WH, I believe your "arm both sides and let them get on with it" is a lazy cop out for someone who clearly thinks deeply and unlike many is prepared to explain his beliefs. The good thing about being a friend of Israel is that you don't have to defend the indefensible. Israelis can and do criticise their leaders in the most extreme terms, I could describe the entire Israeli cabinet in the most denigrating way and still get on the next flight to Tel Aviv. It is the friends of Palestine who unfortunately cannot bring themselves to criticise Hamas let alone mention the Hamas charter. Israel is a secular democracy under fire, which commits mistakes every day, but I'm not sitting on the fence in a conflict between Israel and Hamas and neither should you.

Posted by Av | 12.01.10, 08:57 GMT

Av,

Parallels can certainly be drawn between Israel and Northern Ireland.

I grew up in a unionist/Protestant household. I went to a state school 10 miles from Belfast where my Britishness was, if you like, instilled into me. At this state school, not once was I educated about the 'troubles' in NI. It was not discussed, talk about an elephant in the room!

It wasn't discussed because the answers are difficult. I asked questions, but no real answers. After being intrigued by the distinct lack of answers from my schooling, I went looking for answers myself. I didn't really like what I found. I have said to you before that it must be hard to defend the indefensible. I know what it feels like.

Genuine grievances must be recognised, otherwise no one in the region will have any quality of life. With religion in the picture, these grievances, in my opinion, will never be recognised. It is not possible for religion to compromise. I can, very sadly, see no viable solution.

Posted by WH | 11.01.10, 13:01 GMT

WH, presumably you also wanted Northern Ireland to be towed out to the Mid Atlantic and sunk, but preferably while you were on holiday. The founders of modern Israel were secularists, the majority of Israel's cabinet are not religious, over 70% of Israelis advocate a two state solution. Not all Palestinians support Hamas but the sad fact is that Hamas is the largest party in Palestine. Just read the Israeli constitution and compare it to the Hamas charter and justify your belief that both peoples are equally theocratic.

Posted by Av | 10.01.10, 22:14 GMT

Av,

"By the way did you really say that both sides should be armed to the hilt and let them get on with it? - it would seem impossible to twist words like that to make them sound any less callous and superior" - I did say that and I meant it.

Both sides are ruled by religious fanatics and I cannot see how else it will end. Someone, eventually, will have to decide which 'god' is right. Is it the Jewish 'god' or the Muslim 'god'? Aren't they supposed to be the same person? It's a bit awkward that 'god' has apparently told both sides that they are right and that the land is theirs. I don't believe in a 'god' at all, but people in the Middle East certainly do. With faith comes arrogance, both sides are convinced that they are right.

Because of the UK's unswerving support for one side in this conflict, Israel, we have got ourselves involved in what is essentially a religious war. I do not see this as the UK's fight, it is a religious fight between delusional peoples.

Posted by WH | 07.01.10, 12:58 GMT

WH, your comment below that Israel's own actions are the greatest possible threat to it, at a time when Iran is obtaining nuclear weapons, suggests you are slightly removed from the realities in the Middle East. I agree with you that Israel has nothing to gain and much to lose when civilians are killed as a result of its operations against Hamas. Sadly Hamas are aware of this too. By the way did you really say that both sides should be armed to the hilt and let them get on with it? - it would seem impossible to twist words like that to make them sound any less callous and superior.

Posted by Av | 06.01.10, 21:51 GMT

Av,

I didn't say that Israel used "battlefield weapons indiscriminately", I said that Israel used indiscriminate battlefield weapons. There is a difference, you know? The weapons are indiscriminate, in fact, they are designed to be indiscriminate.

If I didn't know any better, I would argue that you are being deliberately misleading with your comments, see above. I understand why you may have to do this, I would not fancy having to defend the indefensible almost every day of my life. Only you know what your true motives are, but you do seem to be making a habit of twisting my words.

If the IDF, and the Israeli government, keep on killing Palestinian civilians, then international support for Israel will eventually wane. This is the point I am trying to get across to you. Israel's own actions, if they carry-on the way they are, are the biggest threat possible to the future of the State of Israel.

Posted by WH | 06.01.10, 16:52 GMT

WH, you know that Israel couldn't have used battlefield weapons indiscriminately because casualty figures in a densely populated city would then have been in the tens of thousands, just as it was in Stalingrad, Warsaw or Berlin. Hamas did not pitch outside Gaza city to avoid civilian casualties, their whole strategy was to draw Israel into the city to increase the martyrdom and have a chance to claim victory by killing a 100 or so Israelis - whatever the price paid by their own people. This entire conflict was an unnecessary tragedy given that Israel's pull out in 2005 should have been a new start for both peoples.

Posted by Av | 06.01.10, 12:13 GMT

Av,

I have directed all my comments to Israel as we are talking about Israel, it is that simple.

Israel is supposed to be a democratic country, on the other hand, Hamas is supposed to be a 'terrorist' organisation. Out of these two entities, I would expect Israel, as a democratic country, to observe international law and to attempt to protect civilians at all times. As Hamas is a 'terrorist' organisation, I would not expect it to observe international law or to attempt to protect civilians at all times. That is not what 'terrorist' organisations are supposed to do, the clue, some may say, is in the name.

I repeat again, if the IDF wiped Hamas out tomorrow, I wouldn't shed any tears. However, if the IDF keep killing civilians, then my support will eventually wane. How can I keep supporting a force/country that kills civilians by using indiscriminate battlefield weapons? It's getting harder and harder. Israel must realise, and quickly, that we now live in a 24/7 news era.

Posted by WH | 05.01.10, 14:29 GMT

WH, you have called Hamas madmen and nutters, why then direct all your comments to Israel? Hamas are also the leading party in Palestine. Israel is 9 miles wide after a pull out, Hamas are poised to take control of the West Bank, Iran equips and funds them, and still a majority of Israelis favour a two state solution. Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan, pulled out of Lebanon and Gaza, offered a Palestinian state at Camp David, which was refused, and its on offer again now. How do you propose Israel improves on its Camp David offer?

Posted by Av | 05.01.10, 11:35 GMT

One should be very careful to distinguish between Jews and the state of Israel.

Jews, as a religious group, are not for or against Israel and/or her policies. Generalizing about Jewish opinion, as wide-ranging a group as one can find, is both foolhardy and unfair.

The problem lies in Israel's government and her behaviour since 1967 which has been largely focused on annexation, colonization and denial of Palestinian rights. Of course, the other side has not been angels either.

A two-state solution where both sides accept each others right to exist, and ensure full rights for each others citizens in their respective countries is the only solution.

Jews, Christians, or any other religious grouping must be separated from policies carried out by certain states.

It is attitudes like the writer of the above letter which have contributed to the horrific state the Middle East finds itself in today. Let us hope an evolution in outlook will soon begin to take hold.

Posted by John Q. Public | 05.01.10, 11:23 GMT

michael,

"WH who's heart bleeds regularly in these coloumns has washed his hands of guilt, arm them to the teeth, what an idiot" - what should I be feeling guilty for? With regards to my "heart bleeding", what exactly do you mean? If you could be more specific, I may be able to answer/counter your points.

I have said on many occasions before that Israel has a right to exist. However, it does not have a right to treat Palestinians in the manner in which it currently does.

If Israel continues in its current form, slowly but surely, its international support will become untenable. Israel needs to stop abusing Palestinians in order to have peace. Israel needs to stop building further illegal settlements in order to have peace. Israel needs to engage with its Palestinian neighbours in order to have peace. If it does not pursue peace negotiations in a serious and constructive manner, then it should have no international support whatever.

Posted by WH | 04.01.10, 15:18 GMT

you lot seem to think that jews washed up on the shores of "palestine", stuffed with dollars ready to buy and bomb the land off the poor peasant farmers, the wandering arab tribes......that about sums it up....Jews have lived in what is now called israel, continuously for thousands of years. evergreen wants to know why jews didn't "integrate", well read a little history objectively and you'll see that integration was denied by punitive laws, restrictions on occupation, property ownership etc. many of those who attempted to assimilate who thought they were first french then jew were handed over to the gestapo for a one way ride to the death camps. bleeding hearts are boring, they never, ever stop bleeding bodies, WH who's heart bleeds regularly in these coloumns has washed his hands of guilt, arm them to the teeth, what an idiot...the state of israel is a fact, it's a fact that needs understanding culturally and politically, and like most conflicts a solution will arrive

Posted by michael | 04.01.10, 10:39 GMT

Fantastic article colin. Ulster's Christian Zionists support every word of it!

Posted by Rob | 04.01.10, 10:13 GMT

Zionists believe Israel was given to the Jews for all time. Jesus came into this world saying that His kingdom was not of this world. It is one which reigns within our hearts. Here we have NO continuing city.. we seek for one which is to come. Hebrews make it plain that we now seek a heavenly country. Zionism is a brutal form of terrorism, killing women and children in Gaza in a ration of 100;1. Israel ignores international law simply because of the financial clout of international Jewry. Colin Nevin should come clean on his associations with this terrorist state.

Posted by ken | 04.01.10, 06:18 GMT

Av
"the Jewish claim for a country of their own is a strong one"

Does that include walking all over the rights of others ? Yes or No.

Further the "claim' is based on a few lines in the Bible, which has been changed and distorted more often than I've had hot dinners, to suit various interests.

Perhaps you can tell me why Jews refuse to integrate into countries where they have lived for hundreds of years. When Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812
"Russian" Jews sold arms and supplies to BOTH sides.

For all that I would have nothing against Jews except for the FACT that they ROBBED Palestine from its owners for 2,000 years.

Posted by Patrick 2 | 04.01.10, 05:15 GMT

"man-made modern labels such as 'Palestine' "

sounds like Colin wants to wipe Palestine off the map in the name of God. replace Palestine with Israel and I'd think he belonged to Hamas.

and oh come on - Bethlehem is in the West Bank whose leader Abbas does not believe in so called "violence" - and much good it has done him. Israeli settlement expansion, in defiance of Israel's Road Map responsibilities, continues.
I don't expect to read that in a Colin Nevin article on Israel.
Peace requires efforts from both sides Colin.

Posted by Bernard | 03.01.10, 17:25 GMT

Steve, it's a new year, is there no hope that you could let your bullsh*t drop for a while?

Terrorism is an especially shaky term to define, especially when it's practiced in large measure by states such as the U.K. and yes, Israel.

Posted by Euskal Herria | 03.01.10, 16:56 GMT

Steve

"Seriously though: what would Eammon McCann know about anything?"

Seriously though, such comment shows yet again just what an ignoramus YOU are.

Seriously also I'm beginning to believe that you ENJOY being insulted. There is a name for that you know......

Posted by Fair Play | 02.01.10, 13:00 GMT

Av
I'm not impressed. Self pity changes nothing. As for persecution I think we Irish know a thing or two about it.

The issue here is this. Was it right that a new Jewish State was established through ROBBERY right in the heart of Islam, leading to untold misery and an ongoing threat of world conflict because of it ?

Answer - NO, as far as billions of people are concerned. End of story.

Posted by Fair Play | 02.01.10, 12:18 GMT

Steve
" It is a fact of life that people dispossessed of their land will FIGHT to get it back"

Do you DENY this ? If so you are even more guilt ridden than I thought.

What exactly does "fight to get it back " mean ?

Have some adult explain it to you.
I am not advocating terrorism, but realize and accept that people may be driven to it when all else fails to achieve justice.

I COULD ask, do you deny THAT - but I am totally indifferent to your answer, so don't bother.

Whatever your future provocation may be, this is my FINAL response to you. Like many others I found that trying to engage in normal discourse with you is a hopeless exercise. I have desisted for some time now and indeed suggested likewise to others.

I am in no way accountable to you and your inane questions. Go and find your kicks somewhere else lad. I'll not lower myself to your level again.

Fe dheire - slan leat !

Posted by Evergreen | 02.01.10, 11:24 GMT