Will this increase or decrease the likelihood of terrorist actions in America, Europe and the rest of the world?

If you were a member of a family murdered in this conflict, would you be seeking revenge?

Should Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, be tried for war crimes if or when this conflict comes to an end?

What will the price of oil be in 4 weeks time?

Haystack
The last incursion into Gaza killed huge numbers and devestated large numbers of dwellings.


that's what happens when Hamas deliberately use civilians as cover

just cowardice to risk their lives like that

that's gaza democracy for you

and most of these 'conflicting' reports are just outright lies

why are they lying

is that allowed in the Quran too ?

Camelot,

Do you think that you are "slightly" biased in your views of the world?

Do you?

There are plenty of independent reports on bad Israel behaviour in Gaza.

This is a conflict that Israel cannot 'win' with their current tactics. The world is gradually isolating Israel. The US doesn't condemn Israel outright because it is concerned about stability in the region. The US is about the only 'friend' they have and they are not a real friend. The Palestinians are not going to stop their struggle. Building on occupied land only makes the situation worse. Dismantling Arab houses in East Jerusalem is bound to casuse more trouble.

Hamas won't stop what they are doing. They are deliberately goading Israel into agressive action. Hamas now have Israel on a piece of string. Israel cannot defeat Hamas, the same way that the UK could not defeat the IRA. Negociations are the only way. It is no use Israel saying that stopping rocket attacks is a precondition to talks. Hamas regard building on occupied land plus a few other things such as the blockade as far more serious.

Camelot
Don't you think that Israel ever lies?

Around half the Norwegian people wanted to boycott the Israeli products or have already started to boycott them, results of an opinion poll made in Norway over the past couple of days showed.

Hebrew daily Yeidot Ahronot reported on Wednesday that the results, which were published in a local newspaper, displayed that 33.5% of those polled wanted to boycott Israeli products.

It noted that 9.5% were already boycotting Israeli products in the wake of Israel's brutal attack on the Freedom Flotilla bound to Gaza that left tens of solidarity activists killed or wounded other than robbing all relief material on board.

The paper noted that the Norwegian health minister Kristin Halvorsen, who is also the leader of the socialist party of Norway, on Tuesday urged the world community to suspend all arms trade with Israel as already pursued by Norway.

03/06/2010

The Irish ship named Rachel Corrie, which fell behind the Freedom Flotilla convoy, is ploughing ahead with its attempt to deliver aid to the Gaza Strip despite Mondays attack by the Israeli navy and due to arrive tomorrow or the day after.

The organizers said that Rachel Corrie, which was named after the American activist who was killed in 2003 by an Israeli military bulldozer, sailed from Malta on Monday.

Derek Graham, one of the crew members aboard the ship, told the Irish radio that there are 15 passengers on board the ship including a Nobel peace prize laureate.

He said that he and the others aboard the ship had a meeting after what happened on Monday morning and decided to continue their mission, noting that the ship is carrying medical appliances, school supplies and cement bags.

Meanwhile, the European campaign to end the siege announced that it was able to secure funding for three other aid ships after it received earlier funds for three ships of the new Freedom Flotilla convoy.

The campaign added that it managed within the past 24 hours through intensive worldwide contacts to obtain funds for six ships that will be among a huge fleet scheduled to sail for Gaza in the next few days.

Camelot
Have you hear of an organisation called "Breaking the Silence". It is is an organization of veteran Israeli soldiers (that have served since 2000) that collects testimonies of soldiers who served in the Occupied Territories. They cover the use of human shields as a normal prictice while walking around Gaza in 2009.

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/news_item_e.asp?id=30

Fifty-four testimonies of Israeli combat soldiers who participated in Operation Cast Lead reveal gaps between the reports given by the army following Januarys events; the needless destruction of houses; firing phosphorous in populated areas and an atmosphere that encouraged shooting anywhere.

You can download the report here.

http://www.shovrimshtika.org/oferet/ENGLISH_oferet.pdf

you can swamp the thread with as many posts as you like

the fact remains you havent answered the question

and non-denial denials dont wash either

stop wriggling

Not sure what your question is. If it "why are they lying?", then what specific lying are you referring to.

You really outght to read the accounts from the Israeli soldiers. What they describe amouts to war crimes and crimes against humanity by Israel.

thank goodness to be on the plane this afternoon ..... it also gave me a chance to read The Times where there was proper balanced reporting and leader on this whole sad affair ..... it might do you all good to go and read it!!

Isaacs,

I suspect nobody in the real world is without bias, or prejudice, on any topic of discussion, but many try to recognise their own lack of objectivity, and try to be observational of such, when making a statement and try to recognise the difference between a statement, based on fact, and one based of belief.
I think,, that you , Camelot, Yuff and sometimes Fahel (sorry to criticise the latter) often dont seem to attempt to do so.


(I wont give opinion of G/MM. I will allow you to consider their postings for yourself.)

Personally, I try to be observational of my own prejudices and, in generally, try to be careful when giving an opinion and try to differentiate between emotional affect and true reality.

I dont think I have any particular bias, in the Middle East conflict, other than anger at the futility of the action by some, and despair at the stupidity being shown by of all sides.

(My wifes family was torn apart by a civil war, which didnt advance their families or their country one little bit, but separated brothers and friends for forty years. (Their values were similar, but werepainted a different colour, by the flags they chose.)

More crazy muslims at play

Clashes between Somali government forces and Islamist militants have
killed at least 17 people and wounded about 60 in the capital Mogadishu.

Backed by African Union troops, it is trying to quash al-Shabab - an al-Qaeda-inspired group that control much of southern Somalia.

Complete guff Fred about your own objectivity. Your bias has been clear from the start of this thread. Next you will be claiming you are objective when it comes to discussing UK politics next as well.

Perhaps if you unsquelched G you might see that in recent days he has been one of the few to post real information as opposed to opinion and to try to get a logical debate going. If you are interested in objective debate you would be better off squelching an Israel bashing nutcase like Clubman instead.

and as i said yesterday, for a truly balanced and objective view, read yesterday's Thunderer

I've been trying to pick my way through the rhetoric to try and understand what this is really all about - and have come to some conclusions that might help to chart a course for an understanding of the blockade question and where a resolution might lie.

The key differences start with:

1) Most of the world claims that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza
2) Israel claims there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza

How can both of these statements be true? Only with a definitional difference over 'humanitarian crisis'.

Israel seems to be basing its claim on the observed and frequently reported fact that there are no shortages of food, medicine, medical equipment and clothing in Gaza.

Informed commentators who claim there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza point to the severe shortage of building materials and manufacturing raw materials that mean that Gaza does not have the ability to build/rebuild homes, businesses or infrastructure such as hospitals, police stations etc. This, to me, is a crisis.

In pubs, clubs and BBs, there's also a bunch of people who hear the world claim humanitarian crisis and assume it means Gaza is short of food, medical supplies etc. I believe the reason that this view is so widespread is that it suits the agenda of some to encourage the misunderstanding as a subtle form of propganda.

Hamas' refusal to accept the aid unless all items are included seems to reinforce the definitional difference - they're clearly not in dire need of the food and medicine - but the construction materials are the big prize.

Israel's unwillingness to allow building materials in is understandable from a security perspective but unacceptable when looked at from a humanitarian perspective. Taking the two perspectives together, I sympathise and agree with their decision - but I recognise that's just my opinion and so is irrelevant.

So this boils down to:

o no real dispute over food aid
o no real dispute over medical aid
o no real dispute over clothing aid

o Major dispute over rebuilding aid

My guess is that Israel have no genuine objection to homes and infrastructure being rebuilt - their objection stems from their fear that building materials will be used to construct military installations and equipment.

If that's the case then the dispute is not really over the reconstruction aid at all - it's over the application of that aid.

There are a few crazies who will argue that Gaza should receive no aid at all, and a few other crazies who will argue that Gaza should be free to build whatever military infrastructure it chooses. But I think these opinions are the extremes of a bell curve of opinions, with most rational people believing that Gaza should be free to conduct civilian reconstruction, but is not yet sufficiently responsible to be permitted to strengthen its military.

There's a bunch of assumptions I've made in here that may be wide of the mark - they are my personal assumptions so they'll be tainted by my personal beliefs. But if they're true or even close to true then they lead to a possible framework for a solution. Not to the middle east problem, but to this particular crisis.

The problem boils down to this: The world, if interested in solving the problem, needs to think about how it can supervise and audit the use of reconstruction materials within Gaza to demonstrate to Israel's satisfaction that they are being used for peaceful means.

This ought not be too difficult - every well run construction company in the world does the same thing (with varying success) on a minor scale. They have to ensure that the materials they buy are applied to the projects they run, rather than for a foreman's home loft extension or new roof.

With a transparent and reliable system of checks in place, I can't see any further objection from Israel to Gaza receiving building aid. There will still need to be internationally policed import restrictions on weapons and rockets - and so an international 'Customs & Excise' force stationed in Gaza port might achieve such, and either Israel or a trusted third party would probably need to patrol the coast of Gaza to ensure all incoming ships docked and unloaded at the port rather than smuggled rockets or contraband onto the beaches, but I think there's the basis of something workable in here.

G

"So this boils down to:

o no real dispute over food aid
o no real dispute over medical aid
o no real dispute over clothing aid"

I think that there is considerable dispute over the above. How can the UN and Red Cross be reporting that only a quarter of previous levels of supplies are reaching Gaza. I suspect that it suits Israel to believe that Gaza has sufficuent food, medical supplies. Plenty of independent observers are reporting extreme poverty in Gaza. The Blockade must be lifted. The pressure will increase until it is lifted.

Isaacs,

UK politics. Go back to see my postings in 2009 about when the election would be and the probable outcome of the election etc. Compared with your opinions, I think mine were reasonably accurate. I think, I suggested then that it would be an election which labour might like to lose.


I await future developments of the coalition with interest. Still looking for the "strong" government and wonder how Cameron is going to introduce necessary policies and keep the tory right, out of touch MPs on board.

Perhaps, Cameron is really a liberal at "heart".

My political leanings are to the left of centre and over the years recent governments of all colours have move to be more socially conscious and responsible and inclusive. ( I suspect that the present government will ignore the right wing of the tory party. CGT will be the first hurdle, as will be hereditary tax and other tax reforms.)


As far as G is concerned, I have no wish to read his uncouth, abusive, loutish, threatening postings. I did not find him amusing and thought his main intention was to be denigrating and suppress opinions. which did not concur
with his own.

He seemed to be using the same methods of discussion or approaches to obtain his objectives, as were used by the fascist thugs in Germany during the thirties.

MM, again I thought more interested in denigration and suppression of opinion and discussion of Israel's action. I also thought him to be patronising.

I agree with your opinion of some of Clubman's postings and do not see them as gainful and suggest that he steps back and reconsiders some of his views.
But I don't know enough about him to make any overall judgement of him.

As far as Hay's postings on this thread are concerned, i agree with the sentiments and the validity of the contents. Although, I disagree with some contents.

Isaacs,

Again, thank you for your opinions of me.

As far you are concerned, I find many of you postings are often in a similar vein as G/MM.

My opinions about the Middle East conflicts, for various reasons, may be different to yours, that is understandable, but I think, in general, that I agree with the majority of world opinion, especially the opinions of the various humanitarian groups.

Ps.

When I started this thread, I posted 4 questions, which I was asking myself and thought it would be of interest to include others.

I had some made some conclusions for myself, but was interested to read those of other people.

Also, at the time I thought the Palestinians weren't be given a fair and balanced coverage by the media.