Here is a scenario for you Stan. You live in an area of 50% unemployment where your family are malnourished, largely due to a blockade from a neighbouring country. It is likely you will be angry and desperate. If a Hamas representative comes round and asks/tells/bribes you (maybe with the food that your family are deprived of) to store weapons, it may be difficult to say no. Are these people innocent? Its not a clear cut issue but you can well understand why they might do this.

On 3) "again you seem to be arguing that Hamas should just be left to buid up their war machine"

Hamas does not have a war machine and it is a misrepresentation of facts to call it so. Why should there be an embargo on Hamas if they are simply trying to defend their people from a blockade causing humanitarian catastrophe?

"Tell that to those who are living within range of those rockets (which might some day reach Tel Aviv aand Haifa)and daily live in terror of being blown up. The low casualty rate? That's more by luck than intention. Not to mention the fact that, unlike Hamas, the Israelis look after their civilians with a strong civil defence programme involving their quick transfer to deep basements and shelters"

I dont condone the rocket firing but the state of Israel and its survival is not threatened by home made rockets. I am not claiming Hamas are innocent either, my point is that if you want a permenant end to hostilities including rocket fire then this war will not help that.

Alan Derschowitz is not someone that I would take much notice of to be honest.

There is a posting today by Mick Wood on his blog 'Organised Rage' in which he tells how and why he has moved from a position of support for Israel in the sixties, to his present support for Palestinian liberation. Mick is an independent socialist, not a Labour Party member, like me. Like Mick, I supported Israel in the sixties, but now have serious doubts about how genuine the Israeli commitment to a negotiated two -state solution is. A solution imposed by Israeli and American might, will not work.The Palestinian resistance never used to be led by Islamists.In the future, I suspect, the Islamist opposition to the occupation will grow even harder. They have been taught how to do it by Israel.

I do not confuse Israel with the Jewish people in general. Nor do most, if not all, secular socialists.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, by Stan's tendentious arguments. I am both disappointed and surprised by Martyn's arguments. I had imagined that we had much in common.

"But when Jews slaughter Muslims, suddenly the website erupts into a frenzy of vituperation, and more posts are created in a shorter time than on any topic in Compass's history.

"I wonder why."

Two reasons: Because the phrase "when Jews slaughter Muslims" means that Israel is on the kill again and is targeting women and children and destroying its neighbour's infrastructure; and the Americans and, sadly, the UK and the EU allow Israel to claim that it is, somehow, a part of the West and something other than a bloodthirsty, psychotic regional superpower which feels itself free of all moral restraints.

As for Stan:

"If you are going back to 1947 the Jews had a moral claim to a land of their own after centuries of persecution in other lands, ending with the Holocaust. They also had a historical claim for that land to be in Palestine which was recognised by the international community, not just America and Britain."

Does being persecuted imply a moral claim to a land of their own? Land or state? The two are very different? What about land (and/or a state) for the Romanies "after centuries of persecution in other lands, ending with the Holocaust"? What is the historical claim to Palestine: an absence of two thousand years, near enough? I always thought it was essentially a theological rather than a historical claim, not least because, simply on grounds of recency, the palestinian's claim to their own lands was, and is, so much stronger.

Anyway, the UN recognised the partition of Palestine by the narrowest of margins. No state in the region voted for the partition plan. Partition was foisted on the Palestinians by Europe, the Americas and Australasia. Once again, here is the account off Wikipedia:

"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."

SG, your reference to people puking when reading Dershowitz's reasoned expanation of the moral logic behind Israel's actions brought to mind those cases of demon possession where the victim vomits green bile when confronted with holy exorcism.

Dugsie, you have suggested that the Palestinians are morally superior because it is the Israelis who are occupying their territory.

If you are going back to 1947 the Jews had a moral claim to a land of their own after centuries of persecution in other lands, ending with the Holocaust. They also had a historical claim for that land to be in Palestine which was recognised by the international community, not just America and Britain.

Israel has acccepted that the Palestinians also need their own land alongside theirs but the only ones who reject this two-state solution are Hamas.

If you are referring to 1967 that land was occupied after the Arab invasion of that year as a buffer zone to prevent further invasions and terror attacks (how many times must I repeat this before the point sinks in?).

Finally that Guardian letter would have made more sense without the gross distortion and exaggeration of the analogy and if those regretting the wider loss of life had any better ideas for winkling out murderers who hide behind women and children.

For the past few years, hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children have been systematically slaughtered by the governments of Sudan and Zimbabwe. Muslims have slaughtered Christians, Muslims have slaughtered Muslims, Christians have slaughtered Muslims.

There has been a deathly silence of response on this website.

But when Jews slaughter Muslims, suddenly the website erupts into a frenzy of vituperation, and more posts are created in a shorter time than on any topic in Compass's history.

I wonder why.

Letter in today's Guardian.

'Alan Dershowitz's analogy of a murderer whose hostage is unintentionally shot by a policeman trying to shoot the murderer and release the hostage (Those who blame Israel misread morality and law, 10 January) is utterly misplaced next to the current Israel-Gaza situation.

A more correct analogy would be the policeman deliberately shooting both murderer and hostage, going to the murderer's house, deliberately killing all of his family, some of his neighbours and, for good measure, anyone who tries to help them, evicting the remainder of the neighbourhood, destroying their houses, local shops and doctors' surgeries - and then blaming the murderer for all of those deaths and misery.'
Edward John
London

But if both existence and suicide are deemed hostile, Lewis, where do we go rom here? Lindfield, perhaps?

But SG the suicide of inmates at Guantanamo was an extremely hostile provocative and political act.So the mere existence of Hamas members is an affront to the heavens,and they must all be systematically slaughtered.That's the way to do it.

"Incidentally I had to go to a rather remote source to receive this article online since as SG says it's not available from the Guardian's site, despite them advertising that the full article is at Commentisfree. Now I wonder why that is?!?!"

I think it was because so many people who read it puked into their corn flakes and. following innumerable complaints, the Guardian decided it did not wish to be responsible for any readers choking themselves to death. Personally, I think the article rather rounds out my understanding of how easy it must have been for the Nazis to lose sight of their humanity once the defeat of Germany was certain. Of course, that doesn't fully explain Israel's inhumanity towards the population of Gaza now, but it clearly indicates the nature and the depth of the psychotic process required to become an apologist of genocide. Perhaps the explanation lies too deep in the psychological entrails of the relationship between the Zionazis and the Bushcrazies to make any attempt at understanding possible by anyone with the least morsel of humanity left. It does help to place the Bush administration's response to Katrina in a very clear light, though.

Frances and Dugsie, I'm repeating "the official line" because it makes much more sense to me than the propaganda of Hamas. "Official lines" are not always wrong, by the way.

It is clear that you have not read that Guardian article that SG mentioned in this connection so I've pasted it below.

"THOSE WHO BLAME ISRAEL MISREAD MORALITY AND LAW

Those who blame Israel misread morality and law. As Israel persists in its military efforts to protect its citizens from deadly Hamas rockets, and as protests against Israel increase around the world, the success of the abominable Hamas strategy becomes evident. It is as simple as it is cynical: provoke Israel by playing Russian roulette with its children, firing rockets at kindergartens, playgrounds and hospitals; hide behind its own civilians when firing at Israeli civilians; refuse to build bunkers for its own civilians; have the TV cameras ready to transmit every image of dead Palestinians, especially children; exaggerate the number of civilians killed.

Rather than asking why children are dying and who is to blame for putting them in harm’s way, the average viewer, regardless of their political or ideological perspective, wants to see the killing stopped. They blame those whose weapons directly caused the deaths, rather than those who provoked the violence by deliberately targeting civilians.

They forget the usual rules of morality and law. For example, when a murderer takes a hostage and fires from behind his human shield, and a policeman, in an effort to stop the shooting accidentally kills the hostage, the law of every country holds the hostage-taker guilty of murder. The same is true of the law of war. The use of human shields, in the way Hamas uses the civilian population of Gaza, is a war crime, as is its firing of rockets at Israeli civilians.

The reality is that the elected and de facto government of Gaza has declared war against Israel. Under Article 51 of the UN charter, they have committed an “armed attack” against the Jewish state. The Hamas charter calls for Israel’s total destruction. Under international law, Israel is entitled to take whatever military action is necessary to repel that attack and stop the rockets. It must seek to minimise civilian deaths in a manner consistent with the legitimate military goal, and it is doing precisely that.

The best outcome for the purpose of producing peace would be the destruction or substantial weakening of Hamas, which rejects the two-state solution. Israel and the Palestinian Authority could then agree on a peace that would end both the Israeli occupation and the rocketing of Israeli civilians. This is an edited extract."

You will of course regard it as Israeli propaganda but I am content for the more objective visitors to this site to make up their minds on the basis of the logic of what is being said.

Incidentally I had to go to a rather remote source to receive this article online since as SG says it's not available from the Guardian's site, despite them advertising that the full article is at Commentisfree. Now I wonder why that is?!?!

And as regards Dugsie's doubts about the truth of the argument that Hamas use civilians as human shields, I have yet to hear them denying this (which they would be doing repeatedly if there was indeed no truth in this allegation). Quite the contrary they seem to be proud that civilians are dying for the cause.

The post below was from me.

'Dugsie, those who use their women and chidren as human shields are the true moral degenerates.'

If the Israeli armed forces have evidence, which they have yet to produce,that Hamas are deliberately basing themselves among the civilian population,including children, and they still deliberately target those areas, then they are consciously killing and maiming children.Even if you maintain that Hamas are moral degenerates, then the Israelis must be too.

Actually, the reason why there is no moral equivalence, is because Israel is occupying Palestinian territory, not the other way around.I don't support Hamass,obviously, but they do have some democratic legitimacy and they operate in an asymmetrical military situation, with vast supplies of arms from their allies, the Americans and the Europeans.

I agree with Frances that you merely repeat the official line and so there is no point in debating with you.

Stan

Your arguments are Jesuitical so forgive me if I don't take part in them. They are the same arguments used by every Israeli spokes person and every supporter of Israel who contacts the media/papers/radio. It suggests that Israel issues a script.

The arguments are Jesuitical because they are aimed at proving a bad action is a good action and splitting enough hairs that no one can follow them. Israel cannot win this argument by repeating it over and over. But they need to present it as cover for the reign of terror they are inflicting. And I do ackowledge that you believe them so let's leave it at that.

They are prevailing not because they are winning the argument but because the US supports them. The US uses similar arguments as cover for their war on terror of which this proxy fight is part.

Thank you for acknowledging that I am taking a moral position here. Most of the world is.

Dugsie, those who use their women and chidren as human shields are the true moral degenerates.

Frances, do at least try to understand the other side of the argument before cilimbing on to your moral high-horse. Or does that get in the way of those nice, self-righteous feelings?

I think that you put it very well Frances.

We need to replace the all too easy military force of the Israelis, the Americans and the British with an international moral force, which puts human life and well-being first.I have served as a conscript in the British Army myself, in the Middle East, and I have experienced the facile racism of imperialism at work. Let us be clear, we should oppose all military attacks on civilian targets, people are entitled to defend themselves, but no more than that. When they take the lives of children in large numbers, then we know them for the moral degenerates they are.

I agreed with Naomi Klein. I think we are up against a situation like South Africa and a peaceful boycott is a good idea.

People like me who feel that this current violence is being supported by the US as a proxy in their war on terror feel that because our government goes along with this violent policy this massacre is to some degree being carried out in our name. Peaceful boycott of Israel seems the right thing to do.

All that is necessary is for good people to do nothing and we feel that the US government and ours by association are deliberately fiddling on the deck as a way of doing nothing for the next twelve days and are therefore complicit in the on going terror.

We would like to do something and a boycott seems a good suggestion.

What dis you think of the article by Naomi Klein in today's Guardian, Frances ?

"SG was kind enough to draw our attention to (couldn't understand her first point though)"

Didn't expect you to, Stan, but the others will.

And yes I AM a member of Compass. Have been since its inception. Well, someone has to point out the political realities to them. :-)

I agree with you there Stan. What you are repeating is the Israeli PR line which is repeated by George Bush and anyone in the West who has signed up to his coalition of the willing and war on terror. So as the US dominates the UN and is the most powerful player that is indeed the political reality faced by the Palestinians.

We don't really need you to point it out as it is repeated in every BBC bulletin by the Israeli spokespersons.

The reality on the ground on the other hand is the slaughter of the innocents and your political reality prevents the world acting to stop it now, today.

I repeat my point that the Israelis keep identifying themselves with Western nations, no other Western nation would put up with this - thereby playing to ex colonial sensibilities of differentials in the value of life.

And on it goes, day after day. And it's on the news every hour so no one can say they didn't know it was happening. Let's have some more talks and another UN resolution so we can seem concerned. That will make about sixty UN resolutions the Israelis have ignored. Let's keep cogitating and talking while Israel keeps killing. Just like Lebanon.

Joe, I appreciate your willingness to engage politely on this issue but I'm not sure you're following my argument.

On 1) you say you cannot agree with the bombing of innocents. Yet how can those who make, store and fire rockets from these houses be innocent? Unless you are arguing that if they pack their homes with innocent women and chidren they should be left to it. In which case the Israelis might as well surrender to their demands, as some countries do with hostage takers.

On 3) again you seem to be arguing that Hamas should just be left to buid up their war machine and send rockets and suicide bombers into Israel without any proper checks being put on them. The arms embargo you are concerned about is being imposed on them, not out of spite but to protect Israelis from their attacks in a situation where they refuse to engage in a peace process that might lead to a two-state solution. Why should there be an embargo on Israel when they are simply trying to defend themselves?

Then you say that israel is not militarily threatened in any real sense. Tell that to those who are living within range of those rockets (which might some day reach Tel Aviv aand Haifa)and daily live in terror of being blown up. The low casualty rate? That's more by luck than intention. Not to mention the fact that, unlike Hamas, the Israelis look after their civilians with a strong civil defence programme involving their quick transfer to deep basements and shelters.

On 4) I suggest you read my answer again.

If you are still not convinced, Alan Dershowitz fills all this out in that excellent article that SG was kind enough to draw our attention to (couldn't understand her first point though). It will say a lot about the Guardian's alleged belief in free speech if the article has indeed been removed from their website.

And yes I AM a member of Compass. Have been since its inception. Well, someone has to point out the political realities to them. :-)

"1. I do think the bombing of houses where Hamas makes and fires weapons is justified"

Just a short comment to supplement your point, Joe. I would think, given Israel's "knowledge" that Hamas deliberately fires rockets at Israel from residential sites containing women and children and the elderly and male non-fighters in order to provoke Israeli to respond by killing women and children and the elderly and male non-fighters with bombs, and then doing precisely that, is, at best, disingenuous but the very fact of the 'knowledge" makes it a coldblooded. rationally calculated and deliberately planned war crime, Joe.

Alan Dershowitz is very enlightening on this point in this morning's Guardian when he argues: "They (meaning the likes of you and me) blame those whose weapons directly caused the deaths rather than those who provked the violence by deliberately targeting (presumably Israeli) civilians." Strangely, Dershowitz'z article appears only in the print edition of the Guardian and has not been posted (or has been posted and then taken down) from the Guardian site. Still, it's good to know that Stan's got a little soulmate.

Thank you for answering my questions Stan.

"1. I do think the bombing of houses where Hamas makes and fires weapons is justified"

I cannot agree with this, when there is inevitable civilian death then i cannot see how this is justified unless in very extreme cases. Israel has not exhausted all diplomatic routes so I cannot agree with the bombing of innocents.

"2 Yes, I agree with the 1967 borders in the absence of a peace settlement along the lines of that UN resolution you were good enough to draw my attention to."

Ok, so we understand what the end game is.


"3 Yes, I believe the blockade of Gaza was right bearing in mind that open borders would have resulted in resources coming into Gaza to sustain their war effort against Israel and terrorists and suicide bombers being free to go out to Israel."

I cannot agree with you on this, the blockade made the Palestinians more isoloated, angry and desperate. Not to mention leading to huge humanitarian problems. How can you justify the an arms embargo of gaza and not israel? Israel is not militarily threatened by Palestine in any real sense.

"4 I regard the war as the lesser of the evils in promoting peace,"

I fail to see this. It has resulted in bloodshed, hundreds of deaths and only made the gazans more desperate. It is not a route to peace and will make negotiations more difficult in the future. Can I ask whether you are a Compass member Stan?

There's a fourth entity, Lewis: Palestine.

SG's pathetic attempt at sarcasm is only matched by her ignorance of the true nature of the issues involved.

But then, I suppose this will be obvious to any sensible visitors to this site.

SG thanks for your position on UK troops monitoring any Gaza ceasefire.
But Compass seems vague on this.Also on the two state solution.
There are at least three distinct entitities here,traditional Israel,Gaza,and the West Bank.Then there are related issues of the occupied territories,Jerusalem,and the Israeli internal fortified areas.The only person who realistically can initiate policies to get to grips with this will be Hillary Clinton,as the UN has unwittingly become significantly involved in the dispute.

"We do not have PROOF the bombing of the UN School was unavoidable or unnecessary. We are not there. We DO know that there have been rockets launched from that school toward Israel in the past (October, 2006)."

Must be alright then. Thanks, Annie. Wonder why I didn't think of that?

"The Israelies are doing what they have to do (with tears in their eyes) in order to ensure their very existence. It is Iran who must be stopped, IMHO."

Again, why didn't i think of that. The Israelis are crying so hard they can't see straight so of course accidents will occur and women and children will be maimed and killed - inadvertently, of course. And of course Iran must be stopped from doing whatever it's doing, or plans to do, if it makes you feel better, just as the Americans stopped it from doing what it's doing in Iraq so effectively. Brilliant one, Annie

Annie love it, Bush made a statement about what Hamas Palestine, then he said where is Palestine is it near Russia.

Compass suggests the EU, UN, et al should demand an embargo of armaments. What of Iran? Do you believe the president of Iran would comply as well? I think not. They arm Hamas as well as Hizbollah. I do not believe our leaders have been quiet in all of this. I believe they are working hard behind the scenes to resolve this issue. We do not have PROOF the bombing of the UN School was unavoidable or unnecessary. We are not there. We DO know that there have been rockets launched from that school toward Israel in the past (October, 2006). In 2002, President Bush called for a two-state solution. He said it was the only way to bring peace to Israel and the Palestinians. Now, all these years later, the world (including Compass) is finally waking up and calling for President Bush's original proposal. Hello?
The Israelies are doing what they have to do (with tears in their eyes) in order to ensure their very existence. It is Iran who must be stopped, IMHO.

Pointing out the horror of how Israel is behaving is pro Israeli not anti Israeli. Trying to defend this carnage is not being a friend of Israel.

Try the analogy out on other regimes which went too far in brutality and see who their real friends would be. Whistle blowers or people who went along with it.

"The classic example of this is the repetitive assertion by the anti-Israelis that Israel is committing "war crimes". Now by definition, if this is so, then Hamas and Israel are at war, ergo Hamas are subject to the same Geneva Conventions as Israel. And therefore Hamas, with their suicide bombing and deliberate rocketing of civilians and torture and killing of "prisoners of war" are ALSO committing war crimes.

"And yet those anti-Israelis will not concede that self-evident point, which is a shame because it destroys the credibility of their positions and therefore their arguments."

I'm not sure if the point you make in any way represents the legal position in any way, but I'm perfectly prepared to concede the point anyway, and I would hope that the International Criminal Court will soon have the opportunity to test the arguments for and against every individual from both sides who are accused of war crimes from the political leadership on down to the merest footsoldier, and proportionality will no doubt be one factor which will be weighed in the balance.

However, in making this minimally significant concession, it appears to me that doing so destroys neither the credibility of my position nor my arguments. In fact, it seems to me that, if anything, it buttresses my position and confirms the logical coherence of my arguments.

Oh, and we don't really need to repetitively assert that the Israelis are committing war crimes: it's all in glorious colour on the internet and TV, and the International Red Cross and the UN staff in Gaza and Israel have confirmed these video reports by making it clear that, in their view, the Israelis are committing war crimes. Simply, for most of us, the commission of war crimes has become a given whenever the Israelis choose to subject their frail, starved out, and militarily inconsequential neighbours to the horrors of weeks of systematic blitzkrieg.

What always amazes me about the so-called debates about the Middle East is the way they descend into a stream of invective against Israel on one side, and continued but fruitless attempts by the the other side to enter into reasoned presentation of evidence and balanced interpretation on the other.

The classic example of this is the repetitive assertion by the anti-Israelis that Israel is committing "war crimes". Now by definition, if this is so, then Hamas and Israel are at war, ergo Hamas are subject to the same Geneva Conventions as Israel. And therefore Hamas, with their suicide bombing and deliberate rocketing of civilians and torture and killing of "prisoners of war" are ALSO committing war crimes.

And yet those anti-Israelis will not concede that self-evident point, which is a shame because it destroys the credibility of their positions and therefore their arguments.

No-one of any maturity can believe that the conflict in the Middle East is a series of simple black and white issues, or that it can be reduced to the yah-boo level of a school playground where the good guys dress in white and the bad guys dress in black. If we can't have a mature debate about the rights and wrongs of the conflict here, then no wonder that we have had 60 years of zero progress.

What always amazes me about the so-called debates about the Middle East is the way they descend into a stream of invective against Israel on one side, and continued but fruitless attempts by the the other side to enter into reasoned presentation of evidence and balanced interpretation on the other.

The classic example of this is the repetitive assertion by the anti-Israelis that Israel is committing "war crimes". Now by definition, if this is so, then Hamas and Israel are at war, ergo Hamas are subject to the same Geneva Conventions as Israel. And therefore Hamas, with their suicide bombing and deliberate rocketing of civilians and torture and killing of "prisoners of war" are ALSO committing war crimes.

And yet those anti-Israelis will not concede that self-evident point, which is a shame because it destroys the credibility of their positions and therefore their arguments.

No-one of any maturity can believe that the conflict in the Middle East is a series of simple black and white issues, or that it can be reduced to the yah-boo level of a school playground where the good guys dress in white and the bad guys dress in black. If we can't have a mature debate about the rights and wrongs of the conflict here, then no wonder that we have had 60 years of zero progress.

It sounds very reasonable to sit about in New York talking about cease fires and enduring peace. We've had sixty plus years of that. We had agonising weeks of it last year with Lebanon while people died.

This is a war crime being perpetrated by one side. Forget the long term solutions that could take another sixty years. People are dying today. The US should tell Israel to back off. When a crime is going on you don't sit round talking about long term crime policy. You stop it. The only people who can stop Israel are the US and Jewish people who should be saying 'not on my name'.

"Would Compass support the sending of UK troops to Gaza to monitor
a ceasefire,as Spanish and other EU troops do in Southern Lebanon?"

The UK's position is too compromised both because of its historical role in Palestine and its relationship to the United States (and, indeed, Israel).

I think the People's Republic of China and Russia would have much more success in monitoring and guaranteeing a ceasefire, and that's what Compass should support.

God, Stan. It gets more and more like arguing with a child. The difference between a "conditional prior or coincidental linkage" and what you call a "link" seems to be repeated mass murder by an Israel incapable of making peace with the people whose territory it has occupied and stolen.

Indeed, when we consider the circumstances in which Resolution 242 was passed, and the content of the debate which took place, it was clearly not, and still is clearly not, part of the purpose of the Resolution to make any kind of conditional or prior coincidental linkage between Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory and a general peace agreement (which includes the "just settlement of the refugee problem", remember) as you - and other apologists for this genocidal barbarity - would have the more credulous amongst us believe.

Would Compass support the sending of UK troops to Gaza to monitor
a ceasefire,as Spanish and other EU troops do in Southern Lebanon?

"What I did say, choosing my words very carefully, is: "Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied territory and does not make any conditional prior or coincidental linkage to any overall peace agreement."

Yes you did,SG. But the resolution does make a link with "recognising the territorial integrity of Israel etc". So what's the difference between this and "any overall peace agreement" in this context when the former can only happen if the latter is achieved?

I think this kind of casuistry is known in the trade as "splitting hairs".

Can we now get down to some serious debate?

Sorry. Too quick off the mark and didn't check for grammatical errors. My apologies. I certainly didn't intend to confuse or mislead you, Stan, so here's the corrected version:

Presumably, the Nazis considered the Jews an existential threat to the German people on as trivial a basis as you and the Israeli government consider Hamas as an existential threat. And what is this "official policy" of the Nazis? I don't want to sound like a more attractive version of David Irving, but, historically, the Nazi genocides (the plural is intentional) were not the official policy of the Nazis but consisted rather of a series of informal, undocumented and pragmatic "understandings" amongst a very small group of people - much as the current Israeli attempts at genocide seem to be if we are to give you or any of their official spokesmen credence.

The analogy stands up pretty well after all, heh, Stan? Why not see if you can get your head straight by getting it round the Norman Finkelstein's analysis of Israel's genocidal tendencies (www.normanfinkelstein.com)?

Presumably, the Nazis considered the Jews an existential threat to the German people on as trivial a basis as you and the Israeli government consider Hamas as an existential threat. And what is this "official policy" of the Nazis? I don't want to sound like a more attractive version of David Irving, but, historically, wasn't the Nazi genocides (the plural is intentional) was not the official policy of the Nazis but consisted rather of a series of informal, undocumented and pragmatic "understandings" amongst a very small group of people - much as the current Israeli attempts at genocide seem to be if we are to give you or any of their official spokesmen credence.

The analogy stands up pretty well after all, heh, Stan? Why not see if you can get your head straight by getting it round the Norman Finkelstein's analysis of Israel's genocidal tendencies (www.normanfinkelstein.com)?

So the Warsaw Ghetto Jews were firing rockets into Germany and threatening its existence were they, SG? Not to mention that it was the official policy of the Nazis to exterminate Jews (as Hamas now advocating).

I'm afraid you will have to make better analogies than that.

Stan, if you change the terms Hamas to Jewish Combat Organisation, Gaza to Warsaw Ghetto, 1967 to 1940, Israel to Nazi Germany, Palestinian to Jew, Jewish to Aryan, your last post is just as credible.

Joe, I'll answer your questions because they are fair and honestly meant.

1. I do think the bombing of houses where Hamas makes and fires weapons is justified. Otherwise they will have a free hand to pursue this murderous activity. What is not acceptable is that they should be doing this from such houses in the first place, thus putting their women and children at risk from retaliatory fire.

2 Yes, I agree with the 1967 borders in the absence of a peace settlement along the lines of that UN resolution you were good enough to draw my attention to. The 1967 borders resulted from land
won when the Arabs invaded Israel and provide a cordon sanitaire for the Israelis which enables them to deal with any further attacks or terrorist activity before they reach pre-1967 Israel. I don't agree with the building of permanent Jewish settlements in these areas, by the way.

3 Yes, I believe the blockade of Gaza was right bearing in mind that open borders would have resulted in resources coming into Gaza to sustain their war effort against Israel and terrorists and suicide bombers being free to go out to Israel. They even use small children to do this incidentally, after they brainwash them in school to be martyrs.

4 I regard the war as the lesser of the evils in promoting peace, given that sweet words have not got the Israelis anywhere and the alternative was to allow a continuation of rocket attacks from Gaza by a Palestinian faction sworn to the extermination of Israel. And from a realpolitic point of view no action would have meant the certain victory of even harder-line parties at the forthcoming election with even worse consequences for the people of Gaza and the chances of an overall peace settlement.

Incidentally the war is not illegal since every country has the right to defend itself.

Frances, isn't it nice being so far away from the danger area that you do not have to suffer the consequences of being wrong?!

"She asserts that the resolution calls for Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories with no linkage to the need for recognition of Israel's territorial integrity."

What a duplicitous sillybilly you are, Stan, and how you so obviously enjoy to confuse and mislead by relying on the same moth eaten Israeli propaganda formulae time and time again to justify the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory and supplemented with the occasional casual mass murder. Even Goebbels knew when it was time to ring the changes. And how you do love to put words which I would never dream of uttering in my mouth.

What I did say, choosing my words very carefully, is: "Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied territory and does not make any conditional prior or coincidental linkage to any overall peace agreement."

All very clear and all very precise.

Once again Salfordgal condemns herself out of her own mouth.

She asserts that the resolution calls for Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories with no linkage to the need for recognition of Israel's territorial integrity.

Yet the text of the resolution which she has helpfully provided clearly shows such a linkage as follows

"[This Resolution] affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force"

Notice the reference to the application of BOTH principles in the first paragraph i.e. the need for Israeli withdrawal AND for a termination of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of every State in the area, which obviously includes Israel.

Palestinian extremists have never accepted this part of the Resolution as it affects Israel so Israel can stay put in the areas in which they operate.

Thank you SG for making this so clear to everyone.

Frances, I presume from your comment that Jews will deserve what they get from anti-semites if they don't come out against Israel.


Stan - stop twisting everything in to goodies and baddies. I don't think us and them all the time and you should try it some time. You never interpret my comments accurately because you see everything through the prism of goodies and baddies.

People get sucked in to conflict and brutalised by it. That's why armed conflict makes problems worse and doesn't solve them. You are showing a degree of heartlessness that people only develop way down the road in to conflict.

I think anyone who supports something bordering on a war crime will hopefully be condemned. Not because of their race and religion but because of their attitude to violence as a solution.

People condemning Israeli actions are not necessarily anti semites. Armies go to war waving flags so peaceful demonstration against war including flag burning is way better than dropping bombs. Throwing a shoe isn't that bad either.

You can't justify this level of violence by your side and you don't help your cause by trying so hard.

Ok, well we could probably debate 242 for a long time but breaking the ceasefire and launching this war would suggest Israel is not wholly committed to a peaceful solution reverting to pre-1967 borders.

Sorry I'm not familiar with the Post Office debate.

"And for every alleged atrocity by the Israelis there are dozens by the other side where it is clear that civilians were DELIBERATELY targeted without any provocation."

Lots of attrocities have been committed on both sides but the geo-political solution has developed since 1967. Israel has nuclear weapons and the full backing of the U.S. Its territorial integrity and military dominance cannot be challenged. This needs to be remembered. The question now is how to we move to a permanent and peaceful resolution.

I put it to you that this war is illegal, its unnecessary, it has led to the avoidable deaths of civilians (and Israel always knew this) and its counter-productive, do you accept this? You seem to want to avoid these truths.

Just a few questions for you Stan;

1) Do you think bombing civilian houses which may or may not make Hamas weapons is acceptable?
2) Do you agree with the 1967 borders?
3) Do you think that the blockade of gaza and the humanitarian situation is acceptable?
4) Do you think this war will promote peace?

Interesting piece Martin. Did you once work on the Replan Programme in Sheffield ?

"The UN resolution called for the return of territories captured in the Six Day War but only in return for an overall peace agreement recognising Israel's right to live within secure borders."

Oh no it doesn't, Stan. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied territory and does not make any conditional prior or coincidental linkage to any overall peace agreement. It refers merely to "the need to work for a just and lasting peace". In fact and logic, Israel is required to give up occupied territory unconditionally but has chosen not to because it wishes to hold on to stolen land and it requires a peace treaty on terms set by Israel to do so. There will come a point when the US will withdraw support, I've no doubt for impeccably preactical reasons, from Israel's racist fantasists and this lack of conditionality will provide UN mandated forces with an adequate justification for military action against Israel.

Here is the English language version of the text of Resolution 242:

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

"The UN resolution called for the return of territories captured in the Six Day War but only in return for an overall peace agreement recognising Israel's right to live within secure borders."

Oh no it doesn't, Stan. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from occupied territory and does not make any conditional prior or coincidental linkage to any overall peace agreement. It refers merely to "the need to work for a just and lasting peace". In fact and logic, Israel is required to give up occupied territory unconditionally but has chosen not to because it wishes to hold on to stolen land and it requires a peace treaty on terms set by Israel to do so. There will come a point when the US will withdraw support, I've no doubt for impeccably preactical reasons, from Israel's racist fantasists and this lack of conditionality will provide UN mandated forces with an adequate justification for military action against Israel.

Here is the English language version of the text of Resolution 242:

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.