No, just noting the disparate media coverage...

Yes, yes, you're just a neutral observer, who calls things exactly like they are. Such as calling Hamas militants "freedom fighters" and their death a "genocide".

Bradley loads all his responses with judgement. He refuses to debate any issue.

I'm going to give Bradley a test here

Silesia
Ulster
Tyrol
North America
Western Belarus
Karelia

Should the people living there all be removed?

There's a significant difference between 60 years and 600 years - - ask the people of Tibet - - but I most certainly do not approve of something like the horrific genocide of the aboriginal people of North America either. I do not fear speaking my judgement on evil - - silence is evil compounded...

Oh so time means events become diluted and acceptable? Thats quite hilarious and completely hypocritical. Also answer all the other examples I gave you, or are you to smug not to do that?

Oooo wait I have another one

Scotland

The original people were invaded and supplanted by Picts, I believe that means everyone there should be kicked out now!

Don't turn yourself into a joke Gulli...

I am not so update on that conflict......

What actually happend to the idea to create a Palestine in the region of the West Jordan Land? (I guess its called Westbank in English?)

You can't answer it can you? Because your stance is so flawed it almost becomes parody.

Wait another one! The millions killed by the Mongols in the 12th century, its ok now because in Bradley logic time makes everything acceptable! Can you tell me when events become acceptable is there a chart?

I really can't figure out all the anti-Israel feeling here. I often wonder if its based in anti-semitism...

I absolutely know for a fact that you're smarter than this! Why act the fool?

I'll stop when you answer the question and explain your hypocrisy.

Finally! There we go...

I'm no foreign policy expert, but it seems to me that many of the same people who wanted to bomb Afghanistan into the stone age for their terrorist attacks are criticizing Israel for doing something similar, and I really cannot understand the different views here.

Palestine elects a government that, as its core platform, wants to destroy the neighboring country of Israel. As soon as the cease fire is over, they once more send in the suicide bombers and spend a week firing bombs randomly into Israel. Israel warns them "Keep this up and we'll fight back." They keep it up and Israel keeps to its word and fights back. "We'll stop as soon as you stop" Israel says and Hamas refuses to stop. Yes, innocent people are hurt, just as they are in every war, and when Hamas' bombers blow up public spaces in Israel. But you know, if you elect terrorists to lead your country, that's kind of what you should expect, isn't it?

Seriously, like I said, I am no foreign policy expert here, but I really can't figure out all the anti-Israel feeling here. I often wonder if its based in anti-semitism, because if this stuff had happened in the US, I think we would all support the exact same things Israel is doing.

So if someone could explain to me the difference, I'd like to know.

Well no, but still a damn sight more neutral than some of the more radical corporate media sources, like say the New York Times...

I'm no fan of Hamas, but Israel's response is unwarranted.

I'm not anti-Zion (I'm a full Jew myself), but...Israel, enough is enough.

Well, your answer did nothing to help me understand it.

It always elevates any discussion of Israeli foreign policy to throw in the old anti-semitic bone, eh?

The world isn't just watching the Israeli government commit a crime in Gaza; we are watching it self-harm. This morning, and tomorrow morning, and every morning until this punishment-beating ends, the young people of the Gaza Strip are going to be more filled with hate, and more determined to fight back, with stones or suicide-vests or rockets. Israel's leaders have convinced themselves the harder you beat the Palestinians, the softer they will become. But when this is over, the rage against Israelis will have hardened, and the same old compromises will still be waiting by the roadside of history, untended and unmade.

To understand how frightening it is to be a Gazan this morning, you need to have stood in that small slab of concrete by the Mediterranean and smelled the claustrophobia. The Gaza Strip is smaller than the Isle of Wight, but it is crammed with 1.5 million people who can never leave. They live out their lives on top of each other in vast sagging tower blocks, jobless and hungry. From the top floor, you can often see the borders of their world: the Mediterranean Sea, and the Israeli barbed wire. When bombs begin to fall - as are do now with more deadly force than on any day since 1967 - there is nowhere to hide.

There will now be a war over the story of this war. The Israeli government says: we withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and in return we got Hamas and Qassam rockets being rained on our cities. Some 16 civilians have been murdered. How many more are we supposed to sacrifice? It is a plausible narrative, and there are shards of truth in it - but it is also filled with holes. If we want to understand the reality and really stop the rockets, we need to rewind a few years, and view the runway to this war dispassionately.

The Israeli government did indeed withdraw from the Gaza Strip in 2005 - in order to be able to intensify control of the West Bank. Ariel Sharon's senior advisor Dov Weisglass was unequivocal about this, explaining: "The disengagement [from Gaza] is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians... Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state has been removed from our agenda indefinitely."

Ordinary Palestinians were horrified by this, and by the fetid corruption of their own Fatah leaders - so they voted for Hamas. It certainly wouldn't have been my choice - an Islamist party is antithetical to all my convictions - but we have to be honest. It was a free and democratic election, and it was not a rejection of a two-state solution. The most detailed polling of Palestinians, by the University of Maryland, found that 72 percent want a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, while fewer than 20 percent want to reclaim the whole of historic Palestine. So, partly in response to this pressure, Hamas offered Israel a long ceasefire and a de facto acceptance of two states, if only Israel would return to its legal borders.

Rather than seize this opportunity and test their sincerity, the Israeli government reacted by punishing the entire civilian population. They announced they were blockading the Gaza Strip in order to "pressure" its people to reverse the democratic process. They surrounded the Strip and refused to let anyone or anything out. They let in a small trickle of food, fuel and medicine - but not enough for survival.

Weisglass quipped the Gazans were being "put on a diet." According to Oxfam, this November only 137 trucks of food were allowed into Gaza this November - to feed 1.5 million people. The UN says poverty has reached an "unprecedented level." When I was last in besieged Gaza, I saw hospitals turning away the sick because their machinery and medicine was running out. I met hungry children stumbling around the streets, scavenging for food.

It was in this context - under collective punishment designed to topple a democracy - that some forces within Gaza did something immoral: they fired Qassam rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities. These rockets have killed 16 ordinary Israeli citizens. This is abhorrent: targeting civilians is always murder. But it is hypocritical for the Israeli government to claim now to speak out for the safety of civilians when they have been terrorising civilians as a matter of state policy.

European and American governments are responding with a lop-sidedness that ignores these realities. They say that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate under rocket-fire, but they demand the Palestinians do so under siege in Gaza and violent military occupation in the West Bank.

Before it falls down the memory hole, we should remember that last week, Hamas offered a ceasefire in return for basic and achievable compromises. Don't take my word for it. According to the Israeli press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security services Shin Bet, "told the Israeli cabinet [on the 23rd] that Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms." Diskin explained Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet - high with election-fever, and eager to appear tough - rejected these terms.

The core of the situation has been starkly laid out by Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad. He says that while Hamas - like much of the Israeli right - dreams of driving their opponents away, "they have recognized this ideological goal is not attainable, and will not be in the foreseeable future." Instead, "they are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967." They are aware this means they "will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original goals" - and towards a long-term peace based on compromise. The rejectionists on both sides - from Mahmoud Ahmadinejadh to Bibi Netanyahu - would then be marginalised. It is the only path that could yet end in peace - but it is the Israeli government who refused to choose it. Halevy explains: "Israel, for reasons of its own, did not want to turn the ceasefire into the start of a diplomatic process with Hamas."

Why would Israel act this way? The Israeli government wants peace, but only one imposed on its own terms, based on the acceptance of defeat by the Palestinians. It means they can keep the slabs of the West Bank on 'their' side of the wall. It means they keep the largest settlements, and control of the water supply. And it means a divided Palestine, with responsibility for Gaza hived off to Egypt, and the broken-up West Bank standing alone. Negotiations threaten this vision: they would require Israel to give up more than it wants to. But an imposed peace will be no peace at all: it will not stop the rockets or the rage. For real safety, Israel will have to talk to the people it is blockading and bombing today - and compromise with them.

The sound of Gaza burning should be drowned out by the words of the Israeli writer Larry Derfner. He says: "Israel's war with Gaza has to be the most one-sided on earth.... If the point is to end it, or at least begin to end it, the ball is not in Hamas' court - it's in ours."

Seriously, here, I am honestly trying to figure this out.

It always elevates any discussion of Israeli foreign policy to throw in the old anti-semitic bone, eh?