Return to: Home | Blogs | Best of the Politics Blogs

16 comments from readers

winston
09 January 2009 at 15:12

I would like to know if why there are so many people out there that aganist the action that Isreal is taking to protect it's population? Would you not defend your family if someone kept on harassing them all the time? As years come and go the terrorist are trying to make their presents know through the word. There are a bunch of cowards out there just standing by and letting these animals get theit way. It is time that someone stand up to these bullies and teach them a good lesson. Their are lucky that I am not the leader of Isreal, because I would have carpet bomb their butts.

FreedomLand
09 January 2009 at 15:34

The truce that is but was but is not..... to they who hath, it shall be given but to they who have not, it shall be taken away, uhh:-

Quote: "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel was disregarding the U.N. vote..... "The state of Israel has never agreed that any outside body would determine its right to defend the security of its citizens. The IDF will continue operations in order to defend Israeli citizens and will carry out the missions with which it has been assigned in the operation," Olmert said.

Shortly after the Security Council vote, Hamas also rejected the resolution..... The resolution "does not serve our interests nor that of the people of Palestine," said Hamas official Raafat Morra, speaking from Lebanon. "It does not take into account the aspirations and the principal objectives of the Palestinian people..." http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/09/israel.gaza/in...

So, for Israel the truce is not valid unless they have already crushed Hamas (the Palestinian people); for Hamas the truce is no truce at all because it is once again all being dictated to them (by the West); and for the UN, the truce is a washing of their hands whist they idly stand by and watch the slaughter continue.....

FreedomLand
09 January 2009 at 15:41

# winston: "...terrorist are trying to make their presents know through the word..... letting these animals get theit way..... Their are lucky.... because I would have carpet bomb their butts..."

Your desires for perpetrating war crimes of your own are one thing #winston, the origins of this conflict are quite another:-

Wiki: "The King David Hotel bombing was a deadly bomb attack by the Irgun, a militant Zionist group, on the headquarters of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, located at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. The offensive was carried out on 22 July 1946 and was the deadliest attack against the British during the Mandate era (1920-1948)..... It has been called one of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century..."

Wiki: "Irgun (Hebrew: ארגון‎; shorthand for HaIrgun HaTzva'i HaLe'umi BeEretz Yisra'el - הארגון הצבאי הלאומי בארץ ישראל, "National Military Organization in the Land of Israel") was a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948. It was established as a militant offshoot of the earlier and larger Jewish paramilitary organization Haganah (Hebrew: "The Defense", ההגנה)..... The Irgun was the armed expression of the nascent ideology of Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky. He expressed this ideology as "every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state"..."

Also see British anger at terror celebration - "The rightwingers, including Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister, are commemorating the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of British rule, that killed 92 people and helped to drive the British from Palestine..." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/arti...

gez pearce
09 January 2009 at 19:08

Paul

A good summary but you keep making the point that Harry’s place is pro war left.

I would say pro war south park US republican.

Forget the obvious neoconservative sentiments on the site.

They believe very much in a liberal economic and social conservative agenda.

They were very pro McCain.

Name one writer at the place who will not be voting for Cameron or who didn’t vote for Boris.

Paul if you think I am incorrect could you please tell me one difference between the views of the place and say Michael Gove or Matthew D’Ancona.

So don’t refer to the site as a leftists site.

Paul Evans
09 January 2009 at 19:33

Harry's Place ran numerous posts about the US election and as far as I recall, none were "pro McCain" in any sense.

Have no idea how anyone at the NS votes - don't care.

gez pearce
09 January 2009 at 19:57

Paul

You still have not answered the question.

Name one difference between the the Cameron right and the Place.

It is a right wing site not left.

Which is fair enough but I do dislike dishonesty.

Also I was talking about the Place and their voting habits not the NS.

Paul Evans
09 January 2009 at 20:02

I don't write for Harry's Place, just read it now and again - but I'd say probably that Harry's Place takes a great deal more interest in trade unionism, welfare, gay rights, gender equality and anti-fascism than the Cameron right.

FreedomLand
09 January 2009 at 21:02

Dec 30, 2008 - Crude oil rises after Israeli attacks on Gaza roil Middle East: "The Yam Thetis partnership, which includes Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. and Delek, said all terms have been met to supply Israel Chemicals Ltd. with natural gas..... Crude oil rose as much as 12% after IAF air strikes raised concerns that supply from the Middle East, the world's largest producing region, may be disrupted..."

Useful search terms - 'British Gas Gaza'

Paul Evans
10 January 2009 at 10:43

Gez, I think you're reading, or rather presuming, positions held by the site that aren't there, as with the "pro-McCain" comment. I don't recall reading anything about Frank Field or welfare reform there, and they've run a lot of supportive posts about the Iraqi unions. The fact that certain elements of the libertarian right now ape the rhetoric of the left on gay rights doesn't diminish the fact that it's antithetical to the 'social conservatism' you accuse them of. On immigration, I recall them running numerous posts in defence of asylum seekers - and I'm happy that "pro-Israel left" is an accurate description of the site.

gez pearce
10 January 2009 at 18:54

Paul

I accept some of your points but it is still a neo conservative site.

You are correct that is not socially conservative but many young Tories are not social conservatives but libertarians.

As for the sites outlook towards economics. It believes strongly in the free market and only defends unions that have rightist free market outlook or are backed by the US. Cameron / Thatcherite conservatives are very pro this type of organized labour. Remember the UDM.

The reason you say they are not anti welfare reforms is the fact that the site is so obsessed with anti left rhetoric, Iraq , Muslims and Israel it rarely talks about economics and social issues. So it is difficult to tell their true beliefs.

If it is leftist site it is on the Prospect / Frank Field side of the Labour party, whether that is leftist, that is debatable.

What I will say is that site has close links to people like Nick Cohen, FrontPage, Policy exchange and other conservative movements and commentators and they seem to mirror the views of those organizations and commentators

FreedomLand
11 January 2009 at 09:35

So disgusting to see Australian PM Kevin Rudd wearing a black Jewish skullcap at a funeral for Private Greg Sher, a single Australian soldier killed in an incident in Afghanistan recently. That he was of Jewish descent is being odiously lauded by the Australian government and Rudd has siezed the chance to be photographed pandering to the Jewish community there in a slavish repetition of Barack Obama's actions before the US presidential election - see pic and note the row of military dignitaries present for the funeral of an army private, uhh - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/11/2463227.htm

That private Gregory Sher was a "man of purpose and committed determination" is not in question or that he was serving his country honorably (actually born in South Africa). But the attention his funeral has received from fawning Australian authorities parading their ulterior motives at the very same time that Israel has ignored a ceasefire in its murderous attacks upon a civilian population in Gaza is sickening - http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/family-of-aussie-soldier...

What Australia's Rudd and his fellow Labor Party colleagues fail to realize is that the incoming US Obama administration has most probably moved on from their pre-election pandering, especially given the embarrasing connection between nominated whitehouse chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and the now-impeached Illinois state governor. That the USA is also embarrassed by negative publicity from its associations with a Israel as a result of its current war crimes is something that Rudd is utterly stupid to overlook in his very dated gesture. Inevitably, it will cost Australia.

explodingbadger
12 January 2009 at 06:31

@winston

The most obvious reasons are the Israelis are using disproportionate force, targeting civilians,

explodingbadger
12 January 2009 at 06:34

targeting the police , using white phosphorous, and so on and so on. Compare how many Israelis died by Hamas rockets and how many are dying in Gaza from the current bombardment and from the siege. The Palestinians are the victims not Israel.

explodingbadger
12 January 2009 at 06:40

Even president of the UN General Assembly, Miguel d’Escoto Brockman of Nicaragua, blasted the Israeli action, and said, “I think it’s a monstrosity; there’s no other way to name it … Once again, the world is watching in dismay the dysfunctionality of the Security Council.”

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/the-monstrosity-of-war#more-1405

Tim Holmes
19 January 2009 at 14:04

I was amused by your bizarre misreading of Lenin's

Tomb. In fact, he suggested that Obama's failure to

"speak out" was rather a refreshing change to his

consistent pattern of rampantly pro-Israeli remarks

during his election campaign. In fact what he seemed

to suggest was that Obama's silence was, if anything,

a promising sign - since he was hesitant to alienate a

large proportion of his base by acting as a "full-

throated cheerleader for this slaughter". Actually quite

difficult to misinterpret that one ...

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-oh-why-

obama-wont-speak-out.html

gazmac
16 March 2009 at 13:00

According to respected international lawyer Franklin Lamb a recent CIA report gives the Israeli state 20 years before it collapses. Apparently members of the US Senate Intelligence Committee have seen the report which argues that a two-state solution is no longer realistic and that a one-state solution is the only viable democratic option. It predicts:

"an inexorable movement away from a two-state to a one-state solution, as the most viable model based on democratic principles of full equality that sheds the looming specter of colonial Apartheid while allowing for the return of the 1947/1948 and 1967 refugees. The latter being the precondition for sustainable peace in the region."

According to Lamb the CIA refers to the rapid and unexpected downfall of Apartheid South Africa (unexpected by the CIA that is which was of course a supporter of the racist regime, with the US government refusing to support sanctions, along with Thatcher's Britain) and of the Soviet Union.

http://gazasolidarity.blogspot.com/2009/03/cia-predicts-coll...