Return to: Home | Politics

31 comments from readers

sweety
09 January 2009 at 02:57

surely you can produce more politically sophisticated cartoons this what age level are you trying to reach?

speegster
09 January 2009 at 07:54

I know of another democratically elected party that actively sought the extermination of an entire people, an aim encoded into its founding ideology. Should we have blithely accepted their sovereignty and compromised with them?

Roll over, Neville Chamberlain...

jednightingale
11 January 2009 at 07:39

Fine that Hamas has the full democratic support of

most of the people in Gaza. Does that mean that the

entire population in Gaza supports the Hamas charter,

namely; the destruction of Israel. I somehow recall

that Hitler and the Nazi party had the support of the

German people. Did that legitimize their aspirations to

wipe all the Jews in the world as well as many Slavs

as possible?

Such logic reminds of Chamberlain's desire for

"Peace in Our Times"

Jed Nightingale

NYC

proudlyleft
11 January 2009 at 12:24

Hamas and the Israeli government deserve each other. The tragedy is that it is mostly the Palestinian people who suffer.

sweety
12 January 2009 at 02:41

jednightingale

11 January 2009 at 07:39

Fine that Hamas has the full democratic support of

most of the people in Gaza. Does that mean that the

entire population in Gaza supports the Hamas charter,...........................

Orwell called this doublespeak, my Granny called it having your cake and eating it!

explodingbadger
12 January 2009 at 03:55

@speegster

I am unsure. Are you refering to Israel or Hamas ?

Amihai
12 January 2009 at 15:39

Persistent reports tell of Hamas's leaders hiding in the basement of the Shifa Hospital of Gaza, using the civilians in this medical facility as human shields, a form of war crime.

Also, similar reports, based on photo documentation, accuse Hamas's armed forces of stockpiling weapons and explosives in mosques, in schools and in people's homes and firing them from schoolyards and the yards of medical facilities, which also amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

And of course, Hamas's exclusive targets for many years have been population canters in Israel – the blue colour towns of S'derot, Ashqelon, the universities in Beer Sheba and Sapir, and the collective and cooperative farming communities and their residents, of southern Israel - also considered war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Israel has been seeking an accommodation of peaceful co-existence with its Arab neighbours, in Gaza and elsewhere. But Israel, as any other country, can not permit its citizens to be targeted day in and day out, especially when the declared goal of the attackers is to erase the Jewish state of Israel – a UN member state – off the face of the earth and with it the Jewish civilization in this national homeland of the Jewish people (read Hamas's Charter!!!).

At present, Hamas must loose its will and motivation to fire at Israel and Israelis, and most of the means with which it conducts its war machine against Israel's civilian population must be eliminated. In addition, all illicit weapons and explosives must cease from making their way into Gaza. And of course, without Gilad Shalit coming back home this conflict will not come to an end.

On a longer term, the demand of the UN, EU, US, Russia as well as Arab states and the Palestinian Authority presidency of Hamas must stand if it (Hamas) wishes to be part of any peace process: Cease all acts of terror and violence against Israel and Israelis and the preparations for such acts, adhere to previously signed agreements with Israel, and recognize Israel's right – a UN member state – to exist.

Israelis have never sought anything beyond an accommodation of peaceful co-existence between Arab and Jew, between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

Can Israel's neighbors rise to the occasion and seek the same goal??

writeon
12 January 2009 at 16:14

What about the *rights* of the Palestinians? It's not only Israel that has rights in international law and United Nations resolutions, the Palestinians have them too.

For example, the *right* of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, farms and villages. Does Israel accpept their right of return? Will Isreal recognise international law and their right to return? Will Israel accept the UN resoultions calling on Israel to pull back to it's pre-1967 borders and dismantle illegal settlements on the West Bank?

Obviosly Israel will never do this. It cannot. Complying with these Palestinian rights would mean the end of Israel as a 'Jewish' state, because the Palestinians would quickly become the majority in Israel, as they will over time. How will Israel deal with the Palestinian question? How will Israel stop the Palestinians inside Israel becoming the country's natural and legal majority? This will happen during the next few decades, and would have happened even sooner if Israel hadn't allowed hundreds of thousands of Russian 'Jews' into Israel, people who are less Jewish than I am, but we'll put that aside.

As a person with Austrian Jews in my family, though secular and very liberal ones, I don't have anything against Jews or Israelis, it's the policies and wars I can't stand, given the demographic realities on the ground inside Israel they are a tragic waste, a moral catastrophe, almost a suicide pact between two Siemese twins joined at the hip, snapping and puncing each other to a pulp.

rizzy3
12 January 2009 at 16:20

''Persistent reports''? Do you mean the propaganda

from Israeli PR machine under control of a

government so desperate to hide what is happening

in Gaza that it refuses to abide by its own Supreme

Court ruling allowing the international media access

to the carnage in Gaza?

Example of propaganda - the initial denial by Israel

that it's army had fired into the UN building resulting in

deaths of civilians. Which after UN challenge, Israel

now admits was the result of a ''stray missile''. Will

there be an enquiry intent on establishing the truth? I

doubt it very much.

That Israel seeks anything beyond peaceful co-

existence is a myth. Israel seeks the acquisition of

more land and retention of illegally held land. If you

doubt this, consider the following examples of many:

1. The expansion of illegal (even according to Israeli

law] settlements in the West Bank.In 2006, 12,000

Israelis settled on the West Bank, further reducing the

scope for an independent Palestinian state. This is not

consistent with seeking peaceful existence.

2. A refusal to abide by UN Resolution 242 which

calls for withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from

territories occupied in [the 1967 war]''. Any argument

that ''territories'' refers to 'some territories'' and not ''all''

is not sustainable by the recital to Resolution 242

which provides '' Emphasizing the inadmissibility of

the acquisition of territory by war''. The West Bank was

acquired by war by Israel and 40 years later Israel

refuses to act in accordance with international law.

3. Even after Israel had accepted Res 242 in 1967, it

invaded and occupied the Golan Heights. Seek

4. The economic blockade of Gaza. The intention of

which according to Dov Weisglass '' is to put the

Palestinians on a diet'' New York Times 14.02.06.

5. The kidnap by the Israeli military of 2 civilians from

Gaza, Osama and Mustafa Abu Muamar resulting in

the kidnap of Gilad Shalit providing justification for the

Lebanon war.

rizzy3
12 January 2009 at 16:25

Error para 3

Even after Israel accepted Res 233 in 1967, it invaded

and occupied the Golan Heights

Thomas Devine
12 January 2009 at 17:20

The New Statesman barely allows that the people of the USA have a right to their democratic choices. In fact this publication, which has proudly called itself Anti-American, denies that Americans really have a democracy. If America, with a tradition of more that two centuries of regular elections (which continued durring our Civil War) can't be allowed to have democratically elected its leaders. How can the Palestinians be said to have achived such a feat?

Maybe, the New Statesman should first admit that a nation outside of Europe can be a democracy. And start with the USA.

Next, face up to the basic fact. Hamas wants to fight, Israel has done many idiotic things, but Hamas proudly choses to be even more foolish. No matter the cost in innocent blood.

sweety
13 January 2009 at 04:18

proudlyleft

11 January 2009 at 12:24

Hamas and the Israeli government deserve each other. The tragedy is that it is mostly the Palestinian people who suffer.

We all get what we deserve when we elect a government, ignorance is no excuse!

Gideon Polya
13 January 2009 at 05:00

An excellent, balanced NS editorial

Hamas was overwhelmingly democratically elected by Occupied Palestinians in 2006 elections held under Apartheid Israeli Occupier guns (76 seats out of 132) (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas ).

Outstanding Jewish American, anti-racist, humanitarian, law professor and President of the US National Lawyer's Guild, Professor Marjorie Cohn has provided this cogent opinion: "The targeting of civilians violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. Since the rockets fired from Gaza into Israel cannot distinguish between civilians and military targets, they are illegal. But Israel’s air and ground attack in Gaza violates Geneva in four ways. First, it constitutes collective punishment of the entire population in Gaza for the acts of a few militants. Second, it targets civilians, as evidenced by the large numbers of civilian casualties. Third, it is a disproportionate response to the rockets fired into Israel. Fourth, an occupying power has an obligation to ensure food and medical supplies to the occupied population; Israel’s blockade has created a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Israel’s airstrikes and ground assault on the people of Gaza have little to do with the Gazan rockets, which hadn’t killed any Israelis for a year before Israel’s current military operation. Israel’s leaders are bombing and attacking Gaza in order to gain an advantage in the upcoming Israeli elections in February " (see her excellent article "Israel’s Collective Punishment of Gaza ": http://mwcnews.net/content/view/27707/42/ ).

While there were NO Israeli deaths from Gaza rockets in the year before this latest Apartheid Israeli Gaza Massacre, current deaths on Day 17 of this Israeli Atrocity total 920 with 4,200 wounded, many being women and children (see reports from inside the Israeli Gaza Concentration Camp by Palestinian journalist and photographer Sameh Habeeb: www.gazatoday.blogspot.com ).

Boycott US-backed Apartheid Israel and its backers.

Gideon Polya
13 January 2009 at 05:03

The clickable link to Occupied Palestinian Sameh Habeeb's courageous daily reports from inside the Apartheid Israeli-bombarded Gaza Concentration Camp is http://www.gazatoday.blogspot.com/ .

MaterialMonkee
13 January 2009 at 15:48

@writeon

"For example, the *right* of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, farms and villages. Does Israel accpept their right of return? Will Isreal recognise international law and their right to return?"

By the same logic the millions of Hindus, Sihks and Buddhists, that were forced to leave the lands that became Pakistan and Bangladesh should have the right to return?

One thing that very much disturbs me about the dialogue on the Issue of Israel and Palestine is the fact that the partition of the Palestinian mandate is considered a crime against humanity and the partition of the Indian subcontinent is not. Particularly as a small number of people roughly 200,000 were affected by the partition of the Palestinian mandate compared to the massive 70-80 million people displaced by the Indian partition.

A more disturbing though is the fact that some of the most vocal critics in the UK (and notably in this magazine) are of ethnic origin from Pakistan and Bangladesh.

They see no crime against humanity in the formation of the countries where there family reside but apparently a state formed in very similar circumstances is obscene.

MaterialMonkee
13 January 2009 at 15:55

Hamas clearly won an election, but only by a limited margin. The rest was won by Fatah.

When Hamas started eliminated the other party from Gaza by murdering members of Fatah and expelling the rest from Gaza

they surely lost any claim to democratic credentials?

With regard to Israel

Adam Smith once said

"when goods don't cross borders, armies will"

and I think the blockade of Gaza has pretty much proved him right once again

rizzy3
13 January 2009 at 21:31

Quote from Washington Post 11 July 2006 from Prime

Minister Ismail Haniyah of Hamas on recognition of

Israel '' If Israel declares that it gives the Palestinian

people a state and give them back all their rights, then

we are ready to recognize them''. A fact Israel, US and

Tony Blair do not want the world to know.

The mantra that Hamas will not recognize Israel is

repeated again and again because it is in Israel's

interest to do so rather than a statement of truth. It is in

Israel's interest not to have to face a real possibility of

a 2 state solution because that would involve restoring

Palestinians all their rights and that would involve the

existence of a Palestinian state.

writeon
13 January 2009 at 21:50

MaterialMonkee,

Your comments are interesting. Logically the refugees displaced by the wars between India and Pakistan do have the right to return supported by international law, which I believe strengthens the Palestinian case. Like the partition of India through a civil war, the partition of Palestine in a civil war, the result of which the losing Palestinian side refuses to accept, was probaly a very bad idea for both parties, though obviously far worse for the Palestinians who lost virtually everything and live under oppression.

But I'd still like to know how apologists and advocates for Israel think Israel will adjust to the new realities on the ground when the Palestinians in couple of decades or so, become the majority in Israel, any ideas?

Gideon Polya
13 January 2009 at 23:58

MaterialMonkee - of course ALL decent, anti-racist, humanitarians regard the British-instigated Indian Partition (1 million, killed, 18 million refugees) as an obscenity.

According courageous, TRUTHFUL, anti-racist, humanitarian Israeli historian Professor Ilan Pappe in his book "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", 800,000 Indigenous Palestinians were forcibly expelled in 1948-1949 by the racist Zionist (RZ) colonizers (see: http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/...) .

Indian Partition was the outcome of the policies of pathologically anti-Indian, anti-Asian and anti-Muslim Winston Churchill who regarded encouraging Hindu-Muslim antipathy as a key British "divide-and-rule"strategic objective to maintain British Empire and hegemony in South Asia.

Mass murderer Winston Churchill also manged to convince the British War Cabinet in 1944 in favor of Partition of Palestine which at that point had a population that was two-thirds Indigenous Palestinian and 1/3 mostly British-enabled immigrant Jewish colonizers.

In terms of actual deaths, Indian Partition (1 million dead, 18 million refugees ) and Palestinian Partition (800,000 refugees; thousands murdered; post-1967 violent and non-violent avoidable deaths 0.3 million; now 7 million Palestinian refugees ) were small in comparison with the 6-7 million Indians Churchill deliberately starved to death in the 1943-1945 man-made Bengal Famine (for a recent BBC program re this involving myself, Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen and other scholars see: http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/bengalfamine_programme.h... ; see also "Media lying over Churchill's crimes. British-Indian Holocaust": http://mwcnews.net/content/view/26713/42/ ).

The key messages from these atrocities and from the WW2 Europe Holocaust (30 million Slav Jewish and Roma dead) are "zero tolerance for racism", "never again to anyone" and "bear witness" - injunctions grossly violated by the racist Zionists (RZs).

Pencils
14 January 2009 at 02:17

Writeon - Palestine was NOT partitioned in a civil war. Skipping the preliminaries - a small number of countries, many bribed by the US, achieved a small majority in a vote which was participated in by only a small fraction of the world's countries, to award half of Palestine to the jews ( who had bought 12% of the land, and were a small percentage of the population). This included the provision that the Arab residents of the jewish state have full rights. There is nothing in the charter which gives the UN the right to do this, and much that prohibits it. Much of the Scottish highlands is owned by foreigners, possibly more than 50% - if one group bought all the rights, would they have a claim to set up a new state? Anyway, there were some final arrangements to be made, and both parties were required by UN order not to do anything to prejudice the final outcome. Israel declared independence unilaterally before the final status agreement, perpetrated a series of massacres, like Deir Yassin, and drove 700, 000 Arabs out of Palestine, and occupied much of the land intended for the Palestinian state. Some Arab nations were bound by a treaty to intervene should Israel do anything against the Arab Palestinians. None of these Arab nations had been independent for more than a year or 2, and hence did not have professional armies, competent officers, or modern weapons. The zionists had been training in Israel for years, had many officers who had long experience with European armies, and had up-to-date weaponry supplied by the zion-friendly communist party of Czechoslovakia. Only one of these Arab armies ever entered, or attempted or intended to enter, the area allotted for the jewish state. The exception was the only trained army, Jordan's Arab League, which had been trained and led in the last years of the mandate by Sir John Glubb ( see Benny Morris's book 'Glubb Pasha: the Road to Jerusalem). CONTINUED BELOW.

Pencils
14 January 2009 at 02:22

For various reasons (tactical, and to safeguard the population), the Arab League temporarily occupied Jerusalem, but withdrew and held the West Bank, which is why the West Bank was under Jordanian rule until the Israeli invasion of '67 (also wrongly called a war).

Could the above be described as a civil war? Much less ' an unprovoked assault on the fledgling jewish state by seven Arab Armies'?

Pencils
14 January 2009 at 02:27

sORRY - in the above 2 posts, the Jordanian army should have been called the ARAB LEGION, not the Arab League.

loyaltothetruth
14 January 2009 at 06:20

gideon poyla I'm not calling you a liar instead I'm calling you deeply prejudice and ignorant.

Youre statements about churchill and india are all plaintly false largely cooked up by indian keen to direct attention either from there own failing or to legitimatice the action of indian like sun suchna bosho who fought on the facist side during the second world war by making churchill seem just as bad.

First the british neither want nor created partition as partition was seen buy them as a failure in there achievement of unifying, churchill was infact especially opposed to partition for that reason. The partition of india was the result of long held religous antipathy between hindu sikh and muslim that started with wars invasion and religous persuction century before the british arrived. The british used this long held apathy to there advantage but didn't create it . People use the term "divide and rule" but a more accurate term in most case is "divided and conquered" india long held division is why a simple trading company was able conquer it. The demand for a seperate state was the result of muslim fear of a hindu dominated india. After the 1938 election the first large scale election in india result in a series of upper caste hindu dominated governments. These government refusal to enter into a coalition government with the muslim league was what lead to the league pushing for a independent pakistan. But it is so much more convenient to blame the british with out evidence for event the neither controled nor had strategic interest in.

Amihai
14 January 2009 at 12:23

"Zionism"

Do you mean Judaism, but afraid, for political correctness, to spew hate at it thus Zionism becomes a good substitute?

Well, as a matter of fact, Judaism is the civilization of a people, of the Jewish people, and it has been around for nearly 4,000 years. The cradle of this civilization of course is that geographic area called Eretz Israel (Land of Israel) and its members have been the Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish people, depending on the historic period to which one refers.

Political Zionism – as opposed to historic Zionism that has been the affinity of the Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish people to the land of Zion and Jerusalem from time immemorial – is a product of 19th and 20th century nationalism. It is, in other words, the non-violent national liberation movement of a people, the Jewish people, to re-establish its nation-state in Eretz Israel (Land of Israel), and in this, Zionism is simply another component of Jewish civilization, or Judaism.

The greatest achievement of Zionism, and Judaism, during the 20th and 21st centuries has been indeed the re-establishment of the independent of Israel. Before passing any judgment, I strongly suggest that critics Google for and read Israel's Proclamation of Independence, 14 May 1948, and try to appreciate Israel's hope and aspirations regarding the Jewish people but also Israel's Arab neighbors.

I challenge any here to show me a similar peaceful and progressive document that has ever been issued by Israel's Arab neighbors!!!

Gideon Polya
14 January 2009 at 12:44

Readers of this thread will have to decide on whose opinions to place greater credence re Churchill's crimes in the 1943-1945 man-made Bengal Famine atrocity in British-occupied India, those of an Economics Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen (Harvard, Cambridge), a top medical historian Dr Sanjoy Bhattachary (Wellcome Institute, University College London) and other scholars (see BBC broadcast transcript: http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/bengalfamine_programme.h...; a;so see also “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability"” : http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ) VERSUS ad hominem, abusive, false, unsubstantiated assertions from an anonymous and uncredentialled blogger.

While Churchill is our hero for his leadership in the fight against Nazism he was a racist imperialist with a deep antipathy for Indians (e.g. “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

- Winston Churchill to Leo Amery, Secretary of State for India (1942); see Diary of Amery (Secretary for India), September 9, 1942; quoted by Ziegler (1988), pp 351-352., Ziegler, P. (1988), Mountbatten. The Official Biography (Collins, London)).

More from the horse's mouth as quoted by Pankaj Mishra in " Exit Wounds. The legacy of Indian partition" (New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/08/13/07081...), QUOTE: "ineptitude and negligence directed British policies in India more than any cynical desire to divide and rule, but the British were not above exploiting rivalries. As late as 1940, Winston Churchill hoped that Hindu-Muslim antagonism would remain “a bulwark of British rule in India.” Certainly Churchill, who did not want his views on India to be “disturbed by any bloody Indians,” was disinclined to recognize the upsurge of nationalism in India. .. But Churchill’s divisive policies had already produced a disastrous effect."

Peaceful
14 January 2009 at 14:53

Great Analysis. Clearly you'll be shouted down for saying anything objective about Hamas. "Hamas are the root of all evil" yes yes we know thats what you want us to believe mr president of the US/UK/Israel. But its articles like this which truely reflect freedom of speech. Thank you again. So go ahead people shout me down, call me ill informed, anti-semite, terrorist, or other childish names. But I'm not the only one agreeing to the article, so is Naom Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Stephen Fry, Prof Haim Bresheeth, Prof Mike Cushman, and many many more some of whom happen to be reknowned Jewish scholars.

Amihai
14 January 2009 at 15:17

"What if Israel defended its citizens the way the British, the French, the Americans and the Russians did? When German rockets hit British cities during the World War II, Prime Minister Winston Churchill retaliated by bombing German cities, killing thousands of German civilians, and promised to continue until Germany's unconditional surrender.

"The United States did the same following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The French did much worse in Algeria and the Russians showed no concern for civilian life in Chechnya or Georgia.

"The IDF, on the other hand, has gone to extraordinary lengths to minimize civilian casualties, despite the reality that Hamas deliberately fires its rockets from densely populated civilian areas and hides its rocket launchers in schools, hospitals and mosques".

So writes Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359815127&pag...

MaterialMonkee
14 January 2009 at 16:33

@Gideon Polya

I'm fully aware of the atrocities commited under British Imperialism.

My point is about the concept of partition. I posit that the partition of India saved millions of lives.

If everyone was like Gandhi then we could all live together in peace but clearly the world isn't like like.

The world has been screwed in a large part by imperialism and reckless decolonisation were nations were created with no regard to ethnic, tribal or religious groups.

Every year thousands are killed by the North/south Christian/Muslim divide in Nigeria. The arab/black divide in Sudan, The republic of Congo, Rwanda the list goes on.

Even now non-muslims are persecuted in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Muslims are persecuted in India.

This ethnic violence won't stop because a few intelligent people in a nation are against this.

If partition may racist in theory but in practice it saves lives.

Partition is a practical and humanitarian end to a hideous thing, imperialism

To deny this is to value ideology over human life.

MaterialMonkee
14 January 2009 at 16:53

"so is Naom Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Stephen Fry, Prof Haim Bresheeth, Prof Mike Cushman, and many many more some of whom happen to be reknowned Jewish scholars"

I would have to disagree there

How could Fry or Klein be considered scholars?

Fry has never attempted to claim to be a scholar

Klein has been severely criticized in the academic community for writing books on economics without having any knowledge whatsoever of economics. People from the left to right of the academic community consider her a joke.

She wrote a book on economic liberalization that occured in the seventies without using the word "stagflation"

which really is unforgivable

Choamsky is indeed a well respected scholar in the field of linguistics but once again has no credentials in politics.

If you defend Hamas you have to support the expulsion of Fatah from Gaza.

You are in fact defending the notion that a political party can execute its opposition.

Technically that would make you a fascist

MaterialMonkee
14 January 2009 at 16:59

@Peaceful

"Great Analysis. Clearly you'll be shouted down for saying anything objective about Hamas"

I would say that to acknowledge Hamas as the democratic choice of a (slim) majority of Palestinians

would be to ignore the (slim) minority of Palestinians that voted for Fatah

To acknowledge Hamas is in effect to condone the expulsion of Fatah from Gaza.

It is to say that it is OK to execute your political opposition

loyaltothetruth
15 January 2009 at 06:28

gideon poyla even youre noble laurate disagrees with youre exaggerated claims of the bengal famine he puts it at around 2.5million not youre 6 to 7 million.

The bengal famine was mainly man made but not in the intentional sense you infer although a careful not to state. The famine was the result of the combined action of the british japanese and indians. In 1942 japan entered the war rapidly overun most of southeast asia including burma and threatened to overun india.

This coincided with the quite india movenment a mainly peaceful movement of strike protest and boycott that still lead to the most serious level of violence since the indian mutiny. Industrialisation caused a dramatic rise in artificial high factory wages as the government want to prevent people striking. This caused inflation driving up price merchant charged for food outside the price of the rural poor The loss of rise imports from burma along with a 20% decline in rise growing in bengal caused drove up the price even more on a province that had always been short of food.

The british government was complancent about the famine for some time but it had reason to be. There had been no famine in india for over 40 years and no on this level for 60 thanks to a efficient famine relief system. But the pressure of the war three million troops who need to be supplied clogging up the train lines a shortage of shipping due to u-boat attacks on the merchant marine fleet and corrupotion and inexperince in the mainly indianised government department concerned with famine all hampered relief along with the lack of warning that the famine was coming .

In regard to churchill there is a difference between what churchill said and what he did, he was a talker. If you can prove churchilll caused or even observable worsened india ethnic divide then prove it.

p.s sorry about the rushed nature of my writing but I have to go.