Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog

89 comments from readers

Law
22 January 2009 at 10:58

The number of settlers in the West Bank has almost

tripled since 1993.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Historic

al_timeline). Israeli violence is a land grab. Apologies

are tactical.

Pakistan and Bangladesh don't kill hundreds of

children in aerial bombing in the space of three

weeks. Only Darfur bears comparison.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8

Gerald Kaufman's parliamentary speech

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?

v=IIpvrOJQ0J0&feature=related

George Galloway's speech

Tarjuman
22 January 2009 at 12:16

Your imbalance is all too clear. While driving home the evils of Islamism and Hamas' ideology, you fail to consider the ideology called Zionism which accounts for the recent slaughter and the ongoing policies of racist degradation, land-grabbing and genocide. Ah, but this ideology is too close to your heart.

And you can't help use the word "self-appointed" for the MCB, which has hundreds of diverse affiliate organisations and elects its leadership, but you see nothing self-appointed in "I-saw-the-light" Ed Husain, nor his Quilliam Foundation stinktank which has been handed £1 million of public money.

No, these ones you cheer on, just as you did for the "Sufi Muslim Council" - what happened to them, by the way? I haven't heard them speaking for the Silent Majority recently...

The "Islamist tendency" was never on the retreat, because it only exists - in the sense of an actual division - in the minds of miguided hacks such as yourself, given a new boost by the opportunists of the "I Was an Extremist Get Me a Book Deal" variety.

Some say Jew-haters use anti-Zionism as a cover. Maybe a few people do. But the real story is the abuse of anti-Islamism by the true Islamophobes.

writeon
22 January 2009 at 13:10

I've written a lot, probably too much, about the Israeli attack on Gaza. Mostly because I felt obliged to offer and alternative to the massive and coordinated war propaganda that flooded the Western media. Of course as the scale of the assault became apparent and the destrution and level of civilian casualties mounted, it became increasing difficult to present this onslaught as 'defence' and the well-used David vs. Goliath analogy.

But here we are again. This article is biased, slanted, severely tilted towards the official Israeli view of why this attack was necessary. Some would call it pure Israeli propaganda. I wouldn't go that far though.

This article makes virtually no attempt to see the 'war' from the Palestinian side and sets out to demonize Hamas as 'fascists' and terrorists. Then 'Islamists' in the UK and the hard left are more or less lumped in with Hamas, that's them labelled and dismissed out of hand, no mention of their arguments anywhere.

Basically this article uncritically accepts the esablishment Isreali view that they are the vanguard and front line of a war of survival between civilizations. The Western, enlightenment democracies, vs the barbarian, fascist, Islamist, right, who lave launched a massive attack on us and our most chreished values. In this conflict there can be no compromise or accomodation, only one outcome, one victor, us, or them. it' fight to the finish over the future of civilization itself. Much of this functiions on the level of two-pronged smear, both crude and subtle.

Now, if this view is accepted, and it seems to be, at least among the Western, establishment, elite and their allies, then we have a lot of thinking to do, as well as fighting, and for a long time.

However, I believe it's a myth, a fallacy, a fundamentally flawed analysis on many levels, not only that, it is close to a self-fulfilling prophecy, as our armies are marching around the world to this bloody and belligerent tune.

couchtripper
22 January 2009 at 13:24

These Israelis say that Israel is doing the West's dirty work? I've never felt threatened by Hamas, and neither has anybody I know.

There is only a potential threat of any kind because of Israel. If Israel wasn't stealing their land there wouldn't be a problem - where's the difficulty in understanding that?

Amihai
22 January 2009 at 13:38

Listen to the following!!!!!!!!

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292938156&pag...

This case reminds one of the Arab "narrative", fictional story telling, really, regarding Jenin of 2002 in which the Arabs claimed that over a thousand people have been "slaughtered" by the IDF, yet it turned out that only 54 armed members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah were killed.

writeon
22 January 2009 at 13:57

Should I even bother? The contents of this article wouldn't matter so much, if they didn't reflect the attitudes at the heart of the 'war on terror.

At its core this article articulates some rather horrific attitudes in my opinion. These are harsh words. But the carnage inflicted on Gaza was 'harsh' too. If we continue down this road without reflection, real analysis or blind acceptance of the rhetoric of the crusade against 'Islamic Fascism', our grandchildren will be still fighting and dying when we're dust. Religious/ideological wars tend to turn into wars of survival, and on that account alone, surely we should really think about what we're doing and question the basis of the war propaganda we actually believe is the truth?

I can't accept, without question, that Hamas is purely evil and that they are responsible for bringing the 'war' down on Gaza with cynical disregard for the lives of their own people. This is a very convenient argument and excuse for the Israelis who are actually dropping the bombs. Like, I'll never forgive them for forcing us to kill their children!

So the massive disparity in the actual casualties between the two sides in this 'war', one a lightly armed militia, the other an ultra-modern and powerful army, are cleverly massaged away and excused, by referring to the perspective from inside Israel, and some place called 'Palestine', which doesn't even exist, with the trite phrase - which side did best at protecting its own people? What's that supposed to mean? Why is that seen as significant? Israel did best because it wasn't defenceless and under sustained attack by a modern army, abandoned by the entire world! And at the same time the totally disproportionate level of killing is used to show that Hamas is 'reckless' with the lives of their own people, that part of their deadly plan is to provoke Israel to commit mass murder and show the true face of the Jewish state, funny how this kind of conspiracy theory is accepted without question.

raggedyman
22 January 2009 at 14:09

MB:

Your use of language belies your bias in this matter does it not? The Hamas' use of 'human shields' (a war crime) is 'accepted' but the Israeli 'war crimes' are qualified as alleged. I suppose in the absence of a full and independent investigation they're unlikely to proceed much beyond their current 'alleged' status.

Those that argue with the tacit assumption that the stated war aims of Israel are its real war aims are strikingly naive in this matter particularly in the light of this region's recent history.

You would do well to read Prof Shlaim's piece at the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-pale...

Unlike the 'hard' left, who are clearly all batty anti-semites in your eyes, it would be difficult for you to 'neutralise' Prof Shlaim's critique as he is both Jewish and an Israeli citizen.

Note that the upshot of his argument based on his deep knowledge of this region and its history, is not that Israel was seeking to stop Gazan rocket fire but in fact to futher undermine the prospects of a two-state solution by the demolition of Gaza, not just in terms of its infrastructure, but in terms of any functioning semblance of Government. To turn it, in effect, into a failed state - a sort of giant refugee camp dependent for the foreseeable future on international aid (funneled as always through Israel)

It was Ben-Gurion (the man who founded Sderot in the 1950s to act as a buffer zone between the Arabs and central Israel) who best summed up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

But no one sees there are no solutions to these problems. There is no solution! Here is an abyss and nothing can link its two sides...We as a people want this land to be ours; the Arabs as a people want this land to be theirs.

As Prof Shlaim re-emphasises this is all about land and the getting of it - and this post-1967 has become increasingly expansionist and colonialist on the part of Israel.

writeon
22 January 2009 at 14:20

I should probably apologise for writing so much, but many of the ideas in this article are highly problematic in my opinion, and profoundly dangerous, if they are wrong. The least we should do is think about them, because we are talking about war here, not some student debate about something abstract. Hundreds of thousands of people have been dies in recent years because of these ideas, and if we aren't careful, millions more are going to die in the future. For heaven's sake let's examine whether they are true or not, before we march off towards the sound of gunfire. Haven't we learned anything from all the previous wars at all? Aren't they almost always based on over-simplification, stereotypes, mythology, obsfucation and blatant lies? Why should the war between civilizations, because that's what were talking about, be any different?

But then I suppose it's easier and cleaner to think of god wars and bad wars, good killing and bad killing, acceptable slaughter and un-acceptable slaughter.

What I have great difficulty understanding is how we justify and legitimize the vast differences in the casualty levels and ammount of destruction between the sides in the 'war on terror.' Isn't it striking. Doesn't it make one think? If we are in mortal danger, a civilization under attack from extremists, we seem extraordinarily effective at defending ourselves and hitting back at the enemy, don't we, yet it's us that are in danger and under attack, no? Funny sort of 'war' where one side is emperically so much more deadly and effective. One could almost get the impression that we were the ones doing the attacking!

Clearly we seem to be turning into a giant version of Israel in many ways and we are beginning to share not just their democratic values but their attitudes to war. I wonder is this is wise or considered? What if the entire justification for the war on terror, which Gaza is a part of, is a massive lie, a lie to justify 'imperialism' and a new grab for resources?

jednightingale
22 January 2009 at 15:26

The horror comes home

Unfortunately, the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel has been highjacked for long time by the Arab media, politicians, and the street. Not that this conflict should be dismissed. However, it would be prudent to address this problem within a framework of other historical calamities where thousands of refugees have been created by ethnic conflict (India/Pakistan, Germany/Poland, etc). Interesting that Libya's Kadafi wrote an editorial in today's NY Times calling for a more sober approach to solving this conflict. I suspect that the Arabs are begining to understand the more serious threat created by Iran which is exploiting the Palestinian/Israeli conflict to destabilize the Middle East and the Muslim communities in Europe.

Amihai
22 January 2009 at 15:30

"Palestinian civilians have accused Hamas of forcing them to stay in homes from which gunmen shot at Israeli soldiers during the recent hostilities in Gaza, the Italian newspaper 'Corriere della Sera' reported Thursday.

"More than 1,250 Palestinians were reportedly killed during Israel's offensive against Hamas in the coastal territory. According to estimates by Gaza officials, more than half of the Palestinian dead were civilians.

"But the Italian paper quoted a doctor at Gaza City's Shifa Hospital as saying that, 'It's possible that the death toll in Gaza was 500 or 600 at the most, mainly youths aged 17 to 23 who were enlisted by Hamas - who sent them to their deaths.'

"13 Israelis were also killed during the 3-week operation, which was aimed at halting rocket fire on southern Israel and destroying Hamas' infrastructure.

"Israel was heavily criticized for the large number of Palestinian civilians killed in the campaign.

"The Gaza doctor was further quoted as saying: 'Perhaps it is like Jenin in 2002. At the beginning they spoke about 1,500 dead, and at the end it turned out to be only 54 - of whom 45 were militants.'

"He was referring to the Israel Defense Forces battle with Palestinian militants in the West Bank town that took place during Operation Defensive Shield at the height of the second intifada".

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057874.html

Marilyn
22 January 2009 at 15:36

I find these justifications for Israel's slaughter of the innocent to be quite grotesque.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2002/israel3/israel0502-05...

Those figures Amihal are dead wrong.

You really are cretins if you believe the rubbish served up by Israel but you need to be clear about one thing.

The land is Palestine, Israel does not exist and never did.

The UN general assembly vote of 1947 was as illegal as it was immoral and the Palestinians did not get a vote as the west gave their land to someone who had no right to it.

Israel is in the wrong 100% of the time and if the stupid rockets are so dangerous why don't Israel give up their F16's and just get some of them.

inayat
22 January 2009 at 15:36

My goodness. So much about 'totalitarian Islamism' but not a word about bloodthirsty Zionism. And this in a piece supposedly about the savage bombardment and invasion of Gaza by the Israelis!

Bright's anti-Muslim bigotry is plain for all to see.

writeon
22 January 2009 at 16:32

What about the seige or blockade of Gaza? A seige that's caused enormous suffering and hardship, and arguably far more civilian deaths in the same period than the pathetic Hamas rockets ever did. Why no mention of this? Surely that's grossly unfair and gives a profoundly distorted perspective on the crisis in Gaza?

Gaza was, and is, being slowly strangled, a form of collective punishment of an entire population because they've had the audacity to democratically elect an unacceptable, 'wrong', government - Hamas. One can argue that this, in itself, close to a war crime, as were inumerable other deliberate Israeli attacks on the civilan infra-structure.

And I could present pages of quotes from Israeli spokesmen, politicians and officers that don't show understanding or regret for civilian casualties, but the exact opposite, they seem pathetically unaware that many of their statements are open admissions of war crimes. Statements that Israel is going to teach the Palestinians a 'lesson' is the language of the oppressor.

Finally, Hamas, which isn't a monolithic organisation, has indicated, and tacitly, accepted the basis of the Saudi/Arab League, peace plan for Israel/Palestine, why no mention of this either? Of course Hamas is a militant resistance group, but that's only to be expected considering the nature of the occupation. An occupation breeds a reaction. What is Hamas' real 'crime' compared to Fatah? Put brutally. Fatah has accepted that the Palestinians have been 'defeat' and their homeland wiped off the map, and Hamas hasn't. So the Palestinians have to be punished until they finally understand this final lesson.

writeon
22 January 2009 at 16:35

It appears that comments critical of the bias, assumptions and arguments contained in this article, are also unable to slip through the new, pro-Israel filter mechanism.

Amihai
22 January 2009 at 16:58

"…the well-used David vs. Goliath analogy".

This analogy is totally correct at present time, has been since at least 100 years ago, and will continue to be in the future when the Arab Israeli conflict is viewed properly, that is broadly, thus realistically: A whole Muslim-Arab world as well as several Muslim-Non-Arab countries, e.g. Iran, is out to wipe a tiny Israel off the face of the earth and with it its people and its Jewish civilization of nearly 4,000 years of age.

Israel, note, is a country the size of Wales with a Jewish population of not yet reaching six million people whose country lacks any natural resources to speak of but its human resource.

This tiny sliver of earth and its people has been trying to defend itself from the day it was proclaimed – based on UN resolutions, based on the universally accepted right of peoples to national self-determination and independence, and based on the affinity of its people, the Jewish people, to the Land of Israel – Zion and Jerusalem – during its entire existence of thousands of years.

Hamas is only a chapter, a relatively short one so far, of the numerous attempts by the entire Muslim-Arab world – Goliath - to bring about the elimination of this David!

john problem
22 January 2009 at 17:27

'The War in Gaza' they called it. Bombers, helicopters, tanks, phosphorus, fully trained and marvellously equipped soldiers, spies defining targets, etc, etc. But ths was all on one side only. One didn't see any bombers, helicopters, tanks, phosphorus, fully trained and marvellously equipped soldiers or spies from Hamas. Only half-cock rockets most of which don't explode. Hardly a 'war'. However, it's all too much and takes up too much media time. The UN should go in and clear it up. Then we could perhaps learn something about what goes on in other countries of the world, rather than these two piddling little, bellicose, cockamany countries.

ali hussain jaffri
22 January 2009 at 18:31

hi

writeon
22 January 2009 at 18:32

Amihai,

You're entitled to your opinion, seen from your perspective, which appears to be a religious/nationalist one. It's a very emotional response to a difficult situation. My family members, long dead, who lived in Vienna and were fully integrated into Austrian society, regarded the Zoinists as romantic, nationalists. There were lots of them around in those days as the Austro-Hungarian empire started to come under strain. It seemed like every 'people' wanted something called 'self-determination', not matter the cost, no matter how impracticable, because the 'people' were all mixed up with everyone else in the empire, so find out where the people were going to create their ethnically pure states was going to be a nightmare. Where would one draw the historical lines? How far back would one go to find the 'old country' exactly? What was one going to do with the new people living there?

What actually makes a people as opposed to an ethnic minority? Is it all just a question of claiming and holding a little piece of land by force of arms, whether in Europe or the Middle East? If it's just about might making right, where's the moral legitimacy in that?

I firmly believe that European nationalism has been a curse, and we've got the mountains of corpses to prove it. National self-determination as well. It's a myth. Personally, my family, going way back, has never really cared about the nationality of the prince that was screwing them, which is probably why they moved around so much, real wandering Jews.

Historically there's evidence that much 'national self-determination' has been encouraged by larger, stronger powers as a method to weaken their rivals internally as a prelude to invasion.

And while we're at it, what about if the Palestinians inside Israel began to demand 'self-determination' for themselves as a sacred 'right' too. They are a people, they've been there for thousands of years, so wouldn't they be entitled to their own tiny nation state inside Israel?

ali hussain jaffri
22 January 2009 at 18:34

exactly Martin, you have said it right:

"If half the energy expended by the south Asian diaspora in ­defence of the Palestinians was spent campaigning for justice and political transparency in Pakistan and Bangladesh, then the prospects for reform in those countries would be vastly enhanced."

i cannot disagree. i am a secular kashmir and have seen with horrror the occupation of these guys with the middle east and its culture. i have asked some of them why dont you talk about kashmir where nearly 50 thousand have been killed by india and what about a movemenet for thr ights of your kashmir brothers and they dont seem to have any annswer.

palestine has been made convenient!

writeon
22 January 2009 at 18:49

Amihai,

I don't believe Israel was ever little David vs. Goliath. I think this is a powerful, useful, nationalist, foundation myth. Lots of countries have these kinds of myths.

I think history shows that Israel was actually far better organised, better armed, more effective and ruthless, than the poorly led and disunited Arabs, right from the very beginning. This asymetric relationship has continued right up to the present day, for example the pathetic Arab reaction to the attack on Gaza, shameful and totally useless. Do these disunited, be honest now, kings and dictators, look like a threat to Israel? To me they don't look like they could organize anything. Even their armies are trained to oppress their own people, not Israel, everyone knows this. And what of Israel's nuclear arsenal? How is Israel threatened when it could destroy every town and city in the Middle East if it had to?

But, what clear, in my opinion, is that Israel's intransigence and agressive military posture, will eventually cause an explosion, a revolution, that will topple the passive Arab rulers. And then new leaders will appear and forge proper armies willing to fight after so many decades of humiliation, just like with the crusades and Saladin. Then, paradoxically, Isreal will have created the Goliath it so fears, and that will be a tragedy for all of us, as Israel may evolve from David to Sampson, if you get my drift. Is that the future you really want?

moshe
22 January 2009 at 19:50

I liked this article. I am an Israeli. It's important to state my perspective on the matter. Judgment requires objectivity, and I sense that this article strives for balance and objectivity.

During the hundreds of years of Ottoman rule, there never existed a "Palestinian". Prior to the declaration of Israel, the people living in the League of Nations Mandated Area which established the "Palestinian Mandate" these people were Jews not Arabs.

During the Ottoman rule, 95% of the land or more was owned by 2% of the population. Arabs were share croppers. So calling these lands Arab or even Palestinian when the Ottomans were not Arabs and the vast majority of Arab dwellers in the Mandate Territories were non land owning share croppers, I find it an incredibly biased statement to declare these disputed lands as Palestinian lands. Especially the implication that these disputed lands are "obviously, without question, Palestinian lands". These so called Palestinians lack history. There has never been a Palestinian capital, nor Palestinian money nor art or culture etc. Israelis on the other hand its a completely different story. Three Jewish kingdoms ruled over the disputed territories. Furthermore, the Arabs militarily conquored these lands from the Romans. If its permissible for Arabs to conquor and claim territories as their own why is it forbidden for Jews the same coin? Arabs are conquored 2nd class aliens within the Jewish state. That's how Christian and Muslim states treated Jews for the entire post 2nd Temple eras, What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Now we Jews have conquored our own lands and Christians and muslims are 2nd class conquored foreigner whom we permit to dwell within our borders as long as they behave themselves. But we Jews being the governing authority reserve the right to eject foreigners from our territories whenever the government sees fit. That was the law Jews who lived in Europe Islam had to face fair is fair.

Carl Jones
22 January 2009 at 19:52

I`ll stick my neck out on this one. At some point in the future, the attack on Gaza will be historically recorded as the start of the end of the Israeli state as we know it today...this might happen much faster than than you`d expect.

raggedyman
22 January 2009 at 21:09

Brighty:

When an Israeli who thinks it's OK to conquer Arab lands today because Arabs conquered the lands from the Romans 2000 years ago, praises your article for its 'balance and objectivity' - well, shouldn't you be just a little bit concerned?

raggedyman
22 January 2009 at 21:13

Moshe:

Quiz:

How many of the 1.5 million (so-called) Palestinians who are crammed into the open-air prison known as the Gaza Strip are refugees from somewhere else?

Walton
22 January 2009 at 21:29

Martin

You are the reason I cancelled my subscription to the NS. I am not going to pay to read biased rubbish and thinly disguised hasbara like this. I find it despicable.

You consistently allege that the left is uncomfortably close to the Islamic right. Frankly, this is bullshit. We turn up at the same rallies because we both oppose what Israel does, but this does not mean we are the same.

We are quite clear that we oppose right wing Islamism and anti-semitism as well, and by engaging with Muslims we hope to show that other responses to Israeli terror are possible.

You, on the other hand, pretend to be on the left, but end up as an apologist for a brutal and murderous regime.

There is a whole swathe of former leftists who have moved to the right, but still use the language of the left, and claim to be on the left. It absolutely appalls me to read your copy.

jednightingale
22 January 2009 at 22:15

I get the feeling that Moshe's comments were not made by an Israeli...... but I could be wrong...!

Sounds more like a Palestinian sympathizer dressed in Israeli clothes.... if I am wrong and indeed he is Israeli, he should see a psychiatrist.

Jed Nightingale

New York

ikotubo
22 January 2009 at 22:19

So, Mr Bright, Hamas is a "totalitarian" and "fascist" regime, and those Bristish voices that dare to criticize Israel are a mere "motely alliance of totalitarian sympathisers of the hard left and Islamic radical right"? Has it ever occured to you that Hamas (created with the help of the Israelis themselves as a counterforce to Arafat's PLO) is a democratically elected government, or that many critics of Israel include those with no Islamic or leftist connections?

Perhaps the problem is not so much Israeli atrocities (shocking as they are), as commentators like you who stir up real anger in the minds of millions of decent and fair-minded people like me. How can anyone even attempt to explain - never mind justify what the Israelis did in Gaza?

And why do we all continue to bother about the memory of the Holocaust? What was so wrong about Hitler's shocking crimes, that has suddenly become so justifiable about Israel's own ghastly atrocities? Has it even occured to you that even the Nazis sometimes managed to respect the Red Cross?

Shame on you, and damn the odious ideology that informs your beliefs!

redharry
22 January 2009 at 22:27

This is possibly the most disgraceful article ever to be published under the New Statesman's heading.

Just one example:

Bright ­'...argued that some opposition to the Zionist state on the left was only explicable as anti-Semitism.'

An appalling libel without a shred of evidence to back it up.

This article can only be read as a parting insult to the genuine left from someone who long ago joined forces with the reactionary right. He isn't the first and won't be the last, but the Statesman must never employ another like him.

He will find more cogenial company at the Policy Exchange.

Good riddance.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storyc...

'Political editor Martin Bright leaves New Statesman'

Riaz Ahmad
23 January 2009 at 02:48

Martin Bright you are at it again, no western leader expressed horror at what happened in Gaza, it is ordinary people in the west who expressed real horror all over Europe, including British and European Jews. The faces of western leaders lit up with dazzling hypocrisy impossible to disguise. These leaders did their dam best to delay the security council resolution for as long as possible, they did not give a dam about the slaughter of innocent civilians. Try to find out facts what happened during discussions leading up to Security Council resolution. Martin Bright you are sympathising with the butchers and not the butchered. Now we know why your name is 'Bright', you are quite bright at distorting facts.

Amihai
23 January 2009 at 06:31

"My goodness. So much about 'totalitarian Islamism' but not a word about bloodthirsty Zionism".

Two points in response:

1) Please, note the difference between "Islam" and "Islamism"!!!

2) The closest you may come to the "credo" of Zionism is Israel's Proclamation of Independence, 14 May 1948. I invite you to Google for it and actually read Israel's aspirations and goals. And once you do, please come back and tell us about the "bloodthirsty Zionism"!!!

The truth is that while Islamist Hamas does represent the worst of Islam - please, do read its Charter!!! - Israel, which is the most important outcome of Zionism, it being the non-violent national liberation of the Jewish people, has never, never set out to conquer lands for its sake, to subjuage people, or to take over natural resources. Israel's military is called, and not incidentally, the Israel FEFENCE Force (IDF).

nawawimohamad
23 January 2009 at 09:15

When the IDF attacked Gaza, they did not discriminate between Muslims and Christians. Everyone knows that there are many Christians in Gaza (Palestine). The western leaders especially the US and Britain who professed to be Christians and note that Blair has converted to Catholic had not given due considerations on the well being of their fellow Christian brethren when they gave their unrelentless support to Israel in whatever action and mischief.These leaders are not Chritians, they are hypocrites.

raggedyman
23 January 2009 at 10:33

Also Bright:

Your quotation of the Sunday Times poll is not so much a vindication of your views but rather more an indictment of the Mainstream Media's inability to adequately inform its citizenry.

As the UN Envoy for Human Rights pointed out the sufferings and privations of Gazans during the months of 'blockade' that preceded this latest round of violence received practically zero coverage in the MSM in the west. Neither for that matter did the regular incursions, kidnappings, 'targeted killings', or sonic booms...

Special anger by the disempowered citizen should, therefore, be reserved for the weaselly politicians and journalists who ended up becoming collaborators in the perpetration of this latest , and in all probability not the last, outrage by the Israelis.

Carl Jones
23 January 2009 at 10:58

Closet fascists using the "hardleft".LOL

"729"....these are the first 3 numbers on barcoded products exported from Israel. People are making their choices, we don`t need silly MSM hacks laying NWO decoys.

The US is finished. Of course, there is a slim chance that its client states will bail it out, as they have for the last 15 years. But this is looking less likely. The US is on the verge of imploding and civil war 2 could be coming...the people are very well armed.LOL

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

Without US financial support, Israel cannot survive.

Israel is a FAILD STATE and it is my belief that they cannot recover from the war crimes committed in Gaza, and this will be the defining test on Obama`s "rule of law" claim....this is, assuming the NWO don`t test him, as outlined by VP Joe Biden.LOL

redharry
23 January 2009 at 11:29

moshe wrote

22 January 2009 at 19:50

'I liked this article. I am an Israeli'

Says it all

are you Moshe Feiglin?

Amihai
23 January 2009 at 13:14

"…the pathetic Arab reaction to the attack on Gaza, shameful and totally useless".

I assume the above refer to all Arabs, Muslim-Arabs that is, and if so, I invite the reader to review the thinking prevalent among Palestinian Muslim-Arabs in Judea and Samaria ("West Bank") and then to pass judgment who is "pathetic":

"Israel made a 'big mistake' by ending Operation Cast Lead without overthrowing the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian Authority official in Ramallah said on Thursday".

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232643727590&pag...

gez pearce
23 January 2009 at 17:12

Strangest and ideological muddled article on the issue.

This man cannot write a coherant article.

He wants badly to be on the Isreali side but then thinks I am writing for the NS.

Personally I doubt Mr B cares nothing about babies dying in Gaza.

Pencils
23 January 2009 at 19:20

I agree that this is the worst article I have ever read in the NS, and one of the worst I have read anywhere, even rivalling the maniac outpourings of one Nadavkatz, who some readers might fondly recall. In common with a poster above, Martin Bright was the reason I cancelled my regular order for the NS from my local newsagent. This article lives up to form. Others have demolished it adequately, so just let me register my disgust.

Amihai
24 January 2009 at 06:51

How interesting that instead of dealing with factual information regarding the Arab Israeli conflict and the clash of civilizations, of which Hamas's attempts to bring down a UN member state and its people is only a part, critics of Martin Bright resort to wishful thinking and preconceived ideas and myths about the subject at hand. And I thought, perhaps naively, that participants of discussions here are always free thinkers whose views are based on facts, not ideologically-based vision of reality. How sorry I feel for them, how sorry.

writeon
24 January 2009 at 08:32

Let's be honest. Israel isn't going anywhere, for the forseeable future. Israel is a military giant, with a large nuclear arsenal, surrounded by passive, disunited and defeated pygmies. So Israel isn't threatened strategically by anyone. Even the 'threat' from Iran is wildly exaggerated.

The Arabs have recognised that Israel exists, and that should be enough. The Saudi/Arab League peace plan, tacitly accepted by both Fatah and Hamas, is on the table. It's about as good a deal as Israel can hope for. One might, stretching things a bit, call it just and equitable.

Why does Israel reject a just peace with the Arabs? It's been doing this for years. The outline is clear. In return for a return to the 1967 borders Israel gets full recognition and peace with its neighbours. The Arabs and Hamas have even, de facto, dropped the perfectly reasonable and legal right of return for the millions of Palestinian refugees.

Why doesn't Israel simply state that it has no design on Arab land outside its 1967 borders, accept the principles of the Saudi plan, and start to withdraw its occupation forces? Why is Israel so intransigent? Why does Israel continually reject meaningful peace talks with the Arabs?

I believe the answer is simple. Powerful elements inside the Israeli political, military, economic and religious/nationalist establishment, want Arab land more than they want peace. They are dreaming of a Greater Israel and believe they have a 'right' not just to exist, but a 'right' to all of Palestine, perferably without the presence of the Palestinians.

Ironically it's Israel's uncompromising and aggressive behaviour that's uniting its enemies like never before, at least among ordinary Arabs, at the same time as the power of the kings and generals is undermined and the gap between them and the people widens.

The Arabs are also learning how to defend themselves against Israel and even defeat the Israeli Blitzkrieg. Eventually, they will go on the offensive.

explodingbadger
24 January 2009 at 11:37

Why is it Hamas is regularly described as "Iranian-backed Hamas, which is dedicated to the destruction of Israel." One will be hard put to find something like "democratically elected Hamas, which has long been calling for a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus" -- blocked for over 30 years by the US and Israel, which reject the right of Palestinians to self-determination. All true, but not a useful contribution to the Party Line, hence dispensable."

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20090119.htm

Forlornehope
24 January 2009 at 14:58

Israel has been in de facto control of Gaza since 1967. Withdrawing from the ground but retaining full control of borders, coast and airspace did not change this. Israel therefore retains both a moral and legal duty to protect the civilian population of Gaza. It is not entitled to stand back and leave these people to Hamas thugs. Of course there is a cost to occupation but that cost is Israel's responsibility for as long as it seeks to retain control. Israel's desire for security and refusal to countenance a truly independent Palestine are perfectly understandable. However she cannot have it both ways. If there is a real "crime" it is this refusal to accept the responsibility that comes with occupation.

raggedyman
24 January 2009 at 15:40

Amihai:

Perhaps if your free thinking permits you to wander from the pages of the Jerusalem Post you might read Henry Siegman, a highly respected expert on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, at the LRB:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html

Perhaps then also you can treat us to your fact-based thorough refutation of Prof Siegman's argument.

And be careful when it comes to facts - after all is the statement 'Hamas' attempts to bring down a UN member state and its people' fact or opinion?

Both Prof Siegman and Prof Shlaim deal with these matters at some length. Check 'em out bub and in the true spirit of the Enlightenment get back to us right quick and, for God's Sake, make an argument [based on reason and evidence of course].

gez pearce
24 January 2009 at 16:30

Where does Bright deal with facts.

What about the fact that the Isreali foreign minister and leader of the kamina party expressed the view that

1. It was right for Isreali soldiers to "go wild", her words not mine in Gaza.

2. That all Isreali arabs must be expelled from the country.

Also I don't like the idea that the only people who opposed the killing in Gaza are hard left or the Islamic right.

Many across the political spectrum opposed the invasion.

Also Amihai we were constantly attacked by the IRA and they always used the Republic as a refuge . Did we bomb Dublin or threaten to kick out all the Irish in the UK.

Answer please.

Amihai
24 January 2009 at 17:31

Let us begin with visions:

1) Israel's vision, almost a credo, is an organic part of Israel's Proclamation of Independence, 14 May 1948. Google for it and read it!!!

2) Fatah's vision, alsomot a credo, is the document that has reflected since 1964 (three years before there werer "occupied territories" and "settlements", mind you!) is reflected in its Charter. Read it!!!

3) Hamas's vision, based on the credo of Islam, is found in its Charter. Read this one too!!!

And after reading these three documents - they are not very long - we can discuss reality as opposed to wishful thinking; we can expressed our learned minds about concepts such as racism, progressivism, etc.

Pleasant reading.

stateswoman
24 January 2009 at 19:24

I do hate and despise cynics. For all intents and

purposes and from whatever angle one chooses to

view the real situation, ISRAEL is the true victim in this

debacle. Until Israel is vindicated there will be no

peace.

OBAMA knows this and he fully accepts the situation.

Terrorists (and there is no other name for them) will

never enjoy victory. We feel OBAMA is in prime

position to sort out this ridiculous mess effectively

once and for all.

writeon
25 January 2009 at 11:47

The level of censorship imposed here really is quite disgraceful. Badly written, badly researched, badly argued, articles deserve all they get.

gez pearce
25 January 2009 at 18:26

Can you hear it.

Can you hear it.

Bright leaving his parting shot.

He disappears into the neoconservative ether.

He will reappear as a Cameron supporter with a film on the excess of Brown and the left.

What a sad banal man.

lolilol
25 January 2009 at 18:59

The problem is that a fascist state (Israel) is trying to destroy a fascist organization (Hamas) or vice versa. What should we do? Try to save the innocent? Or just leave them to it? Can 'the west' prevent the slaughter of innocents? Nope. The west hasn't exactly got a track record on this one. There are so many countries where we have just stood back and watched the slaughter. You know what I'm saying, unfortunately we in the west prefer to blog about it, protest about it, cry a few crocodile tears then change the channel and forget.

Morgan097
25 January 2009 at 19:26

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

WJ59 FXD
25 January 2009 at 21:40

OOo..er

gnuneo
25 January 2009 at 21:58

goodbye martin, apart from your support of Israel, i rather liked your articles.

on this article however - this is a cesspit. Carl Jones said it right:

"I`ll stick my neck out on this one. At some point in the future, the attack on Gaza will be historically recorded as the start of the end of the Israeli state as we know it today...this might happen much faster than than you`d expect."

and you will have had a hand in that, albeit a very small one.

Israel has just deliberately (or at least that part of its leadership that is Xionist suicidal) made itself the scapegoat for America's crimes in the middle east - when the US finally pulls out, where do you imagine all those (now highly trained) fighters are going to go?

and WHERE can Israel look to for help? The EU? Fuck off.

Russia? China? Iran?

i wish i could LOL, but i can't - watching someone commit murder on this scale, and the direct consequence a mid-term genocide YET AGAIN on the jews - this time self-inflicted - somehow doesn't bring me to laughter.

i leave that to the Israeli ministers who are driving their 'nation-state' into a grave, with the hollow rings of their manic laughter following them.

Morgan097
25 January 2009 at 22:10

WJ:

Please forgive me, but I don't recognize your handle. Your commendably knowledgeable (if somewhat misguided) jocularity gives me hope for a better yesterday!

Morgan097
25 January 2009 at 22:38

But raggy,

If, as I suspect, you've metamorphosed into the more stately WJ59, does this signify that your talents have been duly recognized by your elevation to head of the Oxford Union?

Morgan097
25 January 2009 at 22:54

And for God's sake, raggy, don't compromise your hard-earned credibility with offensive claptrap like that line about Ol' Rahm.

This guy was made Chief of Staff because as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, his ruthless strategic brilliance wiped up the floor with our Republican slate of candidates, and trumped our own legendary guru, Karl Rove.

Morgan097
26 January 2009 at 03:36

Yup, raggy,

Rahm's old man was indeed in the Irgun.

Whether to define the group as freedom fighters or terrorists is an excellent question. The answer is probably both.

On the one hand, they were certainly fighting for the freedom of their co-religionists, defending their people from constant Arab attack during the '36-'39 Arab Revolt, and doing their utmost to thwart the British from closing the one lifeline to the millions being systematically exterminated in Europe.

On the other hand, many of their operations specifically targeted (Arab) civilians, thus defining these operations as terrorist. The operations directed against British forces, however objectionable, cannot accurately be described as terrorist, because the British military are, of course, not non-combatants.

Incidentally, yet another great American, Ambrose Bierce (you'd love him) defined a non-combatant as "a dead Quaker."

Morgan097
26 January 2009 at 13:36

The obvious banishment of r*a*g*g*y is truly most discouraging.

Morgan097
26 January 2009 at 15:15

Mr. Bright,

Having finally been able to watch your expose of the former Livingstone cabal, I regret not having had similar access to your other television reports.

It causes me sadness to learn of your imminent departure from NS, and your unique honesty, courage and prescience will greatly be missed.

Regards, Morgan 097

ton
26 January 2009 at 17:46

Martin Bright must have gotten his brains completely addled by the people he spoke to in Israel. He fell for the settler argument - destroy Hamas to save Israeli cities - line hook and sinker: 'Israelis are doing the dirty work for the West by fighting Hamas but not getting appreciated', is the laziest, lamest and the most ludicrous argument that the likes of Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehuard Barack or Tzipi Livni could have made for this brutality - it wouldn't do to admit that the killing has much to do with the coming elections, and the demonstrating toughness to the electorate. And the most cynical of the three - Netanyahu is right now the leading candidate. Anyway, Martin Bright hasn't made a case for his cause - it isn't Hamas that people hold responsible for the endless suffering of the Palestinian people, it is Israeli Politics - How far down that road will Israel be willing to go ?

duckrabbit
26 January 2009 at 18:19

Hilarious. Mark Thompson subjected himself to a two fingers up humiliation on BBC Breakfast this morning when the journalists showed him exactly what they thought by beaming the appeal up behind him whilst he was explaining exactly why the BBC would never show it. You can see it here: www.duckrabbit.info/blog

javK
26 January 2009 at 18:32

Mr Bright

You say "you began your journalistic career writing in very simple English for a magazine aimed at French school children...." you should have continued.

Your simplistic views do not reflect the reality of Islamism. Islamists wish to adopt and apply and ideology that was the direct cause of renaissance/enlightenment in europe, a matter which is rarely discussed. Rather than shallow sloganising and creating binary enemies like in the cold war, please adopt a more open and enquiring approach and you may be pleasantly surprised that Islam has the solutions to problems that western secular-capitalism has not solved - cohesive open minded and progressive socities where values of family, respect, honour, dignity have a place and where the less fortunate are supported rather than trampled over in the search for unlimited wealth and hedonistic pleasures...

redharry
26 January 2009 at 18:46

I don't expect Bright to return here to respond to any of your posts.

The whole article was a 'Parthian Shot' at the real left as Bright rode off rightwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_shot

'By way of metaphor, "Parthian shot" is also used to describe a barbed insult, delivered as the speaker departs.'

sam the pantisocratist
26 January 2009 at 20:08

Morg:

It would seem there is more bowdlerising going on here abouts as to make even the old Stasi a little jealous. But what can an honest pursuer/purveyor of truth do eh? One must persevere I guess whatever the personal sacrifice.

These are dark times indeed.

stevem
26 January 2009 at 20:14

It is not the Left who are stealing land and slaughtering kids. This execrable person has set up a straw man in order to justify his argument

Morgan097
26 January 2009 at 20:18

Mr. Bright:

Michael O'Hara: Once, off the hump of Brazil I saw the ocean so darkened with blood it was black and the sun fainting away over the lip of the sky.We'd put in at Fortaleza, and a few of us had lines out for a bit of idle fishing. It was me had the first strike. A shark it was. Then there was another, and another shark again, 'till all about, the sea was made of sharks and more sharks still, and no water at all. My shark had torn himself from the hook, and the scent, or maybe the stain it was, and him bleeding his life away drove the rest of them mad. Then the beasts to to eating each other.In their frenzy, they ate at themselves.You could feel the lust of murder like a wind stinging your eyes, and you could smell the death, reeking up out of the sea. I never saw anything worse... until this little picnic tonight.And you know, there wasn't one of them sharks in the whole crazy pack that survived.

The Lady from Shanghai (1947)

sam the pantisocratist
26 January 2009 at 20:19

And Morg:

It was the egregious Daily Mail and the Evening Standard who carried out your so-called expose or character assassination as we call it over here.

KL might have the last laugh as his old nemesis has just been bought by an ex-KGB officer for a quid. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Morgan097
26 January 2009 at 20:25

Sam,

It pays to remember the Morgan Weltanschauung:

"It's always darkest before it gets really black."

sam the pantisocratist
26 January 2009 at 20:35

Mine is laudanum or, failing that, a spliff.

Morgan097
26 January 2009 at 20:50

Coleridge:

You know you've had enough laudanum when you see the Berkeley Square nightingale turns into an albatross. Or when you actually see a nightingale in Berkeley Square. Or when the nightingale says "Nevermore." Or whatever.

Morgan097
26 January 2009 at 21:36

Or did I just see a badger drinking at Annabel's?

fairplay
27 January 2009 at 07:04

what a propoganda piece MB. you must have got a great big pat on the back for this one my boy.

john gotti must be turning in his grave. he thought he was the worlds number one gangster when he was alive. how these israeli/eastern european hoodlums and murderers make him look like a complete amateur. suppose you have to give them credit for something. "by way of deception, thou shalt do war" has been perfected with the aid of bought and paid for journalists like this one.

scary stuff. scary world!

Morgan097
27 January 2009 at 09:35

foreplay:

Here in the USA (Undhimmitized States of America), we still require no positive reinforcement to oppose Islamofascism, even when it comes disguised in a Bolshevik burnoose.

sam the pantisocratist
27 January 2009 at 20:35

Morg:

You've been reading far too much Bat Ye'or & Bernard Lewis - for a far more balanced view try Edward Said.

And isn't the I*s*r*a*e*l*i Government seeking to ban the two A*r*a*b parties from participating in the forthcoming elections?

And I wouldn't say America can yet be fully exonerated from its own 'dhimmitized' groups such as African Americans or Native Americans. Islamofascism? Do try to keep a proper sense of proportion Morg; surely you do not, like Bright, regularly check under your bed for lurking evil-doers?

sam the pantisocratist
28 January 2009 at 00:31

You're getting sloppy again, Morg, with your retreat to slur & personal innuendo. Said made an interesting rebuttal to those charges cooked up by an array of far right shadowy commentators with few genuine academic pretensions:

http://www.counterpunch.org/said2.html

His definitive statement of his position on the I*s*r*a*e*l*i-Palestine conflict seems a model of reasonableness surely even to you Morg:

I have spent a great deal of my life during the past 35 years advocating the rights of the Palestinian people to national self-determination, but I have always tried to do that with full attention paid to the reality of the J*e*w*i*s*h people and what they suffered by way of persecution and genocide. The paramount thing is that the struggle for equality in Palestine/I*s*r*a*e*l should be directed toward a humane goal, that is, co-existence, and not further suppression and denial.

Now can you possibly take issue with that statement?

Morgan097
28 January 2009 at 04:13

Sam:

Please listen.

If you value your credibility, refrain from ever using Alex Cochburn's sordid Counterpunch as a source for anything. Even former pals at The Nation have been repelled by its often vile, always strident, and usually unsubstantiated histrionics. Cochburn has disgraced the name of his late, great father Claud.

As for the lugubrious "Fast Eddie," this non-violent Christian man of letters also swore that he'd never participated physically in anti-I*s*r*a*e*l protests.

Until that embarrassing photo of his hurling large rocks at I*D*F sentries was published.

Morgan097
28 January 2009 at 09:11

Sam,

Please take a gander at my response to someone calling himself JC3 on the Pilger thread, and tell me if you think my reaction was excessive.

BardoBaltico
28 January 2009 at 10:29

"The land is Palestine, Israel does not exist and never did.

The UN general assembly vote of 1947 was as illegal as it was immoral and the Palestinians did not get a vote as the west gave their land to someone who had no right to it.

Israel is in the wrong 100% of the time and if the stupid rockets are so dangerous why don't Israel give up their F16's and just get some of them."

Well said Marilyn! And if Martin Bright confuses the above statement with anti-semitism, I strongly suggest that he change his last name.

Kurus
28 January 2009 at 12:30

Enlightenment, didn't this happen at the same time as the enslavement of Africa, by the newly 'enlightened' Europeans.

Bright "....with the alleged abuses of the Israeli government."

Says it all about this article and Bright.

sam the pantisocratist
28 January 2009 at 23:15

Morg:

Well as usual Morg it has a certain style which is peculiarly your own. Of course some of us think the Palestinians were very poorly served by the Mufti and subsequently also by his cousin, Yasser.

As for Khalid's confession, well come on Morg you're a man of legal training - if you were defending counsel wouldn't you have to move to striking it as inadmissible under the terms of American jurisprudence?

You don't sound too convincing either on the 'probably' inflated figures - so what? Are you going to defend 150 dead kids instead of 300?

One thing has puzzled me though. It was fairly early on in the conflict that the news agencies were reporting the 13 I*s*r*a*e*l*i casualties five of which were, apparently, friendly fire. At this point they spoke of the much more intensive phase of the operation that had yet to begin in which troops would physically move in to Gaza City.

Question: for nearly two more weeks of the most intensive phase of this operation involving an actual physical invasion of the Strip by the I*D*F did the I*s*r*a*e*l*i*s suffer not one more single casualty?

From a military/strategic point of view I find this fact absolutely staggering. It hasn't, as far as I know, been commented upon in the media which is also rather extraordinary.

gez pearce
29 January 2009 at 20:52

Bob I think your missing Bright's point.

It has been amusing to read the Thatcherite sites in a state of dismay to see their favourite "pet" leftie get the boot.

My god if Cohen leaves they will be crying in the streets of Notting Hill.

But don't worry Martin will reappear as the crusher of the nasty lefties, liberals and brown people.

Public schoolboys eh.

Like Rik in the young ones they will collect money for the miners in their teens and then when they get to their forties they collect money for Boris

Morgan097
30 January 2009 at 02:49

Sam,

Thanks for your astute observations.

S: As for Khalid's confession, well come on Morg you're a man of legal training - if you were defending counsel wouldn't you have to move to striking it as inadmissible under the terms of American jurisprudence?

M: You're absolutely correct, Sam, but this freely-admitted "mastermind" of 9/11 was neither a US citizen nor a legal resident, and thus not entitled to the protections afforded criminal defendants in an American court of law. He was the pristine example of the proverbial " walking time bomb," who presented a clear and present danger to the US and the West. He possessed information vitally important to national security, and the government concluded (rightly, I believe) that the prevention of a potential second 9/11 far outweighed considerations of securing a later courtroom conviction.

Later, in an open military hearing, he proudly confessed, and demanded his own execution, so vindicating the government's interrogation decisions.

S: You don't sound too convincing either on the 'probably' inflated figures - so what? Are you going to defend 150 dead kids instead of 300?

M: The Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera reported that a doctor working in Gaza's Shifa Hospital claimed that Hamas intentionally inflated the number of casualties resulting from Israel's Gaza operation.

"The number of deceased stands at no more than 500 to 600. Most of them are youths between the ages of 17 to 23 who were recruited to the ranks of Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter," according to the newspaper article....

A Tal al-Hawa resident told the newspaper's reporter, "Armed Hamas men sought out a good position for provoking the Israelis. There were mostly teenagers, aged 16 or 17, and armed... they fired at our houses so that they could blame Israel for war crimes."

The reporter for the Italian newspaper also quoted reporters in the Strip who told of Hamas' exaggerated figures.

Stay tuned, Sam.

Morgan097
30 January 2009 at 03:21

S*a*m,

S: [C]ome on Morg you're a man of legal training - if you were defending counsel [for Khalid] wouldn't you have to move to striking it as inadmissible under the terms of American jurisprudence?

M: As an enemy combatant, Khalid Sheik Mohammed was neither legally entitled to nor was he afforded the protections of an American courtroom. Later, before an open military tribunal, he proudly confessed to his principal role in the mass murder, and demanded to be put to death.

S: You don't sound too convincing either on the 'probably' inflated figures - so what? Are you going to defend 150 dead kids instead of 300?

M: The respected Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera reported that a doctor working in Gaza's Shifa Hospital claimed that Hamas had intentionally inflated the number of casualties."The number of deceased stands at no more than 500 to 600. Most of them are youths between the ages of 17 to 23 who were recruited to the ranks of Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter," according to the newspaper article....

they fired at our houses so that they could blame Israel for war crimes."

The reporter for the Italian newspaper also quoted reporters in the Strip who told of Hamas' exaggerated figures, "We have already said to Hamas commanders – why do you insist on inflating the number of victims?"

As for the comparatively low number of I*D*F casualties, unlike Hezbollah which stood and fought, Hamas routinely discarded their military uniforms and hid in prepared bunkers beneath hospitals and schools.

sam the pantisocratist
30 January 2009 at 09:15

Morg:

Yes there seems to be a new censuring regime at work here to the detriment of free discussion and much else.

It would seem that any use of an offending key word is automatically flagged up for someone to scrutinize and to decide if the comments submitted are 'beyond the pale'.

Clearly Morg your comments were, according to this mystery arbiter, 'beyond the pale'.

If it's any comfort you seem to be in a rapidly expanding community.

sam the pantisocratist
30 January 2009 at 09:17

Bob:

Incidentally, thanks Bob for your contribution.

It has been a great help.

redharry
30 January 2009 at 13:53

Bright has joined his mate nick Cohen at the Boris Johnson fanzine and Policy Exchange daily paper, the London Evening Standard.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23629008-deta...+they+understand+decent+conduct/article.do

gez pearce
30 January 2009 at 18:10

“Gez

I know exactly what Martin's point is .. don't judge a

book by its cover.”

Think Bob you are a little niave to think that Bright is approaching the events in Gaza in an even handed way.

Be prepared to change your mind if the circumstances change. Think of the bigger picture. Think of the way forward and stop harking back to the past (Thatcher! Thatcher Thatcher Out Out Out! .. Hello ... she left ages ago mate.)

Bob I was just commentating that sites who do hark back to days of Maggie feel very miffed that their boy has gone to Evening Standard.

And mate I'm pure working class comprehensive educated and so are my hard working parents. And I have no prejudice against those educated in public schools ... it's a bit like racism .. it's stupid.

Who has decried the public school system. I just have no time for poor little rich boys who are silly little lefties to wind up their decent conservative parents and then turn to the Thatcherite right when they have to pay a tax bill

It's as stupid as blindly taking sides in an argument that you don't have the full facts on .. you're a sheep .. right or left .. it doesn't matter.

Also who gives you the god given right to say you have all the facts. Are you divine ?

Any way Bob, Bright is a banal Cameron clone like many of his ilk I fear you may be of the same mould.

sam the pantisocratist
30 January 2009 at 21:20

Morg:

Cremonesi uses his hearsay testimony from witnesses, that can't and can never be identified (to protect their safety), to work out that within a single major bombing incident roughly half the casualties occurred compared to those reported by H*am*as. He then extrapolates to conclude that the overall total is likely to be half the officially announced figure by H*am*as. Not exactly scientific and certainly not verifiable but music to the ears of some in Je*rus*alem where, by the way, Cremonesi is based.

I think it would behove many and especially the media to wait for official verified figures to be announced through various investigatve UN bodies before precipitately screaming 'foul'. The I*s*r*a*e*l*i far right have been very busy here nurturing the media image of an incorrigibly evil foe who are barely deserving of belonging to the human race. Meanwhile illegal settlements in East J*eru*sal*em and the West bank have accelerated ten fold in recent months suggesting there is more to the I*s*r*a*e*l*i tactics than merely thwarting H*am*as' rocket fire.

re: Khalid

If I had been languishing in GB these past two years at the pleasure of the C*I*A I'd be confessing to being the Pope by now.

gez pearce
01 February 2009 at 15:29

Bob

No one should trust stats but that is not the point.

The way Bright has framed the article you have the idea that the blame is solely lies with the Palestinians.

Also the nonsense about that the only people who opposed the invasion are Trots or Mullahs is insulting and wrong.

By the way if you were divine you would have all the facts.

Babs
02 February 2009 at 10:30

Martin, we now know that the UN's statements about the bombing of the schools is open to considerable doubt.

Recent reports suggest that the incident was not accurately portrayed by senior U.N. officials. John Ging, the director of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza, spoke to the Toronto Globe and Mail last week and agreed that no shell had actually struck the school building. Ging said he had never claimed that the school itself was hit, and he blamed Israel for confusion over where the strike took place.

Shortly after the alleged attack, Ging harshly criticized Israel for firing near the school, saying he had given the exact coordinates of the compound to the IDF. He charged that the IDF had failed to avoid hitting the building.

How much more of "truth" in the reportage about Gaza is likewise open to doubt? What price journalistic ethics?

The carnage in Gaza is appalling, but it needs to be set within the context of Hamas' cynical manipulation of Gazan people, and its failure to provide bomb shelters for them before it started a war it couldn't win.

gez pearce
17 February 2009 at 20:14

Martins going home

Martins going home

Off to the Spectator