SteveHill, the terrorist wannabe

I wonder if Mr. Hill’s remarks are legal in the U.K. ?
Although Hamas isn’t banned as such, Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades are on the list of proscribed terrorist organisations. So to support a proscribed terrorist organisation would surely be a breach of the law, or at least something the Security Services would wish to note.
They can be contacted at http://www.mi5.gov.uk

Some of you may recall that there were a series of Canada-bashing articles on CIF regarding its record on pollution issues. One of them dealt with the way the Tar Sands project (which apparently has a lot of British money invested in it) is affecting the health and environment of the Native population in the area.

Steve Hill posted a comment in which he suggested that if the Natives don’t like the project they should “relocate”. I wonder when he will suggest the same for the residents of Gaza ?

Gerald, given the statement by Baroness Jenny “Kaboom” Tonge about her sympathies with the Palestinian suicide terrorists (which led to her resignation from the Liberal Democrat Party when it still had a conscience, and similar statements by reptile Ken Livingstone that Palestinians cannot be blamed for exploding themselves because they have nothing else to fight with, no, Steve Hill will not be prosecuted.

I think he should be exiled to a Gaza refugee “camp” though, and not Gaza city or anywhere like that.

I would greatly appreciate some advice, for the past ten days I have been premoderated/banned from ‘Comment is free’,However no one had informed me, so I wrote and re wrote pieces,but nothing was posted,after several days I complained and sent multiple emails to userhelp/communitysuggestions/cifmoderation/mattseaton, asking why I was unable to post,but no reply.After one week I received a reply frm communitysuggestions, who told me i was being premoderated,because I had referred to being ‘unable to post a comment’(premoderated),this made no sense to me,so I again complained,the second time, I was told I was being premoderated because, I had personally abused an author(which I hadnt) I beleive they are referring to a Brian whitaker piece about Syria(when is a dictator not a dictator) although they didnt say which article and which comment,I had commented on humn rights violations and divorce in Syria,the author had asked me a question, and I had replied,I was not abusive.offensive in any way(On other occasions I have brought up the background of an author, I f I believed them to be,biased/fixated on Israel(To the exclusion of everywhere else),but that is not personal abuse.So after more than ten days I am still unable to post,and still no coherant response.It seems to me if you challenge casual anti Zionisim, which slips so easily into casual anti semitism, The Guardian cif, simply and totally ignore your request for an explanation to the process which takes you from deletion to premoderation,to banning.If anyone has any ideas, Do let me Know.

Hairshirt while I agree with you that it is unlikely, but not impossible, that he will be prosecuted I still firmly believe that such ‘individuals’ should be watched and their actions brought to the attention of the relevant authorities if they are not already being monitored.
Sorry to tell you that Jenny Tonge did not resign from the Liberal Democrat Party but took up a seat in the House of Lords where the ‘Noble Lady’ is their spokesperson on Health, as well as being a firm believer in the power of the Jewish Lobby.
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=2092

This moron is probably as much responsible for Palestinian deaths as is Hamas because he colludes with the “desperation hypothesis” put out by Islamist terror apologists.

I am reminded of Mitnaged’s article and what he/she says about codependency.

I don’t care whether he likes dogs, either. It is said that Goebbels loved children but that didn’t stop him from murdering Jewish ones as if they were vermin.

smtx01.

To be banned from posting on CI(F), you do not have to be in contravention of the ‘rules’ that CI(F) publishes.

The cardinal sin is to oppose the Guardian World View and be effective.

This was, I believe, AKUS’s sin which ended in his being bannished from CI(F).

Berchmans and LaRit are prime examples of abusive posters who use swear words, (gasp – but its true) and very often misspell the names of sane posters with whom they obviously disagree.

But.

Strangely, they have not been banned.

Such are the depths to which, a once proud newspaper, has sunk.

The blockade is illegal and it kills Palestinians continuously? And rockets are legitimate??

Sometimes I just try to laugh off comments like those, but other times it’s just not funny. think of the kids that were injured by those rockets, for example that 7 year old boy from Be’er sheva last year who was critically injured but then started to make a recovery. Think of people like him, and then think of the psycho who wrote that above (and the 39+ people who approved of it).
It’s becoming quite hard to say that they don’t realise the damage Israelis suffered, instead of saying that they just don’t care.
so there you have it, Steve Hill, wannabe terrorist, and his 39+ supporters, all glad that that little boy from Be’er Sheva was hit, as well as all the other victims.

Zahava
I just got back from Israel and while there, went to visit Sderot.

We were given a tour of the town and had a meeting with the mayor. It is really quite an extraordinary place. Very quiet with not many people on the streets.

One of my companions told me that his preoccupation was to be near shelter if Code Red, the warning klaxon, was sounded. If that’s his reaction on a brief visit, what’s it like for ordinary people living there all year round?

I read the article that the delightful Mr Hill posted to and I think you’re quite correct – the majority posting there had no empathy whatever with the article – they just did not care at all about what life was like for Israelis living in towns and villages surrounding Gaza.

In Sderot itself, the feeling I got was that the reverse is very much true – they’d love to come to some kind of accommodation with the Gazans – the mayor of Sderot, David Bouskilla has issued an invitation to the mayor of Gaza City to visit Sderot and see if they can’t co-operate on issues relevant to them both. You won’t be surprised to hear he’s not had a reply.

Steve Hill and others of his persuasion have no more interest in the fate of the people of Gaza than they do in that of Israelis. What drives them is not love for Palestinians but hatred of Israelis.

Incidentally, you can’t just, ‘get your hands on a Qassam rocket’. They are individually machined and constructed by hand – Steve Hill looks like he can’t even comb his hair, much less hand build a Qassam.

cityca

.

“If the Guardian continues to censor everyone it disagrees with, CiF will become a sterile and boring environment.”

Well Mr Pot you really are looking black today …Who ..me ? Mr Kettle? :)

To the person calling himself biko (lower case b). How ironic it is that you hide behind this particular name with your cowardly trolling. Biko himself was a hero, revealing who he was to cruel foes without fear in a very different and unrelated struggle.

Steve Biko was a true freedom fighter, “one of South Africa’s most significant political activists and a leading founder of South Africa’s Black Consciousness Movement. His death in police detention in 1977 led to his being hailed as a martyr of the anti-Apartheid struggle.”

“I wonder if Mr. Hill’s remarks are legal in the U.K. ?”

Yes they are. I’m a lawyer. And honest enough to post under my own name.

International law respects the rights of victims of an illegal trade embargo to, as a last resort, use military force against such an embargo.

Israel currently denies Gaza adequate fuel, building materials or even toilet paper (some new form of WMD I presume): sanitation is a major issue. Thousands of tons of raw sewage are being dumped in the Mediterranean. These conditions are killing people, a year after the (illegal) Gaza invasion.

Also legal under UK law is the right to sue this site for libel published in the UK. George Galloway MP has already successfully sued a Jewish radio station in London for calling him anti-semitic without being able to substantiate that fact.

sababa: do try to at least read what I write, if that’s not actually beyond your pay grade. Cats, not dogs.

“Also legal under UK law is the right to sue this site for libel published in the UK”

But you won’t sue will you Steve. No judge is going to be sympathetic for a wannabe terrorist. Those rockets are fired indiscriminately, they threaten children and adult civilians. And you want to get your hands on them.
You’re filth Steve.

Steve Hill needs to be outed.

So the question is – who is Steve Hill. He says he’s a lawyer. He maybe self-employed , he may be a partner in a law firm. However he may be employed – perhaps by a company, perhaps by a law firm, perhaps by a local authority ? If this is the case then i wonder whether his employees are aware that he posts filth and hatred on CIF when he should be working ?

Sick Frogman – under UK law CiFWatch itself need not libel me. It need only carry a post – by anyone – which is defamatory and fail to remove it. That’s why CiF has moderators who remove posts which could get the Guardian sued. he publisher is responsible for the comments of others which it chooses to publish.

I’m retired. I have plenty of time to say and do what I like (and in my professional career I was not “employed”: I owned the business). I’m more than capable of bringing a legal action without having to pay any expensive lawyers to act on my behalf.

For the moment, at least, I’m content to let CiFWatch be aware that it is being watched. And not only on this page, and not only with regards to me, CiFWatch is susceptible to many such legal actions on behalf of many people falsely accused of “anti-semitism”.

As I said above, the UK High Court says if you can’t back that up with proof, it’s libel.

You’re chicken Steve – you won’t sue – you know you’ll loose.

I find it sad that somebody with 2 young children talks the way you do. As i say , pure filth.

BTW Steve – the proof is your comment. Go back to your studio Steve. Everybody knows how disgusting you are.

I presume Steve that you were never a libel lawyer.

Cityca, your post raises an even more general point: The Palestnians have a habit of conducting themselves badly – then of complaining or making false accusations against the Israelis when their own bad behaviour makes life difficult for the Palestinians.

This is in fact a repeated Palestinian pattern, a century old. Peace will not come ntil the Palestnians have learnt the futility of that pattern.

Laws operate for the benefit of any victim.

For the sake of accuracy you should at least correct the assertion that only 39 people recommended my contentious post, it was 50. And 48 for the later one which said:

“… and was it only last week that we had the risible performance of Israel’s ambassador in London announcing on the BBC Today programme that the people in Gaza had never had it so good: they could get belly dancers over from Egypt to entertain them whenever they wanted?”

You need to do something about Ron – he’s an embarrassment to your own cause.

“But since your entire website is dedicated to defaming the Guardian, I would not assume that any efforts I may make in that direction would be wholly unsupported.”

Firstly it’s not my website. Secondly there’s no way that The Guardian would touch your case with a barge-pole. The Guardian group (GMG ) is far bigger than just CIF and there’s still enough decent people involved. You’re dreaming Steve. Infact you’re quite a sad dreamer.

You’ll do nothing Steve.

To be clear, my complaint (and will your webmasters please treat this as a formal complaint) it not that I’m being wrongly accused of being anti-semitic (although plenty of Jewish friends will confirm I’m not).

It is that you are running a web page called “Steve Hill, the terrorist wannabe”.

Since it is abundantly clear to anyone that my concerns are humanitarian I am less than impressed at the possibility of google searches etc linking me with terrorism for evermore. I consider that highly defamatory. It is clearly not true, and is not fair comment. There is no defence under UK law. In short, I could not lose a libel action in the UK.

I am however in a spirit of respecting free speech and encouraging open engagement inviting CiFWatch to do something about the matter to save us all a lot of grief.

I do not consider that is an unreasonable position to take.

” There is no defence under UK law. In short, I could not lose a libel action in the UK.”

Yes there is, as you know full well. You know full well that the rockets are fired indisriminately, that they can land on civilian areas. This is an act of terrorism.

The fact you don’t sue has nothing to do with goodwill and everything to do with the fact that you would most likely loose. You support a terrorist action.

It’s irrelevant what the IDF did in this context. It’s about what the rockets fired from Gaza did and the fact that you want to fire them.

Steve – are you sure you were a lawyer ? If so it’s pretty obvious you were not a libel lawyer. I think you’re a deluded bluffer.

SteveHill, can you quote the relevant international law that, according to you, gives carte blanche for Hamas and its oppos to kill Israeli civilians?

I really would like to run it past a legal friend of mine who is versed in such matters.

Thanks very much

“A year ago a lot of IDF hardware, expended while they were “going wild”, in Ms Livni’s memorable phrase, indiscriminately killed about 800 civilians in Gaza, most of them women and children.

So what do you call that?”

Well do you call it terrorism?

Maybe CifWatch will then sue you for libel.

“The people of Gaza – I have never in this discussion mentioned Hamas – have the same rights to self-defence under international law as anyone else.

(I am aware that the IDF, without publishing their methodology, say 297 civilian deaths – still more that 10 times the total victims of Qassan rockets. I prefer the B’Tselem figures. Their methodology is published and open to criticism).”"

So more of them dying makes their murders right?
More Germans died than Brits during WWII. Whats your point?

Yup,Steve Hill,one sad very very sad case,his mouth is a thousands miles ahead of his brain.And when you are brain dead,that is not good.

He is another one of those pro-palestinian web warriors.He must work on a sewage farm,he sure knows how to spew out his shit.

Hill: “indiscriminately killed about 800 civilians in Gaza, most of them women and children.”

Rubbish. 75% of the casualties were males over 16, who form only 25% of the population. Colonel Richard Kemp (former Commander of your country’s forces in Afghanistan) said that the IDF was “the most moral army in the history of warfare”.

I’ll take his view over that of a retired City lawyer any day.

Steve Hill

Louise wrote:

“75% of the casualties were males over 16, who form only 25% of the population.”

Your answer:

“You are saying 350 (75% of 1,400) were under 16.”

No Mr. Hill Louise said that 25% of the casualties weren’t males over 16.
This 25% includes the under the 16 victims and the females over 16 too.
I hope in the interest of the British public and the community of the legal professionals in the UK that you are uniqe in being a lawyer without the minimal understanding of numbers and total disregard of the female population.

“

SteveHill:

“Do you honestly, really, believe that anything at all that Israel say or does must be 100% right ”

Do you honestly believe we do?

“Hamas? At least they can claim to represent people with genuine grievances which need to be addressed ”

Do they? Then they have a funny way of calling attention to them.
Perhaps it’s all miss-communication.
But glad to see you support Hamas who oppress Palestinians more than 1000 Israels.

Hill: “you say 25% of ALL the casualties were under 16″

I did not. I said “75% of the casualties were males over 16″.

That means that 25% of the casualties were not males over 16. Either they were females of any age, or they were males under 16.

It does NOT mean that 25% of ALL the casualties were under 16.

You need to be more rigorous in your logic. Try Sudoku.

Hill
You waded into this, making threats of lawfare in case anyone should suggest you are an anti-Semite. Now it turns out you are miffed because your name is in the headline as a terrorist wannabe which you say you are not, in spite of having written that if you lived in Gaza you would want to get your hands on a few Qassams as a legitimate military response, as if rocketing indiscriminately could ever be a legitimate response.

But back to your original threat, vis a vis anti-Semitism. With regard to Israel, I tend to follow Natan Sharansky’s definition of anti-Semitism, namely the three Ds. Demonisation, delegitimisation and double standards.

You ask on this thread whether we, ‘…honestly, really believe that anything at all that Israel says or does must be 100% right?…’ and the answer to that is of course no, but I certainly wouldn’t share any of my views with you, as you only seek to demonise Israel.

There is not a state in the world that gets it all or even partially right, including Israel, but that does not mean Israel has no right to exist, as Hamas and Hez B’Allah appear to have persuaded you and others on CiF.

And again, here on this thread you seem to have a problem with Israel responding to 8 years of rocket attacks with a carefully planned, meticulously executed assault which a UK expert in assymetrical warfare described as, ‘I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza.’ So how is it with ‘your expert knowledge of assymetrical warfare’, you call this real expert’s testimony into question? You make absolutely no mention of Hamas using its own civilians as human shields and can only find fault with IDF methodology. You mention in humanitarian terms the deaths of Gazans at the hands of the IDF but not a word about they’re occuring as a direct result of them being deliberately and cynically put in harm’s way by Hamas. These surely are double standards.

So can you see how in my opinion, you appear to pass Sharansky’s 3 Ds test?

Btw, Sir Jeremy Greenstock is no friend of Israel and as such, is hardly an objective source.

Hairshirt
Excellent post. (8.00pm).

‘I have no time for Hamas at all. They are terrorists. But they did win an election and are representative of some people’s views. ‘ Steve Hill, 4:46.

So do the BNP in Britain, as shown by the fact that they hold 2 seats in the European parliament, but I would hope that you would not conclude from this that any of their odious policies should be implimented.

Also, it is worth taking a good look at exactly how Hamas consolidated their hold on power in the Gaza strip – it most certainly was not through the ballot box, but by use of violence against their political opponents, Fatah.

If as you say, Mr. Hill, you have no time for Hamas and you consider them terrorists, then why did you state in the above CiF comment that if you lived in Gaza you would like to get your hands on terrorist weapons?
If it was simply a case of writing something a little rash in the heat of the moment, I’m sure that an explanation on your part would go a long way towards clarifying the situation.
I’m sure that as a lawyer you understand very well why people who either live themselves within the range of those weapons or have friends and family who do so, might be more than a little upset by your statement which appears to support and condone the use of violence rather than trying to promote a peaceful solution to the problems.
You state above that your concerns are humanitarian. May I presume that those concerns extend to all categories of human beings, including Israeli civilians? If so, (and I’m sure they do) then surely a statement in support of violence against them is inconsistent with your humanitarian approach?
People get very heated about the Middle East situation and it inspires emotional and not always logical reactions in many, but I’m sure you would agree that condoning and supporting any further violence is not going to help solve the immensely complicated issues which are the cause of the dispute.

Annika

“If as you say, Mr. Hill, you have no time for Hamas and you consider them terrorists, then why did you state in the above CiF comment that if you lived in Gaza you would like to get your hands on terrorist weapons?”

That’s a fair question and it deserves an attempt at a serious answer.

A year after the end of he Gaza attacks, I believe the Gazan people (most of whom I firmly believe not to be terrorists or even particularly sympathisers – just people who want to get on with their lives, raise kids, have jobs and educations etc) have a right to rebuild their homes and get their lives back on track.

They are instead denied all but bare subsistence-level aid: not enough fuel, building materials, sanitation, medicines. And so on. Toilet paper is no a WMD! All this is well documented, including the Israeli ambition to “put the Palestinians on a diet”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_Weissglass

I believe Israel really is exercising in its embargo a collective punishment of civilians (indeed, of the whole Gazan population) which I consider to be a breach of the Geneva Conventions.

And I am simply saying, out of a sense of empathy for those very largely guiltless people, that if I were one of them I would probably want to fight back against what I perceived to be my oppressor too. I do not condone violence (by any party) and I am genuinely concerned if my CiF comment has been read to suggest that I do.

All Israel is doing right now is acting as a recruiting sergeant for another generation of so-called martyrs. Really, sincerely trying to achieve peace is what is required.

“I do not condone violence”.

Then was it an Identity Thief who wrote that comment? “I would be looking to get my hands on some Quassam rockets…. a military response is a legitimate response……”

In which case maybe you need to disassociate yourself from the Identity Thief?

By the way, Gaza could in a single hour obtain the lifting of both Egyptian and Israeli embargos – by simply renouncing the Hamas charter and accepting already-signed peace agreements (such as Oslo), as suggested to it by the US, EU, UN, Russia, and even many Arab entities.

SteveHill, I am interested in your perception of Hamas as an elected government but how does it square that they won an election and then bumped off their opposition?

Are they really democratic? They have done untold harm to the present and futures of Palestinians in Gaza by their implacable opposition to Israel’s existence and their continued aggression towards her. Is there a viable opposition should the Palestinian people decide to elect them out after the disaster they brought about in Cast Lead? These are reasonable questions. Are you able to answer them?

Do you think that Palestinians were not put under pressure to elect Hamas, given Hamas’ behaviour towards its opponents since? True they came into power on a “welfare” ticket, but are they any less corrupt than Fatah before them?

What, for example, do you make of these example of Hamas’ “welfare?”:

“..UN Suspends Aid to Gaza
by Hana Levi Julian

“The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) announced Friday [8/2/09] it will suspend its humanitarian aid to Gaza until further notice due to a Hamas raid on the agency’s distribution center and a subsequent attack on an aid convoy.

“Hamas police attacked a convoy of trucks carrying humanitarian aid supplies from the agency’s warehouse in Israel to its distribution center in Gaza on Thursday, stealing 200 tons of food, according to IDF Major Peter Lerner, spokesman for Israel’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT).

“The terrorist force also held up the UNRWA distribution store at Beach Camp in Gaza on Tuesday, stealing 3,500 blankets and 406 tons of food parcels intended for 500 impoverished families in the region. The raid was carried out after UNRWA staff had earlier refused to hand over the supplies to the Hamas-run Ministry of Social Affairs, according to the agency’s Jerusalem-based spokesman, Chris Gunness.

“Lerner confirmed the report that UNRWA had decided to suspend its aid to the region till further notice due to the thefts, both of which were carried out at gunpoint.

“This is not the first time that Hamas terrorists have stolen humanitarian aid supplies meant for the poor in Gaza, according to the IDF. However, it was the first time they had looted from UNRWA, according to Gunness, who expressed the agency’s disappointment with the group’s actions…”

And what sort of concern for its people’s welfare is shown by the following?

“…Hamas Police Steal UNRWA Aid
by Hana Levi Julian

“Hamas police raided an UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) warehouse in Gaza Tuesday evening [3/2/09], stealing thousands of blankets and hundreds of food parcels from local staff at gunpoint.

“It’s a very serious incident,” Jerusalem-based UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness told Israel National News. “We condemn it in the strongest terms and we demand that the items be returned immediately.”

“Hamas police grabbed 3,500 blankets and 407 food parcels, according to Gunness, who said his staff was present at the time of the heist. “We were there, and we tried to stop them, but they were armed and we were not,” he said.

“This is not the first time that Hamas terrorists have stolen humanitarian aid supplies, according to the IDF. Gunness maintained they had never before looted from UNRWA, however. “It’s the first time that our aid has been confiscated,” he said. Other U.N. groups also operate in Gaza.

“The agency has distributed some 50,000 blankets and 12,000 food packages in Gaza to date, he said. “Given that, this was a relatively small amount,” he said, “but that’s not the point. It is a serious issue.”

“The aid is intended for the thousands of impoverished residents who have struggled under the harsh regime imposed by Hamas since the terrorist group seized control of the region in June 2007. ”

(Strange that there is no condemnation of this from you, but then you probably didn’t know about it, did you?)

See also

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3668018,00.html

And why don’t you tell us about incidents like these by democratically elected Hamas?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/hamas-tried-to-hijack-ambulances-during-gaza-war/2009/01/25/1232818246374.html

And also these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWPL5V5G528

http://www.memritv.org/video.html

And since you are such an expert in international law I thought you might be interested in the following:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terror+Groups/Legal_aspects_of_Hamas_methods_7_Jan_2009.htm

Given the above, when you come up with the old recycled arguments which appear to show you as not knowing much at all about what is really going on, it is very difficult to take anything you say seriously. You may talk a lot but you really don’t know much, do you?

Steve Hill

That’s a fair question and it deserves an attempt at a serious answer

I welcome your post above as a return to sanity. The wildly immoderate language used by you and others like you when it comes expressing your feelings about Israel and only Israel is what continues to perplex me and provides this site with its raison d’etre.

Yes, yes, of course, you are a good kind person concerned with the suffering of innocent Gazans – you empathise so much that you can understand why the innocent Gazans bombed the innocent residents of Sderot (and Ashkelon) over a period of eight years and, in your more intemperate moments, you fantasise about bombing the Israelis yourself. But you do not condone violence. I am glad to hear it.

Steve Hill
I am sure you will be glad to find out that things are seldom what they seem:

November summary:
Contrary to persistent reports of a “siege” on the Gaza Strip, there is considerable movement of goods and people between Israel and Gaza. In November:

The amount of merchandise entering the Gaza Strip increased – over 64,000 tons (89% from the private sector and only 11% from the international community) of food, medicines, hygiene products, clothing, agricultural supplies, and cement.
Fuel: Almost 10 million liters of diesel fuel for the power station and over 1,100 tons of cooking gas were delivered to the Gaza Strip.
7,000 heads of cattle were imported for the Eid al-Adha holiday.
1,862 Palestinians crossed from the Gaza Strip into Israel, the West Bank and the Allenby Bridge crossing.
848 International staff members entered the Gaza Strip.
83 Israelis entered the G.S for humanitarian reasons.
The Erez Terminal renovations are almost complete on the Palestinian side. All that is needed is the installation of the electrical wiring in order to complete the project. This should be accomplished in December.
The Power Plant in Gaza received 12 new transformers as well as other electrical equipment.
The North Gaza Wastewater facility was discussed at several meetings between World Bank officials and members of the Palestinian and Israeli infrastructure teams.
Communications equipment was delivered to the Palestinian Water Authority.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2009/Increased_humanitarian_aid_Gaza_after_IDF_operation_Jan_2009

Steve Hill you wrote:

“Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former British Ambassador to the UN, has stated that the Hamas Charter, though drafted, was never formally adopted. Also, that various versions of it exist some of which have “kill the Jews” in it and some of which do not. These inconsistencies may result from various (unadopted) drafts being in circulation, or they might even be mischievous disinformation.”

Again, Mr. Hill, an example of your cherry picking, and putting up Greenstock as if he were the ultimate expert on the Hamas Charter, which of course he isn’t.

Far easier to view a copy of it at the Yale School of Law.

Mr. Hill, perhaps you would care to write to the Yale School of Law and inform them why the source that they provide is inaccurate. I suspect you wouldn’t have the courage or the wits to do that, as you know what the reply would be.

But this and your other comments concerning a Hamas is indicative of your mindset.

As you say you don’t particularly like Hamas “I have no time for Hamas at all. They are terrorists.”

However, from your point of view, Hamas are the enemies of Israel and Jews so therefore you will make feeble efforts to defend them and obfuscate on the topic of their charter, presumably under the mentality that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’.

This is a copy of the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

You might make an effort to familiarise yourself with it, or write to Yale and tell them they got the wrong copy!

No, I’m sure a lot of people who elected Hamas now wish they had not. It looked like a good idea at the time, a protest vote if you wish.

As regards the privations suffered by the population of Gaza, will Israel undertake not to blockade, intercept or fire upon any EU-flagged vessel seeking to deliver aid by sea? There are plenty of people in the world who want to help Gaza, peacefully, get itself back together. We are prevented from doing so. Why?

There are people in Gaza who want to take up places in Western universities which have been offered to them, on merit. They are prevented from leaving to do so. Why?

The Hamas Charter was never formally adopted?? You are really splitting hairs here, SteveHill.

Why then are its contents revisited again and again by Hamas as a rationale for wanting to destroy Israel and its Jews?

Isn’t Hamas behaving in ways designed to bring about what it says in its Charter, ie by refusing to engage in peace talks (its Charter says these are a waste of time), by forcing sharia on its desperate population, among other things?

In terms of employment law, isn’t it so that a person is bound by the terms of a contract if he/she works according to one and is paid accordingly, whether or not that contract is in writing or has been “formally adopted?”

The safety of Israeli civilians is being threatened. It matters little whether the death threats, Kassams and suicide terror visited upon them is under the terms of a “formally adopted” Charter – they still end up just as dead as they would under a “formally adopted” Charter.

Incidentally and for the record, my libel concerns remain, particularly the title of this page.

I’m happy to engage with you on an adult basis – we seem to have got past toy-throwing.

Currently and for the record I await a response to an email I have sent to CiFWatch on that topic.

For the record, if it is assumed that CiFWatch’s desire for anonymity is some kind of Maginot Line, it won’t work. The High Court in London has previously allowed the initiation of legal proceedings by Twitter against someone keen to remain anonymous, but who was deemed certain to be aware of the proceedings if they were brought to his attention in that way. It was then his choice whether or not to turn up in court on the due day.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/6252166/High-Court-serves-injunction-via-Twitter.html

John, thanks for reminding me of the arrangements made by the Israeli government for shipping in aid to Gaza.

The only times that the crossings have been closed has been where they have been deliberately attacked by Hamas or its partners in terror (which is rather an odd way of showing how they care for their people, isn’t it?), or where explosives and such like have been found among the goods inwards or outwards, as were found in the shipment of sugar from the EU a couple of years ago.

As per the shipping in of aid by sea, I can’t speak for the Israeli government, but I would imagine that it would want to comb minutely any vessels which come in from outside, given the threats from Hamas. Much would depend therefore upon whether the shippers of the aid would allow this. If they would not, then the aid would not get through because, given the lengths to which Hamas went and still goes to try to get explosives into Gaza and exploding people into Israel, the shippers would be assumed to be hiding something.

SteveHill – many people are helping Gaza peacefully, myself among them. Even during Cast Lead the people of Israel were sending aid to Palestinian civilians.

Hill
‘….My libel concerns remain…’

How do you think we feel, reading a calumny of lies and distortions, smears and innuendo day in, day out?

You at least were the architect of your own misfortune in that you foolishly wrote for all the world to see what you believe. By all means recant if you are so minded, but reputation is a valuable thing to be jealously guarded.

I, for one, second Annika’s post to SteveHill.

He says that he is a humanitarian but his statement above seems to contradict this. For him to allow himself to be so misunderstood does not make sense at all. Why doesn’t he retract the statement?

Steve Hill, I choose anonymity because of the nastiness and threats even to high status supporters of Israel, such as Prof Michael Baum, an eminent oncologist and cancer researcher from Israel-detractors who were trying to have him struck off for supporting Israel.

Perhaps the real difficulty lies in your failure to express yourself properly, as per your initial comment which led to all this, and your threat above.

You failed to make yourself crystal clear, Steve Hill. You came across as being a sympathiser with violence which, as others have since implied, makes something of a nonsense of your claim to be a humanitarian, doesn’t it? Being selectively humanitarian is like being a little bit pregnant – it is a logical impossibility.

Why not, therefore, issue a clarifying statement for the avoidance of all doubt? It’d be simple to do and you have all but said it in your comments.

“Please explain to us how an organisation like Hamas “formally adopts” a charter. Have you ever asked why they post it on their web sites if they never adopted it?”

It has crossed my mind. My best guess is it suits them to leave the ambiguity unresolved, to play to the domestic gallery that they can “play hardball” (when actually, they don’t have the capability to do so in any real sense). And it would show weakness, to that gallery, to admit that they don’t really mean that, and that they know damn well there is no solution which does not accept Israel’s right to exist.

They’ll trade that concession for something worthwhile in peace talks. They won’t give it up for nothing. That’s just realpolitik.

“Please tell us why you don’t suggest the Gazans relocate.”

Why on earth should they? And when they want to, will Israel let them?

Can we be clear about one thing? Hamas rockets have killed about 20 people in eight years. I’ve lived with terrorism: over 3,000 IRA victims here in the UK. And we made peace with them and let the convicted murderers out of prison. There is no other way.

The convicted murderers will be released for Gilad Schalit and Hamas will still not sign a peace treaty with Israel. My prediction for 2010.

SteveHill:

“They’ll trade that concession for something worthwhile in peace talks. They won’t give it up for nothing. That’s just realpolitik.”

Did it ever occur to you that no nation negotiates its “right-to-exist” ?

“What do you suggest for a title? Since the one above seems to upset you so much why don’t the editors use the statement from your post – viz, ““If I lived in Gaza, I too would be looking to get my hands on Qassan (sic) rockets.””

Editors. I’ll live with that too. I said it. Therefore it does not misrepresent me. And no doubt despite a few dozen people pressing the “report abuse” button on CiF, the Guardian’s legal people decided it was not abusive and defamed nobody.

“you will make yourself look even more foolish if you threaten libel action against yourself, not to mention the press coverage you will get – positive for CiFWatch but not so positive for you”

I can’t litigate in the UK under an alias. But if I did so, I would have nothing at all to be embarrassed about. And CiFWatch would no longer be able to publish in the UK, which frankly a lot of people would cheer to the rooftops..

Steve Hill, why do you make the silly false equivalence between the I/P issue and the IRA conflict in Northern Ireland?

Even Lord Alderdyce, the architect of the Northern Ireland peace treaty, is on record (I know, because I heard him say it) that the I/P conflict is much more toxic.

At his lecture, Alderdyce said that the initial phase in the Northern Ireland peace talks, were, in fact, “talks about talks”, before the factions even sat together. It says much about them that they succeeded eventually. Can you envisage the same happening between Israel and Hamas? As it is, Hamas won’t even recognise Israel let alone countenance talking to Israel.

Steve Hill, you have chosen to publish the statement you made under your own name and, I presume, your avatar is your own picture.

You have chosen to post contentiously about one of the most contentious issues in the news, under your own name and using your own photograph rather than a moniker or using another avatar.

That being the case, you have deliberately incited the replies you got, and are indeed the architect of your own misfortune and therefore for you to whinge about being linked on Google to what you wrote is nonsensical because you deliberately set it up to happen.

stevehill

You protest too much when faced with your own words.

You seem to have a rather legalistic and casual approach to matters of life and death of others in Israel and Gaza, while living comfortably, you state in your bio, in “A sleepy village in North Oxfordshire”, even though your legalisms are based on a long string of errors and false impressions about what is actually going on in Gaza. Your apparent concern for Gazans is matched by a total lack of concern for the terror inflicted on Israelis by incessant firing of rockets and mortars into their towns, villages, and homes.

In your own words, on 29 Dec 09, 10:19am (on CiF)you wrote that:

“There is a view that rather than being “terrorists”, Hamas are legally justified in using military means to seek to alleviate Israel’s illegal blockade of Gaza which is killing civilians on a daily and continuing basis (e.g. the breakdown of sanitation and medical facilities; the inability to rebuild basic housing; rolling power cuts)”.

As has been pointed out, this “blockade” is actually an embargo on materials that could be used for military rather than civilian purposes. In fact, the only blockading power is Egypt, which, while permitting illegal smuggling, apparently provides no passage of food or materials to Gaza in the same way as Israel does on a daily basis. As for all the rest of the errors, I’ll leave that for another time.

You wrote of Hamas: “There is a view that rather than being “terrorists”, Hamas are legally justified in using military means”.

Although the phrase is poorly constructed, it is quite evident that what you intended was:

“There is a view that rather than carrying out terror attacks Hamas are legally justified in using military means”.

You ignore the fact that the only “military attacks” that Hamas carries out are, in fact terror attacks – firing missiles at civilian targets in Israel, sending would-be suicide bombers into Israel, and so on. There are no Israeli military targets in Gaza, and, by definition, I think you would have to agree therefore that there are no “military means” being used by Hamas.

In the last year, since the end of the Cast Lead operation, Hamas and friends have fired approximately 286 missiles into Israel, all aimed solely at civilian targets, yet you choose to ignore this terror activity – in fact, you condone it by writing “There is a view” – by which you clearly mean that it is “your view” – and if you dispute that, I invite you to state clearly that it is NOT your view – “that Hamas are legally justified in using military means to seek to alleviate Israel’s illegal blockade of Gaza”. However, apart from stating that “there is a view” and “legal justification” (on what grounds you do not make clear) to support your opinion, you provide no example of a legitimate authority that supports the firing of those missiles into Israel.

Anyone can hold any view they like, but in fact it is widely accepted by most of the civilized countries of the world, including the one in which you live, and of which you are a citizen, that Hamas and its alphabet soup of associated terrorist groups are terrorists. In fact, this “view” is so well accepted that Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organization in the UK:

http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/legislation/current-legislation/terrorism-act-2000/proscribed-groups.html

Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades:
Hamas aims to end Israeli occupation in Palestine and establish an Islamic state.

On 29 Dec 09, 10:30am (on CiF), you wrote:

If I lived in Gaza I too would be looking to get my hands on some Qassan rockets. There comes a point where all that is left is fighting back. As I said in the other thread today, there’s a pretty cogent argument that far from being “terrorism”, a military response (however outgunned Gaza may be) is a legitimate response to an illegal blockade which in killing civilians on a continuing basis.

Now, being legalistic, you might protest that there is a difference between “getting your hands on some Kassam rockets” and actually firing those rockets. It’s a bit like the argument used by the NRA in the US – “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. But that is surely a stretch. It must be reasonable to assume that what you intended is that if you were a member of Hamas, your purpose in “getting hold of Kassam rockets” would be to use them, rather than for any other reason. In addition, you immediately refer in the same paragraph, to “fighting back” – it’s a reasonable presumption, again to use your own words, that by saying “if I lived in Gaza” you mean that you would “fight back” by firing those rockets.

The targets would be the Israeli towns and villages around Gaza, and there is a widely “accepted view”, or “cogent argument” to paraphrase your own words, that firing rockets into civilian settlements is an act of terror.

So, to summarize, you have come out in print stating:

1) That some – by which, it is reasonable to assume that you – have “a view” that Hamas’ actions are legitimate and “legally justified”- i.e., you support the activities of a terror organization, Hamas, proscribed by your own government

2) That if you lived in Gaza, you would try to obtain Kassam rockets, whose only purpose is to be used to fire into Israeli civilian targets

3) That you regard the firing of these rockets as a “legitimate response” which is “legally justified”even though the targets have invariably been civilians

4) By using the words “legally justified” and “legitimate response”, specially given the implication in your references to your previous career which suggest that you have a legal background, you indicate approval for those actions and dispute the characterization of Hamas as a proscribed, illegal, illegitimate organization.

You never said, for example, that “There is a view, even though I do not agree with it”, that Hamas’ actions are legitimate. You expressed understanding for their actions. Yet in your comment on this thread threatening legal action, you protest that you do not support terrorism and that you are indignant that CiFWatch has pointed out the implicit support for terrorism in your own words.

I came to this thread late due to the time difference between the US and the UK, and I notice that you are now back-tracking:

CifWatch: January 3, 2010 at 4:46 am

I have no time for Hamas at all. They are terrorists. But they did win an election and are representative of some people’s views.

Israel has some (not all) responsibility for so radicalising people that such an election result could come about.

Let’s leave the politics aside for now, and Israel’s responsibility for Hamas.

In this more recent statement, you claim that Hamas ARE terrorists.

Which is, in fact, “your view”?

Are Hamas terrorists , or aren’t they?

Are their activities justified? Or are they not?

If you lived in Gaza and could “get your hands on a Kassam” and could fire it into Sderot, would this be an act of terror, or a military response?

Would you be a “terrorist” like a member of Hamas in that case, or a “legitimate” … whatever.

Rather than threatening lawsuits, you should examine your words, your conscience, and the consequence of encouraging others to terror and murderous violence. Any reasonable reading of your words implies support for firing rockets at civilian centers, an act you condone in others and would undertake yourself if you were in Gaza.

Steve Hill

You have several times told us that Israel does not allow toilet paper into Gaza.

http://www.paltrade.org/cms/images/enpublications/GAZA REPORT OCT- NOV 2009-Final.pdf

If you open this link you will see that tissue paper is explicitly named as one of the products that goes in. One can presume toilet paper goes in too – why tissue paper but not toilet paper?

That presumption is strengthened by this link:

http://www.camera.org/index.asp
x_context=2&x_outlet=55&x_article=1675

The Palestine Trade Center (PalTrade) publishes detailed monthly reports about the Gaza crossings. As of March (latest I can find) toilet paper was certainly allowed in.

Yet again you have been caught out!

How about doing your own research instead of believing everything you read in The Guardian and Ha’aretz?

It’s not as if you don’t have time, what with living in sleepy Oxfordshire and having taken early retirement – is it?

“..The twisted logic he displays is one of justifying the Arabs’ right to hold a gun to their own heads while pointing a finger at Israel, howling and blaming Israel while they keep pulling the trigger and turning their collective heads just enough to miss…..and to relive the experience again the next day…”

In the words of the Arab proverb – “He strikes me and weeps, and then he runs ahead of me and accuses me of striking him.”

To Steve Hill
“It has crossed my mind. My best guess is it suits them to leave the ambiguity unresolved, to play to the domestic gallery that they can “play hardball” (when actually, they don’t have the capability to do so in any real sense). And it would show weakness, to that gallery, to admit that they don’t really mean that, and that they know damn well there is no solution which does not accept Israel’s right to exist.”

Hamas is a proxy of Iran, who supply it with weaponry, explosive materiel and technical advisors. They are currently importing via Egyptian tunnels, masses of new and longer range and purpose built rockets like Grads which are far more sophisticated and perhaps able to be targeted. Hamas and Iran are fighting an assymetric war – using effectively guerilla tactics against a theoretically far more powerful enemy, Israel, just as Iran is backing other assymetric campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan against UK, US and Nato troops.

In Israel, Hamas have, through a continued campaign of missile launches created an atmosphere of fear in Sderot and towns, villages and communities within reach of the current range of rockets. Normal life is impossible – the streets are littered with bomb shelters so safety may be reached during the 15 second warning following a missile launch.

Before New Year, I was in Sderot and was shown the effects, both physical and mental of the campaign being waged by Hamas. You say you speak as a humanitarian yet I see no evidence of that in respect of the citizens of the south of Israel. You only write about Palestinian Arabs, as if only one side was the victim of this ongoing conflict.

By taking the line that you did at the top of this page, you encourage a continuation of the conflict, which from your place in a north Oxfordshire town is safe enough and at no cost to you. Its a shame that you nor your colleagues in demonising Israel only are so cavalier with the lives of both Gazans and Israelis. How can you claim to be a humanitarian?

Strange that Mr Hill doesn’t mention a sugar shortage (ie the exploding sugar – see http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2007/12/shum-mishtake.html – not being allowed into Gaza.

Shame that. It’d have given a real zing to someone’s coffee.

cityca, Mr Hill accuses CiFWatch of “defaming” the Guardian and it’s plain that, lawyer or not, he hasn’t the first idea what that means. It’s perhaps an index of his peculiar fix on the world in which he lives that he doesn’t clock the defamation of Israel, and often of Jews, which is the staple of CiF – Rusbridger himself apologised for it, albeit grudgingly, at the Jerusalem book fair, and Matt Seaton promised that there would a lot less antisemitism (which of course clarifies that he knew that antisemitism exists on CiF).

Cityca: Apart from the lack of tranquillity, these are children who have never been allowed to play outside, never rode their bicycles or skateboards, never stood outside their classrooms chatting to their friends, never climbed trees.

Margie
They do get outside but at all times with an eye on the nearest shelter.

From the age of one, babies are taught to understand what the Code Red siren means, and to run for cover.

Kids take school buses. If a Code Red is sounded, the driver stops and kids get off the bus and look for shelter as best they can. Inevitably the terror means that often kids mess themselves and when the alarm is over, worried parents come looking for their kids to ensure they are ok and have to return home to change their clothes.

And of course during the height of the missiles, attacks took place at school time and at home time.

I wonder what Steve Hill, the great humanitarian has to say about that? Can he even begin to empathise with the children and parents that live in Sderot and its environs?

AKUS
It is a very pretty little town. We had a tour and a 1/2 hour meeting with the mayor but unfortunately ran out of time to do any shopping. We went to the top of the town where there are some new, white villas recently built (Shikun Rabin maybe) and from where you can see across to Gaza. Apparently from Beit Hanoun, Sderot is just 850 meters, 1/2 mile away.

Interesting point. When a missile hits a building in Sderot, it is repaired as quickly as possible, so as not to damage morale in the town. Compare that with the victim mentality across the border.

Indeed, cityca. And I’ll bet that there are not hoards of press and TV cameras waiting either, primed and ready to interview the shaken citizens of Sderot who are at the mercy of the kassams.

I hear regularly from Sderot and particularly about the incidence of PTSD among the population there, even among little children. Strange that Steve Hill’s humanitarian concerns do not extend even to a mention them. Perhaps he doesn’t realise that they exist.

Margie, my contact in Sderot told me about the Sderot children’s peace overture and the reaction to it from across the border. What do you expect? You and I both know how Palestinian children are educated.

Editors, I believe Steve Hill is trying to intimidate you into silence. This is a sure sign that you have him and others, who prefer to remain in denial, rattled too, and that you are wobbling their distorted reality big time. I find it strange, if not rather amusing, that none of the Guardianistas are here in Hill’s support, since he’s namedropped the Guardian’s legal department, presumably also to try to frighten you.

Perhaps he’s contacted them to try to have the offensive post removed. I think that he should certainly retract it here.

“They’ll trade that concession for something worthwhile in peace talks. They won’t give it up for nothing. That’s just realpolitik.”

You actually believe Hamas will join “peace talks”.

The fallacy of the GWV. They will only join peace talks when they are disarmed or destroyed.

Steve Hill says “For the record, I am concerned about all victims of violence including those in Sderot.”

No, you aren’t because that would be very much at odds, Steve Hill, with your statement at the core of this thread. Were you as concerned as you would have us believe then you would not be excusing Hamas from firing rockets at them – you know the sort of thing – “…They can’t help it…. they were driven to it… were I in Gaza I would be doing the same ….” etc etc.

Steve Hill you show your ignorance even more blatantly later on in your post. The majority of Israelis do understand that there will one day be a Palestinian state.

If the sort of Palestinian state their government envisages was not at the expense of Israel’s existence then there would be no need for you to resort to drivel at the end of your post. As it is Hamas wants the land where Israel is as well as the West Bank and Gaza and nothing else but Israel’s demise will satisfy it. You and the others on CiF are geeing them along by supporting their “right” to wipe out Israel and arguing that Israel has no right whatsoever to defend herself.

Immediately prior to Cast Lead, whilst Hamas rockets were raining down on southern Israel, the Israeli government wrote two letters, to Ban Ki Moon and the Security Council, asking them all to step in to prevent the attacks on Israeli civilians. They were met with deafening silence from the UN and the rocket attacks increased and led to Cast Lead. In other words, far from being launched in self-defence, Hamas chose to attack Israel and Israel defended herself to the utmost.

You blether on about Palestinian self-defence (which is in fact their getting their retaliation in first and then bleating when the Jews defend themselves) as if this is what motivates the suicide terror, the abuses of Palestinian children’s human rights by Hamas and the launch of kassams, still, at Israel. It is plain that you don’t have the first idea of what you are talking about.

You are wrong, Steve Hill. I am not the one who is being obtuse.

It’s interesting to me that you don’t perceive Hamas’ suicide terror attacks over the years as well as the shelling for the eight or so years and leading up to Cast Lead to be a serious threat to Israeli civilians’ safety. What might be a serious enough threat in your opinion – a wholesale invasion?

Are you seriously arguing that Hamas attacked Israel under the guise of defending Palestinian human rights? Unless you have been in a cave until recently, you must realise that Hamas cares little or nothing for Palestinian human rights – it infringes Palestinian children’s human rights routinely when it gets them on top of buildings as human shields and tortures people in front of them. It infringed its people’s human rights when it deprived them of an opposition party. When it escalated the shelling just before Cast Lead, what do you think it hoped to achieve other than to goad Israel to defend herself fully and deliberately putting its citizens in harm’s way?

You keep on and on about Northern Ireland. The two are not the same!

Your advice about Tony Blair is redundant. And for me the jury is still out as regards Senator Mitchell. Let’s wait and see whether he can influence Hamas.

No Palestinian is driven to terrorism except deliberately by Hamas. Go ahead, deplore Hamas for manipulating its people’s despair, for murdering their hope because it refuses even to countenance peace with Israel and punishes those who dare to speak openly about it, and gives its people no way out except to love death, and from that recognise that Israel has the right to defend herself against such Hamas terror.

Once that happens then I believe we will have gained some common ground.

Steve Hill, I am glad that you respect Israel’s right to exist within whatever borders.

The problem is, that Hamas does not, Hamas is running Gaza and in your haste to “understand” the Palestinians’ desperation (deliberately brought about and exacerbated by Hamas) you have actually said that if you lived in Gaza you would probably bomb Israel too!

How does your stance I have described in the preceding paragraph tie in with your respecting Israel’s right to exist, presumably securely and not under threat of attack? Please explain how you can hold and believe two mutually exclusive ideas? Shouldn’t you be concentrating your energies on arguing that Hamas should be preparing for state building rather than trying to destroy Israel?

Perhaps, given my first sentence above you yourself would like to be the special envoy to the Middle East? Perhaps understanding Hamas’ need to kill Israeli Jews, whilst at the same time respecting Israel’s right to exist in peace and security is the golden key to peace and if you can sell it to yourself you can sell it to Hamas!

Steve I think Avraham Burg (former speaker of the Knesset) is one of those few brave souls willing to understand instead of merely condemning…

‘It is very comfortable to be a Zionist in West Bank settlements such as Beit El and Ofra. The biblical landscape is charming. You can gaze through the geraniums and bougainvilleas and not see the occupation. Travelling on the fast highway that skirts barely a half-mile west of the Palestinian roadblocks, it’s hard to comprehend the humiliating experience of the despised Arab who must creep for hours along the pocked, blockaded roads assigned to him. One road for the occupier, one road for the occupied.

If all this were inevitable, divinely ordained and immutable, I would be silent. But things could be different, and so crying out is a moral imperative’.

Of course we should also never forget the words of Ben-Gurion…

“Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country.”

Ahh margie…..wasssaaamatter, don’t like uncomfortable truths being revealed?

Sorry Margie, of course you are right. Stones wouldn’t know, much less admit the truth if it bit him on the behind.

“you have actually said that if you lived in Gaza you would probably bomb Israel too!”

No I have not.

I have said I would, in the position of a Gazan citizen, feel like arming myself for my own self-defence.

I have never said anything about what I would do with such arms, or whether I would target civilians (I would not, for the record).

I would however feel justified in making anyone thinking about taking an unjustified potshot at me or my family pause for second thoughts.

That is – precisely – Israel’s “logic” for having nuclear weapons.

RepublicanStones: Avram Burg demonstrates real wisdom, and not a little courage.

This is the same Steve Hill that posted on the….. Vanunu:Our duty to speak up……. thread

“But as I said before,I’m personally happy to treat Israel as a pariah state and am a supporter of the boycott,disinvestment and sanctions campaign”.

This so called lawyer speaks with a nasty and forked tongue,he comes here trying to come on as a measured and reasonable human being,he’s anything but,just a sad and bored man,with too much time on his hands.

I have a feeling that most of these anti Israeli posters who post on the Guardian are,old sad senile,ill tempered and bored codgers,who have too much time on their hands.

Oh dear, just as I thought we might all be maturing into some sort of civilised discourse, it’s playtime again.

What would you want with the kassams then, Steve Hill?

Would you put them on your mantle piece as ornaments?

Would you use them for walking stick or umbrella stands?

You’d just rattle them at your perceived enemy, would you?

You are sure that you would never use them?

Are you confident that you could resist launching them if Hamas ordered you to do so?

What a pity Hamas hasn’t your self-control!

There’s a huge difference between your situation, if you were in Gaza, and one particular Israeli I heard about in Sderot – a salutory tale which shows the civilised attitude of Israelis. Pin back your ears:

This man had access to explosives and before Cast Lead he built himself a kassam equivalent in his garden, in case Hamas shelled him or his family.

The Israeli police, however, were tipped off and confiscated it and charged him for recklessness for building it and storing it. They were concerned, you see, lest it explode and injure him, or his family, or his neighbours.

Can you imagine Hamas doing that?

No, they deliberately store kassams in houses, launch them from children’s playgrounds, with the children playing around them. They often misfire and explode on their launchers, but deaths and injuries are laid not at Hamas’ door but at Israel’s and the blood and gore is paraded before the world’s media.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3644801,00.html

See also

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/946111.html

http://www.wildolive.co.uk/Sderot.htm

Mr. Hill – do you know what those Quassam missiles you wanted to get your hands on actually are? They are not a weapon of self defence or a deterrent – they are missiles used exclusively to terrorise a civilian population. So to say ‘I’d get some, but I wouldn’t fire them at civilians’ is extremely silly and just makes you look as though you are trying to be smart, particularly when the next part of your original statement mentioned nothing about making anyone think, but said quite clearly ‘There comes a point when all that is left is fighting back’.

BTW, would you also suggest that the residents of Sderot arm themselves with Quassam missiles and fire them indiscriminately into areas of civilian populations whenever they feel that someone on the other side needs to be made to think twice?
If not, why not?

“…I have said I would, in the position of a Gazan citizen, feel like arming myself for my own self-defence…”

No you didn’t say that. Permit me to remind you:

“If I lived in Gaza I would be looking to arm myself with some Qassan (sic) rockets..”

No “feel like” arming yourself, no mention of self-defence, no qualifiers .

You said you would be looking to arm yourself with some Qassan (sic) rockets … which indicates actual intent rather than “feeling like”.

Read yourself again if you don’t believe me.

Since Hamas uses kassams to try to kill Israelis. are we really meant to believe that you were in Gaza and among Hamas, with the kassams, you would simply stack them in the basement of your building and forget about them?

Or perhaps I really have misunderstood you. Perhaps you would lead by example and not use them ?

Hairshirt
Good post and the link, http://www.wildolive.co.uk/Sderot.htm is one Steve Hill might usefully check out if he’s serious about, “For the record, I am concerned about all victims of violence including those in Sderot.”

Let’s see.

Yohoho

Is English your first language? I would say in the contexts I have used the terms that “I would be looking to” and “I would feel like” were practically exact synonyms.

The rest of your post is an extrapolation of nothing into oblivion: utterly meaningless.

AKUS, I have never before commented on this site nor, until yesterday, looked at it or seen any need to do so.

I am hear now for a specific purpose, which I have made abundantly clear, as regards this one page only. I shall be taking legal advice on that in London tomorrow morning. A brief review of the rest of this site simply confirms my prior suspicion that it is of no interest to me whatsoever.

I have answered your questions already. I post only to refute an erroneous statement.

If this Steve Hill is really a lawyer,then these people never say what they really mean,nor do they really mean what they say.They are contortionists.

SH says that.
“I shall take legal advice on that in London tomorrow morning”

In one of his former posts Steve Hill writes.

“I’m more than capable of bringing a legal action without having to pay any expansive lawyers to act on my behalf”.

What will it be Steve Hill,take expansive advice,or just rely on your brilliant legal mind.

BTW,Steve Hill try Daniel Machover he might do it for free,or at the very least ,give you a very big discount.

SH – ‘There is a difference between taking (legal) advice and retaining lawyers to act in a legal action.‘

Still Steve, Daniel Machover is just the person for you. He hates Israel even more than you do.

I would like to see his presentation in court. Might be a real eyeopener as to his professional abilities versus his political abilities.

Georgina and Berchmans might chip in with Dotty bringing up some form of help from his rear.

As I thought, Hill has made no mention of Hairshirt’s link to WildOlive (above). His comment about being concerned for all victims of violence including those in Sderot, consequently seems less than convincing.

It occurred to me this morning that many CiFWatch regulars have spent the past 24+ hours massaging the ego of Steve Hill by responding to his posts. He’s made threats of lawfare, implied that he’s, ‘tried to see it from our point of view’, and then made further threats of lawfare.

Most of us have already formed our own opinions of what type of person he really is – people with this kind of prejudice and of his age rarely change their point of view – although it feels like a waste of time responding to his tortured logic, it’s good to have demonstrated the unanimity of diverse groups around the world who won’t be cowed by threats of legal action to close down their legitimate argument.

Now if we could only persuade the Israeli government to follow the lead of their detractors in using lawfare to counter some of the more outrageous libels of organisations like the BBC and Guardian, then we might be getting somewhere.

Mr. Hill in your post of January 3rd 2010 at 2.33 a.m. you wrote the following,
“ANyway, why do you all debate at the level of 8 year olds in a school playground? Do you find no stimulation in discussing ideas as adults rather than simply hurling meaningless insults? I believe Britain has many faults (not least illegally invading Iraq at the behest of the idiot Bush).”
In the category of meaningless insults would you not include the term ‘idiot Bush’?
Or are you exposing your own glaring inconsistency to provide us all with some amusement?

Steve Hill chides Jews for not making peace with their enemies. After all, if the Protestants and the Catholics could do it in Northern Ireland, why can’t the Jews and the Muslims in Palestine?

Because this is a much deeper problem, old chap. You may be an expert on the Irish problem, but when it comes to the Arab-Israel conflict, you are a hopelessly naive. Israel has been willing to make peace all along, but the Arabs have not. As for the people of Gaza, they should ask the Egyptians or the Arab League for help. They already receive generous funds from UNRWA.

Yohoho
You are right of course – let’s hope CiFWatch becomes a real force to be reckoned with among the ranks of the antis.

Yohoho

cityca, it is well on the way to becoming that, hence the “contributions” from the Guardianistas themselves.

If CifWatch was of little or no account, then why would they bother?

Its clear that the quality and openness of the debate here is preferred by these refugees from CiF – not only the “banned”, but those who then flip back to grind their teeth on CiF and come up with alternative names for CiFWatch since the comments they make there that actually use the dreaded term “CiFWatch” are immediately deleted.

The democratic Internet in action.

We will, I am sure, one day have a comment or two from just about every Israel-basher on CiF (and maybe even some of the staff) who have watched a comment mildly critical of the GWV vanish into the ether.

Frankly, Steve Hill should be grateful that he has the opportunity to express his views so openly here – he may not get the same chance of CiF.

modernityblog

That’s why I think CiF Watch is feared by bigots, biased moderators, sloppy journalists, lazy editors, complacent management and those who find it difficult to defend their own views with reason or evidence. That’s a lot of people.

Very true.

And if Georgina and Matt and Brian and Alan and his sibling and Victoria thought that CIFWatch was a ‘temporary aberration’, they were strongly mistaken. I spend just as much time here as I do near the CI(F) cesspool.

Now if we could only persuade the Israeli government to follow the lead of their detractors in using lawfare to counter some of the more outrageous libels of organisations like the BBC and Guardian

Hear, hear!

Please don’t feed the stone troll.

Now if we could only persuade Tony Blair to sue Steve Hill.

Steve Hill, it’s back to work for you if Tony Blair decides to sue you.

Tony Blair is very high maintenance