• Advertise here

Blog Awards

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogrunnerupgroup

  • Sablogrunneruppost

  • JIB


« Honest Reporting: Is Israel winning the media war? | Main | Professor Hussein Solomon on the war in Gaza »

January 07, 2009



Interesting how democracy for the people of Gaza is not even on your radar.


Walton democracy for the Jew-hating Palestinians saw Hamas win a land-slide election in January 2006, that's precisely why you love the Palis so much. Hamas seized control of Gaza amidst a violent coup in 2007, booting out Fatah who likewise call for the destruction of Israel on their charter and carry out terrorist rocket strikes and even suicide bombings through the Al-Aqusa Martyr's Brigade - an integral part of Fatah, their president Mahmoud Abbas is a Holocaust Revisionist who praises suicide bombers as martyrs, so how they are any better than Hamas is a mystery to me really.

So if they have an election in Gaza and Hamas win as they are likely to, (hundreds of thousands attended a Hamas rally just before the war got under way), should we abide by that? Let Hamas rule in Gaza and fire rockets at the Jews without end, even with the possibility that these rockets shall one day reach Tel Aviv and even be fitted with chemical warheads?

Obviously that's what Walton and his ilk would prefer, don't I know it.

Mike, Columbia, are you married? There is a reason I ask - Columbian girls are the most beautiful in the world really, especially in Medellin, where the women are famous for their beauty.


this article from Carol Gould on the Jew-hate nazi rally in Trafalgar Square is very pertinent, because what is true of Britain is true in SA and around the world, shows the convergence of the Jew-hating Left and the Jew-hating Muslims. Their naked ingorance and hate on display, fed on a diet of Jew-hatred by the BBC and the like.

British Jews have much to be afraid of, going by this rally their future is not a secure one.


Agreements with Palestinians are good for wrapping fish and training puppies. Let them devolve and implode into whatever Bronze Age Jew Hating Paradise they have planned for themselves. Give them their failed state and for each rocket that flies into Israel send a missile back into Gaza City. Gaza will never be more than this; it's what the Palestinians had planned all along. The only difference is that when they impose anarchy and suffering upon themselves, it will be on their own country and no longer anyone else's problem.


Empress whilst I agree with you that the Palestinians are responsible for their own suffering, which they have brought on themselves, and for the most part they are Jew-hating barbarians (most of them support Hamas), and so any support for them from any quarter is just a front for Jew-hatred, as this rally in London and others around the world prove; we cannot sink to their level, that is let their hatred and nazism blind us the way it blinds them. We have to keep our humanity, even as they throw away theirs.

Of course any agreement with the Nazis Hamas is worthless, like the agreements with Hitler that he never intended to keep, which is precisely why the UN is pressuring Israel for some worthless "ceasefire" and such. People don't learn from history, not at all.


You can't help drowning people who would rather kill you and themselves. Throw them an anchor.

Religious Fundamentalist 1

Welcome back Walton. Things were getting boring without your sort of contribution. I was sad to see Erin didn't come back for round 2.

To answer your question, much like Iraq or South Africa or any other country going through a transition, someone is required to pick up the trash, collect the taxes, provide the gas (ooh, sorry, that must be a sore point if you live in Europe) etc. until such time as a democratic regime can take over. Or at least until your favourite socialist can get himself voted in. Long live Putin! Red or dead. Anyhoo ...

In other words, for the simple minded out there, the post focuses on the short term. So Walton, next time you want to post an obscure irrelevant comment, at least try read the article first.

Alternatively, Gaza can be handed over to Egypt and the Gazans can vote in the upcoming "free and fair" elections to replace Hosni. I believe his lifetime term should come to an end shortly.

As an aside, I think Walton is also usefully pointing out that indeed Hamas was voted in, by a significant majority and therefore the citizenry are directly responsible for the actions of their government, at least to the extent they follow the election promises. (Which, oddly, Hamas must be one of the few parties that actually implement their election promises?)... my point: it's not unfair "collective punishment" if you signed up for it.


Anti jihad, pro Israel rallies.

We have to keep our humanity, even as they throw away theirs.
Posted by: Lawrence

Agreed, Muslim's threw away their humanity around 622 CE.


A thoughtful piece, I thought, from the Economist concludes:

"There is a limit, however. Taking Hamas down a peg is one thing. But even in the event of Israel “winning” in Gaza, a hundred years of war suggest that the Palestinians cannot be silenced by brute force. Hamas will survive, and with it that strain in Arab thinking which says that a Jewish state does not belong in the Middle East. To counter that view, Israel must show not only that it is too strong to be swept away but also that it is willing to give up the land—the West Bank, not just Gaza—where the promised Palestinian state must stand. Unless it starts doing that convincingly, at a minimum by freezing new settlement, it is Palestine’s zealots who will flourish and its peacemakers who will fall back into silence. All of Israel’s friends, including Barack Obama, should be telling it this."


Benjamin you are deranged. Citing the Jew-hating Economist, the money quote:

"Israel must show not only that it is too strong to be swept away but also that it is willing to give up the land—the West Bank, not just Gaza—where the promised Palestinian state must stand"

yes we gave up Gaza, the result was a disaster, thousands of rockets firing into Israel, and now we have this war as a direct consequence of abandoning Gaza to jihadists. The logic is give up the West Bank too, which Hamas promise to take over if Israel leaves, so they can then launch thousands of missiles from there into the Eastern Negev and the Galilee and Golan even, putting a million, even two million more Israelis under rocket range - brilliant!

Benjamin you want exactly what Hamas (and their media propagandists) wants - give up the West Bank, what does that say about you? We gave up Gaza, the fanatics took over, let's give up the West Bank and magically somehow the fanatics will go away, and from Gaza too, Hamas will stop being Hamas, they will become peace-loving Rastas or Scientologists or Zen monks or something. If we just give up more land to the jihadists, the jihadists will stop being jihadists! That's right, after all when Egypt had Gaza and Jordan the West Bank it was all so peaceful and moderate, our Arab neighbours only tried to drive us into the sea twice, in '48 and '67. And all the jihadist terror inbetween and before Israel even existed, with the pogroms against Jews by Muslims over the centuries.

We gave up Southern Lebanon, Hezbollah are there now, Israel withdrawing from Lebanon, ceding territory to Hezbollah led to the war of 2006 and they continue to build up rockets and call for the annihilation of Jewry.

Can you please show Benjamin, where in something called Muslim history of which you don't know anything, where da Muslims won or seized da land from da infidel they stopped being jihadists and stopped waging jihad against da infidel.

Benjamin, with friends like you, who needs enemies.


Lawrence,a rational discussion between left and right can be found here. There is an audio version as well: part1 and part2.


Apologies if this gets posted twice, first time didn't seem to work:

I am consciously not responding to your points and linking to a discussion where they are debated, as I don't think I can have a rational discussion with you - especially with words like the Jew-hating Economist.

Aside, I find it really funny that you mock the Economist, after posting a link to a story on Pajamas Media who have just made Joe the Plumber their war correspondent in Gaza. I am sure we can expect some expert commentary and updates from you.


Hi Ben and Lawrence

I happen to enjoy the economist and calling it Jews hating is a little harsh.
Rarely does one find a news outlet that caters to such a diverse group of bigots. It also has nice articles that are blatantly, Islamaphobic, racist, capitalist, liberal, and socialist.

I appreciate the point that the article attempted to make, but I disagree with the premise.
Since 1993 Israel has withdrawn from previously disputed/occupied territory. In all these cases Israeli concessions have been met with violence.
For 15 Years Israel has shown that it is willing to give up land for peace.
Perhaps the onus should now be on the Palestinians to prove that they actually want peace with Israel.

Religious Fundamentalist 1


I think there is dubious logic in this statement:
" Israel must show not only that it is too strong to be swept away but also that it is willing to give up the land"

The former is certainly true. But even a cursory glance at the arab media, and palestinian media in particular, will show that every land transfer has been treated as weekness on Isael's part.

Moreover, the only way to show Israel's strength is precisely the type of action currently under way in Gaza. Indeed, a careful ear to the ground will show that Israel has a lot of support from neighbouring arab countries and the Gazan's themselves. Hamas is being revealed for what it is.

Sadly Europe and the useful idiots, or as Nick Cohen calls them the independent minded herd, have yet to realise.

Further, this isn't about taking Hamas 'down a peg'. They are an unrepentant terrorist and genocidal organisation. They are not "an idea". They must be detroyed to the last man. Advocating a settlement with them is deeply immoral. Treating them as a legitimate party is also deeply immoral insofar as they refuse to accept the reigns of government and the responsibility that goes with it, including laying down arms.

And finally, thanks again Lawrence for the uber-rhetoric and generally taking the whole blog "down a peg"


RF drones:
"And finally, thanks again Lawrence for the uber-rhetoric and generally taking the whole blog "down a peg"

RF you are a tiresome mosquito who has no real insight into any of this. I realise that to you calling Jew-haters Jew-haters is "uber-rhetoric". For whatever reasons known only to yourself you don't like to call it as it is, not my fucking problem.

You just admitted RF that Europe and the like are "useful idiots" of the jihadists. Since Benjamin by endorsing that useful idiot Economist piece on Israel, reveals himself to be a useful idiot by your own standards, why do you not call him one? Would asking you to be consistent in your criticisms be asking too much? I guess asking RF to be logically consistent would bring the blog "down a peg", by RF's muddle-headed thinking.


Shaun the Economist has told so many lies about Israel in the recent past (and present) that I think calling it Jew-hating is justified. It's just Jew-hatred in the modern liberal form, you know sanctimonious, double-standards re Israel and her enemies, one-sided demands re Israel, calling for our capitulation and endless
concessions in the name of peace, whilst demanding nothing of our millions of extremist enemies (except maybe a slap on the wrist) baying for our blood, they are merely a fog, bad weather that will pass. The Economist wilfully ignores what our enemies are actually saying and doing, namely all you Jews must die (look at the
pro-jihad rallies around the world now, from London to LA to Oslo with the Muslims screaming for the Jews to be sent back to the ovens, look at the Hamas charter).

Since the Economist continues to call for one-sided concessions and surrender of land by Israel, even though in the last decade such withdrawals and concessions have led to nothing but the furtherance of jihad and more terror attacks on Israel, one can conclude that the Economist seeks Israel to suffer further jihadist terror and to be even less secure than it already is (even if they don't realise it), all in the name of peace and friendship gag gag. This is at best blind ignorance, at worst anti-Semitism. However we must look at this article in a wider perspective, the consistent anti-Israel reporting of the Economist. It is only reasonable to call this anti-Semitism. This anti-Semitism may be unconscious, it is, but it is anti-Semitism nevertheless, unconsious Jew-hatred is still Jew-hatred. Jew-hatred in the name of friendship and concern is still anti-Semitism, and more insidious for not being honest about what it is.

Supporting policies that only encourage fascist jihadists to relentlessly pursue terror against the Jews, they smell blood with every concession as fascists do (look at Hitler) and thus makes things more precarious for Israel than they already are, is a blind stupidity made fathomable only in the world-wide environment of
Jew-hatred, even if those supporting such policies are oblivious to the fact that what they demand of Israel is what self-admitted Jew-haters the world over demand. Land concessions and capitulations to Hitler and the Nazis (the Rhineland, Sudetenland, re-arming Germany) led to the disaster of WW2 and the Holocaust. Land
concessions to the Hamas and Hezbollah Nazis (which the Economist has advocated in both cases) are not going to result in Hamas and Hezbollah becoming liberal moderates, anymore than the territorial concessions to Hitler resulted in Hitler and the Nazis becoming liberal moderates!

Yet the Economist argues that such territorial concessions will turn Nazis like Hamas into moderates! It's as if, if you surrender just a little land to them (Gaza) they remain extremists, but if you surrender more land to them (the West Bank) they will transform like Cinderalla at midnight, into Jew-loving moderates! The Economist's blind refusal to learn form history (with both the Nazis and the last decade alone in the Middle-East) is sinister, and one must ask why...

For a brief example of The Economist's Jew-hatred, when Israel was accused of the notorious massacre in Jenin that never happened in 2002, the Economist led the way in the selling of this BIG LIE. Of course there was no massacre, it was made up. Those accusing Israel of non-existent crimes are guilty of Jew-hatred. You accuse
the Jew nation of a non-existent war-crime I will call you a Jew-hater. It is the modern variant of accusing Jews in the past of non-existent murderous crimes (blood libel) - Jew-hatred pure and simple. [to RF this is "uber-rhetoric" perhaps. too bad] So the Economist is guilty of modern-day Jew nation blood libel - this is Jew-hatred pure and simple. In fact the Economist said there "was a great risk of an epidemic" from the massacre in Jenin that never happened. There was no epidemic, there was no risk of one, for there was no massacre committed by Israel at all. Whenever the Economist features articles re Israel, they are always negative, harsh re Israel - always - and always sympathetic to our very real enemies who are always portrayed as victims, their crimes largely whitewashed.

Such one-sidedness, such hypocritical double-standards are simply standard boiler-plate modern day anti-Semitism (Jew-hatred).

Recently the Economist rewrote the history of the Middle-East in endorsing the lies of Palestinian Raja Shehadeh

Endorsing the Jew-hate lies that is Palestinian Revisionist history is Jew-hatred period. There is no other excuse for this kind of wilful ignorance. You endorse lies re the Jew nation, you are Jew-haters...simple.

HonestReporting has a fair bit on the bias against Israel of the Economist, look it up. Modern day liberal Jew-haters do not admit what they are, not even to themselves, it is the nature of modern day Jew-haters to pretend they are non-racist and anti-racist. It is Orwellian, Jew-hatred is sold as anti-racism. A surreal nightmare in which we live.


What is the end game to Israeli actions? This is a strategic questions but it bares directly on the morality of this war. If it is certain that military action will kill large numbers of civilians it should be unavoidable and absolutely necessary for survival.

I agree with the article in that this is unlikely to destroy Hamas and even if it did what will emerge from Gaza, especially after this action? The policy it proposes is vague but there are no easy answers, it points out that:

"The slaughter this week in Gaza, in which on one day alone some 40 civilians, many children, were killed in a single salvo of Israeli shells, will pour fresh poison into the brimming well of hate (see article). But a conflict that has lasted 100 years is not susceptible to easy solutions or glib judgments. Those who choose to reduce it to the “terrorism” of one side or the “colonialism” of the other are just stroking their own prejudices. At heart, this is a struggle of two peoples for the same patch of land. It is not the sort of dispute in which enemies push back and forth over a line until they grow tired. It is much less tractable than that, because it is also about the periodic claim of each side that the other is not a people at all—at least not a people deserving sovereign statehood in the Middle East."

Shaun, Israel hasn't got anything from withdrawal but then they never got much holding onto land either.

We need to think long term. Will this action create more terrorists than it kills? Even if it is possible, who emerges once you crush Hamas? I come back to my original point what is the end game here?

Religious Fundamentalist 1

Some points for thought, Benjamin. But i disagree that the outcome bears on the morality. This is a fallacy of stalinist thinking i.e. that the ends justify the means. (Not calling you a stalinist, I'll leave that to Lawrence, it's just common in totalitarian thought)

The war itself is moral because it's intention is to protect lives. This is why Hamas is immoral, because of its intentions as much as its actions. It is a key failing of post-modernism and relativism to see the distinction.

Re your question to Shaun. Again I must disagree. Israel got less rockets, better control over hostiles, wider buffer zones and better intelligence from holding land. Comparing the West Bank today to Gaza today is an almost perfect example.
Moreover, holding land meant being able to trade it with willing partners (leave for a moment that perhaps even that was a mistake) - e.g. Sinai. Israel may not be in love with Egypt. But there is at least a calm.

To the last issue. Correct we need to think long term, and yes the end game is important. But appeasement certainly does not reduce terrorists, this is obvious and painfully clear. To argue then that one should choose appeasement over a concerted effort to destroy, or any alternative really, is just dumb. The one does not work. The other might.

Who emerges once Hamas goes? I think it would be a huge mistake to put Fatah in charge. The best might be to place Egypt in charge with a view to setting up a transitional government ala SA, Iraq etc.
Reconquest of the strip and deportation of hostiles is probably not an option ... at this stage.

Lawrence, I'm sorry, I tried to read your post but I kept falling asleep at "tiresome mosquito". I'll try buzz a little harder next time.


I realise RF mosquito that you can't answer the question I posed you, so you indulge in condescension instead. The thing is you repeat your inconsistency again re Benjamin, but you are way too obtuse to notice.

Namely you write:
"To argue then that one should choose appeasement over a concerted effort to destroy, or any alternative really, is just dumb"

Agreed. Thing is Benjamin thoughtlessly endorsed the pro-appeasement Economist piece, which makes him dumb by your own standards. So why not call him dumb? I mean why are you so logically inconsistent?

Don't answer the question RF mosquito, just like you didn't the first time. Just pretend to "fall asleep" and call me a Stalinist instead.

ho hum.


Ben: I guess RF 1 answered most of the questions in a similar manner to mine.

I am interested to read what your preferred outcome in Gaza would be, and how this would achieve a more peaceful life for Gazans Israelis.

Lawrence, a good man on this blog often writes, ”… Play the ball not the man…”


RF and Shaun,

I am not arguing the end justifies the means, even if I thought in that Stalin like manner I would still disagree with this war. Intention does not make an action moral either, not if you engage in an action that you know will kill large numbers of innocent civilians. If you take an action you know will kill civilians you have to make the case that 1. It is a last resort (article 51) and 2. necessary for survival. I link this to strategy in that I don't think this is a last resort and I think and thought there are better options.

I take the historians Sir Alistair Horne's approach, as he put it a year ago on Radio Open Source: "cut out the priests". You cannot defeat the Hamas mindset militarily and bombing civilian populations might get you some short term security but long term it is disastrous (as is occupying land). Instead you isolate Hamas within its community and the way to do that is economic. That is not appeasement.

btw well put: "play the ball not the man"

Religious Fundamentalist 1

I really think it is the "last" resort at this stage. More negotiation??
In any event, I don't think military action necessarily needs to be the last resort, even if it risks civilians. So what? There are many factors at play.

I would not look to the Geneva Convention for "morality", though it may stand as a reasonable example of internationally agreed laws of war. In any event it must be applied consistently, and in particular, this would answer your other issue i.e. the Geneva convention places the responsibility of the Gazan civilians killed by Israel as an obvious result of their adopted doctrine.

Moreover, tt is unarguably necessary for the survival of our citizenry to stop the rockets. (and Hamas).

Re Mr Horne, respectfully, he is wrong. In theory, and in practice. The people of Gaza are now seeing Hamas for who they are, Hamas is being isolated by this war in a way that economic sanctions did not, and could not do.

Assuming Economics counts for everything is a sad failing of the so-called multi-culturalists who cannot get their minds to accept that their might be cultures that do not value money as the highest value.

You suggest there are other options, what are they?

And I would be remiss if I didn't say it:
Lawrence, i didn't call you a stalinist. Just like I didn't call Ben dumb. Just like your rants doesn't necessarily make you a lunatic. Necessarily. Bzzzzzzz



I think you are simple wrong that:

The people of Gaza are now seeing Hamas for who they are, Hamas is being isolated by this war in a way that economic sanctions did not, and could not do.

From CSIS:

"One strong warning of the level of anger in the region comes from Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia. Prince Turki has been the Saudi ambassador in both London and Washington. He has always been a leading voice of moderation. For years he has been a supporter of the Saudi peace process and an advocate of Jewish-Christian-Islamic dialog. Few Arab voices deserve more to be taken seriously, and Prince Turki described the conflict as follows in a speech at the opening of the 6th Gulf Forum on January 6th, “The Bush administration has left you (with) a disgusting legacy and a reckless position towards the massacres and bloodshed of innocents in Gaza…Enough is enough, today we are all Palestinians and we seek martyrdom for God and for Palestine, following those who died in Gaza.” Neither Israel nor the US can gain from a war that produces this reaction from one of the wisest and most moderate voices in the Arab world."

I meant Economics in the sense of job creation and social structures rather than bribes. I agree that money is but a one of many factors that influence actions.

Religious Fundamentalist 1


I don't think Saudi platitudes are any indication of what's happening on the ground. Moreover, I don't disagree that "the region" is firing up with Lawrence like uber-rhetoric. Indeed, the whole of Europe, Canada and Latin America are all joining in with calls for gas chambers.

However, I think if you did some research into comments from Gazan's (e.g. clips on U-tube, quotes from reporters), note the clear betrayal of Hamas by civilians and Fatah and so forth you'd get a different picture in Gaza and the West bank themselves. Don't forget, the arab world is a culture of words and saving face.

In any event, it's irrelevant in the sense that there was no other option at this stage ... unless you have some other ideas. And it comes back to the original comment that fighting may not "solve" things, it may just postpone the problem but surrendering (i.e. giving back land for nothing) is certainly no solution at all - except in the suicide sense.

I also meant economics in the "job creation" sense. Although paying Strong-men might be a better strategy, financing terrorists isn't. But I come back to my original point - multi-culturalists assume that western rational thinking, comfort, debt and mortgages are everyman's dream. Which makes them not multi-cultural but bigots.

If you strongly believe in the after-life and it's eternity, a job, mortgage and car loan are hardly the most important things in your life. Why is this too hard to understand?

In short, you have not answered the question of alternatives. And i submit that you've failed to show that the action has done anything other than stir up rhetoric in cosy arm-chairs throughout already Jew-hating democractic countries (and Latin american) ... note the irony.


The fact that a moderate is speaking this way is the point, not that he is a Saudi. Before this war, Hamas had a low approval rate, I think around 25%. It is unclear at the moment, we will have to wait to see what political situation emerges, I fear a repeat of Lebanon 2006.

If you run out of ideas that doesn't mean you default to military solutions, not if the military option has no good outcomes. You go and think. I have given you mine, even if I didn't have an alternative (or you disagree with it) it wouldn't mean that one didn't exist. Once the dust clears in Gaza it is likely that Hamas will still be able to launch rockets, so what have you achieved? Certainly not security. No more than you would have got out of a flawed cease-fire agreement, oh except now hundreds of people are dead.

I am not arguing any sort of Universalistic ethic, not sure why you keep bringing it up? Half of Gaza is under 17, they are growing up with few opportunities, know only poverty, war and death, that sort of situation makes it easier for Hamas to indoctrinate suicide bombers. The blame lies primarily with Hamas but it is insanity to help them by creating a fertile recruiting ground.

Religious Fundamentalist 1


1) The moderate is like Santa. He doesn't exist, or at best he's a moral relativist. You can't be moderate on terror.
2) Military option is not a default. It's the last remaining option. "talking" can be a default. Capitulation shouldn't be, and I understand that's what is being advoctaed.
3) Hamas may still be able to launch rockets. But if the number is reduced from 200 to 2, that's significant. Moreover, this isn't about finding a panacea. A long term solution involves either one of the following: a) population movement (either Israel or "palestinians" or b) a willingness to live side by side. Neither is achievable at this stage, so to use an analogy, if you can't cure AIDS, at least manage it.

And the "hundreds" dead involve a majority of terrorists, that in itself is an achievement. Moreover, Israel's "deterrant" image is now restored. Gazan's may continue to hate Israel, but they know they shouldn't pick a fight, and they know they should stop the hamas terrorist next door from picking a fight.

4) I don't follow your comment about universalist ethic. PLease explain. But as far as I do understand: My point is purely this. There are people who have cultures that value the opportunity to kill and be killed (or other things) more highly than "opportunities" as you euphemistically call the rat race.
l'havdil elef havdalos: Jews w(sh)ould prefer death over immorality and idol worship. "Opportunity" for a job and a mortgage is not more important. As highly as we value Life (in this world) it is not more precious than the issue of idol worship (as an example).
I submit that Gazan's, or at least Fatah and hamas, value death, killing Jews, and martyrdom over the siren song of middle class mediocrity, mortgage and car payments. I didn't think of this myself: Every Hamas and Palestinian leader says this in virtually every speech.

Religious Fundamentalist 1

Another point:
You can always claim that there is "another option". For instance, I can claim that if we phone the aliens using my newly invented device, they can come and talk sense into Hamas and we can all live happily ever after.

My point is, the claim is that the Gaza operation was a last resort, and that all other "reasonable" options were explored, i.e. talks, negotiations, embargoes, sanctions, border closures, leader assassinations etc. If you want to now claim that NOT all options have been exercised, you need to provide an example of one reasonable option.

I don't see you point re lebanon. It was a diplomatic disaster, but Hisbulla has also been deterred. I don't think any realist expects more that for this operation to deter Hamas/Fatah for a reasonable period.


Lawrence, we are on the same side here. I understand your frustration, but it is really unnerving to see the petty name-calling that has occured in this thread. Other people are entitled to their opinions, and may state them - regardless of whether one thinks they are stupid or brilliant.
So I respectfully request that you continue to debate the issues with fervour, and not the people.

On a seperate note, I notice that the anti-Israel lobby is once again calling for boycotts of 'Israeli' companies and products:

I wish that once and for all we could give them a list of products, from Intel and Microsoft to medicine lists, and that they could stop supporting all of them and truly see how much Israel contributes to the world compared to the Palestinians.

Religious Fundamentalist 1

On the subject of debates, it really is a shame that Erin and Walton haven't come back.


RF Re: your points,

I disagree that all there are 1) no moderates, 2) this was the last resort, 3) that this is damaging to Hamas (except for some short term gains) and 4) I think we are talking past each other here. Time will tell what the outcomes of this war will be, thank you for a reasonable discussion.

Religious Fundamentalist 1


and thanks to you too.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this Blog

Contact Us

  • Email_1

Events & Lectures

  • Advertise your event or lecture here

News Feed

Comments Disclaimer

  • Comments on this site are the views and opinions of the persons who write the comments and do not reflect the views of the authors of this blog. Comments are often left unmoderated. Should you feel that you have been personally slandered in the comments, please let us know and we will remove the offensive comment.