The Gaza strip lies on the Mediterranean Sea, has miles of great beaches and a pleasant climate. Contrary to popular belief, the Gaza strip also boasts acres of open spaces and beautiful countryside. It could and should be a tourist haven - however ....
If the "government" and people wanted it then Gaza could be one of the tourist hot spots of the Med - but they don't.
If the "government" of Gaza had used the billions of dollars of aid money to build an infrastructure to support tourism they'd be well on the way to achieving a very nice lifestyle for their people - but they don't.
If the "government" of Gaza stopped trying to attack Israel then Israel would leave them alone - but they don't.
If the "government" of Gaza were genuinely concerned about the welfare of the Gazan people they'd concentrate on building a tourist economy rather than a military dictatorship - but they don't.
Do the "government" and people of Gaza want peace and prosperity - or do they just want to kill Jews?
Everyone seems to think the Israeli response was "disproportionate" - even though there is no such thing as proportionality in warfare (the whole point is to kill as many enemies as possible with as few losses on your own side as possible) - but if you want to consider proportions, consider this.
Roughly one third of Israeli dead were civilians. Roughly one quarter to one third of Gazan dead were civilian - so, proportionately, they are about even. However, seeing how 99.99999999% of the fighting took place in Gaza one would normally expect the civilian proportion of Gazan dead to be considerably higher than that of the attacking Israelis. It isn't - that tells a story on its own.
Showing posts with label Gaza. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gaza. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The west's betrayal of Israel
Whenever I watch, read or listen to anything on the mainstream media these days relating to Israel I almost always find myself becoming increasingly infuriated with the dreadful bias against that plucky and embattled nation.
I'm just so fed up with the soft sods that parade themselves on television decrying the "disproportionate" response of Israel to constant and unending provocation - the latest being some UN toady from UNRWA on the Channel 4 news this evening who was barely able to contain his indignation at Israel's behaviour.
The UN is supposed to be non-partisan, but this lowlife scum clearly favoured one particular side over the other as he moaned about the air strikes and lack of medical supplies being allowed in by Israel. He seemed to think that the UN should be investigating the Israeli's for "war crimes" - shame he doesn't think that the UN should investigate the Palestinian use of UNRWA as a front for their terrorist operations.
His message was clear. Israel has no right to defend itself. The Palestinians should be allowed to continue to lob their missiles into Israeli towns and villages and the Israelis should do nothing about it.
But why shouldn't they? Israel is a legitmate nation - much more so than the fake nation of bloody Pakistan in my opinion - and a UN member. The UN charter makes it clear that all member nations have the right to defend themselves from attack and Israel was under attack - day after day after day.
Unlike the Pally scum, Israel abides by the rules of war. It uses clearly marked equipment, ensures that its soldiers wear clearly identifiable uniforms and goes to great lengths to minimise civilian casualties. The Palestinian filth do none of these things - they deliberately target civilians, deliberately wear civilian clothing and deliberately mingle with civilians to maximise casualties to accentuate the propaganda value of their deaths - but what does the UN ever do about that?
Nothing. Not ever. Just gives them more support and more credibility.
None of this is ever mentioned by our media. They are complicit in this betrayal of Israel just like the UN. The really remarkable thing is that the UN was set up, in part, to support the Zionist cause of creating a homeland for Jews - and having achieved that it has spent the next sixty years trying to knock it down again.
Personally, I believe Israel is doomed. I don't expect it to be able to celebrate a 75th anniversary. When the horror of the holocaust became apparent towards the end of the Second World War the nations of the world recoiled at the sheer inhumanity of it all and declared "never again!"
Never again? Not soon enough for the United Nations.
I'm just so fed up with the soft sods that parade themselves on television decrying the "disproportionate" response of Israel to constant and unending provocation - the latest being some UN toady from UNRWA on the Channel 4 news this evening who was barely able to contain his indignation at Israel's behaviour.
The UN is supposed to be non-partisan, but this lowlife scum clearly favoured one particular side over the other as he moaned about the air strikes and lack of medical supplies being allowed in by Israel. He seemed to think that the UN should be investigating the Israeli's for "war crimes" - shame he doesn't think that the UN should investigate the Palestinian use of UNRWA as a front for their terrorist operations.
His message was clear. Israel has no right to defend itself. The Palestinians should be allowed to continue to lob their missiles into Israeli towns and villages and the Israelis should do nothing about it.
But why shouldn't they? Israel is a legitmate nation - much more so than the fake nation of bloody Pakistan in my opinion - and a UN member. The UN charter makes it clear that all member nations have the right to defend themselves from attack and Israel was under attack - day after day after day.
Unlike the Pally scum, Israel abides by the rules of war. It uses clearly marked equipment, ensures that its soldiers wear clearly identifiable uniforms and goes to great lengths to minimise civilian casualties. The Palestinian filth do none of these things - they deliberately target civilians, deliberately wear civilian clothing and deliberately mingle with civilians to maximise casualties to accentuate the propaganda value of their deaths - but what does the UN ever do about that?
Nothing. Not ever. Just gives them more support and more credibility.
None of this is ever mentioned by our media. They are complicit in this betrayal of Israel just like the UN. The really remarkable thing is that the UN was set up, in part, to support the Zionist cause of creating a homeland for Jews - and having achieved that it has spent the next sixty years trying to knock it down again.
Personally, I believe Israel is doomed. I don't expect it to be able to celebrate a 75th anniversary. When the horror of the holocaust became apparent towards the end of the Second World War the nations of the world recoiled at the sheer inhumanity of it all and declared "never again!"
Never again? Not soon enough for the United Nations.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Distorted human rights
I saw this item on the ITV news a couple of days back.
The Israeli army has revealed that is using remote-control machine guns to secure its border with the Gaza strip.
The system allows soldiers watching television screens in control rooms to spot targets and open fire.
In the past, lookouts had to call in ground forces to intercept militants.
The introduction of the new guns has outraged human rights groups.
What, exactly, is the issue that these so-called "human rights" groups take exception to? I could understand, perhaps, if these remote machine guns were fully automated and computer controlled - so that the slightest detection of movement would unleash a hail of lead. In that situation I could understand the RSPB being upset at the slaughter of innocent sparrows - but they aren't.
They are controlled by soldiers who keep watch via TV monitors - a sensible move considering that the Palestinians aren't adverse to nipping over the border to kidnap them, torture them and then kill them from time to time - funny how that doesn't seem to bother these "human rights" groups so much.
The "militants" also have a habit of wearing civilian clothing, hiding and firing from areas where civilians are likely to be caught in the crossfire and even using civilians as human shields - again, something which these "human rights" groups don't seem too bothered by.
Even if it were a real live soldier manning the machine gun, they are just as likely to mistake a civilian for a militant as someone in a remote location because that is the tactic of these "militants" - to look like civilians - so it can't be a simple case that these "human rights" groups are concerned about that sort of mistake. And again, they don't seem too bothered by the indiscriminate bombardment of Israeli towns with Palestinian rockets launched from Gaza.
The only issue I can possibly see is that they somehow think it is unfair to shoot someone when you can't be shot yourself - a concept that disappeared with Napoleon. If that were the case then you'd have to outlaw artillery, rocket launchers, aircraft, ships, helicopters and UAVs.
It is not a human right to be shot at by someone you can see and shoot back at. It's not a requirement of the Geneva convention either - only that combatants should be easily identifiable as combatants when you do see them. Given that these "human rights" groups have once more got their knickers in a twist over an understandable and perfectly legitimate Israeli tactic one wonders what their true motivation is - human rights or Palestinian preference?
The Israeli army has revealed that is using remote-control machine guns to secure its border with the Gaza strip.
The system allows soldiers watching television screens in control rooms to spot targets and open fire.
In the past, lookouts had to call in ground forces to intercept militants.
The introduction of the new guns has outraged human rights groups.
What, exactly, is the issue that these so-called "human rights" groups take exception to? I could understand, perhaps, if these remote machine guns were fully automated and computer controlled - so that the slightest detection of movement would unleash a hail of lead. In that situation I could understand the RSPB being upset at the slaughter of innocent sparrows - but they aren't.
They are controlled by soldiers who keep watch via TV monitors - a sensible move considering that the Palestinians aren't adverse to nipping over the border to kidnap them, torture them and then kill them from time to time - funny how that doesn't seem to bother these "human rights" groups so much.
The "militants" also have a habit of wearing civilian clothing, hiding and firing from areas where civilians are likely to be caught in the crossfire and even using civilians as human shields - again, something which these "human rights" groups don't seem too bothered by.
Even if it were a real live soldier manning the machine gun, they are just as likely to mistake a civilian for a militant as someone in a remote location because that is the tactic of these "militants" - to look like civilians - so it can't be a simple case that these "human rights" groups are concerned about that sort of mistake. And again, they don't seem too bothered by the indiscriminate bombardment of Israeli towns with Palestinian rockets launched from Gaza.
The only issue I can possibly see is that they somehow think it is unfair to shoot someone when you can't be shot yourself - a concept that disappeared with Napoleon. If that were the case then you'd have to outlaw artillery, rocket launchers, aircraft, ships, helicopters and UAVs.
It is not a human right to be shot at by someone you can see and shoot back at. It's not a requirement of the Geneva convention either - only that combatants should be easily identifiable as combatants when you do see them. Given that these "human rights" groups have once more got their knickers in a twist over an understandable and perfectly legitimate Israeli tactic one wonders what their true motivation is - human rights or Palestinian preference?
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Dealing with deathocracy
As the civil war in Palestine continues almost unnoticed by the worlds media, I found this little snippet from The Telegraph particularly telling.
"They're firing at us, firing RPGs, firing mortars. We're not Jews," the brother of Jamal Abu Jediyan, a Fatah commander, pleaded during a live telephone conversation with a Palestinian radio station. (My emphasis).
The implication here is that if they were Jews this would be alright, then? Moments later the man was dragged from his home and murdered in the street along with his brother. A 14 year old boy and three women were also killed in the same attack.
The response of the worlds media, had this been Israeli forces, would have been instant and unequivocal condemnation - quite rightly so from the sounds of this particular instance. Indeed, Israel is condemned even when they go to extraordinary lengths to avoid harming civilians by making announcements of forthcoming attacks.
The Palestinian civil war is funded by "aid" - most of which comes from the EU who then fail to hold the Palestinians to account for the billions that have been pumped into their deathocracy. But the worlds media or the left doesn't trouble itself with this - much more fun to rip into the USA for providing funds to Israel.
Even as rockets rain down daily onto Israeli towns, the left and the media shrug their shoulders at the antics of the Palestinians and justify the endless assault on Israel as just "resisting occupation" and, hey, they're only crude harmless home made rockets anyway - it's just like bonfire night.
I'm so fed up with the double standards of the media and the left who continue to excuse Palestinian violence and aggression - just as they excuse Muslim violence and aggression all over the world portraying it - if they ever mention it - as a justifiable response to some perceived "grievance" whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan, the arrest of a Muslim terrorist in Solihull, Israel's existence, British imperial adventures, lack of concessions to Muslim demands, failing to make efforts to accommodate Muslim conventions - like wife-beating, bigamy and murder for "honour" - the collapse of the Ottoman empire, the crusades or whatever. There is always something for a Muslim to have grievance about. Like the old joke about Ireland - if you ever find an answer to the Muslim question the Muslims will change the question.
If Muslims want Islam to be considered as a decent, civilised religion then they need to start behaving like decent civilised people and the left and the worlds media need to stop giving them a free ride.
"They're firing at us, firing RPGs, firing mortars. We're not Jews," the brother of Jamal Abu Jediyan, a Fatah commander, pleaded during a live telephone conversation with a Palestinian radio station. (My emphasis).
The implication here is that if they were Jews this would be alright, then? Moments later the man was dragged from his home and murdered in the street along with his brother. A 14 year old boy and three women were also killed in the same attack.
The response of the worlds media, had this been Israeli forces, would have been instant and unequivocal condemnation - quite rightly so from the sounds of this particular instance. Indeed, Israel is condemned even when they go to extraordinary lengths to avoid harming civilians by making announcements of forthcoming attacks.
The Palestinian civil war is funded by "aid" - most of which comes from the EU who then fail to hold the Palestinians to account for the billions that have been pumped into their deathocracy. But the worlds media or the left doesn't trouble itself with this - much more fun to rip into the USA for providing funds to Israel.
Even as rockets rain down daily onto Israeli towns, the left and the media shrug their shoulders at the antics of the Palestinians and justify the endless assault on Israel as just "resisting occupation" and, hey, they're only crude harmless home made rockets anyway - it's just like bonfire night.
I'm so fed up with the double standards of the media and the left who continue to excuse Palestinian violence and aggression - just as they excuse Muslim violence and aggression all over the world portraying it - if they ever mention it - as a justifiable response to some perceived "grievance" whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan, the arrest of a Muslim terrorist in Solihull, Israel's existence, British imperial adventures, lack of concessions to Muslim demands, failing to make efforts to accommodate Muslim conventions - like wife-beating, bigamy and murder for "honour" - the collapse of the Ottoman empire, the crusades or whatever. There is always something for a Muslim to have grievance about. Like the old joke about Ireland - if you ever find an answer to the Muslim question the Muslims will change the question.
If Muslims want Islam to be considered as a decent, civilised religion then they need to start behaving like decent civilised people and the left and the worlds media need to stop giving them a free ride.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Don't mention the (civil) war!
For as long as there have been coalition forces in Iraq, the BBC and just about every other media organisation has been telling us that the country was on the verge of civil war or that it IS a civil war. I suppose it is, in the loosest possible sense, a civil war - in the same way as the "The Troubles" was/is a civil war.
And yet, by the same token, the BBC and the other media outlets seem determined to play down what is happening in Gaza as anything but civil war. The BBC describes it, disingenuously, as "factional clashes". I can't think of a more obvious "civil war" than one in which two opposing armed "factions" from the same societal group indulge in gun battles as they struggle for political control of a territory. As I understand the situation in Iraq, the "insurgents" aim is not to win political control, but to eject the occupying coalition troops. Not the same as a civil war, but I'm not a BBC editor.
This is how the BBC describes the events in Gaza.
Fighting has broken out in the Gaza Strip for a second day, with two people killed and at least 10 wounded as rival Palestinian factions exchanged fire.
"Fighting broke out" - what, all by itself?
""Rival Palestinian factions" - sounds like football supporters.
"exchanged fire" - a bit like exchanging phone numbers. Except people die.
That opening sentence is designed to play down the events as much as possible, but the report later reveals the true scale of the "factional clashes".
Up to 400 people have died in clashes between the two factions since the Islamist Hamas won last year's parliamentary elections.
How can that be anything other than a civil war?
And yet, by the same token, the BBC and the other media outlets seem determined to play down what is happening in Gaza as anything but civil war. The BBC describes it, disingenuously, as "factional clashes". I can't think of a more obvious "civil war" than one in which two opposing armed "factions" from the same societal group indulge in gun battles as they struggle for political control of a territory. As I understand the situation in Iraq, the "insurgents" aim is not to win political control, but to eject the occupying coalition troops. Not the same as a civil war, but I'm not a BBC editor.
This is how the BBC describes the events in Gaza.
Fighting has broken out in the Gaza Strip for a second day, with two people killed and at least 10 wounded as rival Palestinian factions exchanged fire.
"Fighting broke out" - what, all by itself?
""Rival Palestinian factions" - sounds like football supporters.
"exchanged fire" - a bit like exchanging phone numbers. Except people die.
That opening sentence is designed to play down the events as much as possible, but the report later reveals the true scale of the "factional clashes".
Up to 400 people have died in clashes between the two factions since the Islamist Hamas won last year's parliamentary elections.
How can that be anything other than a civil war?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)