Lord Kalms attacks Hague on Israel

This letter from Tory peer Stanley Kalms - one of the party's leading donors and the Jewish founder of Dixons - appears in this week's Spectator:

"Sir,

William Hague’s usual good sense has deserted him. Criticising Israel for being disproportionate without serious consideration of the alternatives merely mouths the buzzwords of the ignorant armchair critic.

Think again, William, for whom you speak. How do you deal with the Hezbollah leader Nasrallah, who is committed to Israel’s total destruction (not a single Jew to remain alive in Israel) and who rains thousands of rockets on Israel, keeping the population in shelters, devastating industry, kidnapping and killing Israeli soldiers within Israeli territory?

Hezbollah combines a unique and dangerous formula: a terrorist organisation ensconced within a large area of the independent but incompetent nation state of Lebanon. With whom do you speak, let alone negotiate? Proportionality in common terminology might mean tit for tat. Do you, William, really believe this to be a serious possibility or a practical response to Hezbollah’s genocide policy? A tragedy is unfolding; the outcome is life or death to the Israeli nation state. William, your comments are not merely unhelpful; they are downright dangerous. As on other issues, is the Conservative party changing its ground?

Stanley Kalms"

Related links: William Hague's criticism of Israel is another Tory step towards European worldview plus Israel is one of the most vulnerable nations on the planet, by Iain Duncan Smith.

Comments

[Andrew Woodman]

I thought we were supposed to be keeping quiet so we didn't upset our jewish donors!

[James Hellyer]

I see little evidence of William Hague's "usual good sense."

[Tory Bunny]

yet another "good guys where the white hat's" view of the conflict..... yawn.

[malcolm]

Kalms adopts his usual 'bull in a China shop mode'.During the leadership campaign he made an embarrasing,unskilful and counter productive attack on Ken Clarke.
Kalms is entitled to his opinion but Hague as an elected representative is also entitled to his and it is Hagues I think who is closer to mainstream opinion within the party than Kalms.

[Hmmmm]

Presumably Lord Kalms also thinks the UK should have shelled Eire when the IRA were bombing London and Machester....

Israel is the most militarised nation in the world, including nuclear capability, and that means they have a responsibility to behave cautiously and with care, especially where their neighbours are concerned.

Hezbollah was created when Israel invaded Lebanon last time, with the express purpose of ejecting the IDF, which in time, they did. Does that make them terrorists or freedom fighters?

Every bomb and shell the IDF fire this time only acts as a recruiting call to Hezbollah, destroying Lebanon will only cause more chaos from which terrorists will emerge the victors.

[Hmmmm]

I should add for clarity that I personally think Hezbollah are a despicable terrorist organisation. I merely pose the question to illustrate how many in Lebanon may view the organisation....

[Nigel C]

I am still taken aback by the one side BBC reporting of the issue. We see night after night the devastation in Lebanon but nothing of the effects of the rockets landing in Israel.
Has the offensive stopped the destruction in Israel yet?

[John Hustings]

Does anyone think William Hague's criticisms of Israel are "principled", or do people, like me, think it's part of the overall "repositioning strategy" of the Conservative Party.

If it's the latter (as I believe it is), it is completely reprehensible.

[Mark Senior]

Well we know what Lord Kalms thinks and we know what William Hague thinks and we know what many posters on here think . Has anyone got a clue what strawman invisible Dave thinks . He is the supposed leader of the Conservative Party .

[Prodicus]

Nigel C @ 11:57 :-

Check this blog: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

Opposition politicians have to shift for themselves, not having the benefit of detailed info from the FCO, not that that would provide more balance. The public consensus as voiced (more or less) by Hague is formed by only half the facts. If Hague's briefings are coming from the BBC output, it would explain his remarks. The authorised BBC format is: 'Of course Hezbollah started it but....' and move quickly on to exhaustive emoting about civilians being blown up by the IDF, especially, this week, in Qana (or perhaps *not* by the IDF, depending on how one assesses inter alia those iffy photos).

Kalms is expressing the rage and frustration of those who look beyond the MSM for their information. Not being a politician, he does not have to mince his words. Don't make the mistake of believing that he represents only Zionists - he doesn't.

Even Blair's 'motherhood and apple pie' speech of yesterday was more to the point than Hague on this occasion. Disappointing.

[Jonathan Powell]

Hezbollah was created when Israel invaded Lebanon last time, with the express purpose of ejecting the IDF, which in time, they did. Does that make them terrorists or freedom fighters?

If Hezbollah's purpose was to eject the IDF, how come they continued to fire rockets at Israel long after the Israelis had left?

It's obvious that Hezbollah is a cynical terrorist organization, commited to the destruction of Israel and the mass murder of Jews. It is also well-known that Hezbollah is a pawn of the totalitarian regime in Iran, and that the current attacks on Israel are an attempt to distract world attention from that regime's nuclear weapons program.

Israel has as much right to defend itself against Hezbollah/ Iran as we did against Nazi bombing. I'm sure we killed more than a few German civilians and exercised far less "caution" and "care" than the Israelis are now doing. If Hezbollah chooses to attack from civilian areas than they are responsible for any civilian deaths arising from Israeli retaliation.

Good on Lord Kalms for calling Hague on this Issue.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I agree with you Jonathan Powell @ 12.34

[Fred Baker]

The problem is that there has been almost 60 years of this.

Israel response has been to kill the enemy on a two for one basis. They fool themselves that all against them are anti-Semitic but they do not comprehend that it is their attitude that is the problem.

Bush talked yesterday about a “lasting settlement” but neither does he want it nor expect it!

Israelis are the Schmucks. They are keeping millions of Americans employed in the armaments industry. Bush is not the friend they think he is. He wants business.

The US has to find and provide conflicts. One side becomes a customer and if they get lucky – both sides. Bombs need aircraft, aircraft need engines etc. This keeps American workers busy and their economy buoyant.

Examples: The mega number of bombs dropped during the Vietnam War. (What happened to that enemy?) Um they were never there in the first place perhaps! A planeload of bombs every eight minutes for nine years on the people of Laos!
Then there was the Iraq Wars, Belgrade, (twelve thousand air strikes, over ten thousand tons of explosive were dropped with five times greater destructive power than the atomic bomb used in the attack on Hiroshima.) The Tora Bora Mountains (what did they do wrong?) Tribesmen said that they could not see any difference!

Any excuse or problem and they get it bombed! It is not even environmentally friendly!

This is 2006 not 1946. Bombs need to be outlawed. Israel must learn that aggression leads to bigger aggression. In 1967 Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria were defeated in 6 days. Hezbola a product of Israeli aggression, (which did not even evident at that time!) will not be defeated. It will get stronger and the wars bigger.

These are all so nice Israelis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK2xKURltqE&search=israelis%20

[Richard Weider]

There is only one reason why Hizbollah is continually sending missiles and rockets into Israeli cities. They want to kill as many Israeli's as possible with the intention of wiping Israel off the map. Remember they are funded by Iran who has continually stated this is his aim.

What other country in the world faces this continual attack on its citizens and questioning of its right to exist. The answer is none, the situation with Britain and the IRA was very different.

Therefore, Israel as every country has a right to defend itself and its citizens against this constant attack on cities and towns throughout Israel, killing many and putting many lives in danger.

Sadly, there is no easy way to fight back against actions like this without killing people on the other side. It is called a war. When you are defending your citizens to stop them being killed and trying to defend your country from being wiped off the map, may I ask what a proportionate response is? And how can anyone that supported Britains actions in Iraq and Afganistahn (which I do) question what Israel is currently doing. If you have to defend yourself against an enemy this does involve people dying on the other side, just look at the hundreds of thousands that died in the war on Iraq.

Let me finish with the words of Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:

"What Hizbullah and Hamas have said in word and deed is:
We will kill you if you stay
And we will kill you if you leave.
We will kill you if you retaliate
And we will kill you if you don’t retaliate.
What can Israel do but to seek to end the terror that threatens and is meant to threaten its very existence?
When alone among the 192 nations that make up the United Nations, after 58 years it still finds its very right to exist denied?"

In this situation what else can Israel be expected to do.

[Hmmmm]

Jonathan you are right. but there is a question of proportionality (presumably you wouldnt approve of Israel nuking beirut for instance) and tactics.

Israel spent 18 years fighting Hezbollah with tanks and guns, and failed. what makes you think the same tactics will work again this time?

Qana, and all the other killings will only have served to make Israel's enemies stronger and its future even more bloody.

talking is the only effective weapon in the long run. Hezbollah and other terror organisations can only exist with the support of the community around them - win over the community and you strike at the heart of any terror group much more effectively than any "surgical" bombing.

Strenghthening the emerging Lebanese government would have enabled them to deal with Hezbollah in the long run. Treating with Hamas and helping them deal with Fatah would have brought them in from the cold. Israel has now destroyed any chance of that. If and when this war is over and the IDF retreats, Lebanon will feel the need to arm itself via Syria, Iran will have the justification for nuclear armament it needs, and the Palestinians will have even more grievance. And Hezbollah will still exist and be more popular than ever.

In other words total disaster for everyone.

I wish Israel nothing but peace, good fortune and prosperity, but I am sure that this is the wrong approach to achieve those things

[Ted]

I re-read the History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the crusader state that was set up surrounded by Muslim states as Al Qeada and the Iranians seem to view Israel as a latter day version.

It also survived on military might dependent on Western aid. It expanded and occupied territory. It fell because it lost support of its old Western Allies and Byzantium, who had their own aims, the previously divided muslims united under Saladin, it provoked responses by attacking into Saladin's lands (even threatening Mecca). Eventually it fell and the Franks wre expelled or sold into slavery. One major mistake made was to attack a friendly / neutral muslim neighbour so it ended up surrounded by enemies.

Israel's tactics have been built on miltary supremacy and overbearing force. This superiority is now being threatened and where three or four decades ago it could defeat armies in days the last two decades have shown it unable to defeat the new forces against it. If it doesn't want to go the way of the crusader Kindoms it needs to explore new ways of living with its neighbours.

I think our Party leadership supports the continued existence and security of Israel but that does not mean we must support its tactics. I recognise we are getting incomplete and biased reports but the victory of Hezbollah/Lebanese propaganda isn't only because of that bias, it draws from decades of visible Israeli subjucation of peoples in occupied lands. We don't perceive the same suffering in Israel because pictures of Israeli refugees being put up at a millionaires expense in holiday camps are played against Lebanese refugees stumbling along bombed roads.

Israel has put its friends in an invidious situation - we are expected to support a disastrous intervention in Lebanon because if Israel loses then the threat of islamic jihadism becomes greater. Any criticism of their actions becomes an attack on Israel. I cannot defend Cana because Israel created the conditions that made it impossible for civiians (whether pro Hezbollah or not) to escape. Strafing escaping vehicles, bombing ambulances, missiles targeted at motor cycles, vans and cars.

I recognise Israel hasn't bombed Beirut back to where it was post civil war - the areas of damage are small and localised around Hezbollah strongholds. I recognise that the Unifil force failed abysmally to help de-miltarise South Lebanon but it is quite right for Hague to deplore Israeli actions as some of us who support Israel as a state cannot see anything but eventual failure unless it engages positively in seeking peace rather than superiority and an Israeli imposed settlement.

[Yet Another Anon]

Presumably Lord Kalms also thinks the UK should have shelled Eire when the IRA were bombing London and Machester
Given that for many years the Irish Republic had been tolerating and turning a blind eye to IRA and INLA launching attacks from their side of the border before scuttling back it would actually have made a lot of sense to mount cross border operations, luckily eventually the authorities over there came to their senses and saw that it was in their interest to stop this, unfortunately the British Government in Sunningdale and in The Good Friday Agreement seems determined to impose kinds of structures for the Executive of Northern Ireland Assemblies based on parties in the assemblies registering as Unionist or Nationalist and formal power sharing between Unionists, Nationalists and Sinn Fein - this solution is strikingly similar to the National Pact in Lebanon which has caused so much trouble by formally handing the position of President of the Republic to the Maronites, President of the Council to a Sunni and the President of the National Assembly to a Shi'ite thus formally splitting power sharply between different factions and rendering the Lebanese government virtually unable to do anything itself.

[Bob B]

Of course, I'm very impressed with this idea of an international force to police Lebanon and disarm Hezbollah. That should enable Israel to complete the annexation of the West Bank with much less hassle.

Smart thinking.

Btw I just love to have the benefit of knowing Lord Kalm's reflections on the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut in 1982 and what was discovered in the Khiam Prison in South Lebanon after Israel withdrew its military forces in May 2000.

As for a suggestion in the thread that we should have resolved the IRA problem long ago by shelling the Republic of Ireland, that seems a bit timorous now after taking stock of what has been happening in Lebanon. It seems an opportunity was missed - British governments should have acted more decisively by taking out Armagh and Donegal and bombing Dublin. Killing a few hundred children in Ireland would surely have settled the matter, wouldn't it?

[william]

Other peoples' wars don't make good rebranding opportunities.

Contrary to expectations, Hague seems willing to abandon all principals in his efforts to upset traditional Conservative positions, and align with the EU viewpoint.

Cameron will be seen increasingly as a hardline europhile if he allows Hague to push on with pleasing Brussels on every issue entrusted to his care.

If Cameron is perceived to be such, he will find the Bromley effect where 55% stayed at home rather than back a europhile, will become the norm.

The Cameron strategy is an electoral strategy. The Hague factor is undermining it. Unless Hague is replaced, Cameron will suffer the consequences at the ballot box.

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

Hague's comments are simply designed to re-position the Tory party, so that they can try to cut into New Labour and Liberals' virtual monopoly on the large and ever increasing Muslim block vote. As the Jewish population lose their influence in terms of votes, so the Tory party is trying to respond by capturing another more influential voter 'market'.

Another Cameron inspired initiative, no doubt.

[Jon Gale]

"A tragedy is unfolding; the outcome is life or death to the Israeli nation state. William, your comments are not merely unhelpful; they are downright dangerous."

Amazing rubbish. Hezbollah has zero chance of wiping out Israel, a nation of 6.3 million. The surounding Arab countries have tried in several full-scale wars to destroy Israel and failed miserably, how is Hezbolah supposed to achieve this?

Secondly, mild criticism from an opposition foreign affairs spokesman in a country not involved in the conflict is irrelevant not "dangerous".

The case can be made for Israels actions without making such stupid statements.

[Vt]

How much did Lord Kalms donate ? and who are the other jewish doners. On dimbleby interview with liam fox, it emerge labour jewish doners had switched sides. Anyone care to expand or tell me where I can find out such details ?

[Yet Another Anon]

Anyone care to expand or tell me where I can find out such details ?
Donors of more than a certain amount to political party (offhand I forget the exact amount - a few thousand pounds I think) are required to be registered by name, so if anyone really wants to compare ethnicity of donor's they can then look up the people in the press and on the internet and figure out who they are, it's not always a matter of switching sides as there are many who regularily donate money to both Labour and the Conservative Party although not neccessarily in equal amounts. Lord Levy is one of Labour's main donors and also an envoy to the area concerned in the conflict - I gather he is fairly neutral on the issue of Israel, it's important to remember that many Jews aren't Zionists, many Zionists aren't Jews and many who aren't Zionists and many who are neither Zionists nor Jews still recognise the right of Israel ro defend itself.

[Bob B]

"Contrary to expectations, Hague seems willing to abandon all principals in his efforts to upset traditional Conservative positions, and align with the EU viewpoint."

Evidently not just William Hague. I've just been listeningz to Oliver Letwin interviewed on the BBC 1 o/c radio news. He was backing William Hague and unequivocally described the Israeli response to Hezbollah as "disproportionate."

For comparison with the recent Israeli fatal casualties in the Lebanon war (less than 60), I thought readers here might be interested in this account from the Imperial War Museum in London of the results from the V1 flying bombs (the precursor of cruise missiles) and V2 ballistic rockets directed against London from June 1944 until March 1945, shortly before the war in Europe ended in early May:
http://london.iwm.org.uk/upload/package/4/dday/pdfs/VWeaponsCampaign.pdf

The V weapons, as the flying bombs and ballistic missiles were collectively known, killed 8,938 civilians in Britain.

In June 1944, a V1 flying bomb landed down one end of the road in inner London where I lived then and then a V2 rocket landed down the other in January 1945. However, as I still recall, life continued as best it could in wartime - people didn't live in shelters: folks went to work and did the shopping and children played, all hoping that the dangerous war would soon come to an end.

[Yet Another Anon]

folks went to work and did the shopping and children played, all hoping that the dangerous war would soon come to an end.
Meanwhile the RAF were busily taking action to destroy the launch sites and bombing Germany Industry and Infrastructure heavily, just as Israel is taking action to take out the capability to launch the attacks on Israel.

[Michael McGowan]

Good to see the Tory Camel Corps out in force. Hague and Letwin continue to demonstrate, as if we didn't already know, what a pair of second-raters they are.....or is this just cynical positioning in order to court a few pro-Hezbollah Lib Dem votes? What is a "proportionate" response to an organisation which is in the business of wiping your country off the map and murdering its Jewish inhabitants?

[Yet Another Anon]

In fact one other point that occurred to me is the differences in population - London was then one of the biggest cities in the world with a population vastly bigger than Israel has in total so naturally numbers of casualties were likely to be higher - over 9 months if allowed to Hezbollah could kill thousands of people in Israel with rocket attacks if left to it.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Although I am a supporter of the State of Israel, I do not agree with Lord Kalm's intervention. The Jewish lobby is very powerful and rich, and it seems to me that Lord K is saying, "As a major donor, I want the Party's policy on Israel to be X". This is totally unacceptable. The only 'pro' to state funding, is that we could tell all these donors to get stuffed! You can't buy influence in the Conservative Party.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Although I am a supporter of the State of Israel, I do not agree with Lord Kalm's intervention. The Jewish lobby is very powerful and rich, and it seems to me that Lord K is saying, "As a major donor, I want the Party's policy on Israel to be X". This is totally unacceptable. The only 'pro' to state funding, is that we could tell all these donors to get stuffed! You can't buy influence in the Conservative Party.

[John Hustings]

He's also a Tory Peer and has as much right as anyone else to voice his opinion.

[Ted]

Michael McGovern

Was the Israeli response sensible, let alone proportionate? Yes Hezbollah needed to be nullified but Israel took the Hezbollah bait, rushed to action without a well thought out strategy and without building support in friendly countries.

I am fully behind the goal - the elimination of terrorist threats to Israel but the three weeks of campaigning so far have weakened support for Israel, resulted in deaths of many innocents, great damage to the Lebanese economy and its stability, strengthed support for Iran & Hezbollah and in the end will IMHO create greater dangers to Israel than before as the Israeli army has shown it can be hindered and therefore may in future be beaten.

Better to have negotiated while planning with US, UK and other friends how to neutralise Hezbollah.

[Richard R]

Well said Lord Kalms.

As a country, we should consider what WE would do if one of our immediate neighbours started launching rockets into Kent or Norfolk with a desire to wiping out the (for example) Anglican population of the UK.

To think that Hezbollah is somehow seperate from mainstream Lebanon is a gross misapprehension. Indeed it holds two Cabinet posts in Government there!

I want nothing more than peace in the Middle East. But it can only happen when terrorists lay down their arms and accept Israel's right to exist.

And as for Muslim vs. Jewish votes in UK...this should NOT dictate our foreign policy slant. What we should do is support liberal, democratic, sovereign nations (such as Israel, which is FYI one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women can vote), against mindless acts of terrorism that are bent on destroying these countries and their way of life.

[malcolm]

Wondered how 'William' (Henry Curties) could turn this subject around to the EU.Now we know!

[David Banks]

I would like to organise an International Brigade of those of us who support Israel to go over and aid them militarily. Sadly i can't afford the plane fare let alone a rifle.Anyone fancy sponsoring us?
anyway well done lord Kalms , well said

[legal eagle]

Lord Kalms and IDS have at least shown that Hague's views have not got widespread support among the parliamentary party.

I'm all for repositioning the party but if this is not the way to do it. The Muslim community contains some of the most deeply conservative people in this country. Their natural home should be our party. We should appeal to their conservatism rather than being soft with terrorists.

[Fred Baker]

>>>Yes Hezbollah needed to be nullified but Israel took the Hezbollah bait, rushed to action without a well thought out strategy and without building support in friendly countries.>>>

"Hizbollah,
by contrast, claims that the tank was part of the Israeli incursion into Lebanon, got blown up by a landmine, and Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner after a gun battle. Hizbollah's version seems more credible ...."

"Israel responds by bombing three runways and fuel depots of Beirut International Airport, all the country's seaports, most highways and roads connecting various parts of the country as well as those leading to Syria, tens of bridges in Lebanon's south and east, factories, army bases, trucks, ambulances, hospitals, schools, television transmitters, the whole of southern Beirut, Sidon, Tyre, Baalbek, other towns, other villages. Six hundred dead, thousands
injured. Half a million refugees in the first week. Eight hundred thousand by the end of the second week. At the time of writing, on July 27, one out of five Lebanese citizens has been rendered homeless. Tens of billions of dollars of damage inflicted upon a tiny country, one of the most beautiful and vibrant on this planet of ours, which had only recently pulled itself out, gloriously and with great aesthetic finesse, out of the devastations of a civil war and foreign - Israeli! - occupation. "Lebanon has been put back 20 years," an Israeli general exults on television. Precisely. Because Hizbollah took two prisoners and wanted to exchange them for some Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails."

Empire comes to Lebanon
AIJAZ AHMAD

[Paul Kennedy]

"How much did Lord Kalms donate ? and who are the other jewish doners. On dimbleby interview with liam fox, it emerge labour jewish doners had switched sides. Anyone care to expand or tell me where I can find out such details ?" Vt 13:19

The following link will give you the information.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regdpoliticalparties.cfm

[Renny]

It is about time we repositioned our self away from supporting the Israelis and their (mental) plan to radicalize the worlds Muslims. Never thought I would hear myself saying this but well done William Hague.

[Tam Large]

Our policy should be decided on what is right, not on how much money we have been paid by whatever donor.

It seems to me that the "Hizbolla Genocide" is matched by the "Israeli Ethnic-Cleansing". The losers are the innocent civilians and chilren, as always. Destroying a country and its infrastructure is utterly injustifiable against a minor incident involving two soliders (note: soldiers, not civilians); as for the much vaunted "rocket attacks" (rather primitive and low power devices in this case) - Israel could neutalise them with an array of Surface-to-Air missiles across the border.

But then they would not have an excuse to steal even more territory from the persecuted indigenous population.

[Jack Stone]

You are not being soft on terrorists by saying that in responding to terrorist acts you should not bomb the hell out of civilians.
The way to beat terrorism is to go for there arms suppliers and paymasters.
Personally I would like an immediate blockade of both Iran and Syria until they agree to stop backing terrorism. Countries should be in no doubt that should they be caught backing terrorist groups in any way the free world will hold them responsile for any acts the terrorists may commit.

[Patsy Sergeant]

If Hmmmm @ 12.58 thinks that Lebanon if strengthened would have been able to keep Hizbollah under control, he/she is living in cloud cuckoo land. The Lebanon has always been the 'trading nation of the middle east', situated on some of the major trade routes, its population became adept at trading and 'wheeler-dealing'. In the fifties Beirut was considered to be THE place that the newly rich oil sheikhs went to enjoy themselves, or keep a mistress. The city was smart and sophisticated - in an oriental sense. When I was in Kuwait, I can remember Kuwaitis and Palestinians, and indeed some English talking about it, and I found it all fascinating. And others things have happened since but before the terrorists, with a Beirut backdrop, that would make a film script! BUT, even with help, cope with the sort of computer robots of modern terrorists, Beirut/Lebanon is not equiped!

[Bob B]

Judging by this commentary a few days ago by Peter Riddell in The Times - a Murdoch paper - William Hague and Oliver Letwin seem to be far more in tune with public opinion in Britain than Lord Kalms is:

"Two polls this week have shown a high level of criticism both of Israel’s conduct and of Mr Blair’s handling of the affair. According to a YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph, more than three fifths of people think that Israel’s response has been disproportionate, and more than half believe that the Blair Government’s handling of the affair has been poor or very poor. Nearly two thirds think that Mr Blair is doing whatever the Americans tell him.

"An ICM poll in The Guardian showed that 63 per cent think Mr Blair has tied Britain too closely to the US, including more than half of Labour supporters."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2289243,00.html

The latest spluge of vacuous verbiage from Woof Woof Blair in America was branded "foolish" and "naive" by ex-Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5237452.stm

[Paul Kennedy]

"Personally I would like an immediate blockade of both Iran......." 16:32

And that would cause chaos in the oil market, the Iranians know that, they have us over a barrel.......literally.......well for the moment anyway.

[Paul Kennedy]

"William Hague and Oliver Letwin seem to be far more in tune with public opinion in Britain than Lord Kalms is" 17:06

But it doesn't mean that public opinion is actually right though does it. ;)

[Derek]

We are all to some extent affected by what we see on our TV screens. If the 2nd World War had been reported in the same way I doubt if we would have been able to win it. Today many seem to support the under-dog without having any real understanding of what the situation is. I support democracy against terrorists, and I hope my party will do the same.

[David Belchamber]

So much has now occurred since Israel first retaliated against Hisbollah that it is difficult to see who is right and who is wrong. Neither Hamas nor Hisbollah (nor Iran) accept Israel's right to exist; that must be wrong and therefore fair minded countries must support Israel's right to retaliate if physically attacked by any of those countries. That has happened but Bush (and Blair) should not have let things reach the state we are now in, where civilian casualties run into hundreds and the infrastructure of Lebanon is being destroyed.
There was, I believe, a UN resolution to the effect that Hisbollah should be disarmed. It was never implemented. Bush/Blair should tell Israel to cease firing immediately, the UN/NATO should send in troops to create a buffer zone and disarming Hisbollah should be carried out by a force other than Israel's.
Then perhaps Bush/Blair could try to work for the creation of a state for Palestine and ensure that it and Israel recognise each other.

[Paul Kennedy]

David, I would guess that there are, and I accept maybe not many, moderates and pragmatists within Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran who do accept Israel's right to exist, what has to be done is to communicate with those pragmatists and help them get their views to the fore. Kind of difficult for the UK now as we are no longer seen as an honest broker, maybe the French can have a role or even the Russians.

At times this whole situation makes me feel as though I am trapped in a revolving door, just going round and round and round and seeing the same things time and time again.

[esbonio]

Lord Kalms is entitled to his opinion, just as
Hague and Letwin are. Either way their opinions will count for very little. I have always tended towards the Canning view, I think it is, school of foreign policy i.e. it should be based on our interests. The question for Bush, Blair, and all the rest of us if and how we there is really going to be peace in the Middle East.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Derek @ 17.36 - I like your reference to the Second World War, and the type of reporting today. I posted on another thread that it illustrates the basic dishonesty of television reporting, reporters knowing that they have a sedantry audience at home who need to be engaged (for that read, entertained!!!!), and so going for the easy 'instant' news-bite, they don't care about whether it is the truth, OR the consequencies of what they assert, they have a safe home back here in the UK ----for the timebeing!!!

[sam]

I as a Long standing Tory voter and a one-nation Tory feel that Mr Hague's comments were totally inexplicable and uncalled for. Israel is a soverign state in the middle east a highly unpredictable and volatile region of the world, it has the right to use whatever force it deems needed to protect its existance and it's citizens, be they arabs or Jews. Hizbollah is committed to the destruction of the Jewish state and is a terrorist organisation. These people are the people whon cheered after 7/7, Israel is infact our friend and upholds American values against terror -it will not and shall not be tolerated. Israel will not sit back and let the terrorists reign rockets down on them, Israel only retaliated to Hizbolllah provocation and its use of force is not disproportionate as they have not wiped Hizbollah off the map. Hizbollah targets civilians, Israel does not, unfortunatly some civilans do get hurt but this is the harsh reality of warfare. ISrael infact distributed leaflets in arabic to advise the citizen of Southern Lebanon to leave. Mr Hague does not know what he is talking about, this is why he could win the election with the Tory party. thankyou

[Og]

In my darker moments I imagine that small tactical nuclear strikes have rid us of these turbulent Islamofascists and Zionists and we can look forward to a Middle East rising from the ash rather as Japan did.

Then I realise that we have to play the ball as it lies. Which means taking sides. There is only one side to take, unless you hate the idea of a sovereign Jewish state. America is the only practical guarantor of Israel's sovereignty, given that our boys at the FCO have been Arabist for a generation or two and the Frogs wish to retain the last vestige of influence they have in the Arab world.

Morally, we should side with Israel. We can hardly stand up for their sovereignty and at the same time pontificate on what they should do to combat the threat from southern Lebanon.

I am nonplussed by the Hague speech. I suppose it creates clear blue water between the Blair position and the Tories, and was drafted with electoral gain in mind, given that things are likely to get worse in the Levant before they get better.

[Bob B]

"I support democracy against terrorists, and I hope my party will do the same."

Quite so. Try reading the official summaries of the recently released MI5 files on jewish terrorism during and just after WW2.
http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/Page453.html

In 1941, Lehi (the Stern Gang) tried to make an alliance with the Nazis to fight Britain's mandate from the League of Nations to administer Palestine - and in 1941, the war in Europe wasn't going well for Britain. From the fall of France in June 1940 until Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941 to the immense surprise of Stalin, Britain stood alone in Europe against the Nazis. A little googling will readily retrieve supporting sources.

The state of Israel was created through terrorism.

[malcolm]

Morally we should side with Israel-Og.I would agree with that.However we can and should strongly disapprove of Israels tactics which at least to date have been militarily ineffective and have been an absolute ddiplomatic disaster.Not only have the Israelis killed hundreds of innocent people they have also managed to lose it seems the sympathy of most of the world and united muslims who were formerly enemies against it.The more I think of it the more I think Hague was right and those who blindly support all the actions of the current Israeli government are no true friends of Israel.

[Fred Baker]

There are far too many Davids and Sams posting here and not enough Fwads and Yoosufs.

"Israel responds by bombing three runways and fuel depots of Beirut International Airport, all the country's seaports, most highways and roads connecting various parts of the country as well as those leading to Syria, tens of bridges in Lebanon's south and east, factories, army bases, trucks, ambulances, hospitals, schools, television transmitters, the whole of southern Beirut, Sidon, Tyre, Baalbek, other towns, other villages. Six hundred dead, thousands
injured. Half a million refugees in the first week."

Just what is a terrorist?

Done by Israel, it is retribution. By an Arab state it is terrorism.

[esbonio]

Bob

You note that "The state of Israel was created through terrorism." I am well aware of this because my uncle served in the Palestine Police Force and the Trans Jordan Frontier Force. I remember his tales of terrorists on all sides trying to kill him and he knew the two (sergeants I think) who were hung in an olive grove. He ended up marrying a Jewish lady who had escaped from Europe to Palestine before the war broke out. Do you think Israel's origins which you note are terroristic (but which I suppose were also affected by the Balfour Declaration and the Holocaust), negate its right to exist?

[David Belchamber]

Paul, I too feel as if trapped in a revolving door by this situation - a very good metaphor. What has the C of E got to say about about this needless loss of life, if Blair - an avowed christian - will do nothing as head of the government? Just as he ignores the tens of thousands of civilians who have been killed in the civil war in Iraq.
Bush and Blair have the power to stop this carnage now. Let them act now and then let other forces disarm Hezbollah.

[James Hellyer]

Do you think Israel's origins which you note are terroristic (but which I suppose were also affected by the Balfour Declaration and the Holocaust), negate its right to exist?

Only if you are willing to deny its people the right of self-determination.

[Fred Baker]

>>What has the C of E got to say about about this needless loss of life, if Blair - an avowed christian>>

Of course the problem is all about "God".
There is no God. If were not for this invention there would hardly be any problem.
Look at a picture of Earth from beyond the Solar System and you will wonder what all this is about!

[Bob B]

Well esbonio, sad to say the terrorism and atrocities went on and on as you can easily confirm with googling. Try Gerald Kaufman's speech in Parliament on 16 April 2002 for a start:

http://www.deiryassin.org/gkaufman.html

We have this on the Qibya massacre in 1953 from Avi Shlaim's book: The Iron Wall (Penguin Books, 2000):

“. . Unit 101 was commanded by an aggressive and ambitious young major named Ariel Sharon. Sharon’s order was to penetrate Qibya, blow up houses, and inflict heavy casualties on its inhabitants. His success in carrying out this order surpassed all expectations. The full and macabre story of what happened at Qibya was revealed only during the morning after the attack. The village had been reduced to a pile of rubble: forty-five houses had been blown up, and sixty-nine civiliains, two-thirds of them women and children, had been killed. Sharon and his men claimed that they had no idea that anyone was hiding in the houses. The UN observer who inspected the reached a different conclusion: ‘One story was repeated time after time: the bullet splintered door, the body sprawled across the threshold, indicating that the inhabitants had been forced by heavy fire to stay inside until their homes were blown up over them.’”

Avi Shlaim holds joint Israeli-British citizenship and is professor of international relations at St Anthony's College, Oxford. He sets out his position on Zionism at some length here:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/Zionism%20AS.pdf

Physicians for Human Rights is a US-based group which reported on its investigation of the policing by Israeli security forces of the Intifada in November 2000:

"The PHR team found that the Israel Defense Force (IDF) has used live ammunition and rubber bullets excessively and inappropriately to control demonstrators, and that based on the high number of documented injuries to the head and thighs, soldiers appear to be shooting to inflict harm, rather than solely in self-defense. . . "
http://www.phrusa.org/research/forensics/israel/Israel_force_2.html

I've already posted many links to robust, dependable sources detailing the really horrific scale of Israeli atrocities inflicted on Palestinians. Claims that Israel is all innocent and victimised just can't withstand serious scrutiny by anyone who knows the history of the Palestine conflict. Avi Shlaim's book is a good place for starting to learn about what happened.

[Esbonio]

Bob

Thanks for the links, but what is your answer?

[Giffin Lorimer]

So far as I can see, in these pages disproportionate is treated as a synonym for counter-productive. It's technically not, but it seems to offer a useful tool for analyzing the debate. The question might usefully be: is it counter-productive?

There are interesting parallels between the Sunni/Shia struggle for dominance and the similar historical struggles between Protestant/Catholic, Menshevik/Bolshevik, Socialist/Fascist, IRA/INLA, etc.. Hezollah/Hamas (Shia) and Al Quaeda (Sunni) are the proxies in this case. They all use proxy armies to prosecute their wars.

The "Counter-productive" proposition suggests that the Zionists are creating great opportunities for Moslem extremists by preventing their neighbours' economies from growing to a point where they can sustain their populations with a level of wealth that makes it unfeasible to support a war against Israel.

They are probably quite sensible to do so: ideologues use their wealth to prosecute war against their enemies, irrespective of the resulting damage to their communities. Look at the way Nazis, Americans and Libyans all funded Sinn Fein/IRA in a proxy war against the British.

The Irish-Americans suffered no more harm than the Saudis due to their economic importance (although the Nazis, Libyans, Iranians and Syrians have found themselves taking a few hits); it was the Irish Catholics whose economic prospects were trashed. Meanwhile the UK economy continued to prosper (until Labour) despite the arms burden, much as Israel's does in part because of support from US federal funding.

I don't know what the end game in this might possibly be. There is no trust and each ratcheting up of violence (irrespective of whether you call it disproportionate or justified) adds at least another decade to the possibility for peaceful co-existence.

I do know that without a shared vision of a peaceful future, and a viable mechanism to achieve that future, there will be no commitment to peace. Look at the legacy of Ireland's 90-year civil war - ethnic cleansing is continuing apace and the risk of civil war is always present.

[Richard]

"The Muslim community contains some of the most deeply conservative people in this country. Their natural home should be our party. We should appeal to their conservatism rather than being soft with terrorists."

Unfortunately that conservatism is sometimes highly reactionary. Equal rights for woman and homosexuals - can't see that going down well with them.

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

Whilst Israel and it's people are far from the unsinning saints that they're painted as by many Zionist commentators, it does seem rather strange that we should be supporting a country (Lebabnon) who have wilfully turned a blind eye to terrorism (indeed, actively encouraged it if truth be told) enacted against a neighbouring country. It is simply waging war by another name. Therefore, Israel's response is entirely understandable, and blame must be laid entirely at the feet of the Lebanese government for lifting not a finger to stop Hezbollah. And at the feet of Hezbollah, who have carried on their Jihad to wipe the Jews from the face of the earth, proving and lie that their organisation was set up in 1982 to 'free Lebanon'. Lebanon has been ceded, but their campaign of murder continues.

I've noted some comparisons with the IRA situation in Britain. Just because Britain's governments did not act in a forcible manner to fulfill their primary function, to protect it's citizens, why should Israel be so desperate to demonstrate the same British traits of weakness and apathy.

Whenever Israel has tried to be 'reasonable' and 'proportionate' in the past, by signing and honouring peace treaties, it has simply acted as encouragement to the Islamist terrorists, whose ultimate aim is a global caliphate. Nothing less. Israel are on the front line of the global jihad, and they should be seen as the last bastion of civilisation defending itself from the barbarian hordes.

[Fred Baker]

>>>Israel are on the front line of the global jihad, and they should be seen as the last bastion of civilisation defending itself from the barbarian hordes.>>>

If it were not for the Israeli problem there would have been no cause for any jihad.

Israel is the problem. Period.

The whole blog here does not reflect the general consensus of British opinion. This is that Israel has gone beyond the pale, meaning outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour.

[Simon Chapman]

Fred,

Take me though your views of what the acceptable response is to being showered with rockets every day, whilst dwelling in the midst of people sworn to your erradication.

[Bob B]

"Thanks for the links, but what is your answer?"

My assessment is pretty bleak so I'm hoping I'm wrong. Assuming that nothing truly terrible transpires - such as a nuclear exchange in the Middle East - I can see the Palestine conflict continuing for at least another 50 years.

Time isn't on Israel's side - or on the side of the West either. As Internet access around the world improves, more folks will become better informed about the realities of the situation. It will become ever more difficult to hide unpleasant truths from a widening readership - such as this:

"The son of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been jailed for nine months for illegal campaign fundraising. Omri Sharon pleaded guilty in November to falsifying documents and perjury. The charges relate to Ariel Sharon's 1999 bid to lead Likud and the country. . . "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4712698.stm

Does Lord Kalms have a comment about that?

If we are talking about a sustainable ceasefire with an international force to police it then I think Israel will need to start thinking about negotiating a retreat back to something close to its 1967 boundaries. Failing that, the international force will come to be seen as defending the annexation of all or much of the West Bank and that augurs trouble.

Btw is anyone offering odds on Woof Woof Blair becoming a US citizen? In Britain, it's getting close to a situation where either he fires most of his Cabinet or his Cabinet fires him. I don't think he now cares a flying fig about Britain, his government, or the Labour Party.

[Jon White]

Fred Baker posts:

"Israel is the problem. Period."

Quite how an entire nation can be a problem is beyond my limited understanding. Maybe Fred means the Jewish race is the problem. Either way, I pity Fred's lack of understanding that whilst the majority of people (myself included) are very much against the current actions by the State of Israel, it is a huge and unjustifiable quantum leap to condemn a whole nation.

Unlike Fred Baker, I am not blinkered enough to blame the actions of the few on the many. Do you blame the goverment and people of Eire for the murderous atrocities committed by the IRA? Do you blame 'Muslims' in general for 7/7 and 9/11? To be consistent, you should, if as you state "Israel is the problem. Period". Or is it just Jews that you hate, but you're okay with Irish or Muslim murderers?

[TomTOm]

Hezbollah was created when Israel invaded Lebanon last time, with the express purpose of ejecting the IDF, which in time, they did. Does that make them terrorists or freedom fighters?

Since their expressed intent is to destroy the State of Israel and eradicate its existence I suggest you Hmmmm tell us why you think they might be "freedom fighters" !

If it were not for the Israeli problem there would have been no cause for any jihad.

Israel is the problem. Period.

India's view of Pakistan...........a problem created by the British Independence of India Act 1947 Section I

What is Tory policy on India eradicating Pakistan ?

>>What has the C of E got to say about about this needless loss of life, if Blair - an avowed christian>>

The C of E like ECUSA is in the grip of Replacement Theology and under the influence of the Palestinian Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem who praises suicide-bombers. The Archbishop of Canternury can deliver speeches without reference to Christianity or Jesus Christ because his Guardian contains no references either

[RodS]

"The Muslim community contains some of the most deeply conservative people in this country. Their natural home should be our party. We should appeal to their conservatism rather than being soft with terrorists."

The real problem we are facing - as George Bush recognises - is the Islamic mindset and the ease with which it is channelled into dominance and destruction. Where ARE these moderate muslims I keep hearing about ?

Israel is fighting for its existence. So will we be once muslim opinion in UK gets the upper hand - as we saw with Jack Straws obvious kow towing.

[william]

malcolm denies the EU has any influence on events. He is the ultimate EU denier. No explanation given. Just denial.

[Oberon Houston]

With the odd deviation, it was very interesting to read folks views on this.

The blunt truth is that just about everyone in the Islamic region wants the Jews out. The problem they face is that in two all-out wars, the Arabs have been defeated. Therefore they prefer low level war (terrorism), until there is a more direct method of confrontation (going nuclear)

Iran will continue to heavily support terrorist groups, and indeed manage the timing of confrontations to suit their political aims, such as the current one, where low and behold Hezbollah have tens of thousands of rockets to hand.

That a robust reaction by Israel is needed is absolutely understood. That the attrition rate in civilian casualties, women and children is considered acceptable by Tel Aviv, Washington and London is not.

William Hague has been politically courageous on this, just look at the flak he is getting here, but I am very impressed with him, and he will be getting my top vote at the next satisfaction poll. I would others on this blog to do the same, as I suspect there will be an organised barrage of negatives coming his way too.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"William Hague has been politically courageous on this, just look at the flak he is getting here, but I am very impressed with him, and he will be getting my top vote at the next satisfaction poll. I would others on this blog to do the same, as I suspect there will be an organised barrage of negatives coming his way too."

Hear hear Oberon. The voice of reason as always.

[Esbonio]

Oberon Houston gives us an initially succinct analysis which then breaks down under the weight of its own logic. What do "robust" and acceptable" mean when, as pointed out, Israel is facing an existential threat?

[David Banks]

Fred Baker
'Too many Davids and Sams posting' eh?
Maybe if you try [email protected] you will find the diversity you crave.

yours
David Banks

[TomTom]

What do "robust" and acceptable" mean when, as pointed out, Israel is facing an existential threat?

Probably the kind of half-hearted gestures Britain and France went through in 1939 whilst their ally Poland was dismembered by Germany and the USSR and France prepared the bunting for German victory parades down the Champs Elysee

[arthur]

Wasn't it Gore Vidal who said, 'Most of the world's problems come from those people who believe in a God that lives in the sky' As long as you believe in a God that lives in streams or rocks and trees your OK. Thinks its been the three semitic religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam that are causing all the trouble. Back to paganism that's what I say!

[TomTom]

Back to paganism that's what I say!

Yes Attila The Hun ran a very interesting society, as did the Goths and Visigoths - mind you Paganism operated a very vibrant society in Germany 1933-45 and Russia 1917-1990, and China 1949- present................

[David Banks]

How off the point is this thread going....

[Jon White]

To many posters here, I would simply say, do not be so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance.

The intolerance of Islamic fundalmentalism is unnaceptable - to openly say that their avowed aim is to wipe Israel from the face of the map and kill all it's inhabitants (presumably only the Jewish ones I suppose) is unnaceptable in civilised society. Israel certainly has the right of self-defense. However, the current actions of the State of Israel are equally repugnant and completely at odds with most people's idea of civilised society. Totally disproportionate to the threat they face: The slaughter of innocents cannot be justified. Of course there are always 'casulaties of war', people who die even though they are non-combatants, but the rights and wrongs of such deaths have to be judged relative to the threat that the perpetrator faces.

How many people have dies needlessly over the years because 'my God is better than your God?" It's a bit like saying "my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend". (and I say this as a high Anglican member of the C of E).

[Robert Buckland]

Bravo Jon White - the simple truth is that these current hostilities will fail to end the problems of that region. Hizbollah is an undoubted threat to Israel, but the idea that Israel can impose order within the state of Lebanon is a non-starter, as we have seen time and time again.

Israeli anger is understandable, but there are times in the past where Israel has avoided the use of force; for example during the first Gulf War, despite Saddam's Scud missile attacks. Israeli patience, coupled with real action by the West on security issues in Lebanon, is the best way forward for the region I suggest.

[Jon White]

Yes Robert Buckland, Israeli patience and restraint would earn them many friends.

I would also say that the way forward would be aided not just by this, but by a united front from the EU and the UN Security council against the very real threats that Israel does have against it. The attitude of France is particular lukewarm - and France is a big noise (arguably the biggest) within the EU, and a permament member of the Security Council.

If Israel felt that it had the support of nations such as France (and Russia) against Islamic fundalmentalism, maybe they would feel more secure in not using force like they are doing now.

None of the above changes my view that the current actions of the State of Israel are unjustified, immoral, and likely to do more harm than good in the long term.

[Oberon Houston]

esbonio @ 10:54

"Oberon Houston gives us an initially succinct analysis which then breaks down under the weight of its own logic. What do "robust" and acceptable" mean when, as pointed out, Israel is facing an existential threat?"

It means taking action, but NOT from taking action that results in 900 people dead, the vast majority civillians, wounding 3000 and displacing 1,000,000 civilians, refusing to let aid in to help them.

Provaticating that this is regretable, but necessary is simply not good enough. Hague is dead right to speak up on this, for too long we have been blindly following the Neo-Con position that has created so much chaos and lost opportunity and its a disgrace.

[TomTom]

It means taking action, but NOT from taking action that results in 900 people dead, the vast majority civillians,

ALL members of Hezbollah are "civilians" and all "civilians" present when Hezbollah fires weapons are "combattants"

Article 51 of the UN Charter is quite clear on Israel's right to defend itself

[Oberon Houston]

I don't follow you, are you saying all civillians in Lebanon are members of Hezbollah?

Including the children, the wildlife on the coast in the oil slick, and the UN guys killed at the observation post for that matter? To hell with it, just bomb them, I'm sure one or two are Hezbollah in all that lot.

[Fred Baker]

Fred,

>>>Take me though your views of what the acceptable response is to being showered with rockets every day, whilst dwelling in the midst of people sworn to your erradication.>>>

Move house.

[Yet Another Anon]

Move house.
An impractical and unreasonable suggestion even ignoring the fact that given that many of Hezbollah's missiles have a range of 45km and have even been overshooting Israeli settlements and landing in the West Bank, maybe the people in the West Bank should move house as well?

[malcolm]

Fred (if that really is your name) you are a disgrace.Go and plague another site with your moronic statements.

[Michael]

Why do we spend all our time supporting the Israelis.

What have these warmongering troublemakers ever done for us.

Hague is right. Kalms is wrong - but who's surprised.