The front-page headline in today's Guardian (3rd October) reads "Terrorist kills two people at Manchester synagogue."
The rest of the front page is devoted to a picture of the attacker, partly obscured by a Venetian blind, and further details of the story. Four other people were badly injured, the attack took place on Yom Kippur, which is the holiest day of the year for Jews. The Prime Minister has returned early from meeting, described the killer as a "vile individual," spoken to the nation from Downing Street and called an emergency meeting of COBRA ( which actually stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A).
The following six full pages are devoted to further pictures, details and comment on the event.
It is not until page 27 of today's Guardian that we learn, in an article at he bottom right-hand side of the page, taking up about a third of it, that on that same day, yesterday, Thursday 2nd October, "At least 53 Palestinians were killed by Israeli airstrikes and gunfire in Gaza.. Some of the airstrikes were carried out in a safe zone, in which "at least nine Palestinians were killed, inducing a father, his sons and grandson, when the Israeli military struck a food store." In a refugee camp in central Gaza, "four siblings were killed while collecting firewood" and in another area nine people "mostly women" died when an Israeli strike hit a house.
Naturally, although I don't actually know any of the victims I feel very sorry for all 55 whose lives have been cut short, the others who were injured, and sympathise with their grieving friends and relatives.
I'd like to think that all the perpetrators of these evils will be brought to justice.
Even more so I’d like to see a change in our reaction to evil. I'd like to see a more balanced concern towards evil perpetrated on both sides, and, if the sides cannot quite respond with love and forgiveness, at least they "do a Mandela" and find a practical way forward towards mutual tolerance.
evil perpetrated on both sides
ReplyDeleteHang on, I just want to get this straight.
Are you saying that Jews in Manchester are on the ‘other side’ of Israel’s war against Hamas?
Not at all: I think they are probably best described as "collateral damage."
ReplyDeletethink they are probably best described as "collateral damage."
DeleteSorry, let me get this straight again.
You are saying that the antisemitic killing of Jews in Manchester are ‘collateral damage’ from the war in Gaza?
In the view of the perpetrator ALL Jews are a target in revenge for the killing of thousands of Palestinians by the Israeli armed forces. In his view it's not anti-semitic, it's justice for the murdered Palestinians. So, collateral damage. Not a view I share but many will and one of the problems we have to face up to is how to overcome generations of brain washing by both sides about the other side.
ReplyDeleteNot a view I share
DeleteThen your article was very badly phrased because it implied that you did think that was the case. I am glad to discover you merely expressed yourself confusingly because I am sure you will agree that that view, that the victims of Thursday’s attack were anything to do with the war in Gaza, is disgusting and evil.
one of the problems we have to face up to is how to overcome generations of brain washing by both sides about the other side.
Would you agree that a good first step would be to deport from our shores anyone who shares with the killer the view that ‘it's not anti-semitic, it's justice for the murdered Palestinians’?
The security services are currently tracking many such people, who they are unable to move against because they gave not yet committed a crime (we know this because often after such atrocities we find out that the perpetrators were ‘on the radar’ — such as after the murder of David Amess, the Manchester Arena bombing, the 2005 London bombings, the attach on the Houses of Parliament, etc etc). But we could change the law so that those who are not citizens, who hold such views, could be deported even if they have not committed a crime.
Do you agree that would be a good first step to solving the problem? If not why not and what would you suggest instead?
today's Guardian that we learn, in an article at he bottom right-hand side of the page, taking up about a third of it, that on that same day, yesterday, Thursday 2nd October,
ReplyDeletePlease remember that all reports of casualties in Gaza that appear in The Guardian are lies invented by the Hamas-run Gaza medical system.
From today's BBC online:
ReplyDelete"Israel's devastating military response has destroyed most of Gaza and killed more than 66,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians and including more than 18,000 children.
The figures come from the health ministry that is part of the remains of the Hamas administration. Its statistics have usually been regarded as reliable. A study in The Lancet, the medical journal based in London, suggested they were an underestimate."
The figures come from the health ministry that is part of the remains of the Hamas administration. Its statistics have usually been regarded as reliable.
DeleteBy people who like to believe terrorists. These are people who filmed themselves whooping in excitement as they shot babies in front of their parents. If you think they are ‘reliable’ then you are a useful idiot.
The Guardian, the BBC, The Lancet? All deceived? Even if the figures are exaggerated by, say 20% (and The Lancet suspects the opposite) does that make it OK in your eyes?
DeleteThe Guardian, the BBC, The Lancet? All deceived?
DeleteYes. Of course, it makes it easier that they want to believe that Israel is evil.
But, this isn't in dispute. Take the BBC. The BBC has already had to apologise multiple times for repeating Hamas lies. For example, when the BBC reported in October 2023 that Al Ahli Hospital had been hit by an Israeli air strike, and had to apologise when it turned out that the damage was done by a Palestinian Jihad rocket that was aimed at Israel and fell short. They have had to apologise for falsely claiming that Israeli forces targetted medical staff ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaint/newsdayapology ) and for repeating an unverified claim that Israeli forces were carrying out executions ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications/archive-2024 , dated '24 December 2023').
Even if the figures are exaggerated by, say 20% (and The Lancet suspects the opposite) does that make it OK in your eyes?
Does what make what okay? Israel has a moral duty to defend its citizens from a repeat of the massacre of two years ago, and the only way to do that is to render Hamas unable to launch more attacks — because they have proven that if they can kill Israelis, they will. They cannot be negotiated with and they will not respect a ceasefire (there was a ceasefire in place in October 2023, and Hamas, unprovoked, broke it) and their sole aim is the total destruction of the state of Israel.
So Israel is entitled to use proportionate means to utterly destroy Hamas. To that end some civilian casualties are regrettable and tragic but unavoidable: that is simply the nature of war. A war, remember, that Israel did not seek or start but which was forced upon Israel.
What would you have Israel do? Just withdraw from Gaza and wait for the next October massacre?
Proportionate
DeleteProportionate
DeleteYes, proportionate. That means not using any more force than is reasonably necessary to achieve the military objective.
In this case the military objective is the destruction of Hamas, and Israel is attempting to achieve this while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. However given the nature of war, and especially the nature of an enemy which deliberately operates from within and under the civilian population to use them as human shields, civilian casualties are unavoidable if Hamas is to be utterly destroyed.
Unless you can think of a way to destroy Hamas that would involve fewer civilian casualties, then you must admit that Israel’s actions have been militarily proportionate to the task of rendering Hamas incapable of mounting another assault on Israel, ever.
Anyway, I think we can all rejoice at the news that, for the first time, today real progress has been made towards bringing the war in Gaza to an end.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. For once Sir Keir Star,mer got it right: "Profound relief." Let's hope that, as the Jewish writer Jonathan Freedland puts in in today's Guardian, Trump "holds Netanyahu's feet to the fire" to complete the rest of the deal successfully.
ReplyDeleteAnd let us hope that Hamas hand over their hostages and disarm themselves, and don’t try to continue their attempts to dismantle Israel.
Delete(I am profoundly depressed to see that the hate marches in London are going to continue until, as one terrorist sympathiser I saw on television had it, ‘the occupation ends’. I wish she had been pressed on what ‘the occupation’ means because I suspect strongly that it means ‘the existence of the Jewish State’.
DeleteMaybe; but the IDF still occupies almost two thirds of the Gaza Strip. We ca hope that they withdraw from this in the not too distant future.
DeleteThat will only happen when all the remaining hostages have been released, so yes, let’s hope it happens soon (while also remembering that Hamas could have done that at any point in the last two years).
DeleteYes indeed, and Netanyahu could have recognised the possibility of " a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood" umpteen years ago. There's plenty of room for backsliding on both sides, but "fingers crossed."
DeleteYes indeed, and Netanyahu could have recognised the possibility of " a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood" umpteen years ago.
DeleteIt was the Palestinians who rejected a credible path to statehood, not the Israelis. The Israelis were perfectly fine with the Palestinians having a state; but the condition was that the Palestinians had to recognise that the state of Israel had a right to exist, and they weren’t willing to do that, so the deal collapsed. Bill Clinton talks about it all the time.
Then in 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza completely and turned the whole thing over to Palestinian control, and millions upon millions of dollars of aid was poured in. And what happened? Gaza sent suicide bombers into Israeli cities at the rate of two a week, and the aid money was spent not on making life better for the people of Gaza but on arms and tunnels.
There's plenty of room for backsliding on both sides
No, this is not a ‘both sides’ issue. All the Israelis have ever wanted to do is live in peace in their Jewish State. All the death and destruction is the fault of the Arabs, going right back to the war in 1948 where they tried to wipe Israel off the map.
If you don't like two "sides," then two "parties" principally involved. Both must be represented, and both will need to be prepared to make compromises if the loosely worded proposals in the peace plan are to be resolved.
Deleteboth will need to be prepared to make compromises
DeleteTo paraphrase Golda Meir a little, it is actually difficult to see what the compromise can be. The Palestinians want to kill all the Jews, and the Jews don’t want to be killed. What compromise do you suggest? They get to kill half the Jews, is that the starting point?
" .. . .it is actually difficult to see what the compromise can be. " That is why patient diplomacy is needed rather than boasting a bluster"
DeleteThat is why patient diplomacy is needed
DeleteYou think ‘patient diplomacy’ is able to find a middle state between life and death?
I didn’t realise ‘patient diplomacy’ was actually magic!