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?

UN launches $613m appeal for Gaza
Mr Ban said aid was urgently needed in Gaza
The UN has launched an appeal for $613m to help people affected by Israel's military offensive in Gaza.
Charts this is what you are arguing against. Have a look!

Play the video.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/davos/7857874.stm



I would value his opinion a little more than many who have posted on this thread.

It appears I am not alone in my views.

A few facts.

Israeli-Palestinian Fatalities Since 2000 from the beginning of the second intifada until July 2007. Amongst the most notable trends are:
the continuing high rate of fatalities amongst civilians who account for more than half the total of all those killed
the declining number of Israelis killed
a continuing high death rate for Palestinian adults and children particularly in the Gaza Strip
the escalating and changing nature of Palestinians killed from internal violence

Of those killed in the conflict, 4,228 have been Palestinians, 1,024 Israelis, and 63 foreign citizens

The total number of Palestinians, both civilians and combatants killed by the Israeli security forces or Israeli individuals, remains relatively high. In 2007, for example, for every one Israeli death there were 25 Palestinian deaths compared to 2002 when the ratio was 1:2.5.

Most of those killed in the conflict have been civilians not involved in the fighting.

Amongst Israelis, 69% of those killed were civilians and 31% members of the IDF. The number of Israeli civilians killed, from attacks by Palestinian armed groups or individuals, has declined steadily, peaking in 2002 at an average of 22 deaths per month, and dropping markedly to an average of one civilian per month in 2007.

In contrast to Israeli figures, however, Palestinian civilian fatalities have remained high. Palestinian civilians, killed by Israeli security forces, peaked with an average of 35 deaths per month in 2002, and again in 2004. In 2007 they dropped slightly to an average of ten civilian deaths per month.

Of the overall number of children killed, 88% were Palestinian and 12 % were Israeli

Since 2005, there has been a marked increase in the number of Palestinian deaths resulting from internal violence. In 2005, only 4% of the total Palestinian deaths for that year were the result of internal conflict. In 2006, the figures rose to 17% and in 2007, deaths from internal violence accounted for 65% of the total Palestinian death toll.


The Bush/Blair thread all over again, eh Fred? With you most of the way - they'll be frothing at the mouth in the con club, not to mention the character assassination of the most crude sort.

And yet, and yet. Until you concede nastiness of extremists on Palestinian side, you will attract the vitriol -but then that makes for a lively thread, no?

Things can be so complex and so simple. Tit for tat, you started it, it's mine not yours.

Like Ireland, the weaker side will never be forced into submission; the uneasy mix of talk and violence will have to be the way to go until hopefully the violence part diminishes to zero; the US will hopefully make a better job of things than idiot Bush.

however, the rabid politicos on both sides are bad enough, but the major diff between Ireland and this nasty conflict is the vested interest of so many outside parties

Cynic,

I think there are underlying similarities between Northern Ireland and the Middle East problems.

Crudely, at base the driving forces or emotional content function in the same way.

Some of the problems are due to vested interests in the Middle East.

I may be wrong, but I think there were vested interests in NI. There I think it was mainly criminal on both side ie. IRA, if you consider it as one entity, and similar for the UVF.

This led to fragmentation of the IRA, but at the end they had sufficient core support to be able to negotiate a settlement. I am not suggesting that many members of the IRA didnt commit callous, calculating and criminal actions. But this was also for the UVF.

In the Middle East, I think some of the leadership Hamas and Fatah are criminal and corrupt and have abused their followers. But many of the stated objectives of the other leaders have been and are justifiable and their resistance unfortunately necessary.

But for lasting peace to occur after any future settlement, it will be necessary to have the accepted Palestinian representatives of Hamas and Fatah present at any settlement negotiation.

Also, I think, Israel, has and had some corrupt leaders or politicians, who have bent to corporate forces and religious pressures, from inside and outside Israel.

Jeremy Bowen
BBC Middle East Editor
BBC Television Centre
London W12

14 January, 2009

Dear Mr Bowen,

For as many years as I remember, I have been reading and listening to your reports from the Middle East.

And I'll put my cards on the table straight away; you and your BBC colleagues' perspective on Israel and its conflicts with its neighbours is (and always has been in my view) equivalent to the propaganda that comes from the Hamas information office or from the desk of President Ahmadinejad. You (by which I mean the BBC) are no more objective than say Fox News on US domestic matters, although unlike self-proclaimed partisan agencies, the BBC masquerades as an impartial voice.

Jews in this country are not fooled, neither do we especially care. I am of your generation (two years younger than you), a British Jew born to Hungarian parents, a generation which by and large survived the Holocaust but whose parents' generation did not. You are not a Jew and have no emotional concept of anti-Semitism. And I don't mean the Neo-Nazi variety of skinheads and Hitler moustaches, but the more subtle, middle class prejudices which blighted my university days in the early 80s and which sits on a continuum of centuries of persecution, banishment and exodus wherever and whenever Jews have tried to live in peace with other people.

Nor do you have the emotional capacity to understand why and where Israel came from (I don't mean the historical background which is self-evident). While I was at university on anti-apartheid marches in the early 80s, most of the campus population was on pro-Palestinian rallies wearing the trendy Arafat kafiyeh and subscribing to that peculiarly British notion that the underdog must somehow be the righteous party in any conflict.

(By the way, I recall that Arafat was an Egyptian not a Palestinian and that he chose the name Yasser as he felt himself to be an Arab victim of the British mandate in Palestine, lest we get overly hypocritical about Britain's history).

If you could understand the WHY of Israel, you would know that Israel does not care what the rest of the world thinks about it, i.e. whether you merely hate Israel a little in the fashionable way of the middle classes, hate it very much as most of the world does, or hate it with the full venom of President Ahmadinejad; these are all merely shades of hate. In essence, Israel being the embodiment of Jewishness is ubiquitously despised, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in my book being largely synonymous. As you know, Israel has only one true ally in the world, being the US , a largely Jewish-led nation. Israel does not care or need to care about the rest of world opinion. Not should it; the rest of world opinion is and always has been hostile. If Ahmadinejad dream of removing Israel from the map of the world came to fruition, very few people (including at the BBC) would mourn.

I think that the analogy you make in your latest diary on the current crisis between Britain and the IRA during the Troubles is weak; I would have thought that the Falklands War was a better exemplum of British attitudes to "defence" of the nation. And you'll be aware that this country has been fighting its own wars in the Middle East for some years now, although we have no obvious connection with either Iraq or Afghanistan . I recall also that Russia has had some not inconsiderable involvement in Chechnya and two Georgian breakaway regions, that China has had a hint of recent interference in Tibet, and that France's conduct in Rwanda has not been entirely meritorious etc. You get the picture.

In other words, the recent pronouncements of the UN Security Council members to the latest Israel conflict is, shall we say, just a tad hypocritical. No change there: was it a couple of decades ago that the UN passed a resolution that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination? And now Israel is supposed to heed the words of an organisation which bemoans its very right to exist? I don't think so?

Of course it's not fashionable to be objective about Israel (sorry, I don't recall the BBC's report on the death of a friend of mine's twin girls aged 11 a few years ago in a bomb explosion on a bus in Israel ; perhaps there were no BBC reporters around at the time). Mr Bowen, Palestinians do not have the monopoly on suffering.

In summary, Israel does not care whether the BBC reports the facts or not. For the reasons mentioned above, Israel is not trying to court the favour of world opinion; this was a cause lost several centuries back. To put it bluntly, the fact that Israel exists as a highly successful nation state is two fingers up at you, at the BBC and at the rest of the world. Israel will be around whatever you write or say, diligently keeping its population ( Israel also has women and children, by the way), safe from Hamas bombardment.

Or to put it in the context of the defining historical event of the 20th century, Israel means: "Never again."

So you can write what you want.

sivad,
Could you please drop me an email?
Richard

Fred - for once i pretty much concur with your conclusion

Savad,


In summary, Israel does not care whether the BBC reports the facts or not. For the reasons mentioned above, Israel is not trying to court the favour of world opinion; this was a cause lost several centuries back. To put it bluntly, the fact that Israel exists as a highly successful nation state is two fingers up at you, at the BBC and at the rest of the world.

I was going to give a detailed response to the whole of your letter, but refrain from doing so, but will restrict it to this passage towards its end.

I think it illustrates the attitude, which a large percentage of the world perceives as Israels present stance. To me, it portrays an arrogance, which doesnt win favours.

I dont think that the Israel or the Israeli people are universally despised; I dont think that there is a universal wish for the demise of Israel or the Israeli people, but I do think that there is anger and despair at the actions instigated in the name of the Israel, by the present and recent past governments.

The people who are angry are not considering the religion or the culture of the Israelis, but the actions of Israel as an entity.


Edited

Ps. The same attitude was held by many of the recent American Administration and Bush and his cohorts. The American people were not disliked as group, but the actions taken in the name of their country were.

I see Hamas have launched four rockets from Gaza onto Israeli civilians this morning.
Israel will retaliate, and it won't be tit for tat......
Hamas really care about their civilians don't they............?

They ought to care - they just fail to plan for the future. After all, where will Hamas launch their attacks from when they run out of human shields? Such a waste.

ps - Hamas would like to thank supporters of the DEC for their kind donations that will help to rebuild Gaza. As you can see, the money is already being invested "wisely".

To Hamas, life is simple.
Grab a child as a human shield.
Child gets killed.
Israel condemned.
Child becomes "shehad" (martyr)and has eternal life in paradise.
More recruits created to further jihad against Israel and Jews everywhere (as publicly promised by Hamas)
Win-win military policy.
It's Hamas and their ilk and their fellow travellers who think precious human life is a cheap commodity in their war of hate.

Fred

I'm sure you think that today's rocket attacks from Gaza are a perfectly reasonable and justifiable cry for help from a people to whom nobody is listening, and that any military response by Israel will be shocking, uncalled for, disproportionate and unexpected.

So let me get this in first: Fred - you're a bleeding heart gullible fool. Get a grip.

Count - same applies.

G

Charts, I am glad you will not be negotiating for Israel.

If because you have physical might you can kill or murder with impunity I think you are wrong.

Fred - go poke a tiger with a sharp stick. Cynic will take up your case with London Zoo when you unexpectedly and disproportionately get mauled to death.

As said earlier, I don't read Fred's posts on this thread for the reasons mentioned, but I can imagine what he came out with from Gausie's response LOL

I've just remembered how to squelch a poster and have now squelched you know who. I've got someone else squelched too, pauluk something or other.
Such an onomatopoeic word - very satisfying.
Richard

Oh it is a good facility, you don't even see the name of the squelched one.
Maybe Stalinist air brushing out of history had something going for it after all LOL

cynic will form his own view of this bloody and largely mindless conflict, caring not whether it is deemed to be patronising one side or another