First of all, I have to say that I believe David Milliband's response to the alleged use of forged British passports by Mossad spies was the correct one. Indeed, I was actually reasonably impressed by the tone of his comments as well as the tough stance the FO has taken.
However, I suspect that a lot of that was due to the fact that he was dealing with a nation which I honestly don't believe Milliband has any interest in supporting. In fact, I suspect that Milliband - like a lot of people on the left - would be happier if Israel would somehow cease to exist as they believe this would solve a lot of the world's problems with Islamism. It wouldn't, of course, as Islamic militancy and violence existed for a long time before modern Israel came along.
But the clincher for me is the fact that Milliband works himself into a lather over the use of forged passports by Israelis - but seems remarkably unconcerned about the use of legitimate British passports by Islamic militants. Indeed, they hand them out to all and sundry like sweets to children. Not only that, but proven terrorists are welcomed into this country where they are then given homes, money and support while they continue to direct and encourage violence against our own people and our allies.
I think Milliband was quite right to kick out an Israeli diplomat - but by the same standard there are several thousand Islamic militants that he should be do the same thing to. The fact that he won't exposes where his true sympathies lie.
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Monday, May 11, 2009
Peace or war in the Middle East? What's new?
The King of Jordan is suggesting that the latest "make or break" talks to solve the Middle East crisis will be the last.
King Abdullah II told The Times. Failure to reach agreement at this critical juncture would draw the world into a new Middle East war next year. “If we delay our peace negotiations, then there is going to be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months,” the King said.
“What we are talking about is not Israelis and Palestinians sitting at the table, but Israelis sitting with Palestinians, Israelis sitting with Syrians, Israelis sitting with Lebanese,” said the King, who hatched the plan with Mr Obama in Washington last month. He added that, if Mr Obama did not make good his promise for peace, then his credibility would evaporate overnight.
Obama has credibility? If that wasn't shocking enough the next bit from the Telegraph is even more so.
The Israeli Government has so far rejected any moves that would lead to a two-state solution, the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel.....
Is that true? I don't believe it is. The Israeli government has never been adverse to the idea of a two state solution - isn't that one of the reasons they pulled out of Gaza? - it's just been unhappy with the idea of one of those states having the expressed intent of destroying Israel. To me that seems quite understandable.
[T]he King insisted that what was being proposed was a “57-state solution”, whereby the Arab and entire Muslim world would recognise the Jewish state as part of the deal.
Yeah - well good luck with that one, your Highness. Trouble is - even if you get that agreement from the Heinz (57) states there are all the non-state actors and various proxy armies to deal with who will never ever accept Israel's right to exist.
King Abdullah II told The Times. Failure to reach agreement at this critical juncture would draw the world into a new Middle East war next year. “If we delay our peace negotiations, then there is going to be another conflict between Arabs or Muslims and Israel in the next 12-18 months,” the King said.
“What we are talking about is not Israelis and Palestinians sitting at the table, but Israelis sitting with Palestinians, Israelis sitting with Syrians, Israelis sitting with Lebanese,” said the King, who hatched the plan with Mr Obama in Washington last month. He added that, if Mr Obama did not make good his promise for peace, then his credibility would evaporate overnight.
Obama has credibility? If that wasn't shocking enough the next bit from the Telegraph is even more so.
The Israeli Government has so far rejected any moves that would lead to a two-state solution, the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel.....
Is that true? I don't believe it is. The Israeli government has never been adverse to the idea of a two state solution - isn't that one of the reasons they pulled out of Gaza? - it's just been unhappy with the idea of one of those states having the expressed intent of destroying Israel. To me that seems quite understandable.
[T]he King insisted that what was being proposed was a “57-state solution”, whereby the Arab and entire Muslim world would recognise the Jewish state as part of the deal.
Yeah - well good luck with that one, your Highness. Trouble is - even if you get that agreement from the Heinz (57) states there are all the non-state actors and various proxy armies to deal with who will never ever accept Israel's right to exist.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Trouble in paradise
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.
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.
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, May 28, 2008
Repeating the unsayable again and again
Bronwen Maddox in today's Times online has a vomit inducing puff piece for the ridiculous Jimmy Carter. In an article entitled "Jimmy Carter is right to say the unsayable" she goes on to say how Jimmy Carter has just reiterated what every left wing liberal progressive fruit bat has been saying about Israel for decades - that the Middle East conflict is all their fault.
I don't know why she thinks that is so unsayable - the left have been saying it ever since Israel took it's first tentative steps in 1948 - but Bronwen Maddox has a talent for selective memory.
On the basis of Carter’s speeches in Britain this week, many Europeans would embrace the 83-year-old former President as their ideal occupant of the White House.
Er, no - on the basis of his record most of us would embrace Carter with a strait jacket.
Maddox goes on to say that electoral victory somehow gives legitimacy to the concept of the destruction of a sovereign state.
“We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction,” Obama said after Carter’s Hamas trip, skating round the fact of Hamas’s legitimacy, through electoral success, and its senior roles in Palestinian government.
Right on, Bronwen! If only we'd thought of that during Hitler's time! Oh, we did - and it didn't work. Shucks - still, maybe it will work this time, eh? After all, the Nazis were a crazy ideological bunch intent on the destruction of the Jews while Iran and Hamas are ..... damn.
Finally, having made several references to South Africa's apartheid regime during her Carter idolatry, Maddox misses the biggest point about South Africa.
Although no one has the answer to Hamas, or Iran, Carter is entirely right to point out that they are not going away, and that the tactic of shunning them has not worked.
Funny how the "tactic of shunning" worked fine for South Africa, but has no effect on Hamas or Iran. Anyone want to guess why? (Clue: millions of dollars in aid every year from the EU and South Africa had no oil)
I don't know why she thinks that is so unsayable - the left have been saying it ever since Israel took it's first tentative steps in 1948 - but Bronwen Maddox has a talent for selective memory.
On the basis of Carter’s speeches in Britain this week, many Europeans would embrace the 83-year-old former President as their ideal occupant of the White House.
Er, no - on the basis of his record most of us would embrace Carter with a strait jacket.
Maddox goes on to say that electoral victory somehow gives legitimacy to the concept of the destruction of a sovereign state.
“We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction,” Obama said after Carter’s Hamas trip, skating round the fact of Hamas’s legitimacy, through electoral success, and its senior roles in Palestinian government.
Right on, Bronwen! If only we'd thought of that during Hitler's time! Oh, we did - and it didn't work. Shucks - still, maybe it will work this time, eh? After all, the Nazis were a crazy ideological bunch intent on the destruction of the Jews while Iran and Hamas are ..... damn.
Finally, having made several references to South Africa's apartheid regime during her Carter idolatry, Maddox misses the biggest point about South Africa.
Although no one has the answer to Hamas, or Iran, Carter is entirely right to point out that they are not going away, and that the tactic of shunning them has not worked.
Funny how the "tactic of shunning" worked fine for South Africa, but has no effect on Hamas or Iran. Anyone want to guess why? (Clue: millions of dollars in aid every year from the EU and South Africa had no oil)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)