But herein Canada and the UK there other threats. MWC News (media with a conscience)publishes anti-semetic cartoons and on its sister site modern writers.org offers an innocous discussion board called “respect”.

There appears to be few members. That is because man named Michael from somewhere in Oxford UK and MWC News use the site to bash “fithy Jews” quote and promote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and to “send you filthy Jew to hell”.

George Galloway is harmless inasmuch as WE and ALL see what he is. MWC News and its modern writers group are more dangerous because it is more insidious.

I would suggest in a very real way MWC News is a very real threat very much more than the ordinary hate groups like “Storm Cloud” and First Amendment Radio and the like.

As for Michael or Michael Lee of Oxford just another of haters hiding amongst all

Jacob writes:

“I also look forward to the day when Israel will reform its election laws and stop giving a veto to small extremist parties.”

I have thought about this a lot but what is the solution? A five percent threshold like they have in Germany? How many Israelis would support something like that?

Eamonn writes:

“States depend on violence to sustain their existence and if you defend the right of a state to exist you defend its right to violence too. There are no states with clean hands.”

Yes, this is true, even in the case of democracies.

David, if you are looking for “serious stuff” in this regard, read Thucydides or Hobbes. If you prefer something more recent and lefty, try Charles Tilly’s “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime.” I also recommend the Tanakh. The world, especially the corner of the world where Israel is located, is a violent place.

Eric writes:

“The problem with stories like this is their cumulative impact on young progressive Jews in America. Their feelings toward Israel are already tenuous at best. They can form their own judgments, and to them, certain undeniable events in Gaza are just another nail in the coffin, I am afraid.”

Yeah, until these “young progressive Jews” grow up. Then they will wake up. It has happened to so many people (including me) that I have lost count.

Perta writes:

“It mentions the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in Lebanon — maybe it’s not so well known how the Lebanese army solved the problem they faced there, because it wasn’t all that much reported in the international press…”

CK (Jewlicious) blogged about the incident here:

http://www.jewlicious.com/2007/08/lebanese-army-prepares-final-obliteration-of-refugee-camp-really/

“Now I know these Fatah al-Islam gunmen dudes are supporters of Al Quaeda and all - but with 40,000 people forced out of their homes, you’d expect some UN guys to say something or at least some cool footage of weeping civilians. With 40,000 people frightened away by intense violence, someone had to have wept. I’ll keep monitoring the news. I’m sure we’ll get the footage of this human rights catastrophe pronto. Any minute now, I’m sure.”

Check it out…

2.
“In fact there are 39 countries with troops in Afghanistan, and there is a wide range of approaches to the challenge of avoiding civilian casualties.”

I’d be happy to have information about this wide range of approaches. By this I specifically mean; what alternatives to calling for air support does the hard-pressed infantry unit have at its disposal?

3.
“While NATO, UNAMA and Afghan human rights organizations are working with often widely diverging estimates on civilian casualties, all concur that most are attributable to “anti-government” forces such as the Taliban, and all usually overlook the Taliban slaughter of Afghan police officers (roughly 1,000 in 2008) since they are not considered “civilians.”

I am sure that this is correct but I don’t see its relevance in the context of what I was discussing. My comparison was between how the tactics of the Brits, Yanks etc are covered and the coverage afforded to comparable tactics employed by the IDF.

4.
“The important part is that even in the case of poorly executed American air strikes that so often and tragically result in the deaths of civilian non-combatants…”

The problem is not that poorly executed airstrikes cause civilian casualties, it’s that correctly executed ones do; commanders, acting under pressure and with incomplete information are obliged to decide between protecting their troops’ lives and protecting civilians.

David Adler seems to be upset because Eamonn wrote that article and not a different one, focussed entirely on the guilt of the perpetrators, and he protests that _he_ hasn’t singled out Israelis for unfair criticism. Well, well done you, David — then this piece wasn’t about you. I don’t think anyone had suggested it was. It remains true that this news is being welcomed as a stick to beat Israel with, by everyone engaged in the dirty war on Israel’s ability to survive, and it is both fair and necessary for Israel’s supporters to address that.

Eamonn devoted a great deal of his post to a sort of comparison with the tragedy of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, the issue of civilian casualties is extremely divisive, sometimes explosive, but as is the case with the recent uproars about IDF brutality, the matter is far more nuanced than one would imagine from reading most accounts. Eamonn may have left the incorrect impression that it is only the UK, Canada, the US and the Netherlands with troops engaged in Afghanistan. In fact there are 39 countries with troops in Afghanistan, and there is a wide range of approaches to the challenge of avoiding civilian casualties. While NATO, UNAMA and Afghan human rights organizations are working with often widely diverging estimates on civilian casualties, all concur that most are attributable to “anti-government” forces such as the Taliban, and all usually overlook the Taliban slaughter of Afghan police officers (roughly 1,000 in 2008) since they are not considered “civilians.”

The important part is that even in the case of poorly executed American air strikes that so often and tragically result in the deaths of civilian non-combatants, Afghan opinion ( like NATO opinion and “western” opinion) is divided on the burden of blame in such incidents. Some Afghans fault the armies that called in the air strikes, others fault the Taliban that engage in their lawless violence from hiding places among civilians.

I would be curious to know the state of Gazan opinion on who bears the burden of blame for all the tragic civilian deaths during Operation Cast Lead. But I suspect it is similarly divided.

Do you have a reference for that? I would like to read more about it.