Forum Topic

Gaza: Doctors Under Attack.

I would urge everybody to watch this film that is available now on Channel 4. No matter which side you are on, this should make us all extremely angry. It is not an easy watch, but should not be avoided.It is very disappointing that the BBC wouldn't show it, but that is not the story. It is a credit to Channel 4 that they have.

Gerry Boyce ● 20d65 Comments

"It might depend on how one interprets "erase""Indeed it might. "I'd say it means not just deleting the legal entity but all its contents?"Has that been done to Palestine? Google AI Overview:-Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, and Mesopotamia gained independence as a result of the post-World War I redrawing of the Middle East, which saw the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of mandates under the League of Nations. While these areas were initially placed under British and French mandates, they eventually achieved full independence. However, Palestine's situation was different. Due to the complex interplay of Zionist aspirations, Arab nationalism, and the competing interests of Britain and France, the area was designated a British Mandate with the intention of establishing a "national home" for the Jewish people, which ultimately led to the creation of the State of Israel and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Ah yes, "Zionist aspirations" certainly outranked any so-called "legitimate rights" of the overwhelming majority of Muslims and Christians in Palestine.I imagine that nobody here would stand in the way of some group of people from another continent who "aspired" to set up a national home in the UK. Blooming AI again!:-"The first British census [in Palestine] in 1922 showed a total population of 757,182, with 590,890 Muslims, 83,794 Jews, and 73,024 Christians, along with a small number of other religious groups. The Jewish population was a minority, and their holdings constituted a small percentage of the total land area." The voice of Britain, the anti-fascist Winston Churchill, to the Peel Commission on a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, 1937:-"I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, though he may have lain there for a very long time I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been to those people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race or at any rate a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. I do not admit it. I do not think the Red Indians had any right to say, 'American continent belongs to us and we are not going to have any of these European settlers coming in here'. They had not the right, nor had they the power.""Nor had they the power."

David Ainsworth ● 15d

It would have modified the UK but not erased it. Under the GFA Northern Ireland could still depart the UK if the conditions for a referendum were met and there as a democratic vote to leave the UK and reunite with the Irish Republic. A Scottish leave vote might cause the end of the UK but wouldn't erase the constituent parts that were formerly in the Union. It might depend on how one interprets "erase"; I'd say it means not just deleting the legal entity but all its contents?

Michael Ixer ● 15d

Well said Steven.

Robert Wheeler ● 15d

Gerry Boyce's post, praising Macron's call for an unconditional ceasefire in Gaza, was described by Jane as a plea for peace. I am afraid I saw it as a plea for peace on Hamas' terms, leaving Hamas intact and ready to regroup. Yet no one on this Forum (with one possible exception) has called for peace in Ukraine on Putin's terms.

Steven Rose ● 15d

"yes, the IRA didn't want to erase the UK,"I think that the IRA wished to reunite the island of Ireland. Would that not erase the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

David Ainsworth ● 15d

Perhaps something for Qatar, Jordan et al to work on with Palestinians,  Hamas and others, and also the Trump administration with its Abraham Accord project (must admitim notsureof the details of that), while Israel's allies can perhaps encourage a rethink of settler policies recognising US resolutions? It's going to be difficult, but talking while there's a ceasefire must be easier than continued conflict, terrorist threats, etc? On another note, yes, the IRA didn't want to erase the UK, but I don't think they had any allies that wanted that, so perhaps they were being realistic? Let's just hope something can be evolved to obtain peace? As we know, there's no guarantees to peace; how many would have anticipated the Russian/Ukraine conflict two, three decades ago when the EU was expanding?

Michael Ixer ● 15d

No two conflicts are exactly the same; but ultimately they will only be resolved through dialogue and a lot of hard work rebuilding trust. Who in their wildest imagination could ever have believed that Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley could get past all that bitterness and hatred and find common ground? Even to the extent that they were known as the chuckle brothers!Or for that matter, that the Queen would go to the Garden of Remembrance in Dublin and address the crowd in Irish. Let alone shake hands with Mc Guinness.Miracles can happen, we have got to believe that because it is true!Likewise, conflicts can be resolved peacefully !

Gerry Boyce ● 15d

Mr Ixer'The implementation of the two states solution?'The only answer.The problem of course is that Israel will never accept that the Palestinian state be run by Hamas, a gang of racist terrorists determined to annihilate it and still holds Israel citizens and corpses.If the Palestinians of good will can eject them and come up with a Government committed to proper negotiation and peace the perhaps this might happen.

John Hawkes ● 15d

Jane, Steven's response to Gerry was equally eloquent and explained the issues succinctly. How do you make peace with someone who wants to destroy you? In neither case re the IRA or the Basques did they emphatically state their aim was to destroy either England or Spain.

Lucille Grant ● 15d

Wow! Thanks very much for your kind words, Jane!Shalom, Salam & Peace!

Gerry Boyce ● 15d

Of course, for Palestinians to recognise Israel means the existence of Palestinian state to undertake that recognition? The implementation of the two states solution?

Michael Ixer ● 15d

Mr Ainsworth'So what do you think that Israel can/will do then?'Not sure what this question is a response to but the obvious answer is that while it is under the public threat of annihilation from Hamas terrorists and other militant Palestinian groups that have the support of feeble minded fellow travellers in the West, Israel will fight to defend itself against them and try to destroy them.What do you suggest they do differently ?

John Hawkes ● 15d

Mr Ixer'Surely,  it's important for Israel's right to exist, as determind originally by the UN, to be recognised by all its neighbours, including Palestinians?'I agree, but am not sure others on this Forum do.

John Hawkes ● 15d

I'm afraid you are putting words in my mouth that I didnt say.

Michael Brigo ● 15d

"You can't say, 'Give peace a chance' in Gaza while insisting on Russia's defeat in Ukraine."So you are saying that Israel must win as must Russia?

David Ainsworth ● 15d

"Would those calling for an unconditional ceasefire in Gaza support an unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine?"No idea, and I see little similarity in the two wars. However I really wouldn't expect Russia and Israel, the two military powers with massive superiority in conventional arms (plus possession of nuclear weapons), to cease. Who is going to make them?

David Ainsworth ● 15d

But a withdrawal to  previous borders (as well as the return of the 20 00 abducted children) is essentially Ukraine's war aim. So what you are saying is that you support peace in Ukraine providing Russia is defeated. Yet those calling for n unconditional ceasefire in Gaza are prepared to see Israel's war aim, the elimination of Hamas, unfulfilled. In fact what they are proposing is, in effect, victory for Hamas, who would remain in Gaza ready to fight another day. Do you see the contradiction? You can't say, 'Give peace a chance' in Gaza while insisting on Russia's defeat in Ukraine.

Steven Rose ● 15d

If it meant withdrawal of both parties to the previously recognised international borders then of course.

Michael Brigo ● 15d

Would those calling for an unconditional ceasefire in Gaza support an unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine?

Steven Rose ● 15d

A very eloquent, powerful and well argued plea for peace and an excellent example of how to discuss a very difficult issue whilst respecting an opposing point of view. Thank you, Gerry.

Jane Carter ● 15d

‘Making peace with your sworn enemy’, Gerry, is a laudable ambition but not always possible. I am not sure that the two cases you cite,  the Basque separatists and the IRA, are  entirely relevant in this context. Neither group wanted to destroy their enemy. They just wanted independence. And in effect both groups were militarily defeated and decided to lay down their arms. In contrast the stated aim of Hamas is to destroy Israel and exterminate its Jewish population. On  what basis can you negotiate with genocidal fanatics? In the Second World War  the Allies didn’t negotiate with the Nazis. They defeated them, after which it was possible to build a democratic Germany. In the same way Hamas must be removed from Gaza so that the Palestinians can rebuild their lives. As regards the West Bank, I don’t know. Israel in 2000 and 2008 offered to withdraw from 95% of the West Bank in return for peace and both times their offer was rejected because the Palestinians insisted on a right of return for 4 million of their people  to Israel. The Israelis could not accept this as it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. There would in effect be one state, a Palestinian state, in which the Jews would be a minority. Many ordinary Israelis suspect that once the Palestinians obtain an independent state on the West Bank, it will be taken over by Hamas or some similar organisation and used as a stepping stone for the eventual destruction of Israel. There is a complete lack of trust.

Steven Rose ● 16d

So what do you think that Israel can/will do then?

David Ainsworth ● 16d

Yes, I get your point Steven. You have been consistent in making it here. The issue is that it will result in a continuous and endless conflict; more death, bloodshed, destruction etc. At some point the cycle will need to be broken. Why not now?It is an extremely difficult step for all parties engaged in conflict to try and find alternative solutions, but it is the only way. We all owe it to future generations to give them a chance to live lives that are fulfilled, positive and peaceful not the endless blood sacrifice for jaded battles and score settling.I get it that you have zero trust in Palestinians, and very likely, Palestinians have zero trust in Israelis. I understand it is an enormous problem that has existed for decades and is more acute now. But it is possible to move on from this; it has been done in the North of Ireland and in the Basque Country to name just two places where bitter and bloody conflict ruled for decades. Why not in the Middle East?It would be easy if all it took was to negotiate with your friends, unfortunately, you have got to make peace with your sworn enemy. But that is the only civilised and realistic option to end this barbarity, painful and difficult as it is.

Gerry Boyce ● 16d

Macron has called for a ceasefire and the release of the hostages, emphasising his belief in a two state solution as a basis for peace.The problem with this unrealistic recommendation  is Hamas. First of all Hamas won’t release the hostages unless Israel commits to leaving Hamas, allowing Hamas to regain control of the territory. Israel cannot permit this to happen since Hamas have vowed to repeat the massacre of October 7 ‘again and again’. Secondly Hamas have no interest in a two state solution. Their aim is the destruction of Israel and the imposition of a unitary Muslim state. Unfortunately polls show that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians on the West Bank would vote for the Hamas candidate, Khalid Michal. So the Israelis won’t agree to the establishment of an independent state on the West Bank while the threat from Hamas remains.

Steven Rose ● 16d

At last, a bit of sense; Macron has called for a ceasefire as  “a matter of absolute urgency to end the suffering of the hostages and of the Gazans”.He called for a ceasefire of “a war without end and without a strategic objective”.“We are aware that the political way out is crucial, and I believe in the future of the two-state solution as a basis for regional security architecture, which will enable Israel to live in peace and security alongside its neighbours.”I hope Keir and other politicians, spiritual leaders, business influencers, Royals, sportspeople, artists and musicians etc etc add their voice.Bring on the peacemakers!

Gerry Boyce ● 16d

I know I might get a vicious, unwarranted personal attack for questioning the logic; however, I think the German/Nazi comparison isn't that analogous to the Palestinian/Hamas.As the end of WWII my understanding is all of the Nazis's allies were also defeated and any who could escape went to South America for sanctuary where they were out of the way of the allies being shielded by facist sympathisers. In essence Germany had no supporters left, and it was up to the Allies to assist Germany's rebuild and protect the civilian population (remember the Berlin air lift - ok, I know that was also partly an anti communist act). (Also, remember Italy swapped sides towards the end of the war?)However, I suspect there's a lot of support in Middle Eastern countries for the Palestinians. I further suspect, even assuming Hamas is defeated, this ongoin support in the populations of the Middle East for Palestinians might spawn future terrorist groups, particularly amoung young Palestinians on the receiving end of blanket bombing, so to get a lasting peace without future flare ups needs a lot of care and "buy in" from Palestinians and regional populations. There are obviously significant cultural/religious differences between Israel and Palestine whereas the Allies and Germany both had similar religious and cultural backgrounds so re-establishing relationships was more straightforward?I'm not saying that's good, just trying to be realistic about the issues, and analyse the situation in more detail. I'm sure we all want a lasting peaceful solution? Surely, it's important for Israel's right to exist, as determind originally by the UN, to be recognised by all its neighbours, including Palestinians?

Michael Ixer ● 16d

Mr RoseA brilliant reply.Thoughtful, well researched, backed up with evidence in your own words not just trawled from the net as is the case with Mr Ainsworth, and a pleasure to read.The Germany/Nazi analogy is most apt as of course Hamas are fascists.You set Mr Brigo and the rest of the anti-Israel squad a high bar to jump over when they respond.But I disagree with you on one point - 'It goes without saying that no one on the Forum actually supports Hamas. Who could  possibly support a group of genocidal fanatics, rapists and psychopaths ?'I won't name names as the pearl clutchers on this Forum will wave their olive branches and say I am personalising the issue. Like you I am sure, I look forward to Ms Holliday's point by point response.

John Hawkes ● 16d

Mr Brigo'Thankyou Ivonne, you perfectly summed up my thoughts'.Post irony.'nuff said !

John Hawkes ● 16d

Ivonne, there is quite a lot to answer in your post but I will try.1) You suggest that one side in particular is intransigent but you won’t say  Which. Why not?  I have given several examples of supporters of Israel who have been critical of Israel’s policies. Can you name a single opponent of Israel on the Forum who has agreed with anything done by Netanyahu’s administration. I can think of just one instance, when Michael Brigo expressed support for Trump’s strike on the Iranian nuclear facility and even that was for the Americans, not the Israelis.2) It goes without saying that no one on the Forum actually supports Hamas. Who could  possibly support a group of genocidal fanatics, rapists and psychopaths? But a call for a ceasefire which would leave Hamas in control of Gaza, ready to regroup and rearm, effectively works in their favour. 3) The relentless criticism of Israel on the Forum in my opinion is partly motivated by prejudice. In one or two cases this prejudice borders on anti-Semitism in the form of anti-Zionism. These individuals believe that Israel was created in 1948 on land stolen from the Palestinians and therefore has no right to exist. Most of the opponents of Israel, however, do not take such an extreme view. They simply take a one sided view of the conflict, blaming the Israelis for everything and never trying to see their point of view.4) It is well known that not everyone who lives in Israel is a Jew - 20% of the population are Arabs - and not everyone who is Jewish lives in Israel. But many Jews throughout the world see the survival of Israel as extremely important, not least as a refuge should they face persecution as has happened so often in the past.5) Hamas have lost most of their leadership and about half of their militants but they still control maybe about a quarter of Gaza, including the tunnels where the hostages are kept. As regards Hezbollah, Israel has more or less eliminated the threat. The analogy with the IRA is not very useful. The IRA want to unite Ireland. They don’t want to take over the rest of Britain, let alone kill the entire British population. I don’t think the Crusades are relevant either, unless you accept the Islamist point of view that the Israelis are colonial invaders just like the European Crusaders.6) I agree that there is an obvious disparity between the power of Israel and that of the Palestinians and other Arab neighbours. But even a relatively weak group like Hamas can cause terrible destruction as they did on October 7 2023.7) Not every Palestinian in Gaza supports Hamas, just as not every German was a Nazi. But Hamas, like the Nazis, enjoys a good deal of popular support. though rather less than at the beginning of the conflict. Unfortunately Hamas threaten, then torture and kill any opponents of their regime. Just recently a Palestinian who bravely held a banner saying, ‘Hamas does not represent us’ was taken to the Al Shifa hospital where his feet were broken with stones and iron bars. 8) Hamas won the election in 2006 with 44% of the vote. Hitler won in 1933 with 43.9% of the vote. Unfortunately when the Palestinians voted for a party with a Charter advocating the extermination of the Jewish population of Israel, they signed a pact with the devil, just as the Germans did when they voted for Hitler. Did the Allies make a distinction between the Germans and the Nazis in the Second World War?9) Every decent person would like to see an end to the death and destruction in Gaza. But on what terms? Hamas cannot be part of the solution.

Steven Rose ● 17d

Thankyou Ivonne, you perfectly summed up my thoughts.

Michael Brigo ● 17d

Mr Hawkes,I replied to a comment that Steven Rose posted.

Ivonne Holliday ● 17d

Ms HollidayI sure Mr Rose will be thankful for you perspective on what some Jews think about the current conflict.I did not realise you were Jewish yourself.

John Hawkes ● 17d

Mr Callaway'not one person has really shown any understanding of opposed views'My view is that Israel was attacked by Hamas Palestinians and that its subsequent actions, some of which it may be argued were harsh, were justified defensive acts of war.What would you say is a reasonable opposed view even if you do not hold it personally ?The repeated cry for olive branches seems trite.This is a fundamental world issue of lives and deaths, right and wrong, which people have passionate views about.

John Hawkes ● 17d

Hello Steven,I believe that the intransigence is quite strong on one side of the argument.  I will not say which.Many people have indicated, including myself, that we do not agree with Hamas (Hezbollah, etc). (By the way, some of these groups were mentioned in James Bond films!)  Oh, just a thought, did you support the IRA? I have indicated before that I do not agree with Netanyahu's policies - that does not make me antisemitic by any stretch of the imagination!  But some on this forum choose to think so.  Shock and horror, even Israelis and Jews disagree with him.  Are they antisemitic too?A common denominator is that people confuse Jews with Israelis.  Not all Jews in the world live in Israel and not everybody who lives in Israel is a Jew. But perhaps this is too phylosophical for many to understand.Another point you make is how the Israelis should eliminate the threat of Hamas.  So far, I understand the Israelis have killed all the Hamas influencial people but have they been successful in stopping that line of thought? Have Israel eliminated Hamas, Hezbollah, the Youthis, Boko Haram? How did the British Government manage a settlement with the IRA?  Does the Good Friday Agreement mean anything to you? Whether we like it or not, peace is not reached through war when it comes to religious believes (as opposed to political ones).  Should I mention the Crusades here?  Does Israel have a right to defend itself?  Of course it does!  What a question!  But do the Palestinians (not Hamas) have a right to a peaceful life?  The difference is that Israel is among the 10 most powerful nations in the world, militarily speaking.  I do not think that normal Palestinians have a force to equate that.One thing I do find exasperating, is that people think that all Palestinians are Hamas.  Ha!  Was it you who said Hamas had a 30% support from Palestinians, therefore I replied 70% did not support them?  Also, and this is me being flippant, do all UK citizens support the Labour Government? At the last election, Labour had 33.7% of the vote. Does this say something to you?  But it is true that most of the Palestinians in Gaza are starving and have not much water.  I suppose that does not matter much because it is information coming out with the Hamas' approval.  It is all Hamas fault, even if Israel and the US are dictating what happens there and what aid goes in (because the UN is hopeless) and what the future in Gaza will be.  As I said before, I do not agree with Hamas (or any terrorist person or group for that matter) in the slightest!  That does not mean I have to agree with the Israeli government's policies.  I am not a blue or red person.  Are you?

Ivonne Holliday ● 17d

I am afraid I disagree. A number of contributors who usually support Israel have shown an understanding of opposing views and even expressed partial agreement with those sentiments. It is the opponents of Israel who have been relentless in their criticism and yet  are unable or unwilling to answer when asked how the Israelis should eliminate the threat of Hamas.

Steven Rose ● 17d

I couldn't have put this any better, Steven, thank you

Lucille Grant ● 17d

For the avoidance of doubt I was referring to just about all the contributors to the threads on Israel and Gaza, not just those on one side of the debate.I meant it that way because despite numerous long threads on the topic, not one person has really shown any understanding of opposed views and certainly nobody has actually gone so far as to change their mind.  I have not expressed my own views and I am not going to start now, because I would immediately be labelled as pro or anti whatever I say.I would however repeat that I think it a tragedy for both sides, as I expressed in a comment on Ivonne's thread about the need to extend an olive branch.  Olive branches are clearly in very short supply!

Jonathan Callaway ● 17d

Well, if there are people who support "historic claims" to territory on here, they could have a go at making a case.Google AI Overview"While both Russia and Ukraine share historical roots in Kyivan Rus', and Kyiv was a significant center for both cultures, Russia's historical claims over Ukraine are complex and contested. Putin has presented a narrative emphasizing historical unity and Russian influence in Ukraine, particularly in the south and east, but this is disputed by many historians. Ukraine's independent statehood has existed for over three decades, and its history is intertwined with various empires and nations, including Poland, Lithuania, Austria-Hungary, and the Russian Empire."

David Ainsworth ● 17d

Why not start a thread on it? I don't think there would be much debate as I doubt there's any Russian sympathisers on the forum but you never know. It would solve your entire point

Michael Brigo ● 17d

Brilliantly put Steven.What staggers me is that the mirror image of the Russian war horrors hoisted on Ukraine are not mentioned at all on this forum.  Instead it is a feeding frenzy of name calling  Please ask yourselves just why is that?  Two sovereign states invaded and hostages taken.

Robert Wheeler ● 17d

"Even moderate contributors to the Forum seem unable to take a balanced view."Think about that remark. So being "moderate" in this argument is "unbalanced". (Fortunately for me I have been repetitively told what I am).So, the remaining "balanced" contributors, what are they?  It is confusing but I guess that they are not moderate.---------------------------------https://quavid.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/raymond-lowry.jpg

David Ainsworth ● 17d

Mr Brigo"Who is the person in the photo ?"That's me John!"Oh I am sorry.

John Hawkes ● 17d

In his contribution to this thread Jonathan expressed doubt that ‘Doctors Under Attack’ ‘will change the minds of those whose views are deeply entrenched but it should give pause to reflect on what the people of Gaza are going through.’ His implication was clearly that it is the supporters of Israel on the Forum whose views are entrenched.But is this true? Among the individual who regularly support Israel, Lucille has frequently expressed her dislike of Netanyahu and her disapproval of the West Bank settlements, John recently said that Israel’s campaign in Gaza was ‘excessive’ and I have often spoken about the scale of death and destruction in Gaza and even of possible war crimes committed by the IDF.However I have seen little evidence of a nuanced approach among the regular critics of Israel. My impression is that they are governed by prejudice against Israel which manifests itself in a number of ways: 1) a tendency to give a one sided account of the history of the conflict (eg frequent references to the naqba when Palestinians were expelled from Israel but no mention of the forced departure of Jews from Arab and Muslim countries, condemnation of Israel’s ‘illegal’ occupation of the West Bank but no mention on the fact that in 2000 and 2008 the Palestinians rejected Israel’s offer to withdraw from 95% of the West Bank in return for peace) 2) condemnation of the civilian casualties resulting from Israel’s campaign in Gaza but no suggestion as to how else the IDF can fight Hamas who shield behind the civilian population 3) facile interpretations whereby Netanyahu and right wing ministers are blamed for the conflict, forgetting that large numbers of ordinary Israelis want to see the threat from Hamas eliminated and fear that a two state solution would simply be a stepping stone to a unitary Palestinian state.4) false claims that Israel is engaged in genocide, when in fact it is Hamas with avowed genocidal intentions.I and other people have made these points on several occasions but  our concerns are simply ignored. It is as if the critics of Israel simply don’t want to hear any pleas in mitigation.Even moderate contributors to the Forum seem unable to take a balanced view. Did those recommending the documentary ‘Doctors Under Attack’ stop to consider why the BBC, despite their pro-Palestinian bias (they continue to employ Jeremy Bowen), decided not to show it? Did they ask themselves why in a hour long documentary Hamas was not once mentioned? Did they not wonder, just to take one example,  why the film makers failed to show the footage of hostages being bundled into the Al Shifa hospital? John ascribes this bias to anti-Semitism. I am not sure I would go that far. There are probably one or two anti-Semites on the Forum, or at least anti-Zionists, which is a form of anti-Semitism since it denies Israel, created as a homeland for Jews, the right to exist. But in my opinion the problem is that many people have simply and somewhat  unthinkingly adopted the Palestinian cause, seeing it as a struggle between good and evil.

Steven Rose ● 17d

"Who is the person in the photo ?"That's me John!

Michael Brigo ● 18d

Mr Brigo Who made this claim ?Who is the person in the photo ?

John Hawkes ● 18d

Keep them coming, I haven't laughed so much in ages

Michael Brigo ● 18d

Mr Ainsworth'" But this documentary cannot be regarded as an impartial ‘forensic’ investigation."And what would be so regarded? Probably something produced in anout 15 years time.'So why dont you keep quiet until then ?

John Hawkes ● 18d

Mr Rose'But this documentary cannot be regarded as an impartial ‘forensic’ investigation.'Hamas leadership could come out of their tunnels waving the heads and other body parts of kidnapped Israelis, and the usual suspects (Carter x2, Ainsworth, Brigo, Holliday, Bond) would still claim that they were being forced to do so by the IDF ("not seen in camera shot" !).This Forum is now unfortunately rank with antisemitism.Not from people whose experience might at least give them a semblance of excuse because of how they had suffered in the war between Israel and Palestine.But by the affluent leftist bourgeoisie of West Putney who are determined to express an atonement for their 'white privilege and guilt' and generally make themselves feel better and more self-rightuous.Aligning themselves against the atrocities going on the other parts of the world ie Africa, China etc would make them subject to accusations of 'racism' by those even more extreme and deluded, even hypocritical than they are.So let's just keep hammering the Jews.

John Hawkes ● 18d

" But this documentary cannot be regarded as an impartial ‘forensic’ investigation."And what would be so regarded? Probably something produced in anout 15 years time.Meanwhile "Let a hundred flowers bloom" as Mao said - before he saw the results.--------------------------------“Let her [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing.”― John Milton, Areopagitica

David Ainsworth ● 18d

Perhaps I should have said Amnesty International ideologue, for that is what they are or have become in recent years. And what about my substantive point that that a documentary on Gaza which fails to mention Hamas cannot be regarded as a reliable source of information. Imagine if a documentary team had secured interviews with German medical staff in Berlin in 1945 as the Allied bombs were raining down but the documentary never once mentioned Hitler or the Nazis.

Steven Rose ● 18d

"What's next 'a Red Cross operative'?"Thug with an axe, shield, tabard, helmet, and horse?

David Ainsworth ● 18d

"An Amnesty International operative"That's actually the funniest thing i've read all weekend, congrats. What's next 'a Red Cross operative'?

Michael Brigo ● 18d

Thank you Steven. I couldn't put it any better.

Lucille Grant ● 19d

From your comment Lucille, would I be correct to assume you wouldn’t watch this programme because it is unreliable, propaganda?

Gerry Boyce ● 19d

I have watched the video and I have a number of points to make.1) As Lucille said, nothing that is filmed in Gaza comes out without Hamas’ permission. The fact that this documentary was subject to Hamas censorship is not acknowledged by the filmmakers., nor the fact that Hamas tortures and kills anyone who speaks against them.  This contravenes good journalistic practice. The BBC , for example, in the person of Jeremy Bowen made it clear when he entered Gaza while embedded in the IDF that he was subject to Israeli military censorship. 2) The documentary makes the claim that the hostages were taken into  the Al Shifa hospital for medical treatment. A image is shown of a patient being wheeled into an operating theatre. This was not the image which we all saw of hostages being bundled into the Al Shifa hospital. I suspect there has been gross dishonesty here. Does anyone seriously think that Hamas provided or provides proper medical treatment for their hostages after raping them? 3) The Israeli army is mentioned continually yet in a hour long documentary Hamas is not named once. It is  as if Hamas does not exist while Gaza consists entirely of innocent civilians.4) No mention was made of the missile strike on the Al Ahli hospital by Islamic Jihad, falsely attributed to the Israelis. Surely that was worth a mention in a documentary devoted to doctors under attack.5) The documentary refers occasionally to claims by the Israelis that hospitals are used by Hamas but never tries to investigate these claims. All they say is no evidence HAA been provided by the Israelis. Why not speak to a Hamas whistleblower?6) An Amnesty International, operative, speaking, of ‘black sites’ where medical staff were held, accused Israel of ‘genocidal intent’. No attempt was made to question  this claim.I do not wish to downplay the extent of the tragedy in Gaza. The destruction and the death toll are awful. I have no doubt that many innocent civilians have been killed. It is clear that the IIDF have made terrible errors, shooting aid workers and even Israeli hostages. They may indeed have committed war crimes. But this documentary cannot be regarded as an impartial ‘forensic’ investigation.

Steven Rose ● 19d

Why don't you watch it John and tell us what you think?

Michael Brigo ● 19d

Ms Grant'Nothing that comes out of Gaza is done without Hamas's approval'.Absolutely spot on.Yet its supporters or at least those that accept all claims about Israeli oppression of the Gazan people or the numbers of 'civilian deaths' never accept that they are not verifiable truths but gobbits of propaganda from a terrorist  gang.Accepting what Hamas and its 'leaders' says about its war with Israel is equivalent to accepting the views of the Mafia and Al Capone regarding what happened in Chicago in the '20s.Another mob of gangsters with very dodgy leader.But at least the Mafia helped break down prohibition.Doubt if you would get a decent drink in Gaza !

John Hawkes ● 19d

Ms Carter'You're right, it's a hard watch but I think everyone who has been commenting on the many Israel/Gaza/Palestinians threads here should view it before they put electronic pen to paper again'.'I totally agree, Jonathan. A time for reflection is needed so watch the film first before rushing to the keyboard'.Has this programme changed your mind in anyway ?If so what caused it ?Did it cause you to have anymore sympathy for Israel and the Jews for instance ?I'd be very interested in your answer.

John Hawkes ● 19d

Nothing that comes out of Gaza is done without Hamas's approval.

Lucille Grant ● 19d

Mr Ainsworth'I'd think that it would be worth listening to a 13 year old in Gaza, while the IDF allows him to live'.What a cheap snide little comment.If this boy is considered old enough to narrate a programme about living in the Gaza warzone, then surely he would be old enough to be asked what he thinks of of October 2023 pogrom where women, children and the elderly were murdered, raped and kidnapped presumably on the orders of his father.Remember that ?Then he could be requested to ask his father when the survivors and the resulting corpses of the attack are to be released.He had better request that quickly to give his father a longer chance of surviving attacks by the IDF in its war against him and other Palestinian terrorists.

John Hawkes ● 19d

Steven, I am fairly sure that the allegations of command and control centres under every single hospital in Gaza are unproven. The documentary does address that issue, and indeed the professed support for Hamas by one or two doctors, but no teenager narrator is involved. I think that’s the other documentary that got the BBC into hot water. I really do think you should watch this on C4. It’s very sobering and not, in my view consciously one sided and certainly not propaganda courtesy of Hamas.

Jonathan Callaway ● 19d

You're right, it's a hard watch but I think everyone who has been commenting on the many Israel/Gaza/Palestinians threads here should view it before they put electronic pen to paper again.I totally agree, Jonathan. A time for reflection is needed so watch the film first before rushing to the keyboard.

Jane Carter ● 19d

"The reason that the BBC pulled the documentary is that the 13 year old narrator is the son of a Hamas official, though the film makers made no acknowledgement of this fact. This is contrary to good journalistic practice and runs counter to duty of impartiality imposed by the BBC Charter."Surely you are confused here. Have you watched "Gaza: Doctors Under Attack"?"The BBC pulled the documentary "How to Survive a Warzone" in February after it emerged that its 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official."I'd think that it would be worth listening to a 13 year old in Gaza, while the IDF allows him to live.--------------------------"Tonight, audiences can finally watch Gaza: Doctors Under Attack on Channel 4 and Zeteo. This timely film was originally produced for the BBC by award-winning production company Basement Films. The BBC has been delaying it since February, arguing it couldn’t go out before a review into an entirely different film, Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, had culminated. That was a poor editorial decision with no precedent. But poorer still: after months of leaving the film in limbo, last week the BBC announced it wouldn’t air it – leaving it for Channel 4 to pick up.Why? The BBC said it might create “the perception of partiality”. You’d be forgiven for thinking this was lifted from a dystopian novel. Perception, after all, has nothing to do with impartiality – at least in an ideal world. The BBC seems to have said the quiet part out loud. Impartiality, as far as it’s concerned, is about PR, optics and managing the anger of certain groups, rather than following the evidence and championing robust journalism – no matter who’s angered, no matter how it looks." (Gdn)

David Ainsworth ● 19d

The reason that the BBC pulled the documentary is that the 13 year old narrator is the son of a Hamas official, though the film makers made no acknowledgement of this fact. This is contrary to good journalistic practice and runs counter to duty of impartiality imposed by the BBC Charter.I agree, Jonathan, that medical staff should be protected from attack. Unfortunately Hamas have repeatedly contravened the laws of war by using hospitals as military bases, holding hostages inside them and building tunnels beneath them. This is not just an allegation but a proven fact. You will recall the CCTV images of hostages being bundled into the Al Shifa hospital just after the original assault.

Steven Rose ● 19d

I watched this myself last night - it's on Channel 4 catch-up.You're right, it's a hard watch but I think everyone who has been commenting on the many Israel/Gaza/Palestinians threads here should view it before they put electronic pen to paper again.  I doubt it will change the minds of those whose views are deeply entrenched but it should at least give pause to reflect on what the people of Gaza are going through.It is based on multiple eye-witness accounts, including some from the Israeli side speaking anonymously due to fears for their own safety, and is an insight into what appear to be the new norms on how total war is conducted.  Medical facilities and medical staff are now deemed legitimate targets whatever international law might say.  It's a pattern seen also in Ukraine, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar and no doubt many other conflicts around the world.  I feel it personally whenever I see a damaged or destroyed ambulance anywhere, having driven one to Ukraine two years ago in the knowledge they are they have often been targeted by Russian forces.

Jonathan Callaway ● 19d