So why does (for example) Rosie Bell think that putting Brian’s dinner on the table 10 minutes late is even remotely comparable to bombing Gaza with the resultant deaths of 1300 people, 400 of them kids?

You evidently haven’t read my post with any understanding at all of the point I am trying to make.

so in the end they would never consider, dream or want to make the former “understandable” but can’t apply those selfsame sentiments when the issue is the latter, anti-Jewish racism

that is a very peculiar attitude.

What questions?

I don’t support ANY fundamentalist regimes, past or present. Including the Dalai Lama’s Tibet, which was run as a feudal theocracy with 95% of the population living in a state best described as serfdom.

These are 1324 Gazans killed including 437 children under the age of children.

In addition 110 women, 123 elderly men, 14 medics, and four journalists.

PCHR says that 280 of the victims were children and 121 were women. If we assume that none of the 15-17-year old children were in fact fighters – which is not likely to be true – and if we assume that half of Gazans are under 18 (the median age is 17.2) and that half of Gazans are male and half female, and if we further assume that there were 20,000 fighters, then according to PCHR’s own figures:

“Combatants” and Hamas police were 35 times more likely to be killed than civilians.
Adult males were 8.5 times more likely to be killed than adult women.
Adult males were 7 times more likely to be killed than children under 18.

—————————————–
(1) The PCHR made no attempt to determine whether any of the dead were members of terror groups, only if they were (what PCHR defines as) “active combatants.” In other words, if the IDF shot a Hamas operative a minute after he/she shot a rocket into Israel, the PCHR would classify him/her as a “noncombatant” since the operative was not shot at precisely the moment he/she was firing the rocket. The PCHR also counted Nizar Rayyan as a civilian.

Internationalist

harps on the killings in Gaza when he is refering to an ongoing war with people – do I have to repeat it again ?- who want to expunge Israel form the face of the earth. The only logical outcome of Inernationalist’s arguments must inevitably be the annihilation of Israel. Presumably the massacre of thousands of people in the most barbaric way would then be ‘understandable’ for Internationalist. The Israeli war was NOT an indiscriminate massacre. Even from my distant vantage point, I could tell they were doing their best to avoid the kind of massacre that Hamas would like to perpetarte on Israel.

It is quite useless to draw the attention of Internationalist and friends to the nature of the fundamentalist regimes they support. No attacks and protests about the really indiscrinmiate and barnaric murders and Massacres going on in those regions and in others (China and Tibet). They trun a blind eye; they do not reply. Up to today I haven’t had a single reply to such questions.

I think Internationalist, Loach, Galloway and others should go to live in those countries with their families, not in European enclaves, but among the people they espouse, and find out what life is like under Sharia law.

Galloway can hob-nob with criminals and then retrurn safely home, while home still remains safe.Much of this Islamo-leftishness has something clinically suicidal about it. This brand of Islamism is the very last thing that will help them evolve a society that is free from exploitaion of the exploited classes, or that will dismantle ruthless capitalism or what they call Imperialism. The real new Imperialists are the Islamic fundamentalists.

There is something of what Loach considers ‘understandable’ anit-Arab feeling in Italy. I neither understand nor condone it.

If you have not read the thread it is understanable that you don’t know that understandable is not the same word as understanding.

Moreover, the fact that a response (such as an expression of antisemitism) to a crime, bad act or omission is inappropriate does not justify the original crime, bad act or omission (such as, for example, dropping bombs on densely populated civilian neighbourhoods and trying to dump the blame on the “human shields” er, I mean victims).

Yet that’s what people seem to be arguing.

Moreover not all crimes bad acts or omissions are equal.

So why does (for example) Rosie Bell think that putting Brian’s dinner on the table 10 minutes late is even remotely comparable to bombing Gaza with the resultant deaths of 1300 people, 400 of them kids?

Could someone explain, preferably without calling me an antisemite?

That is the real problem with Ken Loach’s remark for me; it smacks of precisely the same sneaking toleration of bigotry.