ForumGarden

The controversial Gaza appeal raised £1m overnight after the film was broadcast despite the BBC's continued refusal to air it.

Today, the corporation was hit by new claims of 'inconsistency' on the issue after running footage of the appeal and its telephone number.

Despite the fact that the BBC controversially decided not air the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, its Ten O'Clock News showed snippets of the broadcast which aired in full on Channel 4, ITV and Channel Five.

Disaster relief: Footage from the Gaza Crisis Appeal which was broadcast on ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five last night

This followed earlier criticism over its apparent confusion on the issue, branded 'farcical' by one MP, which also saw its website carry a direct link to the DEC website, which was asking for donations.

The BBC has come under fire from politicians, religious leaders and prominent broadcasters after it decided not to air the appeal, claiming that it needed to protect its journalistic integrity above all else.

Its stance has sparked demonstrations and more than 15,000 complaints.

Today the DEC, a coalition of charities which includes the British Red Cross and Oxfam, said that following the broadcast of the film it had doubled what it had raised to £1million to help alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Privately charity insiders believed it many have been able to raise much more if the BBC had decided to throw its weight behind the appeal, which was targeted at raising money for children in Gaza who had been affected by the recent conflict.

The film, which is said to have doubled the Disasters Emergency Committee fundraising total to £1million, showed bloodied families and scenes of devastation in Gaza

The DEC said it had been 'delighted' with the response to its appeal but steered clear of criticising the BBC in the statement, which welcomed the generosity of the British public.

Brendan Gormley, DEC chief executive, said: 'We really do appreciate the support of the British public who have shown their generosity when confronted with scenes of a dire humanitarian emergency.

'Their donations will improve the lives of so many civilians caught up in a conflict that was not of their making.'

The BBC's position comes despite a direct plea from International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander to show the appeal.

Sky News also announced it would not air the appeal.

But like the publicly-funded broadcaster it also had a link to the DEC website from its own website.

Criticism: Demonstrators stage a sit-down protest at the BBC's Broadcasting House in central London last night

Last night ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five all showed the charity appeal, as the row raged on about the BBC's determined stance not to show it.

It showed images of bloodied children, distraught families and scenes of wreckage from the bombs when it went out last night.

The voice-over said: 'Today is not about the rights and wrongs of the conflict, these people simply need your help.'

Golden Globe winner and Oscar nominee Samantha Morton, 31, has said she would never work again at the BBC if it did not show the emergency appeal for help.

She branded the decisions 'horrific' and 'disgusting', while comedian Bill Bailey said the corporation was showing 'moral cowardice'.

Anti-war protesters also organised a 'mass return' of TV licences to the BBC for people who were incensed by the corporation's decision.

Meanwhile, BBC sources have reported 'widespread disgust' within its newsrooms.

I have always believed the BBC to be one of the most un-biased media sources so i just don't understand why they would refuse to broadcast the appeal. Even during the credit-crunch, Britain puts their hands in their pockets to help the needy in Gaza. We now seem at the mercy of the BBC as to what we can watch or donate to.

oscar;1119638 wrote: The controversial Gaza appeal raised £1m overnight after the film was broadcast despite the BBC's continued refusal to air it.

Today, the corporation was hit by new claims of 'inconsistency' on the issue after running footage of the appeal and its telephone number.

Despite the fact that the BBC controversially decided not air the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, its Ten O'Clock News showed snippets of the broadcast which aired in full on Channel 4, ITV and Channel Five.

Disaster relief: Footage from the Gaza Crisis Appeal which was broadcast on ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five last night

This followed earlier criticism over its apparent confusion on the issue, branded 'farcical' by one MP, which also saw its website carry a direct link to the DEC website, which was asking for donations.

The BBC has come under fire from politicians, religious leaders and prominent broadcasters after it decided not to air the appeal, claiming that it needed to protect its journalistic integrity above all else.

Its stance has sparked demonstrations and more than 15,000 complaints.

Today the DEC, a coalition of charities which includes the British Red Cross and Oxfam, said that following the broadcast of the film it had doubled what it had raised to £1million to help alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Privately charity insiders believed it many have been able to raise much more if the BBC had decided to throw its weight behind the appeal, which was targeted at raising money for children in Gaza who had been affected by the recent conflict.

The film, which is said to have doubled the Disasters Emergency Committee fundraising total to £1million, showed bloodied families and scenes of devastation in Gaza

The DEC said it had been 'delighted' with the response to its appeal but steered clear of criticising the BBC in the statement, which welcomed the generosity of the British public.

Brendan Gormley, DEC chief executive, said: 'We really do appreciate the support of the British public who have shown their generosity when confronted with scenes of a dire humanitarian emergency.

'Their donations will improve the lives of so many civilians caught up in a conflict that was not of their making.'

The BBC's position comes despite a direct plea from International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander to show the appeal.

Sky News also announced it would not air the appeal.

But like the publicly-funded broadcaster it also had a link to the DEC website from its own website.

Criticism: Demonstrators stage a sit-down protest at the BBC's Broadcasting House in central London last night

Last night ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five all showed the charity appeal, as the row raged on about the BBC's determined stance not to show it.

It showed images of bloodied children, distraught families and scenes of wreckage from the bombs when it went out last night.

The voice-over said: 'Today is not about the rights and wrongs of the conflict, these people simply need your help.'

Golden Globe winner and Oscar nominee Samantha Morton, 31, has said she would never work again at the BBC if it did not show the emergency appeal for help.

She branded the decisions 'horrific' and 'disgusting', while comedian Bill Bailey said the corporation was showing 'moral cowardice'.

Anti-war protesters also organised a 'mass return' of TV licences to the BBC for people who were incensed by the corporation's decision.

Meanwhile, BBC sources have reported 'widespread disgust' within its newsrooms.

I have always believed the BBC to be one of the most un-biased media sources so i just don't understand why they would refuse to broadcast the appeal. Even during the credit-crunch, Britain puts their hands in their pockets to help the needy in Gaza. We now seem at the mercy of the BBC as to what we can watch or donate to.


Because they know that the money will go directly to rebuilding the tunnels to smuggle in weapons and none of it will go to actually helping the people who need it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... =rss_world

mikeinie;1119710 wrote: Because they know that the money will go directly to rebuilding the tunnels to smuggle in weapons and none of it will go to actually helping the people who need it.


If that were true, i still don't believe it is up to the BBC to decide so or dictate to us what we should be doing with our money. If the BBC deem the money is going toward smuggling of arms to Hamas, who are they to make that decision on our behalf? Surely that's biased reporting?

oscar;1119715 wrote: If that were true, i still don't believe it is up to the BBC to decide so or dictate to us what we should be doing with our money. If the BBC deem the money is going toward smuggling of arms to Hamas, who are they to make that decision on our behalf? Surely that's biased reporting?


True, I guess

mikeinie;1119716 wrote: True, I guess


You give in far to easily :yh_rotfl

I actually totally admire the BBC for making this stand, I think that they will be proved right in the end. I'm not condoning what has happened to ordinary people in Gaza, but I respect the BBCs right to make an editorial judgement on this, and I think they are right. Its debatable of course, not an easy call, its just my own opinion on it.

Also, the BBC are not telling people NOT to fundraise for Gaza, they are just not running the campaign on the network, its quite a different thing. If people want to give money to a Gaza appeal thats up to them as private citizens.

Also, lets not forget, its not the BBCs responsibility to look after the citizens of Gaza, that's Hamas' job, one in which they are singularly failing, as they seem far more interested in continuing an apocalyptic war against "The Zionists" than actually improving the lives of ordinary palestinians living in the strip.

mikeinie;1119710 wrote: Because they know that the money will go directly to rebuilding the tunnels to smuggle in weapons and none of it will go to actually helping the people who need it.

washingtonpost.com




Do you really believe that the Red Cross and Oxfam would be party to such a thing?

Just more propaganda trying to justify the continuing genocide.

Galbally;1119728 wrote: I actually totally admire the BBC for making this stand, I think that they will be proved right in the end. I'm not condoning what has happened to ordinary people in Gaza, but I respect the BBCs right to make an editorial judgement on this, and I think they are right. Its debatable of course, not an easy call, its just my own opinion on it.

Also, the BBC are not telling people NOT to fundraise for Gaza, they are just not running the campaign on the network, its quite a different thing. If people want to give money to a Gaza appeal thats up to them as private citizens.

Also, lets not forget, its not the BBCs responsibility to look after the citizens of Gaza, that's Hamas' job, one in which they are singularly failing, as they seem far more interested in continuing an apocalyptic war against "The Zionists" than actually improving the lives of ordinary palestinians living in the strip.


I don't. I rely on a media source as large as the BBC to be impartial. That includes not taking the stance that if any money is raised, it must certainly be going to Hamas to smuggle weapons in. They can't prove it as fact.

Their bias in the long run will only give more reason to Hamas to protest and protest in the only way they know how.

The BBC are depriving the innocent Palistinians and using Hamas as an excuse.

mikeinie;1119710 wrote: Because they know that the money will go directly to rebuilding the tunnels to smuggle in weapons and none of it will go to actually helping the people who need it.

washingtonpost.com


I notice the proganda link is American and not British. :-2:-2:-2

Why should the BBC have broadcast it anyway? The middle east has been festering away since the 40s with still no solution in sight. If Hamas were that interested in their own people they would stop lobbing rockets into Israel but they don't and will do it again once they get more. Had the 8,000 rockets they shot off been more accurate would we have a broadcast for Israel as well??

Galbally;1119728 wrote: I actually totally admire the BBC for making this stand, I think that they will be proved right in the end. I'm not condoning what has happened to ordinary people in Gaza, but I respect the BBCs right to make an editorial judgement on this, and I think they are right. Its debatable of course, not an easy call, its just my own opinion on it.

Also, the BBC are not telling people NOT to fundraise for Gaza, they are just not running the campaign on the network, its quite a different thing. If people want to give money to a Gaza appeal thats up to them as private citizens.

Also, lets not forget, its not the BBCs responsibility to look after the citizens of Gaza, that's Hamas' job, one in which they are singularly failing, as they seem far more interested in continuing an apocalyptic war against "The Zionists" than actually improving the lives of ordinary palestinians living in the strip.


That is true as well

Bryn Mawr;1119729 wrote: Do you really believe that the Red Cross and Oxfam would be party to such a thing?

Just more propaganda trying to justify the continuing genocide.


That's true

The point is that no one will win the argument because they are all f*cked up beyond repair over there and no or anything will fix it because they are all full of hatred.

FUBAR;1120301 wrote: Why should the BBC have broadcast it anyway? The middle east has been festering away since the 40s with still no solution in sight. If Hamas were that interested in their own people they would stop lobbing rockets into Israel but they don't and will do it again once they get more. Had the 8,000 rockets they shot off been more accurate would we have a broadcast for Israel as well??


Here in britain we have to pay a license fee weather we like it or not and it goes to the BBC. As license payers, we should have a say and a choice in what is broadcasted. The BBC are bloody hypocrites in this instance. We get appeals all the time for natural disasters and war zones. The BBC has decided they are going to decide for the people.

The Middle East has been festering away for years, true, but the solution is not going to be found by depriving innocent Palistinians of aid.

Even the Hamas rockets that were accurate were ineffective. The death toll confirmed is, 1,200 Palistinians with 800 wounded and 15 deaths on the Israeli part. Buildings, including hospitals and schools are completely demolished.

The BBC's decision is nothing short of bias and i object when i have to pay a license fee for the privalige of having them on my TV and they decide what i should be watching or donating to. This bias is the exact reason the cease-fire will fail. Once again, no-one is listening to Hamas or giving two hoots about the devastation to Gaza.

How is the ME crisis ever going to be solved if we try to deprive innocents of vital aid? That is exactly why Hamas are lobbing rockets in the first place. Now the world expects them to abide by the cease-fire while still giving them nothing.

oscar;1120351 wrote: Here in britain we have to pay a license fee weather we like it or not and it goes to the BBC. As license payers, we should have a say and a choice in what is broadcasted. The BBC are bloody hypocrites in this instance. We get appeals all the time for natural disasters and war zones. The BBC has decided they are going to decide for the people.

The Middle East has been festering away for years, true, but the solution is not going to be found by depriving innocent Palistinians of aid.

Even the Hamas rockets that were accurate were ineffective. The death toll confirmed is, 1,200 Palistinians with 800 wounded and 15 deaths on the Israeli part. Buildings, including hospitals and schools are completely demolished.

The BBC's decision is nothing short of bias and i object when i have to pay a license fee for the privalige of having them on my TV and they decide what i should be watching or donating to. This bias is the exact reason the cease-fire will fail. Once again, no-one is listening to Hamas or giving two hoots about the devastation to Gaza.

How is the ME crisis ever going to be solved if we try to deprive innocents of vital aid? That is exactly why Hamas are lobbing rockets in the first place. Now the world expects them to abide by the cease-fire while still giving them nothing.


Just because Hamas are rubbish shots with their rockets and the Israelis are more accurate is hardly a reason to give them more. I pay the license fee and don't support the BBc broadcasting this...guess we cancel each others votes out.......:-2

FUBAR;1120405 wrote: Just because Hamas are rubbish shots with their rockets and the Israelis are more accurate is hardly a reason to give them more. I pay the license fee and don't support the BBc broadcasting this...guess we cancel each others votes out.......:-2


It's not a case of Hamas being rubbish shots. They have never had the military hardware that Israel has. They have not had tanks or aircraft. The attack by Israel on Gaza was nothing short of genocide. I have said it before on other threads but Israel have the intelligence to track down insurgents in Gaza, not bomb the shyte of innocent Palistinians. One third of the dead are children. Hospitals can't cope without aid. Israel has admited and faces an enquiry into using illegal white phospherous in bombing Gaza. They do what the hell they like and then we get some jobsworth in the BBC denying vital aid to the injured.

Bryn Mawr;1119729 wrote: Do you really believe that the Red Cross and Oxfam would be party to such a thing?



Just more propaganda trying to justify the continuing genocide.
Then why not just donate to the Red Cross and Oxfam directly and let them sort out where it goes?

YZGI;1120458 wrote: Then why not just donate to the Red Cross and Oxfam directly and let them sort out where it goes?


Good point but isn't the Red Cross a central fund? We donate and they decide where the money is going. Same with Oxfam. Personally, i'd rather give directly to the Gaza appeal knowing that the money is going directly to the Palistinians.

Israel are bombing Gaza already. As far as the news goes, i can't see any attack by Hamas on Israel for retaliation. They say they are bombing the tunnels from Egypt to stop future smuggling. Once again, they break the cease-fire, deny Gaza aid and continue to claim it's all down to Hamas. Palistinians have been killed today. It's genocide.

It's going to continue until the participants want to stop. Every Israeli bomb means another five Hamas recruits, and Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel. Let me be quite clear that I think the Israeli response in this case was wrong, as well as stupid. They've just guaranteed themselves another decade or so of conflict.

I think I understand the BBC's position. I don't envy them.

Clodhopper;1120560 wrote: It's going to continue until the participants want to stop. Every Israeli bomb means another five Hamas recruits, and Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel. Let me be quite clear that I think the Israeli response in this case was wrong, as well as stupid. They've just guaranteed themselves another decade or so of conflict.

I think I understand the BBC's position. I don't envy them.


Well said that British Person

Your Spot on that every Israeli bomb recruits more Hamas insurgents. The Israeli response was barbaric. As i said, they have the intelligence to oust insurgents and bring them to trial. How does Israel get away with using white phospherous on children and bombing the UN compound not even knowing for sure which nationality's were in there. Even after 'Condeleeza Rice' told them not to bomb Un buildings, they carried on and bombed a Un school. They then try to get out of it by saying it was an accident. Now, this latest attack is under the guise of bombing Hamas tunnels. Why didn't they bomb them in the first place? Israel needs to be condemned by the whole world including America.

oscar;1120613 wrote: Well said that British Person

Your Spot on that every Israeli bomb recruits more Hamas insurgents. The Israeli response was barbaric. As i said, they have the intelligence to oust insurgents and bring them to trial. How does Israel get away with using white phospherous on children and bombing the UN compound not even knowing for sure which nationality's were in there. Even after 'Condeleeza Rice' told them not to bomb Un buildings, they carried on and bombed a Un school. They then try to get out of it by saying it was an accident. Now, this latest attack is under the guise of bombing Hamas tunnels. Why didn't they bomb them in the first place? Israel needs to be condemned by the whole world including America.


Right, so you'll presumably also be launching a special British humanitarian appeal on the BBC to repay the damage done to Iraq when the RAF and USAF bombed the complete shyte out of a country that has never attacked Britain (live on TV for the home audiences' entertainment in 2003), killing thousands of completely innocent civilians, and wiping out the entire infrastructure of a country of 25 million people then will you?

How many Islamicists do you think each of those carefully placed RAF bombs recruited then, 14, 47, 78??? How many children died in "shock and awe, how many people lost loved ones forever because Tony wanted to impress George about how tough he was, ever wondered about that?

When the Israelis do it (in what can be argued is a case of obvious self-defence), its genocide and your apoplectic with rage, however, when Britain does it to a country thousands of miles away that has never once attacked you out of some vague foreign policy called "THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP", its supporting freedom, and you've already forgotten about it, and switched over to celebrity antiques roadshow?

Please, seriously, give me a frickin break.

In fact, tell you what, just get it out of your system and bomb Israel next time with a couple of Trident missiles and give what's left back of that territory you once administered as part of your Empire back to Hamas, that will solve everyone's problems. Including yours.

Galbally;1120710 wrote: Right, so you'll presumably also be launching a special British humanitarian appeal on the BBC to repay the damage done to Iraq when the RAF and USAF bombed the complete shyte out of a country that has never attacked Britain (live on TV for the home audiences' entertainment in 2003), killing thousands of completely innocent civilians, and wiping out the entire infrastructure of a country of 25 million people then will you?

How many Islamicists do you think each of those carefully placed RAF bombs recruited then, 14, 47, 78??? Ever wondered about that?

When the Israelis do it in obvious self-defence, its genocide and your apoplectic with rage, when Britain does it to a country thousands of miles away that has never once attacked you out of some vague foreign policy called "THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP", its supporting freedom, and you've already forgotten about it, give me a frickin break.

In fact, tell you what, just Bomb Israel next time with a couple of Trident missiles and give what's left back to Hamas, that will solve everyone's problems.


First of all, enraged one, if you had ever read any of my posts on the Iraq war, you will know i am against everything about it. Yes, we did bomb the shyte out of them but in the aftermath, American and British troops have done their fair share of re-building hospitals, schools and getting power back on. The Palistinians don't even have that.

Stop labeling all innocent Palistinians with Hamas. It's the same as folk assuming all Irish are IRA terrorists.

The Palistinians have been denied basic aid for years, it's nothing new and now we have some idiot in the BBC deciding we can't make up our own minds as to weather we want an appeal or not, yet continue to pay that ****wit 'Johnathon Ross' a kings ransom to insult people.

Why the feck should i feel bad because i want to actually give my money to innocent Palistinians who have lost homes, farms, land, and live's? If the Israeli's hadn't denied them basic aid for years, Hamas would not need to lob ineffective dud rockets to get the worlds attention.

This is a good report on the debate:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 600810.ece

YZGI;1120458 wrote: Then why not just donate to the Red Cross and Oxfam directly and let them sort out where it goes?


That is what the appeal is all about - asking people to donate to the Red Cross and Oxfam who will then sort out where the money goes. To claim that this is supporting terrorism is ludicrous.

Bryn Mawr;1120779 wrote: That is what the appeal is all about - asking people to donate to the Red Cross and Oxfam who will then sort out where the money goes. To claim that this is supporting terrorism is ludicrous.


Then it has to bias Bryn? We have had appeals for war zones on behalf of the Red Cross and Oxfam many times.

oscar;1120733 wrote: First of all, enraged one, if you had ever read any of my posts on the Iraq war, you will know i am against everything about it. Yes, we did bomb the shyte out of them but in the aftermath, American and British troops have done their fair share of re-building hospitals, schools and getting power back on. The Palistinians don't even have that.

Stop labeling all innocent Palistinians with Hamas. It's the same as folk assuming all Irish are IRA terrorists.

The Palistinians have been denied basic aid for years, it's nothing new and now we have some idiot in the BBC deciding we can't make up our own minds as to weather we want an appeal or not, yet continue to pay that ****wit 'Johnathon Ross' a kings ransom to insult people.

Why the feck should i feel bad because i want to actually give my money to innocent Palistinians who have lost homes, farms, land, and live's? If the Israeli's hadn't denied them basic aid for years, Hamas would not need to lob ineffective dud rockets to get the worlds attention.

This is a good report on the debate:

Forget the Gaza fuss. Let them buy airtime | Daniel Finkelstein - Times Online


Oscar, I am not surprised you were against the war, I don't mean to attack you personally, an awful lot of ordinary British people were against invading Iraq, but it still happened and in reality there is very little debate in Britain now about the direct responsibility Britain has for the situation in Iraq, which is still a disaster zone.

I understand the humanitarian concerns about ordinary Palestinians in Gaza, of course I do, I do not advocate what Israel has done as being good, but it has more justification than what Britain did in Iraq, fixing a few schools and being nice to people now doesn't undo the damage of essentially destroying the Iraqis country for them, and then telling them it was for their own good, and patting them on the shoulders and telling them it will be fine because your fixing up some of the stuff you destroyed.

My point would be that people in Britain who are that concerned about suffering caused by conflict in should be worry about cleaning up the humanitarian mess their own country has created than hypocritically criticizing the bogeyman of Israel in this 2D debate that we have over here (about a situation in the holy land between Jews and Arabs that is far more complicated than is reported).

My sense is that essentially this is always really all a cipher for what seems to really irk people, (i.e that old bug bear of Israel, and US foreign policy), not the well being of Palestinians who are just caught in this nightmare situation.

The EU (including Britain) has built a lot of the infrastructure in Gaza, and has done a lot to try and help the impossible situation on the ground through the years; its depressing to see all this death and destruction caused by extremism and counter-reaction by Israel, of course it is; also people have every right to give money to the charities over there if they feel strongly about it; the point of this thread is that the BBC is not under any obligation to run this appeal, they feel the situation is too politicized (as much in the U.K. as in general) and that it will compromise them to do so, I respect that decision, but as a national Broadcaster the BBC will be ultimately accountable to the UK Government and the people that elect it.

I just hope people think twice before they condemn the BBC outright.

By the way, despite the massive damage caused to ordinary people by the recent IDF offensive against Hamas in Gaza, Hamas has started firing Rockets randomly into Israel again today, and predictably the Israelis launched a helicopter based attack on a suspected Hamas rocket factory.

Also a group claiming to be linked to Al Queda claimed that it planted the landmine on the border that killed the Israeli solider, that lead to the shooting dead of another Palestinian. Ordinary locals must be thrilled at having to be caught in the middle of all of this.

Hamas also think they are actually winning this grotesque one-sided war against Israel because the world is generally so appalled at the suffering being inflicted on ordinary Palestinian civilians, they are not winning, they are just condemming another generation of Palestinians to a conflict they cannot win with rockets and suicide bombs. Israel rightly takes most of the international blame because its supposed to be a civilized country, but Hamas know this and so they will continue to fire their rockets and provoke the Israelis into another major offensive again.

Anyone who actually dissents in Gaza against this suicidal policy is being shot or banished, you tend not to hear about that part though.

The Israeli Government and IDF treat the non-Israeli Palestinians totally unjustly, settlements on the West Bank have to go; there is no Israeli military solution to the fact that Palestinians need the right to complete self-determination. We all know that, its not right, but it doesn't excuse what Hamas are doing to their own people with their ideological nonsense.

Hamas simply cannot destroy Israel, its not going to happen, the Jews are not going to go away or accept being ruled by anyone other than themselves. Israel cannot keep taking land away from the Palestinians and stop them from having a proper state indefinetly. Until both sides accept these truths, there will be no peace. Until both sides can no longer see there being an advantage in War, there will be no peace.

Hamas, as far as I am concerned, are risking using their own people as cannon fodder to win a media battle, as they know they cannot win in a military conflict, and they know what the implications are for the people they say they lead and are fighting for, yet they constantly provoke death and destruction upon their heads; its despicable.

On top of the usual freedom fighter ideology, Hamas appear to be caught in a religious debate/trap where since they are doing God's holy will, anything is justified including deliberately causing the massacre of their own people who are likely to be presented as patriots who would happily give their lives for the cause or traitors who should be killed anyway. Either way their death contributes to the holy cause. What did they think - no, what did they KNOW - Israel would do, given that Israel's stupid policy is based on an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and completely predictable?

I think Oxfam and the Red Cross are definitely the best people to give your money to: they are expert at dealing with getting aid where it needs to go. You have to accept that some WILL find it's way to Hamas via theft and extortion. But that's always the way and likely to be less through the Red Cross and Oxfam.

Regarding Iraq, I remember the joy the Iraqis felt when the regime toppled. They hated Saddam Hussein. The crime was the lack of follow up. I've already mentioned this elsewhere.

Clodhopper;1121187 wrote: On top of the usual freedom fighter ideology, Hamas appear to be caught in a religious debate/trap where since they are doing God's holy will, anything is justified including deliberately causing the massacre of their own people who are likely to be presented as patriots who would happily give their lives for the cause or traitors who should be killed anyway. Either way their death contributes to the holy cause. What did they think - no, what did they KNOW - Israel would do, given that Israel's stupid policy is based on an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and completely predictable?

I think Oxfam and the Red Cross are definitely the best people to give your money to: they are expert at dealing with getting aid where it needs to go. You have to accept that some WILL find it's way to Hamas via theft and extortion. But that's always the way and likely to be less through the Red Cross and Oxfam.

Regarding Iraq, I remember the joy the Iraqis felt when the regime toppled. They hated Saddam Hussein. The crime was the lack of follow up. I've already mentioned this elsewhere.


Well said that British person :-6

I didn't answer gallbally's posts as we have gone round in circles about the ME for weeks and i have made my feelings clear on other posts.

It is interesting that the appeal made a million over-night dispite the BBC refusing to air the appeal. It shows that the British always make their own minds up and will not be easily led by the corporation.

There is certainly a small possibility that some of the money could end up in the wrong place although i doubt this very much with the Red Cross or Oxfam. I think any-one who states that any money will go to terrorism, is just buying in to the bias of Hamas. Frankly, i find it ironic coming from galbally when the British spent so much money trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland.

It's all too easy for everyone to simply label all concerned as terrorists and turn their back on the ME. It needs the intervention by other countries to bring peace. If left to palistine and Israel, we will be having the same conversation in 20 yrs time.

Who ever is at fault, it doesn't take away the suffering of innocents. I have seen the video of a child being treated for horrific burns from white phospherous and recently i saw a report where most Palistinian children are malnurished. That has nothing to do with the conflict. Gaza is almost a third world country compared to Israel. They don't have the hospital equipment nor the trained medical staff. Most don't even have basic food and water. I am appaled that anyone could deny the innocents of Palistine simply by announcing that any money will go to terrorism.

Every thing has been tried in the ME and peace is still unacievable. The one thing that has not been tried is giving palistine what they want and should have. An independant state with a recognised government. Israel admits they have taken land illegally. they have systematically robbed the Palistinians of land, farms and business's for years. They showed their true colours the moment they bombed the UN compound without a care of which nationality was in there.

oscar;1121518 wrote: Well said that British person :-6

I didn't answer gallbally's posts as we have gone round in circles about the ME for weeks and i have made my feelings clear on other posts.

It is interesting that the appeal made a million over-night dispite the BBC refusing to air the appeal. It shows that the British always make their own minds up and will not be easily led by the corporation.

There is certainly a small possibility that some of the money could end up in the wrong place although i doubt this very much with the Red Cross or Oxfam. I think any-one who states that any money will go to terrorism, is just buying in to the bias of Hamas. Frankly, i find it ironic coming from galbally when the British spent so much money trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland.

It's all too easy for everyone to simply label all concerned as terrorists and turn their back on the ME. It needs the intervention by other countries to bring peace. If left to palistine and Israel, we will be having the same conversation in 20 yrs time.

Who ever is at fault, it doesn't take away the suffering of innocents. I have seen the video of a child being treated for horrific burns from white phospherous and recently i saw a report where most Palistinian children are malnurished. That has nothing to do with the conflict. Gaza is almost a third world country compared to Israel. They don't have the hospital equipment nor the trained medical staff. Most don't even have basic food and water. I am appaled that anyone could deny the innocents of Palistine simply by announcing that any money will go to terrorism.

Every thing has been tried in the ME and peace is still unacievable. The one thing that has not been tried is giving palistine what they want and should have. An independant state with a recognised government. Israel admits they have taken land illegally. they have systematically robbed the Palistinians of land, farms and business's for years. They showed their true colours the moment they bombed the UN compound without a care of which nationality was in there.


You are really having a laugh now aren't you? :yh_rotfl

Galbally;1121542 wrote: You are really having a laugh now aren't you? :yh_rotfl


I'm pleased to see that you find any race suffering from the effects of a war so hysterically funny.

For those of us who do give a shyte.

Gaza: UN launches £428 million appeal for civilian victims - Telegraph

oscar;1121570 wrote: I'm pleased to see that you find any race suffering from the effects of a war so hysterically funny.


No what I find funny is that you think Britain was spending money on Northern Ireland out of humanitarian concern for some strange natives in a far-away land, as if it was Bangladesh or something. Oscar, Northern Ireland is as much part of the UK as Kent. You wouldn't need a reason, or feel you needed a medal for spending money to try and stop a civil war on the Isle of Wight would you??

Galbally;1121710 wrote: No what I find funny is that you think Britain was spending money on Northern Ireland out of humanitarian concern for some strange natives in a far-away land, as if it was Bangladesh or something. Oscar, Northern Ireland is as much part of the UK as Kent. You wouldn't need a reason, or feel you needed a medal for spending money to try and stop a civil war on the Isle of Wight would you??


I was merely trying to point out that there was a huge amount of money spent bringing peace to Northern Ireland and i don't see that money being spent trying to bring peace to the ME as any different. Both were trouble spots with innocents being blown up. Before you comment on that, remember that my father was Irish.

It is hypocritical to try to bring peace to NI and not Gaza.

I also don't see much of a difference to the IRA's feeling to the British Government and Hamas's feeling to the Israeli Government.

Perhaps you could answer the questions i posted earlier?

The Israeli's moving women and children to a safe-house and 24 hrs later, bombing it.

The Israeli's deliberately ramming a ship carrying aid and an American civilian.

The Israeli's being told by 'Condeleeza Rice' not to bomb UN buildings only to have them them blatently ignore her and bomb the UN compound regardless of nationality in there along with a UN school.

The use of illegal white phosperous by Israel in built up area's in daytime.

Or are you going to argue that the children burnt by white phospherous deserve it because Hamas represents them?

Or argue that Israel bombed UN buildings because their aim was a bit shyte?

oscar;1121761 wrote: I was merely trying to point out that there was a huge amount of money spent bringing peace to Northern Ireland and i don't see that money being spent trying to bring peace to the ME as any different. Both were trouble spots with innocents being blown up. Before you comment on that, remember that my father was Irish.

It is hypocritical to try to bring peace to NI and not Gaza.

I also don't see much of a difference to the IRA's feeling to the British Government and Hamas's feeling to the Israeli Government.

Perhaps you could answer the questions i posted earlier?

The Israeli's moving women and children to a safe-house and 24 hrs later, bombing it.

The Israeli's deliberately ramming a ship carrying aid and an American civilian.

The Israeli's being told by 'Condeleeza Rice' not to bomb UN buildings only to have them them blatently ignore her and bomb the UN compound regardless of nationality in there along with a UN school.

The use of illegal white phosperous by Israel in built up area's in daytime.

Or are you going to argue that the children burnt by white phospherous deserve it because Hamas represents them?

Or argue that Israel bombed UN buildings because their aim was a bit shyte?


What? This has nothing to do with being sypathetic to one side or another in the Troubles, this is about what is a government and what is the UK?

You do realize that the UK is a unitary State, and that the Houses of Parliament in Westminister have direct soverignty over all regions of the UK equally, whether they have devolved governments locally or not. That is the current Status Quo. Northern Ireland is part of that state and has been since it was partitioned from the rest of Ireland in 1923, Northern Ireland is the UK.

When I drive over the border I drive from my country into your country. It doesn't matter whether people's identity up there is Nationalist or Unionist, at present they are all tax paying UK citizens, just like you are, they always have been. I am not making any comment on the troubles here, I am just stating a fact.

Therefore there is obviously an enormous difference for UK people between the two situations, Northern Ireland is part of your country, your government is elected by the people in Northern Ireland, and the UK government has a direct political responsibility to defend the well being of the tax paying citizens of its own country doesn't it? What legislative responsibility does the British Labour party have to militarily defend, police, fund, or provide aid people in the holy land?

Israel is not part of the United Kingdom, and neither is the Gaza strip, they are also not in the EU, or even the commonwealth, so there is no direct political responsibility on the British government to do anything about the situation, except in a collective sense with the rest of the world through the UN under the onus of international law.

In short, the ME is not in the United Kingdom, but Northern Ireland is, NI was a problem within the UK, your problem, frankly Gaza is not.

That doesn't stop ordinary UK citizens (even ones living in Northern Ireland) or UK organizations, or even the UK government from providing aid, based on a humanitarian impulse to do so in the case of Gaza, but there is no direct responsibility to do so. This is basis of what soverignty is, is it not?

The leader of Hamas has responsibility for the security of the citizens of Gaza, Gordon Brown is the leader of a government that rules the UK, including Northern Ireland and it is incumbent upon him to protect the lives and property of the people of the UK, whether that be in Belfast, Doncaster, Penzance, or Cardiff.

The BBC is funded by UK taxpayers, including those in Northern Ireland, it is not funded by Israelis or Palestinians, therefore there is no direct comparison between the two situations other than they are both involve (or involved) a long running conflict. You can't just say, oh we did such and such a thing during the troubles, and therefore the same criteria are applicable to Palestine, thats ridiculous.

This is political theory 101.

Galbally;1121998 wrote: What? This has nothing to do with being sypathetic to one side or another in the Troubles, this is about what is a government and what is the UK?

You do realize that the UK is a unitary Nation State, and that the houses of Parliament in Westminister directly rule all parts of the UK equally, whether they have devolved governments locally or not. Northern Ireland is part of that state and has been since it was partitioned from the rest of Ireland in 1923, Northern Ireland is the UK, when I drive over the border I drive from my country into your country. It doesn't matter whether people's identity up there is Nationalist or Unionist, at present they are all tax paying UK citizens, just like you are, they always have been. I am not making any comment on the troubles here, I am just stating a fact.

Therefore there is obviously an enormous difference for UK people between the two situations, Northern Ireland is part of your country, your government is elected by the people in Northern Ireland, and the UK government has a direct political responsibility to defend the well being of the tax paying citizens of its own country doesn't it? What legislative responsibility does the British Labour party have to militarily defend, police, fund, or provide aid people in the holy land?

Israel is not part of the United Kingdom, and neither is the Gaza strip, they are also not in the EU, or even the commonwealth, so there is no direct political responsibility on the British government to do anything about the situation, except in a collective sense with the rest of the world through the UN under the onus of international law.

In short, the ME is not in the United Kingdom, but Northern Ireland is, NI was a problem within the UK, your problem, frankly Gaza is not.

That doesn't stop ordinary UK citizens (even ones living in Northern Ireland) or UK organizations, or even the UK government from providing aid, based on a humanitarian impulse to do so in the case of Gaza, but there is no direct responsibility to do so. This is basis of what soverignty is, is it not?

The leader of Hamas has responsibility for the security of the citizens of Gaza, Gordon Brown is the leader of a government that rules the UK, including Northern Ireland and it is incumbent upon him to protect the lives and property of the people of the UK, whether that be in Belfast, Doncaster, Penzance, or Cardiff. The BBC is funded by UK taxpayers, including those in Northern Ireland, it is not funded by Israelis or Palestinians, therefore there is no comparison between the two situations other than they are both involve (or involved) a long running conflict. You can't just say, oh we did such and such a thing during the troubles, and therefore the same criteria are applicable to Palestine, thats ridiculous.

This is political theory 101.


I disagree. The British government had a problem with the IRA. They could have simply have used intelligence to track them and bring them to justice even by means of being fitted up by the police i must add.

The British government could have just allowed Irish Protestants and Catholics to continue killing each other instead of sending troops in. It is also ironic that American administrations funded and supported the IRA as they now do with the Israeli's. That is by the by however.

Your post seems to smack of 'It's not happening in the UK so we don't have to get involved'. Can i remind you of the following?;

'The purpose of the United Nations is to bring all nations of the world together to work for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of all people. It affords the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems'.

Could you comment on the following as i requested in my previous post?

The use of illegal white phospherous in built up area's in day time?

The ramming of a boat carrying basic aid with an American citizen on board.

The blatent dis-regard to 'Condeleeza Rice' when she insisted that no UN buildings were bombed.

Moving woman and children to a safe house and bombing them 24 hours later.

Israel admitting they have taken land illegally.

Weather you agree with Hamas or not is really irrelevant. the appeal was for the Palistinian people who don't have aid and have had their farms, homes and business's bombed.

How can the leader of Hamas speak on behalf on Palistinian's when Israel denies them the right to exist on their own land? Hamas exists due to the rape of their land and not being given a voice in the world arena. Is that not exactly what Gerry Adam's beef was? He eventually was given a voice by the British Government and the same should apply any-where else.

Oscar: Use the edit button. You are going off in all directions!

Clodhopper;1122046 wrote: Oscar: Use the edit button. You are going off in all directions!


I already use the edit button rather a lot :wah:

laughs. I should have known...

On the Gaza thing: I feel sympathy for the ordinary Palestinian caught up in this, but none for Hamas and little for Israel at the moment, for the reasons I gave above. I don't see many points of comparison between their case and the Trouble in Ulster. Apart from anything else there were ten years of secret negotiation before we the public heard a thing. Don't think there's much negotiation going on over there. They want to kill eachother. Until they want to stop there's really very little we can do.

Clodhopper;1122079 wrote: laughs. I should have known...

On the Gaza thing: I feel sympathy for the ordinary Palestinian caught up in this, but none for Hamas and little for Israel at the moment, for the reasons I gave above. I don't see many points of comparison between their case and the Trouble in Ulster. Apart from anything else there were ten years of secret negotiation before we the public heard a thing. Don't think there's much negotiation going on over there. They want to kill eachother. Until they want to stop there's really very little we can do.


At least we can give aid to the innocents and i just don't believe that the BBC should have the right to dictate over any appeal for humanitarian aid. They have shown their bias to Israel.

In reply to galbally saying Gaza is not the responsibility of a British government, then let's ask what exactly has America been funding their military since 1972 for?

I have copied Daniyals post from another thread as i found it very interesting. (hope he doesn't mind).

"Robert Pastor is a senior adviser to the Carter Center and a professor at American University who met with exiled Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal in Damascus on Dec. 14, along with former President Jimmy Carter. Pastor says Meshaal indicated Hamas was willing to go back to the ceasefire if Israel would lift the siege on Gaza. He says he passed along the statement to the Israeli military, but he never heard back. Two weeks later, Israel launched its three-week assault that left more than 1,300 Palestinians, most of them civilians, at least a third children, dead

JUAN GONZALEZ: President Obama has pledged “active engagement for a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In his first day in office, Obama called President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel, King Abdullah of Jordan and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. He did not reach out to leaders of Hamas, who rose to power in democratic elections three years ago.



Meanwhile, Obama plans to announce the selection of former Senate majority leader George Mitchell as Middle East envoy. Mitchell is expected to travel to the region almost immediately upon taking the post. Obama will also meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton later today.



Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire in Gaza on Saturday, three days before Obama was sworn into office. The twenty-two-day assault killed more than 1,300 Palestinians, most of them civilians, at least a third children. More than 5,500 were injured. Hamas also declared its own week-long ceasefire, which ends on Sunday. Hamas is demanding an immediate reopening of Gaza’s border crossings and the lifting of an Israeli blockade.



This is Hamas spokesperson Fawzi Barhoum.



FAWZI BARHOUM: But we are stressing that the stopping of the aggression and the withdrawal of the occupation—God willing, with no return—is not enough. What is needed is a complete ending of the siege and an opening of all crossings and a guarantee that the Zionist occupiers won’t go back to this ugly operation.



JUAN GONZALEZ: Israel has refused to fully open border crossings to allow desperately needed aid, goods and construction materials into Gaza. Meanwhile, exiled Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal claimed “unequivocal victory over Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip.



KHALED MESHAAL: This is the first war that our nation has won on its land, the first real major war. That’s why the battle in Gaza is a turning point in the conflict with the Zionist enemy. It is establishing, with its achievements, its timing, its greatness, a serious and active strategy for liberation that begins from Palestine and extends with the support of the nation to everywhere.



AMY GOODMAN: Robert Pastor is a senior adviser on conflict resolution at the Carter Center and a professor of international relations at American University. Last month he traveled to Syria with President Carter, where they met with Khaled Meshaal of Hamas. Robert Pastor served as national security adviser on Latin America and the Caribbean under President Carter from 1977 to ’81. He joins us now from Washington, D.C.



Welcome to Democracy Now!, Robert Pastor. Can you tell us about this crucial trip you took just before the Israeli assault?



ROBERT PASTOR: Well, we have, of course, visited the Middle East many times before that and had previous conversations with Khaled Meshaal. But on this trip, it occurred just before the end of the six-month ceasefire. And the question is whether it would be renewed.



On the part of Hamas, they made very clear that they had done what they could do to try to stop the rockets. And indeed, from the period from late June to November 4th, when the Israelis intervened in Gaza to close down a tunnel, they had virtually stopped the rockets. But from their side, Israel had not complied with the ceasefire. It was supposed to have lifted all of the border crossings, allowing 750 trucks a day to go in. That never came close to occurring. In the absence of opening of those crossings, they said they would not renew the ceasefire.



JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, one of the things that Israel has been repeatedly claiming is that during the ceasefire, that Hamas was restocking, increasingly smuggling in more arms into Gaza. Your response or sense about the veracity of those claims?



ROBERT PASTOR: Oh, I have no doubt that Hamas was importing rockets during the entire period, but that was never one of the elements in the ceasefire agreement. I don’t even know if it was seriously negotiated by Israel through Egypt. So, their importing the rockets did not necessarily imply a violation of the ceasefire agreement.



The key element, from the Israeli standpoint, in the ceasefire was to stop the rockets. Hamas acknowledged that it did not stop them on June 19th, which was required under the agreement. But within ten days, they were able to stop it. And between then and November 4th, a total of eleven rockets, fewer than three a month, were fired. And according to Hamas, most of these came from militant groups, including one associated with Fatah. So from their side, they felt they pretty much kept to the agreement.



AMY GOODMAN: So, can you explain, Robert Pastor, who exactly you and President Carter communicated with?



ROBERT PASTOR: Well, in Damascus, of course, we met with the politburo and Khaled Meshaal. I went on to the West Bank in Israel and met with senior leaders from both the Palestinian Authority and other Hamas leaders, as well as senior Israeli government officials, and, in the case of Israel, communicated very clearly that Hamas felt and was willing to contemplate extending the ceasefire if Israel would lift the siege on that. I think, by this time, they considered it, and they said they would get back to me with a very specific response, but they didn’t.



AMY GOODMAN: What exactly happened on November 4th?



ROBERT PASTOR: On November 4th, Israel intervened into Gaza to shut down a tunnel. There is some dispute as to whether that tunnel was intended to capture an Israeli soldier or whether it was a defensive tunnel to protect against an Israeli incursion. But in the course of that particular incursion, which of course was a violation of the ceasefire, six Hamas militants were killed. Hamas then responded with 124 rockets that month. So, to a certain degree, the ceasefire was broken as early as November 4th, but technically it was to extend six months until December 19th.



JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, Robert Pastor, the continuing insistence by the Israeli government, and backed by the US government, that they will not deal with Hamas—in most other wars or conflicts, the belligerents eventually have to negotiate some kind of a settlement. To what degree is this helping or hurting the peace process in the Middle East?



ROBERT PASTOR: I think for the peace process to go forward, the ceasefire needs to be made much more sturdy, and they need to learn lessons from the first ceasefire from June 19th to December 19th in what went wrong. I would say the most important single lesson is there was no agreed official text between the two sides. The Israelis would not acknowledge—would neither confirm nor deny the text that Hamas gave to us and that I showed to them. Some people suggested that the elements in it were correct. But it was clear that Israel did not want to fully accept such an agreement; if a ceasefire is to go forward, they will need to.



I think, secondly, the United States should play a role in this mediation effort. It’s clear that Egypt is now questioned by Hamas as to whether they were an honest broker, and indeed there is some evidence that perhaps they said different things to each of the two parties. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I do know that if they want to make the ceasefire work, a good mediation is essential. The text needs to be agreed to. All of the elements need to be agreed to. And it needs to be enforced and monitored in a way that the first ceasefire was not.



AMY GOODMAN: So, Robert Pastor, are you saying that it was Israel that broke the ceasefire and that the Israeli assault could have been avoided?



ROBERT PASTOR: I’m saying that both sides violated the key elements of the ceasefire. The rockets never absolutely completely stopped, even though they went from about 250 a month to fewer than three a month. From the standpoint of Israel, that may not have been good enough. On the other hand, from the principal concern of Hamas, which was to open the barriers, Israel really never tried very hard to open them. The numbers of trucks, on average, that went in increased from 100 to 200, but the amount that was supposed to go in was roughly 750 a day. Israel never came close to that. I think, as I said, to make the ceasefire work, both sides need to comply.



I think, with regard to the question of whether Israel had an alternative than to invade in Gaza, I think the answer is obvious, that it did, that an effective ceasefire, full compliance with the agreement, would have stopped the rockets without the terrible loss of life that occurred.



AMY GOODMAN: If Israel had an offer from Hamas to extend the ceasefire if it ended the blockade, why do you think Israel attacked?



ROBERT PASTOR: I think Israel was of two minds. First of all, whether to accept any deal with Hamas, they were never very clear on what their objective was. Was their objective to exterminate Hamas, which is an awful goal, particularly for a country born of the Holocaust? Was it to punish Hamas or to disrupt their command and control? Or was it simply to stop the rockets? We’ve never heard a very clear declaration of objectives on the part of Israel. And so, we don’t really know what their intention was in going in. And if it were to stop the rockets, however, it is clear that they did have another alternative other than a massive invasion.



JUAN GONZALEZ: And your sense of how Hamas has emerged from this, its standing within the Palestinian community, as well as within the general Arab world?



ROBERT PASTOR: We don’t know yet for sure, because public opinion surveys have not been undertaken in the West Bank and Gaza yet. On the eve of the invasion, ironically, Fatah was much stronger. There was a public opinion poll that came out from Khalil Shikaki that indicated that if there were an election, Abu Mazen, the president of the Palestinian Authority, would win by twelve to fourteen points, and Fatah would win over Hamas even in Gaza. But initial reports coming out after the invasion suggest now the opposite has occurred, that Hamas is stronger, and Fatah is weaker, because of the invasion. And that would be still one more tragic irony of this invasion. If the purpose was to weaken Hamas, apparently it had the opposite effect.



AMY GOODMAN: Finally, your thoughts on George Mitchell as President Obama’s choice to be the Middle East envoy and what you think Obama should do now?



ROBERT PASTOR: President Obama was true to his word. He actually told President Carter, and he told others, that on his first day in office he would move quickly on the issue of peace in the Middle East, and he did so with the telephone calls to leaders in the region.



The decision to appoint George Mitchell as special envoy is a very encouraging and a very positive step. This is a man of independent stature, a man of proven capability. In the case of Northern Ireland, he helped bring the IRA into the political process. And to the extent that the challenge in Israel and Palestine is to find a way to bring the spoilers, those who believe that only violent resistance is the way to independence, such as Hamas, the way to bring them into the process—the way to bring peace is to bring them into the process. Certainly, George Mitchell has had personal experience in this. So I think this particular step of naming him is a very encouraging step to all of those who genuinely care about peace in the Middle East and understand that the United States needs to play an honest broker’s role if there is to be peace in the Middle East.



The next step is for him, I hope, to go to the Middle East, as has been promised, and to begin to listen to all parties and to play a role in mediating a really strong ceasefire, so that it will work, that it won’t break by Sunday, which is a concern that some people have, and that, to go beyond that, to seek reconciliation among the different Palestinian entities that would permit a free election and permit Palestine into negotiate on a united way with Israel, and to send a message to Israel that the United States is committed to peace, it’s committed to Israel’s security, but that that security relies on a two-state solution, a sharing of Jerusalem, 1967 borders, a right to return with compensation, rather than necessarily having Palestinians return to Israel. The basic elements of peace are known. What is needed now is real leadership by the United States. And President Obama’s first steps are extremely encouraging.



AMY GOODMAN: Robert Pastor, thank you for being with us, senior adviser on conflict resolution at the Carter Center, professor of international relations at American University.

__________________

Yeah, I think Israel is massively over-reacting. But I think Hamas engineered that over-reaction and are now playing the media with consummate skill. I suspect that the BBC (and Sky spit spit) have at least some awareness of this and are refusing to be manipulated.

Clodhopper;1122096 wrote: Yeah, I think Israel is massively over-reacting. But I think Hamas engineered that over-reaction and are now playing the media with consummate skill. I suspect that the BBC (and Sky spit spit) have at least some awareness of this and are refusing to be manipulated.


I see the situation more that Hamas has had to attract the attention of the world arena.

What do you think would happen if it was an appeal for Israeli casualties?

What do you think the situation in the ME would be if America had not funded their military since 1972?

I see the situation more that Hamas has had to attract the attention of the world arena.


If the way to do that is getting Israel to bomb your own people then I'll give them nothing. I strongly suspect that is what Hamas have done. The end does not justify the means etc etc.

Clodhopper;1122115 wrote: If the way to do that is getting Israel to bomb your own people then I'll give them nothing. I strongly suspect that is what Hamas have done. The end does not justify the means etc etc.


The truth is, if we had the answers to peace in the ME, we'd be earning huge amounts of money right now. I think it will just go on and on until Israel negotiate with Hamas. It's what the British Government had to do with the IRA and it did bring peace.

It takes two sides to negotiate. And remarkably few on either side to disrupt those negotiations. I think there are those on both sides who want (for whatever reasons) the fighting to continue. If that had been true in NI the Troubles would still be going on. As it is, peace there is fragile and not guaranteed.

I remain flabbergasted at how you perceive Northern Ireland, what went on there, are of the opinion that somehow the Government could have just left UK citizens free to kill each other at will and not intervene (again would they have facilitated Anglican people in Suffolk to start a civil war against Methodist people in Norfolk and just "let them at it?" I doubt it). Anyway this is getting tangental, this isn't about Northern Ireland.

To answer your questions in short, I tend to agree with Clodhopper, and I still say that the BBC were right to make the decision they did. It was a tough decisions but I think a correct one, that should set a precedent for future conflicts and charitable pleas on National TV. Thats my opinion, I respect the fact that yours is different Oscar.

Clodhopper;1122096 wrote: Yeah, I think Israel is massively over-reacting. But I think Hamas engineered that over-reaction and are now playing the media with consummate skill. I suspect that the BBC (and Sky spit spit) have at least some awareness of this and are refusing to be manipulated.


I think that you will find it's Israel that has the massive PR department and plays the media with consummate skill

Galbally;1122217 wrote: I remain flabbergasted at how you perceive Northern Ireland, what went on there, are of the opinion that somehow the Government could have just left UK citizens free to kill each other at will and not intervene (again would they have facilitated Anglican people in Suffolk to start a civil war against Methodist people in Norfolk and just "let them at it?" I doubt it). Anyway this is getting tangental, this isn't about Northern Ireland.

To answer your questions in short, I tend to agree with Clodhopper, and I still say that the BBC were right to make the decision they did. It was a tough decisions but I think a correct one, that should set a precedent for future conflicts and charitable pleas on National TV. Thats my opinion, I respect the fact that yours is different Oscar.


Then, your flabber must remain ghasted but what do you expect from 'A Daily Mail reader'?

You have not answered any of the questions i put forward in my previous posts. I take it that you do not have the answers and your flabber is well and truely ghasted. You have simply agreed behind Cloddy's well written posts. Of course i can not demand answers however it would be interesting to hear your views. You are normally expertly verbose so i am sure you won't let this poor deluded Daily mail Reader down.